world

Trump: No transition turmoil, efforts going 'smoothly'

99 Comments
By JULIE PACE and KEN THOMAS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

99 Comments
Login to comment

If the president-elect has the time to Tweet, he can show in up in Judge Curiel's courtroom on the appointed date.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

I am wary of almost all press reports on Trump these days. They were so clearly wrong before the election, its like they are trying to double down after the election.

"Transition team in crisis." Yeah, right. It'a all in the slant. If it were President-elect Clinton, everything would be fine and there would be no crisis no matter what.

Likewise, the reports of increased racist incidents. Leaving aside those actually created by anti-Trump forces trying to make Trump look bad, it seems that every racists incident since the election is somehow linked to Trump's election, no evidence needed. Repeated media reports linking every bad thing to Trump have a subliminal effect on the populace. Proceed with caution.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

We are witnessing insiders who are being shut out react to being shut out, and human nature is very easy to predict here. No Democratic names being mentioned for example. It is going to go smoothly because Trump, when he makes mistakes with hires, he fixes it immediately.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Oh, yeah - it's going swimmingly. Trump's pick as "Chief Strategy Adviser" (what does that mean, anyway?) Steve "Breitbert" Bannon was reported today to have said this during a radio interview with Trump one year ago:

When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-disgusted-asian-ceos-silicon-valley_us_582c5d19e4b0e39c1fa71e48

In other words: We are a civic society - of Caucasians! You don't see Bannon getting worked up about the fact that America-born Michelle Obama's job will be taken by a foreigner who first worked in America illegally. Wonder why?

There are reasons why America's most talented are keeping the Trump administration at arm's length.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

"Everything is fine folks. Nothing to see here."

And we all know how well he told the truth on the campaign trail......

5 ( +9 / -4 )

I'm seeing it to commanteer

At this point, I'm chalking it up as MSM revenge. They still have the die-hard Hillary supporters under their spell.

Here's one example. This was raging through the MSM yesterday. The story is about an Ohio State student attacking anti-Trump protestor. Only to find out the truth a day later. The student actually has Asperger Syndrome and it's assumed he was confused about what the protestor was saying. Funny the MSM has no problem using a mentally handicapped person for their twisted/crybaby agenda.

<http://gotnews.com/breaking-trump-supporter-arrested-tackling-ohiostate-protester-actually-autistic-hillaryclinton-supporter/>

Here's the original Yahoo story.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-state-student-arrested-after-tackling-anti-trump-speaker-160111812.html

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

I suppose we can expect Trump to mock the kid who got beat up next then.

Anyways, violence is not the answer, anyone physically attacking anyone over their political affiliations is in the wrong, no matter what side they are on.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Fizz, CNN reported accurately on what was known at the time; your "alternative" site gotnews used information which came to light only after the incident was investigated to imply that the so-called MSM had deliberately skewed the reporting. And then you (and, likely, many other gullible sorts) passed it on. Ironically, it's gotnews that is in the wrong here: rather than simply update the story with the new info, gotnews claimed a conspiracy - there is a conspiracy, of course, but it's the likes of gotnews that are the conspirators. Yet the gullible still fall for it.

Updated story from Ohio State's student newspaper here: http://thelantern.com/2016/11/protester-tackled-at-anti-trump-rally-working-to-drop-the-charges/

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Laguna, I was using the Yahoo story. I have no idea what CNN reported, but going by the Yahoo story, they pushed it out without investigating it, so they deserve to be called out for it.

Gullible? I'm not the one referring to CNN. I see you're still in name calling mode as well. How OLD are you?

This is just one story among many. The big 2 MSM made a big deal about Trump having a family dinner but not telling the press where he was going. OMG! The MSM actually made a remark about it being a National Security issue because he didn't tell them he was leaving. You just can't make this sh#t up.

Hey Laguna, it's your choice to follow the corporate MSM scum. IMO, you're being lied to.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Hey Laguna, it's your choice to follow the corporate MSM scum

As opposed to Got News (I saw one article accredited to an anonymous American), Breitbart, or Turbo's beloved anti-immigration lobbyists?

IMO, you're being lied to.

And you're not. Of course not.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

"....buhleeeave me".

5 ( +6 / -1 )

And we all know how well he told the truth on the campaign trail......

