Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

[cF[Authentic]]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

Is this directed at me or that guy? I generally don't engage because I find it difficult at time to figure out what I need to say or should say. The friend that posted the intial thing, I see her engage with this guy all the time with the same shtick. I feel like when I didn't back down, he went off on this tangent that had nothing to do with the original post. Not going to lie, it was a little disconcerting to see him go off like that.

A bit of both. Why do people like the guy, you and your friend all engage on stuff like this? It's just yelling.

And why do you feel the need to share it here? I just think it's a bit funny that everyone now must share their "look at how bad this Trump supporter is on Facebook." It feels like it's becoming the "where were you when xxxxx happened" as a show of "look guys, I'm dealing with this too!"

I understand this board, especially this thread is generally a support group for hockey-loving liberals but some times it helps to realize there are other viewpoints reading who don't necessarily want to go through the same posts from 6 different people all sharing the same story.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

Let me just say...if God is a Trump supporter or backs the jerkoffs who follow him (especially the Alt-Righters) then [bleep] God I am glad I am Agnostic.

Former CIA Chief Says Russia Hacked the DNC and Intelligence is Getting Polarized

"...just rose to pwer via shady means?" How was winning the presidency done via shady means?

And in the intro to the radio piece the writer references, he talks about Trump's plan to rearrange the central office to make it more effective. If government officials are getting hacked by another country, doesn't it show that maybe there needs to be some work done to fix that?

The Trump team sees removing the office as an opportunity to reorganize other parts of the intelligence community, something that some career officials have long sought.

If Hillary took office and said "Our emails were hacked by Russia, we need to rearrange the central office to make sure we're ahead of these guys" it would be applauded by the left. But because it's Trump... you get the idea.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

Hate Crimes Up In NYC...I Am Sure It Is a Coincidence

“The trends are a bit disturbing... We've an uptick in hate crimes, actually a little more than an uptick,” Police Commissioner James O’Neill said on the John Catsimatidis radio show, The Cats Roundtable on AM 970.

“I think there's been a lot of rhetoric over the last months,” O’Neill said.

Hate crimes have spiked by 31%, jumping from 250 incidents at this point last year to 328 as of Sunday, O’Neill said.

Most of the incidents have targeted the Muslim and Jewish communities.

My favorite was of course the one I linked last week Where Anti-Semitic Graffiti Was Found At Adam Yauch Park.

I am sure its fine though...Jews have nothing to worry about it isnt like every century someone tries to eliminate them or anything. (and this is why I hate the Liberal position on Israel...this crap is everywhere around the world)

 

[Handyman]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

"...just rose to pwer via shady means?" How was winning the presidency done via shady means?

And in the intro to the radio piece the writer references, he talks about Trump's plan to rearrange the central office to make it more effective. If government officials are getting hacked by another country, doesn't it show that maybe there needs to be some work done to fix that?



If Hillary took office and said "Our emails were hacked by Russia, we need to rearrange the central office to make sure we're ahead of these guys" it would be applauded by the left. But because it's Trump... you get the idea.

Your first quote was the author's stupid editorial. I honestly skip all that crap because most writers these days put too much of themselves in their pieces.

The second part of your post I can honestly reply "not by me"! I have heard that man speak in person (CIA Chief Hayden) and I trust him to understand this stuff better than me. Getting rid of the office Trump wants to (or Hillary would want to in your response) is not about efficiency and will not help. There needs to be a head position for Intelligence for logistical and tactical reasons. Eliminating it will make a mess of American Intelligence. [insert joke here]

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

I'm curious why so many people engage in things like this? Nobody is changing anyone's mind. It's just yelling on the internet.

And then of course shown here as a "Look at how dumb this candidate's supporter is!"

At what point do people get tired of engaging in this and at what point do people stop feeling the need to show their fellow believers that the other side are idiots?

One of the problems with engaging in these types of "discussions", for lack of a better term, is that they feel like personal attacks to people.

When one person says, "I'm sure glad that crook Hillary lost the election", and when the listener actually supported or voted for HRC, it can have the effect of feeling like an insult to the listener. When you respond with something like, "You realize Trump is a racist, sexist con artist" and you are saying it to someone who may have voted for Trump, you have at a minimum insulted their intelligence by suggesting they haven't heard charges against Trump that literally every person on the planet has heard, and more likely they hear you calling them a racist or sexist pig.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

Your first quote was the author's stupid editorial. I honestly skip all that crap because most writers these days put too much of themselves in their pieces.

The second part of your post I can honestly reply "not by me"! I have heard that man speak in person (CIA Chief Hayden) and I trust him to understand this stuff better than me. Getting rid of the office Trump wants to (or Hillary would want to in your response) is not about efficiency and will not help. There needs to be a head position for Intelligence for logistical and tactical reasons. Eliminating it will make a mess of American Intelligence. [insert joke here]

I think there is potential in trying to rearrange a lot of the bureaucracy of the intelligence departments. As was noted, there are 16 different divisions that office oversees. I'm sure there is a need for 16 different types of intelligence but I'm assuming they don't communicate between each other as well as they could.

