The new President of the USA

Well, today’s  the day of the inauguration of the new President of the the United States of America….

 

wink-putin_1291535b

God help us all.

Advertisements

38 Responses to “The new President of the USA”

  1. God has helped us all by getting rid of that criminal (who should, and and hopefully will be … in prison) … Hillary Clinton

    • telescoper Says:

      What crime did she commit? Was it as bad as sexual assault and treason?

      • Adrian Burd Says:

        By taking the oath of office, he has immediately put himself in direct conflict of the very Constitution he has sworn to protect. At best, the next four years will be tough and may irrevocably damage the political, social, and economic structures of the USA. At worst, the globe will suffer. Oh, and the “enfarage” (a nice new word I saw coined in the Guardian) is over here partying and gloating in reflected glory.

    • Cut the crap. Now. Essentially all accusations of Clinton are, to coin a phrase, trumped up. They are not true. Read an objective appraisal for some information.

      If she committed a crime, file charges. Don’t repeat bullshit you’ve read at Breitbart or wherever.

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        Then you should do the same re Trump.

      • What bullshit did I repeat?

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        Do you agree with Peter’s view that Trump is guilty of sexual assault and treason?

      • telescoper Says:

        He’s admitted the sexual assaults in public. He might even legitimately be called a rapist because there is sworn testimony to that effect that has not been refuted.

        As for treason, there’s a strong prima facie case that he has colluded with a foreign power in unlawful activities that influenced the election.

        There’s also the small matter of his obvious corruption and conflicts of interest that mean he, as Adrian correctly states, is in violation of the US constitution.

        He may find it much harder to buy his way out of trouble now…

      • “Do you agree with Peter’s view that Trump is guilty of sexual assault and treason?”

        That doesn’t answer my question as to what wrong information I have repeated.

        I think Peter had justified his claims.

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        By “doing the same” I meant that you should file charges. The latter is what you advocated.

      • Adrian Burd Says:

        Charges are being filed. One of he women he slandered is suing him, the ACLU and other organization are suing for the release of documents concerning foreign involvement in his campaign, other organizations are suing because of his now illegal lease on the building housing the Trump Hotel in DC….etc…etc…etc…

    • I would have preferred Sanders. However, had I been able to vote in this election, I would certainly have voted for Clinton, by far the better of the two candidates. Even those who see her as evil must be blind not to see that she is by far the lesser of two evils.

      More people voted for her, but due to the non-linear electoral system, Trump still won. This does, though, show that she was not that far behind. If the “Bernie or bust” crowd had actually voted for Clinton over Trump, even if they would have preferred Bernie and voted for him rather than Clinton in the primaries, Trump would not be President.

    • telescoper Says:

      Funny how the FBI decided she hadn’t done anything criminal, and then intervened to wreck the campaign anyway.

      • Adrian Burd Says:

        Yes, curiouser and curiouser…..

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        I’d heard that the FBI operatives looking into her deeds were incensed that their boss had cleared her and threatened to go public if he wasn’t a little less economical with the truth. Hard to know, but plausible. The question remains: WHY did she use an insecure server; what if anything did she want off the record?

      • Adrian Burd Says:

        There are current investigations into the FBI (not just the actions of Comey), especially certain regional offices, where there is strong suspicion of strong bias against Clinton and for Trump. Keep up Anton….things are moving very fast.

      • Adrian Burd Says:

        One potential reason she used an insecure server is THAT EVERYONE ELSE DID IT (apologies for shouting, but this has been reported time and time and time and time again). The Bush administration used their own servers (and illegally deleted millions of emails related to government business), Colin Powell used one and told Clinton about it, multiple governors, senators, congressmen (from both sides of the political spectrum) do it, including those protesting about Clinton’s use of one. So it’s pretty common in US government circles to use private email servers. One reason is to get around pesky freedom of information requests from the public and journalists.

        Another interesting point is that, according to sources close to Clinton, she has an attitude of “I’m damned if I do, and damned if I don’t”. This has arisen from her and her husband being the most investigated couple on the planet. The Republicans have an irrational, visceral, passionate, obsessive and all consuming hatred of anything attached to the name Clinton. This goes all the way back to when Bill Clinton won the governorship of Arkansas.

        One thing I really don’t think many people in Europe understand, is the attitude of a lot of those in the so-called Deep South. I’ve lived in the south of the US since 1994, and I’m still shocked by it.

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        And they all do it because they have something to hide. But they are not all US Secretary of State.