Well he did say he was going to win and nobody believed that either. The media is still working through it's grief because their side lost so they are lashing out by ginning up negative stories. It's only been a week since the election and naturally he hasn't yet settled on his entire cabinet or produced legislation ready to submit to Congress.

I fully expect everyone to be unhappy with Trump. Why? Because he is Liberal on some issues and Conservative on others.

He is not for reforming entitlements. He is not for reducing the deficit and it's going to continue to skyrocket while he is president. Trump is an out front LGBT supporter. He even held up the rainbow flag at his political rallies. He is also against late term abortions (particularly for the healthy children of healthy mothers).

I left the presidential contest blank on my ballot. Just couldn't bring myself to vote for any of them. But I do look forward to the slow rolling media meltdown over the next four years. :-) Oh and the snowflakes and social justice warriors have been great entertainment.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Never heard of Got News before, but I do know CNNMSNBCFOX, and since Dems still have 50% trust in the MSM, as opposed to 30% for independents, it's not surprising you can't see the manipulation.

60 Minutes recorded a plea from Trump to "stop attacking minorities" but held onto it for three days. A muslim woman who claimed she had been attacked by white Trump supporters later admitted to the police she lied.

Boy, it's like none of you lefties have read 1984, Fahrenheit 451 or Brave New World.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

My bad, Fizz - you'd linked to a Yahoo story that I erroneously attributes to CNN. Still, if your theory regarding the megalithic MSM is correct - what difference does it make?

I'm old enough to call things as I see them. Regarding the media, I follow Reagan's maxim: Trust, but verify. Take care to distinguish between event reporting and opinion. If opinion, learn the authors' backgrounds. Follow a multitude of news sites with various political slants for variety - and keep a list of favorite authors of all stripes, paying particular attention to those whose opinions differ from yours but argue with precise knowledge - it is from these that one often learns the most.

And use common sense. And never read anonymous "news" Websites.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

FizzBitNOV. 17, 2016 - 10:05AM JST

Never heard of Got News before

FizzBitNOV. 17, 2016 - 09:08AM JST (shares following link)

http://gotnews.com/breaking-trump-supporter-arrested-tackling-ohiostate-protester-actually-autistic-hillaryclinton-supporter/

Thank you. No more questions.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Oh man, this next government is going to be so much better than the one we have now.

Is the coverage of the Trump transition fair?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5wlRcDBghM

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@FizzBit

So you think the corporate MSM is corrupt and lies? But who in the Republican party actually speaks up against the corporations? Trump talks about draining the swamp, but he only ever mentions corrupt politicians and corrupt media and never the corporations and monied interests corrupting them. My bad, he did mention them when he said he wants to deregulate them further.

One thing the establishment media (especially print media) has going for it is that their standards of practice prevent them from spouting outright lies (despite what you may think). They can only leave things out and frame stories in a particular slant. Bloggers, Internet media, and other news sources outside the mainstream have no such standards, and fact-checking has shown them to tell outright lies.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Thank you. No more questions.

before

Thank you. No more questions.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Thanks, FizzBit:

Never heard of Got News before

yet had absolutely no qualms citing it to support an argument

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Here's one example. This was raging through the MSM yesterday. The story is about an Ohio State student attacking anti-Trump protestor. Only to find out the truth a day later. The student actually has Asperger Syndrome and it's assumed he was confused about what the protestor was saying. Funny the MSM has no problem using a mentally handicapped person for their twisted/crybaby agenda.

So why isn't the MSM trying to correct this falsehood?

So you think the corporate MSM is corrupt and lies?

Pretty much, that's why the American people had to shut them out, as much crap as they were spewing about Trump it didn't work, the people saw right through that dishonesty and ignored all the lies about Trump.

But who in the Republican party actually speaks up against the corporations? Trump talks about draining the swamp, but he only ever mentions corrupt politicians and corrupt media and never the corporations and monied interests corrupting them. My bad, he did mention them when he said he wants to deregulate them further.

Don't worry, he'll get to that, it's been only a week. Libs, cool your heels, it's coming.

Anyways, violence is not the answer, anyone physically attacking anyone over their political affiliations is in the wrong, no matter what side they are on.

If only the majority of young liberals would understand that point.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

yet had absolutely no qualms citing it to support an argument

For the Tweets, yes. Point taken though, I could have been more specific. Someone who claims they actually know the person is very credible, don't you think?

