planetf1.com

aice wrote:

Prema wrote:

aice wrote:

j man wrote:Nicola Sturgeon:
"While this is not the outcome I hoped for, it is the verdict of the American people and we must respect it"

Oh the irony. Surprised she's not calling for a 2nd election...

Prima facie, it is full of irony - she's calling for Americans to accept and respect the outcome of their general election, while simultaneously showing a reluctance to accept the decision of the British people to leave the EU. She’s also been making noises about a 2nd Scottish independence vote.

In all fairness to Sturgeon, the SNP was elected on a manifesto that contained an option to call a 2nd Scottish independence referendum under such circumstances as Scotland being taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people. The Scots voted overwhelmingly to remain within the EU. In refusing to "embrace" the Brexit vote & with her “threats” of further Scottish independence, I see Sturgeon as simply doing the job she was elected for- exploring all options to give effect to the will of the Scottish people and how they voted.

She did accept the outcome of the UK referendum on Brexit. And she fully respected it too. I watched her give the speech hours after the Brexit happened, she clearly stated that. Has she really flip-flopped and is calling now for the rejection of the result and the repetition of the same referendum? Her calls for the renewed referendum on the Scottish exit, is indeed based on the very acknowledgment and the acceptance of the result of the Brexit.

Of course, she was obviously not happy about the outcome of the referendum, but that would be in the full rights of her, just as so with anybody else for that matter. She does not have to pull a "Theresa May" now - unlike May, she is not building up her political career on the embracement of the Brexit.
(Actually, I find that she and her government took the cheep way out of avoiding all the responsibility by putting it all on the advisory referendum and bypassing the legal process of the parliamentary democracy, as it it would be but a popular democracy. So if it goes well, she will share the credit for it and boost the future career, and if it goes south then she will say "I was but a deliverer of the people's will".)

Now, if the majority of the Scotts voted for the stay in EU, that is also to be accepted and respected. And she has the right to call for the second referendum on the Scotland exiting from the GB under the drastically changed circumstances. And shall it happen, and if the Scotts vote this time around for it, then such should be accepted and respected too. See, it is still the fully legit democracy that works in different directions.

I do not understand how can you hold her for a kind of a hypocrite on one hand, while at the same time understanding and even explaining her doing the job that she was elected for.

You have completely misinterpreted my post. I am actually defending her from calls of hypocrisy. I have clearly stated that prima facie, at first glance—it would be easy to construe double standards/irony on her part (as per J man's comment). I then go onto argue, that if you dig deeper, she has justifiable reasons for her stance. I clearly state that I see her reluctance to fully embrace the general EU results (as they pertain to Scotland) as her merely doing her job. I don’t see her actions as hypocritical or ironical in the slightest.

I missed to notice that you were not the same poster who put up that OP regarding her, which was the one accusative of her in terms of hypocrisy. That is why I was confused to see "you" holding both positions at the same time. My bad.
We are on the same side of this one, clearly.

Prema wrote:And he's already failing. The folks are protesting around against him, and he goes his stupid tweeting how it is but the media behind it. He can't recognize that it is actually real people who actually have genuine issues with him. Typical for a narcissistic ruler.

The irony, he himself called for riots and revolution and marching on Washington to overturn Obama 4 years ago when Romney won the popular vote but lost the presidency.

Ummm, that didn't happen.

The last time one candidate won the popular vote but lost the election was 2000 when GW Bush won the election but Gore had more votes overall. And I don't recall Trump having anything to say about it either.

RaggedMan wrote:

Prema wrote:And he's already failing. The folks are protesting around against him, and he goes his stupid tweeting how it is but the media behind it. He can't recognize that it is actually real people who actually have genuine issues with him. Typical for a narcissistic ruler.

The irony, he himself called for riots and revolution and marching on Washington to overturn Obama 4 years ago when Romney won the popular vote but lost the presidency.

Ummm, that didn't happen.

The last time one candidate won the popular vote but lost the election was 2000 when GW Bush won the election but Gore had more votes overall. And I don't recall Trump having anything to say about it either.

Trump sent the tweet when Romney was ahead in the popular vote but had lost the electoral college count or at least was projected too. Once the count was finished Obama ended up ahead in both. I think California taking a while to fully count the popular vote played a part I guess.