      • Adrian Burd Says:

        Ummm….Colin Powell was not Secretary of State?

      • Adrian Burd Says:

        And so if one argues one should prosecute Clinton for use of a private email server, should one not also argue for prosecuting all the other elected officials for doing likewise? Or is it only a crime for some people, and not others?

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        No. You are free to be interested in pursuing others, and I am free to be interested in pursuing Hillary Clinton.

      • “You are free to be interested in pursuing others, and I am free to be interested in pursuing Hillary Clinton.”

        Yes, you are free to do so. Have you filed charges? And why the obsession with her? Why the hate?

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        Calm down, Phillip, and kindly withdraw the accusation that I hate her. I dislike some of her views and actions but I aim to have personal hatred of nobody. You might consider that there is hate of her among some Trumpistas, but equally there is hate of Trump among some Hillaristas, is there not?

      • But why pursue only her if others are (in your view) similarly guilty? What is the motivation for singling out a particular person?

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        Please withdraw your accusation.

      • Consider it withdrawn if you explain why you single out Clinton.

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        No, thank you. I consider it personally insulting to be told that I am filled with hate and I don’t wish to discuss other matters on this thread while that is unresolved.

      • If several people, of comparable fame, influence, and power, are all guilty of essentially the same crime, what other reason is there to target only one specific person? It would help if you explain why. Otherwise, we are forced to draw conclusions from the evidence we have.

      • Even if you do hate her, this does not mean that you are “filled with hate”. I never claimed that.

      • Adrian Burd Says:

        “No. You are free to be interested in pursuing others, and I am free to be interested in pursuing Hillary Clinton.”

        I’m only interested in there being pursuit of those who have committed crimes, or for whom there is evidence they have committed crimes. Clinton has been investigated and cleared (multiple times) of any wrong doing. So, either you have evidence that the FBI and others who have cleared her do not have, or else you are pursuing a vendetta for some reason. Can you explain what that reason is?

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        Adrian,

        You wrote: “So, either you have evidence that the FBI and others who have cleared her do not have, or else you are pursuing a vendetta for some reason.”

        This is a false dichotomy. First, at the time of my concern she was standing for President. Second, she used public, hackable email facilities while in senior office (and then complained that her party had been hacked, a stellar example of hypocrisy). If others in senior office did the same in the past then they too should have been investigated; please do not assume I was or would have been unconcerned about them. Third, I want to know *why* she used a public server, and what was in the emails she deleted so that when the investigation took place they could not be held against her. Suspicious, wouldn’t you say? Fourth, I said earlier on this thread that the FBI wavered about saying she was in the clear after the subordinates doing the checking threatened to speak out against their boss’s word that she was in the clear, which could have been a politicised choice. Can you refute that scenario?

        I have freely stated on this blog in the past that I regard the choice of candidate put to the American people at the last election as a poor one, and I have not changed my mind about that.

      • Adrian Burd Says:

        Anton, I’m curious as to where you get your information, because some of it appears dubious, even unreliable.

        “First, at the time of my concern she was standing for President.”

        This particular thread was started on January 20th, long after she had conceded the race to Trump. So unless you have changed your view, you still hold it.

        “Second, she used public, hackable email facilities while in senior office (and then complained that her party had been hacked, a stellar example of hypocrisy).”

        Her server was NOT public…it was a private email server. Was it hackable? Yes, and so is every computer connected to the internet, and even some that are not are also hackable (by strategic use of a USB device for example, and there have been multiple cases of this). In fact, according to many news sources (e.g. Politifact) the US State Department’s email servers were recently hacked into. In fact, the same hackers that got into the DNC servers also hacked the US Navy and walked away with vast quantities of material. I also do not see what is hypocritical about having a private email server and complaining about a foreign nation deliberately hacking into the servers of ones political party. One could argue it’s hypocritical because the US likely does the same to other countries, but that is not the same thing as you are arguing.

        “Third, I want to know *why* she used a public server, and what was in the emails she deleted so that when the investigation took place they could not be held against her. Suspicious, wouldn’t you say? ”

        Possibly, but there’s no evidence to indicate that anything suspicious was going on. The FBI was not able to find any evidence of suspicious activity. Again, you should check reliable news sources to see that there was no evidence of suspicious activities. I have already given one reason for her use of a PRIVATE (not public) email server. She has stated that she wanted the convenience of a single email address for everything, and there is also the strong possibility that, like all politicians, she wished to avoid too much transparency in day-to-day conversations. Whilst transparency is the goal (and the law in the US), all administrations have a record of being overly zealous in over-classifying material to avoid scrutiny (e.g. without leaks by Manning, we would not know about the murderous actives of US soldiers in Iraq, information that was classified). Frivolous FOI suits waste time, and can easily be used to paralyze work — as climate scientists have discovered.