Did you take a look? I just assume most don't.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@bass the American people had to shut them out,

By the American people, are you referring to the MINORITY of American voters who voted for Trump?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Someone who claims they actually know the person is very credible, don't you think?

Not in the least, no. But the naivety is pretty widespread:

"Now, I don't know. What do I know about it? All I know is what's on the Internet,"

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272824-trump-all-i-know-is-whats-on-the-internet

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It is going to go smoothly because Trump, when he makes mistakes with hires, he fixes it immediately. So whos he going to fire when congress dont pass many of his deluded bills!? The threat of losing your job doesn't work on congressmen, only the voting public has the power to do that, not Mr Trump

6 ( +8 / -2 )

@fizzbats Boy, it's like none of you lefties have read 1984, Fahrenheit 451 or Brave New World.

I've read them all plus many others, and that's one of the many reasons why I fear The Party (1984) Trump leads and has brought to full power. But I know all Trump supporters are going to be willing to own his and The Party's decisions. Right? You'll take your soma (Brave New World) and pay homage to the great leader. To quote the great Scot David Byrne: 'Watch out, you might get what you're after.'

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I see Trump as incoherent and winging it at the best of times, so I doubt he'll have an actual plan or an actual team ready to go.

The media called the election so badly though, that they are barely credible any more. This "turmoil" could easily be their clickbait version of "you won't BELIEVE what this XXXX can do!" headlines you see all over the Internet.

Trump is a complete noob in politics and hopefully he will be divisive and incompetent enough to build the alliances he'll need to do much harm. Clinton is a well-connected neo-liberal hawk and it was easy to foresee her exacerbating things in the Middle East, Ukraine, and beyond.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

By the American people, are you referring to the MINORITY of American voters who voted for Trump?

Here we go? Look at the map, look at the presidency, the House, the Senate, the governors throughout the States, the legislative branch. Sorry, evyniw, telling that lie just shows how out of touch liberals still are with the facts.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

Look at the map, look at the presidency, the House, the Senate, the governors throughout the States, the legislative branch. Sorry, evyniw, telling that lie just shows how out of touch liberals still are with the facts.

You said the American voters chose to throw out trump. No, the electoral collage did (or rather, will). Look at the number of votes each candidate got. The American voters chose Hillary, the electoral college will choose Trump. Ignoring that fact just shows how out of touch you are with the facts.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Subtract 3 million illegal voters and suddenly Hillary is 2 million behind in the popular vote count.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Not in the least, no. But the naivety is pretty widespread:

Now you're just being silly.

and that's one of the many reasons why I fear The Party

You "fear" Trump but Hillary's, Obama's, Bush's, the elites, the MSM's hegemonic wars and weapons sales, you want to stay in power. "The Party" is you, IMO.

To quote the great David Byrne:

Found out this morning

There's a circus coming to town

They drive in Cadillacs

Using walkie-talkies, and the Secret Service

Their big top

Imitation of life

And all the flags and microphones

We have to cover our eyes

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Right, Turbo - than add in the 5 million Democratic votes GOP obstructionism prevented, and suddenly, my completely unsupported statistic is better than yours!

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Subtract 3 million illegal voters and suddenly Hillary is 2 million behind in the popular vote count.

But then you also subtract the 8 million people who double voted for Trump, and Hillary is back in the lead.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Laguna: Right, Turbo - than add in the 5 million Democratic votes GOP obstructionism prevented

Strangerland: But then you also subtract the 8 million people who double voted for Trump

But ...

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13597452/voter-suppression-clinton-trump-2016

Voter suppression didn’t cost Hillary Clinton the election ... Voter suppression might explain Clinton’s loss in Wisconsin — but not Florida, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. ... Studies looking into voter ID laws’ effect on voter turnout back this up. The research, including multiple studies conducted over several years, has generally found that voter ID laws have a small to no impact on voter turnout. ... The Government Accountability Office (GAO), for example, concluded that a majority of studies it reviewed found no or even increased turnout after voter ID measures passed: ...

"5 million"? "8 million"? "Leprechauns"?

Numbers pulled out of ... where? Got links?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Not much meat on the bone tonight.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@FizzBit

You "fear" Trump but Hillary's, Obama's, Bush's, the elites, the MSM's hegemonic wars and weapons sales, you want to stay in power.