The tweet is still out there, It was mentioned on a TV show yesterday. (Only reason I knew about it)

Lotus49 wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:

Prema wrote:And he's already failing. The folks are protesting around against him, and he goes his stupid tweeting how it is but the media behind it. He can't recognize that it is actually real people who actually have genuine issues with him. Typical for a narcissistic ruler.

The irony, he himself called for riots and revolution and marching on Washington to overturn Obama 4 years ago when Romney won the popular vote but lost the presidency.

Ummm, that didn't happen.

The last time one candidate won the popular vote but lost the election was 2000 when GW Bush won the election but Gore had more votes overall. And I don't recall Trump having anything to say about it either.

Trump sent the tweet when Romney was ahead in the popular vote but had lost the electoral college count or at least was projected too. Once the count was finished Obama ended up ahead in both. I think California taking a while to fully count the popular vote played a part I guess.

The tweet is still out there, It was mentioned on a TV show yesterday. (Only reason I knew about it)

Yes, I was referring to that one too. Here is his tweet:

"He [Obama] lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!"

followed by another one:

"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one! We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

"Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us. More votes equals a loss ... revolution! This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy! Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble ... like never before. The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

@Prema

Yeah, that's the one I saw and thought you were referring to.

The good news: Trump is but a conman.
The bad news: Trump is a psychopath (with the nukes)

Prema wrote:

aice wrote:

Prema wrote:

aice wrote:

j man wrote:Nicola Sturgeon:
"While this is not the outcome I hoped for, it is the verdict of the American people and we must respect it"

Oh the irony. Surprised she's not calling for a 2nd election...

Prima facie, it is full of irony - she's calling for Americans to accept and respect the outcome of their general election, while simultaneously showing a reluctance to accept the decision of the British people to leave the EU. She’s also been making noises about a 2nd Scottish independence vote.

In all fairness to Sturgeon, the SNP was elected on a manifesto that contained an option to call a 2nd Scottish independence referendum under such circumstances as Scotland being taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people. The Scots voted overwhelmingly to remain within the EU. In refusing to "embrace" the Brexit vote & with her “threats” of further Scottish independence, I see Sturgeon as simply doing the job she was elected for- exploring all options to give effect to the will of the Scottish people and how they voted.

She did accept the outcome of the UK referendum on Brexit. And she fully respected it too. I watched her give the speech hours after the Brexit happened, she clearly stated that. Has she really flip-flopped and is calling now for the rejection of the result and the repetition of the same referendum? Her calls for the renewed referendum on the Scottish exit, is indeed based on the very acknowledgment and the acceptance of the result of the Brexit.

Of course, she was obviously not happy about the outcome of the referendum, but that would be in the full rights of her, just as so with anybody else for that matter. She does not have to pull a "Theresa May" now - unlike May, she is not building up her political career on the embracement of the Brexit.
(Actually, I find that she and her government took the cheep way out of avoiding all the responsibility by putting it all on the advisory referendum and bypassing the legal process of the parliamentary democracy, as it it would be but a popular democracy. So if it goes well, she will share the credit for it and boost the future career, and if it goes south then she will say "I was but a deliverer of the people's will".)

Now, if the majority of the Scotts voted for the stay in EU, that is also to be accepted and respected. And she has the right to call for the second referendum on the Scotland exiting from the GB under the drastically changed circumstances. And shall it happen, and if the Scotts vote this time around for it, then such should be accepted and respected too. See, it is still the fully legit democracy that works in different directions.

I do not understand how can you hold her for a kind of a hypocrite on one hand, while at the same time understanding and even explaining her doing the job that she was elected for.

You have completely misinterpreted my post. I am actually defending her from calls of hypocrisy. I have clearly stated that prima facie, at first glance—it would be easy to construe double standards/irony on her part (as per J man's comment). I then go onto argue, that if you dig deeper, she has justifiable reasons for her stance. I clearly state that I see her reluctance to fully embrace the general EU results (as they pertain to Scotland) as her merely doing her job.She's trying to give effect to how people in Scotland voted. I don’t see her actions as hypocritical or ironical in the slightest.

I missed to notice that you were not the same poster who put up that OP regarding her, which was the one accusative of her in terms of hypocrisy. That is why I was confused to see "you" holding both positions at the same time. My bad.
We are on the same side of this one, clearly.

No worries.

Lotus49 wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:

Prema wrote:And he's already failing. The folks are protesting around against him, and he goes his stupid tweeting how it is but the media behind it. He can't recognize that it is actually real people who actually have genuine issues with him. Typical for a narcissistic ruler.