        Whilst on the subject of classified emails, out of the tens of thousands of her emails that were examined by the FBI, only 113 contained classified information and of those only THREE had the required classification markers!!! As the FBI has said, she should have known some of the 113 contained classified information, but with others, it was harder to determine they contained classified information just by reading them (which is why such emails should have contained a classification marker). Given the minuscule amount of classified material found, and the evidence she and her colleagues gave, it appears that generally she handled classified material appropriately. In fact, some of the public emails that have been released reveal conversations between her and her staff about how they could NOT use the private email server for discussing classified information and had to use appropriate means to do so. Oh, and in case you bring it up, about 2000 of her emails contain information that has been RETROACTIVELY classified, so at the time the emails were sent, this information was not classified.

        “Fourth, I said earlier on this thread that the FBI wavered about saying she was in the clear after the subordinates doing the checking threatened to speak out against their boss’s word that she was in the clear, which could have been a politicised choice. Can you refute that scenario?”

        I find it highly illuminating and psychologically fascinating that this is the suspicion you draw. From just what you have said, there is another, equally likely and opposite conclusion that can be drawn; that is, the FBI subordinates that were doing the checking were the ones with the political bias and they forced the FBI director to make the announcements by threatening leaks. Don’t think that’s credible? Well, hang on to your horses…evidence indicates that there are cliques of FBI agents with a profound and visceral distrust of the Clintons, and that they leaked information that was more based on their opinions rather than fact. These leaks forced Comey to make public statements (he was damned if he said anything, and damned if he didn’t). In fact there are now multiple internal and external investigations into the FBI and their handling of this situation. Some of these investigations focus on groups of investigating agents and asking if their political biases and anti-Clinton views got in the way of their investigations. Others are focussed on Comey and whether he made decisions based on political motives (one way or the other). So yes, some FBI agents not only threatened to speak out, but in fact DID leak sensitive information related to ongoing investigations they were involved with, likely because they didn’t like what their boss said, but they appear to also have been politically motivated (which is also wrong). In fact, the former MI6 agent who put together the Trump document also knew that certain offices in the FBI were tainted by anti-Clinton views to such an extent that they would squash information that might help her, which is why he passed the document on to people in the FBI whom he trusted.

        “I have freely stated on this blog in the past that I regard the choice of candidate put to the American people at the last election as a poor one, and I have not changed my mind about that.”

        A POOR choice? Marco Rubio would have been a poor choice. Mike Pence would be a poor choice. Trump is a disastrous choice….just witness what he has done in the first 5 days of being in office. If you’re lower middle income and want to buy a house? Tough, he just pulled the plug on your ability too get a mortgage and buy that house. He kicked those people who voted for him in the teeth on his first day in office. He is a petulant, sniveling, narcissistic, self-confessed sexual predator and abuser, sociopathic, delusional individual who has limited intelligence, a documented attention span of about 5 minutes (unless he’s reading something about himself, then he can focus for ages), who is prone to petulant temper tantrums and who has surrounded himself with far, far right wing ideologically motivated individuals who think that their lies are “alternative facts” — oh, and I can back up every single adjective I’ve used above with evidence, as can you by just reading. Given his record in his first 5 days you think he is a POOR CHOICE? It is unprecedented to have staffers leak information about a president in the first 3 days of them taking office, but that’s what happening. They’ve seen him fly off in temper tantrums about accurate reporting of low attendance at his inauguration, and force his press secretary to give the most astonishing press briefing (on Sunday) which was riddled with demonstrable falsehoods and lies, and then he berated the poor guy because he was not “forceful enough” in dressing down and shouting at the media. And you call this a POOR CHOICE? That is the understatement of the millennium.

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        In view of your dig about “psychologically fascinating” I’ll just let your own comment and the investment of time involved in it speak for itself. I was concerned about the email issue prior to Jan 20th, of course, and your comments do little to allay it. And if you want to rant about Trump, that’s a different subject which I’m not interested in. I’m unexpectedly pleased, though, that he’s in favour of the oil pipeline with Canada and that he has, like Obama, familiarised himself with the Quran. I’m less happy about his protectionist policies and his belligerence toward China, but time will tell whether that’s a negotiating tactic.