Something should be changed as the current system isn't working but I don't know what or how to change it. I'm hopeful it will lead to better intelligence and protection for the U.S. but am also cautious about sweeping changes all at once that leaves us even more vulnerable for a period of time.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

One of the problems with engaging in these types of "discussions", for lack of a better term, is that they feel like personal attacks to people.

When one person says, "I'm sure glad that crook Hillary lost the election", and when the listener actually supported or voted for HRC, it can have the effect of feeling like an insult to the listener. When you respond with something like, "You realize Trump is a racist, sexist con artist" and you are saying it to someone who may have voted for Trump, you have at a minimum insulted their intelligence by suggesting they haven't heard charges against Trump that literally every person on the planet has heard, and more likely they hear you calling them a racist or sexist pig.

Well the other problem is rather innocuous conversations on politics can lead to stuff like this. Because of how hyper vitriolic politics is now (and the clickbait that supports it) it is harder and harder to have a substantive conversation about issues or candidates. Everything is neatly parsed out talking points that are created to seed argumentative hatred. Before you know it, a calm conversation about local property taxes devolves into an argument about the KKK and EMAILZ!!11! While that can be fun from time to time overall it is a net negative for the population because people stop caring they only listen and pay attention to the superficial.

 

[rufus]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

Of course it's not investigated but it seems through WikiLeaks that a handful of people knew about paying for Chelsea's wedding using foundation money:https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/52046

Sure, and you know these emails are authentic how?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

One of the problems with engaging in these types of "discussions", for lack of a better term, is that they feel like personal attacks to people.

When one person says, "I'm sure glad that crook Hillary lost the election", and when the listener actually supported or voted for HRC, it can have the effect of feeling like an insult to the listener. When you respond with something like, "You realize Trump is a racist, sexist con artist" and you are saying it to someone who may have voted for Trump, you have at a minimum insulted their intelligence by suggesting they haven't heard charges against Trump that literally every person on the planet has heard, and more likely they hear you calling them a racist or sexist pig.

It would help if we wrote "you made a foolish statement" rather than "you're a fool," but even the former is aggressive. Still, when you run into somebody who flatly states falsehoods as facts, it's difficult not to dismiss him as either a troll or a naif.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

When one person says, "I'm sure glad that crook Hillary lost the election", and when the listener actually supported or voted for HRC, it can have the effect of feeling like an insult to the listener.

No, not really. You'd be surprised how little it stings when you know that it isn't true. She was never charged with anything, and even your boy has given up on that con now that he's gotten what he wanted out of you. Another person's stupidity is frustrating, not threatening.

Maybe your experience is different because the insinuations hit a little too close to home. But that's your problem, and if you don't like it, make a change.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

I think there is potential in trying to rearrange a lot of the bureaucracy of the intelligence departments. As was noted, there are 16 different divisions that office oversees. I'm sure there is a need for 16 different types of intelligence but I'm assuming they don't communicate between each other as well as they could.

Something should be changed as the current system isn't working but I don't know what or how to change it. I'm hopeful it will lead to better intelligence and protection for the U.S. but am also cautious about sweeping changes all at once that leaves us even more vulnerable for a period of time.

Well IIRC (and I admit I am no expert) the position in question (and the department itself) does exactly what you speak of, they act as the bridge between all the various intelligence groups. To get rid of that would make things ten times harder.

If Trump wants to make Intelligence run more efficiently there are much better ways to do it like eliminating some.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

Wrong...you are equating an accusation with an admission and that is not the same.

It isnt right if either of them did it, but only one of them has been proven to have done it beyond an allegation. (the Trump Foundation admitted it) Its the same with Petraeus...people pretend that because the Libs defended Hillary that they should leave him alone but the difference is he was caught mishandling classified stuff, admitted it and was convicted of it. She was not. You cannot equate two things that are not equitable.

And you're not equating perception with politics, which is a mistake. Sec. Clinton may have (likely) worked The Clinton Foundation along the correct side of the law, but there were so many actions that touched the edges of those rules that they created the perception of impropriety or the perception of being illegal. In the reality of politics, when it comes to a presidential campaign, it's the same thing to the public at large as what Mr. Trump and his minions did with his charity. Perception is king - perception is reality - in the world of presidential politics.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

If Hillary took office and said "Our emails were hacked by Russia, we need to rearrange the central office to make sure we're ahead of these guys" it would be applauded by the left. But because it's Trump... you get the idea.

There is some truth to that, but Trump loses the benefit of the doubt 1% for being an "R" and 99% for being himself.

We have good reason not to trust the fraudy old fart. His entire life has been an obvious, gross con. Why is that suddenly going to stop on Inauguration Day? Do you think he will be changed by self-reflection into someone worthy of the office?

Get used to disappointment.

 

[Scarlet]

And why do you feel the need to share it here? I just think it's a bit funny that everyone now must share their "look at how bad this Trump supporter is on Facebook." It feels like it's becoming the "where were you when xxxxx happened" as a show of "look guys, I'm dealing with this too!"

Totally fair point. I think I shared it for validation from you guys. He seemed to go off on a tangent that I was not prepared for. I generally do not engage like that and didn't think I was being the ***** that I feel he wanted to call me, but I guess I triggered something. Honestly, it was a little scary.

Another woman, who I am friends on FB with, who usually engages with the friend whose post started this, responded to me in that thread with a well thought out answer. And while I don't agree with it, I respect her viewpoint presented to me in that manner. That was the type of answer and conversation I was looking for and never see. I want to reply but I'm a little fearful of TS lashing out again.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

So, are we taking bets on how long until the Trumpymoon is over? What are we setting the over/under at (in days)?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

No, not really. You'd be surprised how little it stings when you know that it isn't true. She was never charged with anything, and even your boy has given up on that con now that he's gotten what he wanted out of you. Another person's stupidity is frustrating, not threatening.

Maybe your experience is different because the insinuations hit a little too close to home. But that's your problem, and if you don't like it, make a change.

Man, I'm not sure I could have written a more perfect example of what I was talking about than this post when I suggested it's silly to try to engage people in a reasonable conversation on anything remotely related to politics.

I basically steal a statement about HRC from another poster as an example of a conversation starter to which you shouldn't respond. Nothing about my post was intended as a slight against HRC, Trump or anyone else for that matter.

Yet Maize feels his only response requires, a) a defense of Clinton, b) an attack on Trump, and c) a personal insult directed at me.

If anyone was wondering people, these are the guys to avoid talking to on this subject.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

And you're not equating perception with politics, which is a mistake. Sec. Clinton may have (likely) worked The Clinton Foundation along the correct side of the law, but there were so many actions that touched the edges of those rules that they created the perception of impropriety or the perception of being illegal. In the reality of politics, when it comes to a presidential campaign, it's the same thing to the public at large as what Mr. Trump and his minions did with his charity. Perception is king - perception is reality - in the world of presidential politics.

But we werent talking about perception he was saying that the quoted post was implying that someone was saying "He did it to so it is ok she did it" which isnt what was going on. Pointing out the Trump Foundation admitted to doing something wrong is not about saying "See he did it so Hillary is fine". We are saying he did it to show he did it and that The Right should be upset because they ACCUSED her of doing the same ****ed thing. (though never proved it) I was only proving his whole premise wrong.

This isnt about what we perceive...I think Hillary is muddy as hell when it comes to the Clinton Foundation it was one of the reasons I supported Bernie in the Primaries. But the perception of her guilt does not equal guilt except to the lazy. Trump Foundation admitting guilt DOES prove guilt in every sense of the word and should be that way whether you are right or left leaning. It is a false equivocation to pretend they are the same no matter how much she skirts the line and you know it.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

I basically steal a statement about HRC from another poster as an example of a conversation starter to which you shouldn't respond. Nothing about my post was intended as a slight against HRC, Trump or anyone else for that matter.

Your point was about how HRC supporters would feel attacked by that statement. As an ardent supporter myself, I pointed out why that was false, and apparently hit an nerve on why you may have thought that way.

The whole Paul Ryan "I support it, but I don't want to have to defend it" dance is a cop out, especially in a forum specifically for sharing political views.

 

[unofan]

I'm curious why so many people engage in things like this? Nobody is changing anyone's mind. It's just yelling on the internet.

And then of course shown here as a "Look at how dumb this candidate's supporter is!"

At what point do people get tired of engaging in this and at what point do people stop feeling the need to show their fellow believers that the other side are idiots?

You do realize the irony of posting this statement on this board, right?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Trump First Term I: I for One Welcome Our New Trumpy Overlord

Your point was about how HRC supporters would feel attacked by that statement. As an ardent supporter myself, I pointed out why that was false, and apparently hit an nerve on why you may have thought that way.

The whole Paul Ryan "I support it, but I don't want to have to defend it" dance is a cop out, especially in a forum specifically for sharing political views.

No, my point was this election (or, more accurately, the outcome) was so emotionally charged that any statement either for or against a certain candidate will in all likelihood create a perception that not only is a candidate being attacked, but the listener himself/herself is also under attack. Therefore, unless a person feels the need to spend the day shouting at other people about politics, a person's best course is to simply ignore the statements and change the subject. Maybe, although I'm seriously beginning to doubt it, the emotion drains away a bit and people can talk again.