The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump

[McParadigm]

[tragabigzanda]

Wait, I thought Nate was a stats guy. Now he has opinions too?

[McParadigm]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... on-reports

Former conservative independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin on Saturday accused President-elect Donald Trump of not being "a loyal American."

McMullin, a former CIA operative and House GOP aide, made the comment while slamming Trump's reported pick of Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson for secretary of State.

“It must be clear that Donald Trump is not a loyal American and we should prepare for the next four years accordingly," McMullin wrote on Twitter.

McMullin argued that with the selection of Tillerson, "Trump has identified a potential secretary of state unlikely to oppose Trump's alignment with Putin."

[McParadigm]

Wait, I thought Nate was a stats guy. Now he has opinions too?

I think everyone's full of opinions right now.

[BurtReynolds]

[tragabigzanda]

Wait, I thought Nate was a stats guy. Now he has opinions too?

I think everyone's full of opinions right now.

Largely understandable, but the guy who's building his brand on the non-partisan aggregation of data should probably shut the fuck up.

[McParadigm]

It's amazing to think back on all of these little moments that flew by

[Birds in Hell]

Anyone hitching their wagon to this Russia stuff seems slightly unhinged.

Trump won because people voted for him, I don't see how any of this matters.

[The Argonaut]

Wait, I thought Nate was a stats guy. Now he has opinions too?

I think everyone's full of opinions right now.

Largely understandable, but the guy who's building his brand on the non-partisan aggregation of data should probably shut the fuck up.

Or maybe you should. Nate Silver is allowed to have opinions. He's always had opinions. For someone who seems to pay basically no attention to Nate Silver outside of the tidbits that get quoted on RM, you certainly seem to have a lot of opinions about the guy.

[BurtReynolds]

Anyone hitching their wagon to this Russia stuff seems slightly unhinged.

Trump won because people voted for him, I don't see how any of this matters.

Especially considering the mountains of foreign cash donated to Hillary's campaign.

[digster]

Trump's statement on Russia is really kind of amazing...

"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the transition said in a terse, unsigned statement.
"The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.'"

...really for the second part. So, all presidents lie, but the quote about being one of the 'biggest Electoral College victories in history," is not only a lie, but an easily disputed one. It takes anyone 30 seconds and an internet connection to find ample proof that his victory is one of the closer ones in modern history. Besides W. Bush's elections, you'd have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a narrower victory.

Usually it seems like presidents lie through obfuscation, or through burying truths via bureaucratic complexity. Trump's camp seems fairly unique in that they believe there'll be no consequences for lying in such a way that it takes no time at all to find out they're lying. And they're probably correct on that.

[tragabigzanda]

Wait, I thought Nate was a stats guy. Now he has opinions too?

I think everyone's full of opinions right now.

Largely understandable, but the guy who's building his brand on the non-partisan aggregation of data should probably shut the fuck up.

Or maybe you should. Nate Silver is allowed to have opinions. He's always had opinions. For someone who seems to pay basically no attention to Nate Silver outside of the tidbits that get quoted on RM, you certainly seem to have a lot of opinions about the guy.

I have just one opinion on the guy: he's as full of shit as every other commentator who stands to make a buck off the business of politics.

[BurtReynolds]

Trump's statement on Russia is really kind of amazing...

"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the transition said in a terse, unsigned statement.
"The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.'"

...really for the second part. So, all presidents lie, but the quote about being one of the 'biggest Electoral College victories in history," is not only a lie, but an easily disputed one. It takes anyone 30 seconds and an internet connection to find ample proof that his victory is one of the closer ones in modern history. Besides W. Bush's elections, you'd have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a narrower victory.

Usually it seems like presidents lie through obfuscation, or through burying truths via bureaucratic complexity. Trump's camp seems fairly unique in that they believe there'll be no consequences for lying in such a way that it takes no time at all to find out they're lying. And they're probably correct on that.

While he's obviously trying to deflect, it's worth noting that the first point is hard to argue.

[The Argonaut]

Wife, dinner party, thanks so much

[McParadigm]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... power.html

What is more interesting in the Post story is the response of various officials to the revelations. The Obama administration declined to publicize, wary of being seen as intervening on Clinton’s behalf. Instead, it devised a fallback plan. Concerned that Russia might attempt to hack into electronic voting machines, it gathered a bipartisan group of lawmakers to hear the CIA’s report, in the hopes that they would present a united front warning Russia not to disrupt the election. According to the Post, Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.” Other Republicans refused to join the effort for reasons that can only be understood as a desire to protect the Republican ticket from any insinuation, however well-founded, that Russia was helping it.