      • Adrian Burd Says:

        “I’ll just let your own comment and the investment of time involved in it speak for itself.”

        You’re welcome…I’m just trying to get reliable information out there, rather than half-truths, suspicions, and other “alternative facts” — sadly, it takes time and effort to counter these alternative facts and truthiness, but if we don’t communicate facts, then we end up with people like Trump in charge. Sad.

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        Facts are facts; the question is what they are. Whenever the person I have supported in any election doesn’t get elected then I do my best to work out why so many people disagreed with me.

      • Adrian Burd Says:

        “In view of your dig about “psychologically fascinating” ”

        Actually, this was not a dig, though if you wish to take it that way, that’s up to you. Having lived in the US for many years, I’ve become fascinated by the psychology of how people come to their beliefs and how those affect the decisions they make. At the extreme end one has people who “want to know why Obama was not in his office (i.e. the Oval Office) on 9/11”, people who want to repeal Obamacare as fast as they can but are so glad for the Affordable Care Act because it gives them health insurance for the first time, and people who believe that Hillary Clinton runs a child prostitution ring out of pizza restaurant in Washington DC. Now, one may think that these are all ignorant, delusional, mentally unstable people. However, Trump’s National Security Advisor re-teweeted the last one! Either he did so believing it to be true, or did so as a joke, or did so because he was told to by someone else. Whatever the case, the fact that he re-tweeted something that is so blatantly and obviously untrue is horrifying.

        The above examples are at the extreme end of the spectrum, but they are not uncommon views here in the US. Similarly with Clinton’s emails; the evidence indicates possible poor judgement, but there is no factual evidence of wrongdoing. If people wish to believe there was, then either they have information that the authorities need to know, or else their views have as much weight as the drunk guy down the bar who says he was abducted by aliens. Earlier in the investigation, their views held more weight because we didn’t know. But now, the probability of such views being true are becoming less and less likely, and it’s more probable that this was just poor judgement on this matter.

        “Facts are facts; the question is what they are.”

        Discovering the facts about something can be difficult. However, if all the evidence available points counter to ones belief, does one alter ones belief or suspect that there are facts yet to be discovered that will support ones belief? In which case, at what point does one change ones belief? How many discovered facts that run counter to ones beliefs does it take for one to change ones beliefs? At some point, there is so much evidence against ones beliefs that clinging on to the belief that there are still undiscovered facts that will support ones belief becomes desperate, if not delusional, and (as is witnessed by myriad cases here in the US) leads to severe mental issues (e.g. the armed guy who fully believed that Clinton ran a child sex ring because people he believed and trusted repeated the accusation so he went to the restaurant to uncover the operation and rescue the kids himself — fortunately no one was hurt).

        So I am fascinated by the psychology of how people arrive at their beliefs and make decisions based on them. I read what I can about research into this difficult area. This is especially important now because we have a president who thinks that more people attended his inauguration than did Obama’s (even though all the available evidence points to the opposite conclusion). He persuades his press secretary to repeat these falsehoods at a press briefing (you can tell that Spicer had a really hard time with this, but here’s a case where Trump’s aggressive bullying seems to have basically cowed Spicer into telling blatant and demonstrable falsehoods thereby damaging his relationship with the press and public from the start). Trump also believes that 3-5 million people voted illegally, and that’s why he lost the popular vote. Again, people have looked at this in detail and there is zero evidence for it. Why does Trump continue to push it? What aspects of his psychology make him continue to believe this?

        So you may take remark as a “dig” at you, that’s up to you, it doesn’t bother me. I was only expressing my genuine curiosity and interest.

      • “people who believe that Hillary Clinton runs a child prostitution ring out of pizza restaurant in Washington DC”

        There have always been nutters. It becomes dangerous when their numbers are significant and/or one of them is in power. The USA now has both. A substantial fraction of the US population actually believes this stuff about “pizzagate”—even one of Trump’s advisors. (The overlap with the even larger fraction who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old is significant.)

        That Theresa May accepted Trump’s invitation to be his Maggie speaks reams about the future of UK politics. Despite the criticism, the rest of the world should reject Trump even more. I don’t see breaking diplomatic ties as going too far.

  2. How man promises has Trump already broke and how many of his former statements has he retracted? Jail Clinton? Wall on the Mexican border? Climate change was invented by the Chinese?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: