PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[photon]

The unclassified version of the report is now available.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...-report-finds/

EDIT: PDF because I hate Scribd

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Apologies but this is a massive load of horsecrap. Maybe a few of the rubes he conned bought the "drain the swamp" narrative but no one really thought the billionaire was going to fight for the little guy did they?

Think what you want. But large numbers of Americans who disapproved of and disliked Trump voted for him. I know for some people that's hard to get their head around. If it helps, think of it as voting John Scott into the all-star game in order to express your contempt for the NHL brass and its all-star voting system.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Think what you want. But large numbers of Americans who disapproved of and disliked Trump voted for him. I know for some people that's hard to get their head around. If it helps, think of it as voting John Scott into the all-star game in order to express your contempt for the NHL brass and its all-star voting system.

Lol, looks like Russia succeeded in getting these deluded fools to vote an incompetent man-child.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Lol, looks like Russia succeeded in getting these deluded fools to vote an incompetent man-child.

Most voters already knew he was an incompetent man-child.

Voters largely view Trump dishonest and untrustworthy – and fewer voters saw Trump as honest (33 percent) than Clinton (36 percent). Only 38 percent of voters thought Trump is qualified to be president – but of the 60 percent who thought he wasn’t, Trump still won 18 percent of them. Just 35 percent thought Trump has the temperament to be president – but of the 63 percent who said he doesn’t, two-in-10 supported him.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald...vorably-231086

The fact he wasn't a career politician and he might shake things up (when there was a 0 per cent chance Clinton would shake things up) pretty much trumped every other consideration for a lot of voters. And I'd be willing to bet whoever replaces him as president will be a Washington outsider as well. A business tycoon, entertainment celebrity, whatever. Might even be a third-party candidate.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The fact he wasn't a career politician and he might shake things up (when there was a 0 per cent chance Clinton would shake things up) pretty much trumped every other consideration for a lot of voters. And I'd be willing to bet whoever replaces him as president will be a Washington outsider as well. A business tycoon, entertainment celebrity, whatever. Might even be a third-party candidate.

I'm not so sure... Last time we elected a Republican actor President, we followed up with several career politicians. Heck if anything, Obama was the least experienced politician we had since Reagan and that didn't seem to endear him to those very same folks that just went for Trump.

(and yes I realize Reagan wasn't JUST an actor and had some political experience, but I think he is still by far the closest comparison to Trump in that regard)

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Most voters already knew he was an incompetent man-child.



The fact he wasn't a career politician and he might shake things up (when there was a 0 per cent chance Clinton would shake things up) pretty much trumped every other consideration for a lot of voters. And I'd be willing to bet whoever replaces him as president will be a Washington outsider as well. A business tycoon, entertainment celebrity, whatever. Might even be a third-party candidate.

I see you are assuming he will stand down, I can see King Donald the first being there for a while

[Ducay]

Won't speak to who is behind the "hacking", but this isn't Swordfish level hacking we're talking about, this is the stuff your grandma falls for. Publishing Dem's emails from a guy smart enough to use p@ssw0rd as his password.

Plus, the results of the crime was showing the public the DNC and Hillary campaign truths, which is why the narrative has shifted to Russia "hacking" the election, and not about Podesta's emails. Far cry from Russia or another state hacking into voting machines, and actually impacting the outcome.

Christ, look at any of the involvement the US has had in a number of foreign elections and this looks like child's play. The country as a whole is so g-d hypocritical its laughable

[Senator Clay Davis]

Lol, I guess he hasn't changed his mind yet

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Most voters already knew he was an incompetent man-child.



The fact he wasn't a career politician and he might shake things up (when there was a 0 per cent chance Clinton would shake things up) pretty much trumped every other consideration for a lot of voters. And I'd be willing to bet whoever replaces him as president will be a Washington outsider as well. A business tycoon, entertainment celebrity, whatever. Might even be a third-party candidate.

This election was an absolutely perfect storm for a third party candidate, and yet no third party candidate came close to winning even a single electoral college vote. Unless they toss the EC, a third party candidate doesn't stand a chance, period.

[Flash Walken]

I'm somewhat surprised we're even still talking about this. If anything, this election showed just how much american politics is pre-determined theatre not unlike the WWF. Sometimes things go off-script but mostly it's a carefully orchestrated show.

A third party?! The Democratic establishment crushed a progressive interloper from within the party, not some radical outsider outside the bounds of general political discourse but a regular member of the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

The debates, tv appearances and corporate lobby structure are all decidedly aligned to support the 2 party system. At this point the only third party with a chance would be a breakaway fascist wing of the republican party, but at this point that may not be necessary.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Lol, I guess he hasn't changed his mind yet

That might be the best tweet of all time.

[Fuzz]

Hey, Donald! Time for twitter war!



This is, without a doubt, going to be the most ridiculous year ever*.


*year may last more than a year.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm somewhat surprised we're even still talking about this. If anything, this election showed just how much american politics is pre-determined theatre not unlike the WWF. Sometimes things go off-script but mostly it's a carefully orchestrated show.

A third party?! The Democratic establishment crushed a progressive interloper from within the party, not some radical outsider outside the bounds of general political discourse but a regular member of the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

The debates, tv appearances and corporate lobby structure are all decidedly aligned to support the 2 party system. At this point the only third party with a chance would be a breakaway fascist wing of the republican party, but at this point that may not be necessary.

Excellent post. American politics summed up perfectly, a democratic nation in name only.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

This election was an absolutely perfect storm for a third party candidate, and yet no third party candidate came close to winning even a single electoral college vote. Unless they toss the EC, a third party candidate doesn't stand a chance, period.