Even the most cynical observer of McConnell — a cynical man to his bones — would have been shocked at his raw partisanship. Presented with an attack on the sanctity of his own country’s democracy by a hostile foreign power, his overriding concern was party over country. Obama’s fear of seeming partisan held him back from making a unilateral statement without partisan cover. No such fear restrained McConnell. This imbalance in will to power extended to the security agencies. The CIA could have leaked its conclusion before November, but held off. The FBI should have held off on leaking its October surprise, but plunged ahead

[BurtReynolds]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/trump-mcconnell-putin-and-the-triumph-of-the-will-to-power.html

What is more interesting in the Post story is the response of various officials to the revelations. The Obama administration declined to publicize, wary of being seen as intervening on Clinton’s behalf. Instead, it devised a fallback plan. Concerned that Russia might attempt to hack into electronic voting machines, it gathered a bipartisan group of lawmakers to hear the CIA’s report, in the hopes that they would present a united front warning Russia not to disrupt the election. According to the Post, Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.” Other Republicans refused to join the effort for reasons that can only be understood as a desire to protect the Republican ticket from any insinuation, however well-founded, that Russia was helping it.

Even the most cynical observer of McConnell — a cynical man to his bones — would have been shocked at his raw partisanship. Presented with an attack on the sanctity of his own country’s democracy by a hostile foreign power, his overriding concern was party over country. Obama’s fear of seeming partisan held him back from making a unilateral statement without partisan cover. No such fear restrained McConnell. This imbalance in will to power extended to the security agencies. The CIA could have leaked its conclusion before November, but held off. The FBI should have held off on leaking its October surprise, but plunged ahead

um what? Presented with an attack on the sanctity of his own country’s democracy by a hostile foreign power, McConnell and Obama's overriding concern was party over country.

[The Argonaut]

How do you see that as Obama's concern being to party there?

[Simple Torture]

Trump's statement on Russia is really kind of amazing...

"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the transition said in a terse, unsigned statement.
"The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.'"

...really for the second part. So, all presidents lie, but the quote about being one of the 'biggest Electoral College victories in history," is not only a lie, but an easily disputed one. It takes anyone 30 seconds and an internet connection to find ample proof that his victory is one of the closer ones in modern history. Besides W. Bush's elections, you'd have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a narrower victory.

Usually it seems like presidents lie through obfuscation, or through burying truths via bureaucratic complexity. Trump's camp seems fairly unique in that they believe there'll be no consequences for lying in such a way that it takes no time at all to find out they're lying. And they're probably correct on that.

While he's obviously trying to deflect, it's worth noting that the first point is hard to argue.

Are they the "same people" or is it just "the same organizations"? I'm genuinely asking: do the heads of these intelligence agencies stick around for multiple presidential administrations, or are they appointed but each new president?

[BurtReynolds]

How do you see that as Obama's concern being to party there?

Because he had information regarding possible Russian involvement in the election and declined to disclose it to the people for political reasons? Who cares what the Republicans would do? He had an obligation regardless.

And from a purely tactical standpoint, it's a weak and stupid decision, and that sort of mindset is a big reason they lost IMO.

[BurtReynolds]

Trump's statement on Russia is really kind of amazing...

"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the transition said in a terse, unsigned statement.
"The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.'"

...really for the second part. So, all presidents lie, but the quote about being one of the 'biggest Electoral College victories in history," is not only a lie, but an easily disputed one. It takes anyone 30 seconds and an internet connection to find ample proof that his victory is one of the closer ones in modern history. Besides W. Bush's elections, you'd have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a narrower victory.

Usually it seems like presidents lie through obfuscation, or through burying truths via bureaucratic complexity. Trump's camp seems fairly unique in that they believe there'll be no consequences for lying in such a way that it takes no time at all to find out they're lying. And they're probably correct on that.

While he's obviously trying to deflect, it's worth noting that the first point is hard to argue.

Are they the "same people" or is it just "the same organizations"? I'm genuinely asking: do the heads of these intelligence agencies stick around for multiple presidential administrations, or are they appointed but each new president?

I dunno, but we are living in strange times when we consider the CIA an unimpeachable source of news, given their history. Not that I believe anything Trump says , I'm at least a little wary.