I know you weren't talking to me, but I'll reply anyway. I don't fear Trump, he doesn't have a clue what he's doing. I fear the people he surrounds himself with. As Obama's presidency has shown, it's hard for any president to accomplish anything alone. At the very least you need the support of your party in addition to some cooperation from across the aisle. Who many anti-war politicians are on the Republican side? You think you got change, but you got another GW Bush.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I left the presidential contest blank on my ballot. Just couldn't bring myself to vote for any of them.-- comment

If you chose to not to cast your ballot in the general election, then you fall into the same category as the eligible "snowflakes and social justice warriors" who have now been found to not have voted. . . .

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Numbers pulled out of ... where? Got links?

I think that was the point. Numbers pulled out of thin air like yours was:

Subtract 3 million illegal voters and suddenly Hillary is 2 million behind

So yes, got links for your fact free assertion? How can 3 million illegal people vote?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

the "progressives" here playing games with the popular vote reminds me of junior highschool mentality. Of course if the situation was reversed they would be ridiculing anyone bringing up the popular vote. pathetic.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Now you're just being silly.

For not believing what I'm told? What was that about Orwell and Huxley earlier?

“One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.”

Brave New World

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Accepting a post in this administration is like buying a ticket for the maiden voyage of the Titanic....after you've seen the movie.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

But ...

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13597452/voter-suppression-clinton-trump-2016

Exactly. We both used sources that weren't based in reality. Thanks for supporting my point.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

the electoral college will choose Trump.

And that's out system and if the opposite happened and if the conservatives would bitch and moan and say the same stupid thing, the libs would say, "that's our system, accept it and shut up or not, either way, we won."

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Strangerlan: Exactly. We both used sources that weren't based in reality. Thanks for supporting my point.

But ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_(website)

Vox is an American news and opinion website owned by Vox Media. The website was founded in 2014 by Ezra Klein. ... It has been described as having a liberal or progressive editorial perspective. ... Editor: Ezra Klein ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Klein

Ezra Klein is a liberal American blogger and columnist. He is most known for his former work as a blogger and columnist for The Washington Post, as well as his ongoing work as a contributor to Bloomberg News and MSNBC.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Sorry, I thought it was one of your right-wing websites.

Either way, 14 million people double voted for Trump, so removing those Hillary destroyed him.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

And that's out system and if the opposite happened and if the conservatives would bitch and moan and say the same stupid thing, the libs would say, "that's our system, accept it and shut up or not, either way, we won."

we do accept it. but Hillary won the popular vote.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

(Psst - Turbo - the point is that you used unsupported data, so some of us threw other unsupported data back at you; clearly, you can point out that our data is unsupported precisely because we posted it so purposefully; however, can you support your claim? I do not think that you can without referring to a Website such as "gotnews".)

5 ( +5 / -0 )

"Accepting a post in this administration is like buying a ticket for the maiden voyage of the Titanic....after you've seen the movie."

Wow, what a negative, pessimistic comment. Did you not listen to what both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama said? That Trump is going to be our next president and that we're not Republicans or Democrats first but Americans first, and we're all on the same team. Get with the program already, sheesh.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Yoshitsune: I think that was the point. Numbers pulled out of thin air like yours was: ... So yes, got links for your fact free assertion? How can 3 million illegal people vote?

I guess you didn't read the other thread where the links were provided. Basically they quote beloved-of-the-left news site Washington Post quoting a scientific study saying that up to 3M non-citizens may have illegally voted in the last general election, 2012.

Doesn't matter when the links ARE posted, your compatriots still make silly answers, and even double down on them. Not addressing the points, just responding with silliness like 'unicorns', 'leprechauns', '7 million', '14 million', what not.

https://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/obama-in-greece-says-world-leaders-must-heed-peoples-economic-fears#comment_2306246

https://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/obama-in-greece-says-world-leaders-must-heed-peoples-economic-fears#comment_2306482

But Laguna and Strangerland are both aware that I did not pull the numbers out of thin air, because they both responded to my original posts in the other thread.

I can't say for SenseNotSoCommon, who after reading the WaPo quote only complained that it was from Breitbart, so either SNSC didn't read the paste (the Breitbart paste was mostly quoting WaPo and I indicated that), or is just indulging in the typical content-less ad hominem response liberal posters indulge in on JT when voter fraud is pointed out.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Mr Bum

I fear the people he surrounds himself with.

It would be foolish not to. For any president, prime minister, etc. I'm going to give Trump about six months after his inauguration then reasses everything. I will have no problem siding with or turning against him.

you got another GW.

We'll see. Weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and other nations increased during Obama. So it's not just GW, it's the whole elite ruling hegomonic class. I hope Trump smashes their plans.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

we do accept it. but Hillary won the popular vote.

But our president is Trump as of 1 / 20 / 2017 Kudos! Finally order can be restored.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

But Laguna and Strangerland are both aware that I did not pull the numbers out of thin air....

Until you supply proof for your statistics, I will continue to assume that you pulled the numbers out of thin air.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@FizzBit

I'm going to give Trump about six months after his inauguration then reasses everything.

No offense, but that seems a little late. It's not like the signs aren't there.

Weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and other nations increased during Obama.

With overwhelming approval from the Republican senate.

So it's not just GW, it's the whole elite ruling hegomonic class

Agreed. But again, how many members of the Republican party speak out against it and how respected (i.e., influential) are they in their own party?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

"Really folks, nothing to see here (sound of shouting in background), we have a beautiful team here I can tell you, just absolutely....(ducks to avoid chair thrown by Pence at Giuliani)...beautiful. These are totally wonderful people here, the best, the BEST (elevator door opens in background revealing Ivanka trying to strangle Bannon) people that anyone has ever appointed I can tell you."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Laguna: Until you supply proof for your statistics, I will continue to assume that you pulled the numbers out of thin air.

Skipped past all the links and proof and posted 'until you supply proof for your statistics'. Perfect example of 'responding with silliness and doubling down'.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

I can't say for SenseNotSoCommon, who after reading the WaPo quote only complained that it was from Breitbart

Delighted to be of service, Turbotsat

Breitbart linked to a hypothesis on a Washington Post blog, which came with the following disclaimer regarding possible bias (which Breitbart chose not to include):

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

The original WaPo piece was at least careful in its use of language for this conjecture:

Our best guess... tended to favor... large enough to plausibly account for... could have... could account for... It is also possible... would have...

Breitbart's mendacious spin:

FLASHBACK– Washington Post in 2014: Non-Citizen Voting Gave Democrats 60th Vote for Obamacare

Americans deserve better than garbage like this.

Thank you in advance for supporting arguments with robust and credible evidence.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Basically they quote beloved-of-the-left news site Washington Post quoting a scientific study saying that up to 3M non-citizens may have illegally voted in the last general election, 2012

3 million non citizens voted in 2012? Utter nonsense. Made up drivel, plucked from the air (or rather, the web). Fact checked: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

And that W Post article doesn't say anything at all about 3 million illegal votes, and it also clearly states at the top:

"The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections."

You're indulging yourself in fact free confirmation bias.

your compatriots still make silly answers

My compatriots? You do know what that word means right?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

So it turns out that all of Trump's votes were double votes by illegal aliens - from mars. I know it's true because I read it on the interwebz. That's proof enough right turbostat?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Mrbum

It's not like the signs aren't there

Still have to give him a chance. He will have no problem firing someone.

With overwhelming approval from the Republican senate.

No doubt. One party system. I'm no Rep.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

@FizzBit

He will have no problem firing someone.

And hire who? Have you seen his entourage? If Trump really wanted to change things, he chose the wrong party. It's not a one party system, and the Democratic party is more salvageable than the other.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Mr bum

If Trump really wanted to change things, he chose the wrong party.

I think we're at that point where it starts to go back and forth. Both parties are the wrong party because they both pay to play to the Wall Street/lobbyists/ etc.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

FizzBit: "Still have to give him a chance. He will have no problem firing someone."

You seem to think that's a good thing. The guy is not only NOT 'draining the swamp', which you guys demanded until Trump wouldn't, he's putting in people who kissed his butt. That means that he's going to favor those who kiss his butt more; it'll be a term of only people climbing over each other to please the whims of a man-child, not people possibly objecting if they feel it's to the benefit of the nation. Just look at Ted Cruz -- he sold out on his values and his beliefs at the end when he saw Trump gaining momentum, and now he's landing a plum position in Trump's cabinet. In short, selling out and doing what Trump wants to hear in order to avoid being fired will get you rewards. Meanwhile in the streets the turmoil is getting worse; racist acts by Trump supporters are going up exponentially, and who's going to stop it? Bannon? Methinks not.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

As with any news article, it is in the "tone" that is created by the words and slant that is used.

When one looks at any "transition" be it for a new family after a wedding or even a corporate management change, people are involved. Since no one is the same with same abilities and needs or wants, there will be differences that need to be worked out based upon the purpose and direction of that group or entity and the position each person must and willing to play. It is the writer's "perspective" to call it a messy confrontation or an organized competition. Trump, as a businessman probably knows and has experience many such situations and his assessment is that it is smooth in his eyes.

Really, the important thing is that no one gets hurt really badly, undeserving in the process and a meaningful and cooperative group not necessarily united and cohesive but with the same goals and objectives with the country"s best interests at heart are placed in leadership. The process however tumultuous must get the best results.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I think we're at that point where it starts to go back and forth. Both parties are the wrong party because they both pay to play to the Wall Street/lobbyists/ etc.

As Smith mentioned, he campaigned on dumping the swamp, on being the anti-establishment. Then the first thing he does is get a bunch of establishment people for his cabinet.

As everyone knows, I was no supporter Trump's, but I also mentioned many times that change was a good thing, which is why I was a Bernie supporter. The one thing I would have hoped of Trump from his rhetoric is that he would drain the swamp, but he seems to be shoring it up, not draining it. If I was one of the people who wanted Trump because he was going to drain the swamp, I'd be feeling pretty cheated by his decisions for cabinet so far. Where is the shakeup he kept going on about?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Trump lies again.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Oh, man, the incoming government is going to be sooooo much better than the current government.

Breaking down President-elect Trump's immigration agenda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5ZF_Zv1nc0

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Denial is clearly not just a river in Egypt...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Then the first thing he does is get a bunch of establishment people for his cabinet.

He has to hire people who have experience running a government bureaucracy, which is why Ben Carson turned down the HHS position. Sanders would have done the same only there would have been a lot more of it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sanders would have done the same

Whoever won would have done the same. Obviously. The problem with Trump is that he campaigned on a promise to do the opposite. And he was BSing again, obviously. Were I someone who'd voted for him on the basis that he promised to drain the swamp, I don't think I'd be too happy about that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Experience at your job does not equal corruption or running a criminal cartel. Giuliani for instance took on the mafia in New York and I am 100% certain would prosecute the Clintons as Attorney General. Another winning event every day. Obama and the progressives must be having apoplexies all over...

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN13B2MI

Denmark is ready to increase military and national security spending, Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said on Wednesday after a phone conversation with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Trump lies again.

It would take Trump's lies about 40 years comparable to Clinton lies before they catch up with him.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

He has to hire people who have experience running a government bureaucracy, which is why Ben Carson turned down the HHS position.

But he campaigned on NOT doing that. He campaigned on shaking things up - how is doing the same thing as everyone else shaking things up?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

how is doing the same thing as everyone else shaking things up?

He still needs a team. People who know what they're doing. With all do respect Stranger, you and others here are sounding very hysterical. Nothing can be "shaken up" until he gets into office. He did reject Eliot (co-founded the Project for the New American Century) Cohen who was trying to kiss his ass after supporting Hillary for the last year.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Giuliani for instance took on the mafia in New York and I am 100% certain would prosecute the Clintons as Attorney General

Given that the FBI have clearly stated there is nothing to prosecute with, that would require Giuliani inventing charges to prosecute them with. Is that what you want for America? Those in power prosecuting their political opponents on Trumped-up charges? That's the end of democracy and the beginning of Fascist America. Don't be so foolish. Trump was BSing. Again.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

But he campaigned on NOT doing that. He campaigned on shaking things up - how is doing the same thing as everyone else shaking things up?