The irony, he himself called for riots and revolution and marching on Washington to overturn Obama 4 years ago when Romney won the popular vote but lost the presidency.

Ummm, that didn't happen.

The last time one candidate won the popular vote but lost the election was 2000 when GW Bush won the election but Gore had more votes overall. And I don't recall Trump having anything to say about it either.

Trump sent the tweet when Romney was ahead in the popular vote but had lost the electoral college count or at least was projected too. Once the count was finished Obama ended up ahead in both. I think California taking a while to fully count the popular vote played a part I guess.

The tweet is still out there, It was mentioned on a TV show yesterday. (Only reason I knew about it)

California always takes a while since it's so populated and is on the west coast, so it's polls are among the last to close.

It really is frustrating that this guy is president even though he has shot himself in the foot so many times more than Hillary during the campaign, and is already doing so before even moving into the White House.

Prema wrote:The good news: Trump is but a conman.
The bad news: Trump is a psychopath (with the nukes)

Although I could have seen Hilary starting a war quicker than Trump. Trump did use controversial and provocative language to get elected. But I have seen no evidence that he is a psychopath or any evidence that he is straining at the reigns to go to war.

James14 wrote:

Prema wrote:The good news: Trump is but a conman.
The bad news: Trump is a psychopath (with the nukes)

Although I could have seen Hilary starting a war quicker than Trump. Trump did use controversial and provocative language to get elected. But I have seen no evidence that he is a psychopath or any evidence that he is straining at the reigns to go to war.

Well, that is the point: the evidence is there, we just have to wait and see towards which side. Whether that was but the usage of the "provocative" language (a conman) or whether that was his actual self (a psychopath).

He might not even get that far as starting wars around the world, as in the aftermath of failed foreign affairs. I can envision him getting stuck in the inside intrigues of "draining the swamp" - or rather attempting to establish himself into the power of control beyond that one assumed to him by the Constitution. Or get consumed even with whatever trivialities, as he can't help himself there - to him, everything is a war of survival that he got to win and destroy the "enemy". In other words, he'll bring the Govt. into a grinding halt, the "swamp" won't be drained but heavily mudded. (the properly functioning "swamps" have their purpose and place too) And America will be preoccupied with herself, figuring how to come out of that Trump Tunnel and start the healing process.

Interesting part regarding Hillary, the popular opinion seams to be that she was a war monger and wanted to start the war with Russia at the first opportunity - just as they kept talking so for Obama. And the easiest way to either provoke Putin or to make him run with his tail under the legs would be to start bombing his boy Assad and get the ground troops that to march on Damascus. And Obama got the big flack for not doing anything there and leaving the open space to Russia, while Hillary herself kept insisting more of that same, vouching that she was never ever to put the ground troops there. And she meant even beyond Syria, but the Middle East in general as she was using the word "again" - she was burned by the Bush-Cheney's Iraq war that she supported and voted for too at that time.

sickened by the result... you have a predator con man in the white house and a sick, vile, evil thing as VP...

Trump is already U-Turning on his promises.... the Mexico wall is gone, the LGBT rights removals will probably not happen anymore and he's not admitted he quite likes Obamacare after all. All Trump has done is show just how mindless Americans can be... they lapped up his lies and bleated out his rubbish like a cult would do. They're now going to find out just how moronic their actions were.

The one question I want to see answered right now is just why WikiLeaks did NOTHING towards Trump and just focussed on Clinton. They and the FBI have SERIOUS questions to answer now.

SDLRob wrote:The one question I want to see answered right now is just why WikiLeaks did NOTHING towards Trump and just focussed on Clinton. They and the FBI have SERIOUS questions to answer now.

Assange was without any doubt actively involved in this presidential elections, on the Trump's side. The releasing of those hacked emails, both the DNC and Podesta, were carefully timed for the best demaging effect. Assange even adopted the same rhetorics as the Trump campaign regarding Hillary, stating how the upcoming emails were to be so damning for her that she was to end in jail. It should not had been his business to go expressing himself anything as to what the effect those leaks ought to have. But he could not hold his motivation back, so strong it was.

In my mind there is a little doubt that he wishes badly to see her be locked up. He himself sits in the self-imposed "prison" in the Ecuador embassy in London 6 years by now out of the fear from the US prosecution. There is an open criminal investigation open on him in 2010. That was under Hillary's time. His source of the leaked millions of documents, Manning, was in the meantime sentenced to 35 years.
To Assange, Hillary (as well as Obama) is a bitter enemy. And so, he helped Trump to win, and get rid of her.

Wikileak's stance bewildered me too during the build up to the elections, could Trump have promised promised to drop all charges against Assange if he helps him win?

Lotus49 wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:

Prema wrote:And he's already failing. The folks are protesting around against him, and he goes his stupid tweeting how it is but the media behind it. He can't recognize that it is actually real people who actually have genuine issues with him. Typical for a narcissistic ruler.

The irony, he himself called for riots and revolution and marching on Washington to overturn Obama 4 years ago when Romney won the popular vote but lost the presidency.

Ummm, that didn't happen.

The last time one candidate won the popular vote but lost the election was 2000 when GW Bush won the election but Gore had more votes overall. And I don't recall Trump having anything to say about it either.

Trump sent the tweet when Romney was ahead in the popular vote but had lost the electoral college count or at least was projected too. Once the count was finished Obama ended up ahead in both. I think California taking a while to fully count the popular vote played a part I guess.

The tweet is still out there, It was mentioned on a TV show yesterday. (Only reason I knew about it)

Fair enough, I don't do Twitter so never saw that and hadn't heard it reported on during this election cycle but the way you phrased the original post it made it sound like Romney had actually ended up winning the popular vote after all ballots had been counted.

SnakeSVT2003 wrote:California always takes a while since it's so populated and is on the west coast, so it's polls are among the last to close.

It really is frustrating that this guy is president even though he has shot himself in the foot so many times more than Hillary during the campaign, and is already doing so before even moving into the White House.

It's been almost a week and they're still counting in California and New York. I've read a couple of articles this morning where they're projecting the final vote differential to be 1.7-1.8 million in Clintons favor.

It looks like the swamp is filling up...
How long before Trump hysterical fans feel betrayed ?

Besides, the only one who could be documented was Clinton, Wikileaks couldn't do anything new about Trump, Trump was already leaking by himself all over the place... And surely the Democrats "paid" for doing nothing during the last 4 years for Assange.

Harpo wrote:It looks like the swamp is filling up...
How long before Trump hysterical fans feel betrayed ?

Besides, the only one who could be documented was Clinton, Wikileaks couldn't do anything new about Trump, Trump was already leaking by himself all over the place... And surely the Democrats "paid" for doing nothing during the last 4 years for Assange.

Oh, Trump could be documented like anything. His shady operations are full of crap that to tap into. Actually, destroying the documents that to be damning for him and his businesses in thousands of those legal cases, has been the regular and deliberate practice.

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump ... 5120?rm=eu

Of course, no Russian hackers nor Wikileaks were able to produce a single one piece of anything...
(or rather they have tones of it, but are holding it back... for the more useful occasions, shall it be needed)

Prema wrote:

Harpo wrote:It looks like the swamp is filling up...
How long before Trump hysterical fans feel betrayed ?

Besides, the only one who could be documented was Clinton, Wikileaks couldn't do anything new about Trump, Trump was already leaking by himself all over the place... And surely the Democrats "paid" for doing nothing during the last 4 years for Assange.

Oh, Trump could be documented like anything. His shady operations are full of crap that to tap into. Actually, destroying the documents that to be damning for him and his businesses in thousands of those legal cases, has been the regular and deliberate practice.

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump ... 5120?rm=eu

Of course, no Russian hackers nor Wikileaks were able to produce a single one piece of anything...
(or rather they have tones of it, but are holding it back... for the more useful occasions, shall it be needed)

What I meant is that you could already find all you needed to know about Trump, including (not so well) "hidden" things, without the help of last minute so called "leaks".
The problem with the supporters of demagogues of this kind, is that you can provide them with all sorts of factual informations concerning their hero (or anything of any sort that is part of their agenda), they won't take them into account. Most of the demagogue's fan base operate as conspiracy addicts, and whatever proof you provide them with, you won't be believed until they crash against a thick wall of reality... Demagogues know it and use it (when they are smart enough to not believe themselves in their own words).

I'm not sure any leaks would've helped. When people are used to dealing in conspiracy theories, it's not beyond imaginable that any leaks would've only strengthened Trump's 'they're all against me' rhetoric.