so much for draining the swamp - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: so much for draining the swamp (/Thread-so-much-for-draining-the-swamp) |
RE: so much for draining the swamp - JustWinBaby - 11-16-2016 (11-15-2016, 09:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: But, I don't expect you to understand anything relating to developing intelligence and military planning because there isn't any way for you to make a buck off it. LOL, no it's all just way above your pay grade. Pro tip: there's rarely certainty in the intelligence game. They could have been 90-95% certain Iraq was hiding weapons and the decision to invade would have been correct. This is what you can't grasp. They sold a war they felt was the correct course of action. That's what politicians do - they sell policy decisions. You're really, really out of touch if you think that singular yellow cake report changed No votes to Yes votes in Congress. RE: so much for draining the swamp - Mike M (the other one) - 11-16-2016 (11-15-2016, 10:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure. No real evidence. Absolutely correct, No Real EVIDENCE. So much for the OP's complaint. The Draining Starts: Mr. Pence ordered the removal of all lobbyists from the transition team, said one transition team member with knowledge of the decisions. http://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-expert-mike-rogers-leaves-trump-transition-team-amid-shake-up-1479221847 Lots of partial truths in your post, you sound like CNN. RE: so much for draining the swamp - GMDino - 11-16-2016 (11-16-2016, 05:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Absolutely correct, No Real EVIDENCE. Really seems like Trump was not only unprepared but also poorly chose the people initially. Just like his campaign. But since that worked out for him I'm sure this will be fine....right? RE: so much for draining the swamp - Mike M (the other one) - 11-16-2016 (11-16-2016, 05:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Really seems like Trump was not only unprepared but also poorly chose the people initially. Just like his campaign. How do you know it wasn't a part of the plan to begin with? Identify your enemies then replace them? Doesn't matter though, they have plenty of time to get a team in place. Trumps son-in-law had already been replacing them 1 at a time. Depends on which media you use right? Leftist media says he's unprepared and overwhelmed. I don't think he was truly expecting to win, but he's here now and after a bump or two he'll get there. RE: so much for draining the swamp - Belsnickel - 11-16-2016 (11-16-2016, 05:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How do you know it wasn't a part of the plan to begin with? All the media I have seen says unprepared and overwhelmed. But I also don't follow the new state media. RE: so much for draining the swamp - GMDino - 11-16-2016 (11-16-2016, 05:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How do you know it wasn't a part of the plan to begin with? I don't think Trump is that type of person. Anyone he feels slighted him at all is a loser and moron so I doubt he'd keep them close just to weed them out later. Like I said, being unprepared and picking the wrong people the first time worked out in the end for him during the campaign. Guess we'll just wait and see. RE: so much for draining the swamp - GMDino - 11-16-2016 (11-16-2016, 05:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: All the media I have seen says unprepared and overwhelmed. But I also don't follow the new state media. Careful Matt. You don't want to end up on the "list". RE: so much for draining the swamp - Mike M (the other one) - 11-16-2016 (11-16-2016, 05:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: All the media I have seen says unprepared and overwhelmed. But I also don't follow the new state media. Is that same Media telling you that DJT is trying to get High Level Clearance for his Children too? Or that Bannon is anti-Semitic? RE: so much for draining the swamp - GMDino - 11-16-2016 (11-16-2016, 07:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Is that same Media telling you that DJT is trying to get High Level Clearance for his Children too? Or that Bannon is anti-Semitic? Actually the media I heard today said that was a low level employee who tried to do that...not Trump. I know Trump knew nothing about it because he never knows what his low level employees do...just like any great business man. RE: so much for draining the swamp - Mike M (the other one) - 11-16-2016 (11-16-2016, 07:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Actually the media I heard today said that was a low level employee who tried to do that...not Trump. I read it was a false news story altogether. RE: so much for draining the swamp - GMDino - 11-16-2016 (11-16-2016, 07:56 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I read it was a false news story altogether. http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2016/11/16/trump-denies-clearances-children-nbc-news-says-trump-sought-clearance-son-law/ Quote:NBC News reports that Trump is seeking a security clearance for son-in-law Jared Kushner, who played an influential role in Trump’s campaign: Of course that might mean someone asked about it and was told "no" too. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-trump-hasn-t-sought-top-secret-clearance-kids-son-n685021 Quote:No paperwork has been submitted for "top secret" security credentials for any of President-elect Donald Trump's grown children or his son-in-law Jared Kushner, senior intelligence officials with direct knowledge of the situation told NBC News. Fortunately Trump has it all under control: When he tweets and talks I wish there was someone like in the movie "The King's Speech" to teach him how to not sound like, well, like he does. RE: so much for draining the swamp - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 11-17-2016 (11-16-2016, 03:46 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, no it's all just way above your pay grade. They're called intel analyst because they analyze intel. Two intel analysts could look at the same information and form to different conclusions. They're kinda like economists in that way. That's why the Bush administration could promulgate lies as fact. One of the jobs I had in the military was gathering intel for the S2 to analyze. I'm so lucky to have a guy like you who has never been involved in any of this telling me how intel is analyzed. I didn't know a complete lack of experience, training, and education made you a "Pro." Quote:They could have been 90-95% certain Iraq was hiding weapons and the decision to invade would have been correct. We knew they had decrepit weapons. The claims weren't that they were simply hiding weapons, they were actively pursuing WMD programs to produce new WMDs and harboring al Qaeda in country in order to collaborate attacks against the US. Ninety to ninety-five percent certainty? Those numbers you just picked out of thin air sure sound good, however Colin Powell and his Chief of Staff, Lawerence Wilkerson, knew the intel given to them to present to the U.N. was bullshit. As Wilkerson himself said, "I participated in a hoax . . ." In less than three weeks after the invasion and before we seized Baghdad, we knew they weren't going to use the decrepit weapons we knew they had. At the same time Pakistan had WMDs and al Qaeda in country. What did we do to Pakistan? Sold them F-16s. What have we done to North Korea? Nothing. Quote:This is what you can't grasp. They sold a war they felt was the correct course of action. That's what politicians do - they sell policy decisions. You have defended pharmaceutical company's blatant lies with 'other pharmaceutical companies lie, what's the big deal' which would suggest you lack the necessary integrity to differentiate between "policy" and "hoax." Anyone who thought invading Iraq based upon lies was the correct course of action, was either a complete moron or in desparate need of drug testing. Quote:You're really, really out of touch if you think that singular yellow cake report changed No votes to Yes votes in Congress. Well, let's review what I wrote earlier . . . (11-15-2016, 03:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: why didn't the Bush administration have Colin Powell pitch the UN on regime change based upon the UN violations instead bullshit claims of al Qaeda in Iraq and actively pursuing WMD programs? Yellow cake only pertains to nuclear weapons, not chemical or biological, and I clearly wrote programssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Plural. As in more than one program. In addition, I also listed the false claim of al Qaeda in Iraq. Addition is the process of adding something to something else. Adding means to join or put together one thing to another thing as to increase the number. You can tell I joined two ideas together by using the conjunction "and." It is obvious to anyone who can read above an 8th grade level I wasn't referring to a singular yellow cake report. You would have to be really, really out of touch to think otherwise. RE: so much for draining the swamp - Benton - 11-17-2016 The transition so far... RE: so much for draining the swamp - Dill - 11-17-2016 (11-16-2016, 05:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: All the media I have seen says unprepared and overwhelmed. But I also don't follow the new state media. Well, I listen to the Sean Hannity show, and last night Newt Gingrich noted that we have NEVER had a president with this much CEO experience. NEVER! LOL. The transition is going extremely well. Competent businessman in charge who knows how to delegate! And Trump says there is no CHAOS--everything is going well. So who are you going to believe--journalists who have been reporting on transitions for decades or Trump? RE: so much for draining the swamp - THE Bigzoman - 11-17-2016 (11-16-2016, 05:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: All the media I have seen says unprepared and overwhelmed. But I also don't follow the new state media.I'd take it all with a grain of salt. Given how Trump's victory pulled most media outlets under the carpet, i'm surprised they have the galls to go on with business as usual. Have they even licked their wounds yet? RE: so much for draining the swamp - Dill - 11-17-2016 (11-16-2016, 05:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Absolutely correct, No Real EVIDENCE. What "partial truths"? You haven't identified a single one. The US has never had a candidate with such bad impulse control, and everything in my post is evidence of it. CNN is a reputable News organization. I have no problem "sounding like CNN." RE: so much for draining the swamp - bfine32 - 11-17-2016 (11-17-2016, 05:46 PM)Dill Wrote: So who are you going to believe--journalists who have been reporting on transitions for decades or Trump? Which one did you believe about who would win the Presidential Election? RE: so much for draining the swamp - Dill - 11-17-2016 (11-16-2016, 03:40 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Because it's obvious from what Obama said himself - it's different when you're actually sitting in the chair (his response to a question when asked why he had gone back on or hadn't followed thru on some campaign promises). What "career staffers" are you referring to? None of the present White House staff will remain. If you are talking about lower level staffers in Defense or the CIA, those would be the "staffers" Cheney and Wolfowitz so easily sandbagged. And of course it's different when a NORMAL PERSON is "sitting in the chair." But does a normal person parade four Clinton accusers in front of the nation for a presidential debate or send out late night tweets urging people to view a non-existent porn video, or threaten his opponents with suits and arrests? Does a normal person think we should have "taken the oil" or institute torture, breaking the international treaties we have signed? And I TOTALLY AGREE with you that we cannot have effective foreign policy with "major shifts every 4-8 years" and there is no way any (incoming) POTUS will "have 1/10th the native knowledge." My point is that we have enough evidence to expect that we ARE NEVERTHELESS in for A MAJOR SHIFT, because Trump, who knows more than the generals, does not think the way you think. RE: so much for draining the swamp - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 11-17-2016 (11-16-2016, 03:40 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Because it's obvious from what Obama said himself - it's different when you're actually sitting in the chair (his response to a question when asked why he had gone back on or hadn't followed thru on some campaign promises). Obama's reaction when he realized what could happen if he gave due process to detainees held indefinitely without due process. RE: so much for draining the swamp - Dill - 11-17-2016 (11-16-2016, 03:42 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Actual evidence of what he will do, and does do, with respect to the question at hand."Figuring out what he's going to do" is not the standard. Assessing the likelihood of competent performance is what every voter does. And I am hardly the only one who forsees a chaos presidency the likes of which we have never seen. Interesting disjunct you assume between Trump's public behavior, foreign policy remarks, and business record, and suppositions regarding "what he will do" will do in the most powerful office in the world. Imagine a corporate hiring board considering a potential CEO hire, while dismissing his public sexism and racism and bankruptcies and arrogant authoritarian policy recommendations as "half-truths" and no indication of how he will behave once hired. Imagine someone recommending they go ahead with the hire because they'll only have evidence of how he'll do when he is on the job. |