The third-party candidates were nobodies. I'm thinking more of someone already famous, with a very high public recognition rating.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The third-party candidates were nobodies. I'm thinking more of someone already famous, with a very high public recognition rating.

Haha, if you see a legitimate third party candidate gain traction you watch how fast that candidate is crushed and discarded. Specifically by the media.

[direwolf]

Haha, Vicente Fox's Twitter is pure gold right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politi...2016-election/

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox is back to trolling Donald Trump on Twitter, particularly as the US President-elect has waffled on his pledge to have Mexico pay for a border wall and amid questions about Russian interference in the election.

"Sr Trump,the intelligence report is devastating. Losing election by more than 3M votes and in addition this.Are you a legitimate president?" Fox tweeted Friday night.

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Haha, Vincente Fox's Twitter is pure gold right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politi...2016-election/

I read through his twitter feed tonight. It is excellent!

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Apologies but this is a massive load of horsecrap. Maybe a few of the rubes he conned bought the "drain the swamp" narrative but no one really thought the billionaire was going to fight for the little guy did they? There is no universe where the rich capitalist is the one who "fixes" the broken system that directly rewards rich capitalists. It's a nice justification to trot out for supporting him but the votes for him boil down to the simple fact that people had a choice and the minority of voters went with the loud, blustery strong man over a woman. He isn't a revolution, he's the overcorrection return to the norm.

No offense taken. You can dismiss it as horsecrap, and maybe it is, but there was something distinctly different about this election.

I'm not suggesting that his voters actually thought he would consciously help the country through his policy or "fight for the little guy". Rather I'm suggesting that many voters saw him as so completely unprepared, so untrustworthy and such a disaster that they had hope (likely misplaced) that he had a chance to unwittingly break the system that has been breaking them for decades. I think many saw the election as a choice between an accidental quasi political revolution through a bumbling, stumbling Trump versus a continuation of the same-old same-old in the technocrat and ultra political animal in Clinton. It's almost comparable to the sentiment that brought Obama into power: hope and change, but completely turned on it's head.

This is especially true for swing states in the rust belt where the quality of life has been continually degrading for decades and politicians of all stripes have been largely ignoring it or only paying lip service. Desperate times call for desperate actions and all that. Truly, in the US social-economic political sphere the only real power that the non-wealthy have left is the vote. Michael Moore mentioned this when he predicted Trump would be elected and it will be a "giant F YOU!" to Washington and Wall Street. Of course, these pseudo-principled voters are wrong and, if anything, this will just sink the US deeper into the morass of political corruption and Trump will probably just be another neo-con driven by irrational outdated principles and special interests groups.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Think what you want. But large numbers of Americans who disapproved of and disliked Trump voted for him. I know for some people that's hard to get their head around. If it helps, think of it as voting John Scott into the all-star game in order to express your contempt for the NHL brass and its all-star voting system.

This is a perfect example of what happens when you let people who don't understand how the system works participate in the system or cover it as a journalist. You, and the incompetent mass media, have made this result sound like some kind of protest vote. It wasn't. For a protest vote see Canadian federal election, 1993, and Alberta provincial election, 2015. Very little changed in this election other than Trump got elected. Only 16 incumbents lost their seats in congress. That is not a protest vote. If this were a protest vote there would have been 200 new representatives heading to Washington. This result was based on bad information and even worse journalism, which is exactly what the power brokers want. Think about it. How many power brokers in Washington were affected by this vote?

If the mass media were honest they would do some introspection and realize they made this election a contest based on the cult of personality. They were the ones who refused to vet Trump in the traditional manner. They were the ones that allowed him to thumb his nose at tradition. They were the ones that allowed the newshole to be dominated by the Great Pumpkin and allow him to frame the terms being used. I think there were three watershed moments in this election and they were all amplified by the mass media in ways they should not have been. I think Trump's taxes, the Trump sexual assault admission, and the Russian hacking were three issues the media completely mishandled. Two should have forced Trump to drop out of the race; a traditional candidate would have been finished because of it. The Russian hacking was an issue the media had a lot of information on going into the summer but they never really pursued it the way they should have. They should also take a kick in the nuts on the FBI thing, as it was just terrible journalism and the issues of and for the release were never fully investigated and communicated to the masses.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The fact he wasn't a career politician and he might shake things up (when there was a 0 per cent chance Clinton would shake things up) pretty much trumped every other consideration for a lot of voters. And I'd be willing to bet whoever replaces him as president will be a Washington outsider as well. A business tycoon, entertainment celebrity, whatever. Might even be a third-party candidate.

I'd take that bet. Trump is going to be such a massive failure that he is going to kill the public trust in third party candidates for decades to come. He is also going to send a message to the parties to make sure they completely crush upstarts early and don't give them a sniff of life. The American political system is setup as a two party system for a reason. They are not going to let anyone else horn in on their action and screw up the gravy train.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/new...ces-2012-book/

Conservative author and television personality Monica Crowley, whom Donald Trump has tapped for a top national security communications role, plagiarized large sections of her 2012 book, a CNN KFile review has found.

The review of Crowley’s June 2012 book, "What The (Bleep) Just Happened," found upwards of 50 examples of plagiarism from numerous sources, including the copying with minor changes of news articles, other columnists, think tanks, and Wikipedia. The New York Times bestseller, published by the HarperCollins imprint Broadside Books, contains no notes or bibliography.

If you follow the link, below the short article it has all the examples side by side, highlighting the original source and the plagiarized parts.