Are you happy now ?? That should keep the scum to a minimum.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/how-will-trump-lobbying-ban-affect-transition-231546

Trump's lobbyist ban threatens to hobble transition The sweeping new restrictions on lobbyists fulfills a campaign pledge, but could compound Trump’s problems recruiting top-tier talent.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

11/15/16 Hannity : Giuliani Trump Will Put Together an 'Extraordinary Administration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fc0kKdLGdM

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@turbosrat,,, younclaimed 3 million illegal voters. Do you know what enable people to vote for presidential election?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Of course they are saying it is totally fine. That is business PR. Deny any problems until the problems explode in your face, then call it a feature. The evidence the press has dredged up, like there is nobody meeting with the Pentagon or Sec. of State office a week after the election. It is a dumpster fire and doesn't look like it will improve over the next 4 years. Making a neo nazi your chief strategist is not going down well either.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If Hillary had been elected, and suddenly switched to supporting the TPP,

With her it probably would have been a gradual transition back, that is true, unlike Kaine who strongly supported it just hours before he was picked and suddenly strongly opposed it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The lobby ban sounds nice, but people can get around that by changing their status to "consultant" or something similar.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yoshitsune: 3 million non citizens voted in 2012? Utter nonsense. Made up drivel, plucked from the air (or rather, the web). Fact checked: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

Fact-checked, nothing. Snopes typically reports items that support its point and ignores items that don't and don't follow up when they're disproven. They don't address at all the Richman et al paper the WaPo article is quoting.

Yoshitsune: And that W Post article doesn't say anything at all about 3 million illegal votes,

That's a 2014 WaPo article, how could it supply estimates for the 2016 election?

There's enough about the 3M in the various links, quotes, and discussion I posted the links to that you asked for, using Richman et al's estimate of the percentage of non-citizens voting vs the 2016 vote count. Also note one of the links is from an organization claiming they have evidence for 3M illegal votes obtained by cross-checking records.

Yoshitsune: ... and it also clearly states at the top: "The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections."

As far as rebuttals, Richman responded to those. As far as the 'peer-reviewed article' the WaPo mentions in rebuttal, Richman et al have a working paper updated Oct. 16, 2016 available online that specifically addresses the peer-reviewed article: https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/wp-content/uploads/sites/760/2015/11/AnsolabehereResponse10-19-2016.pdf

Interesting to note that Ansolabehere's article, titled "The perils of cherry picking low frequency events in large sample surveys", is using data from a year that might support one of their points and ignoring another year that disagrees (according to Richman's 10/16/2016 working paper). That is, cherry-picking in an article titled "... cherry picking ...".

toshiko: @turbosrat,,, younclaimed 3 million illegal voters. Do you know what enable people to vote for presidential election?

Voter registration. But people can just sign up and there's very little enforcement to prevent them from lying about their citizenship. Some states check, some states don't. Hillary did significantly better in locations in where voter control laws and ballot verification rules are weak. The difference in pre-election polls vs election results was +9 percentage points for Hillary vs Bernie in the 2016 primary, in states where there's no paper trail of ballots cast.

The Obama administration's own election fraud chief claims not much voting fraud, and probably got his job based on his prior research claiming the same, but when the Democratic elections commissioner in Manhattan was secretly filmed he said fake voter IDs were easy obtain, they weren't checked, and people were being bused around to various precincts so they could cast multiple votes. Who should we believe, the one whose job dependents on it or the one who doesn't know he's being filmed? They're both Democrats!

Yoshitsune: Given that the FBI have clearly stated there is nothing to prosecute with, that would require Giuliani inventing charges to prosecute them with.

Top FBI boss said that, but others complain the DOJ quashed and restricted a valid FBI investigation, and highly placed FBI and DOJ who should have recused themselves instead were heavily involved (one FBI person with longtime associations with Hillary's campaign chief and one DOJ person whose wife received $600K+ from Gov. Terry McAuliffe, also under investigation, for her failed campaign effort). Numerous ways in which Hillary and her team received preferential treatment in the investigation have been reported. Gowdy's committee is just waiting for the next session and everybody knows that. Thus the public call from Jesse Jackson (yesterday) and from others for Obama to issue a preemptive pardon for whatever crimes Hillary may have committed.

For any normal person, accepting such a pardon would pretty much kill any chances she has of election in 2020. That Jackson is issuing such a call indicates either she's asked him to push for it, or he's angry at her for some reason.

Jackson's call for a pardon should be the top news item right now. Guess what is top at Google News? James Clapper's entirely expected resignation letter from his NSA post (he's already said he was going to resign at the end of Obama's term). Big news!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The lobby ban sounds nice, but people can get around that by changing their status to "consultant" or something similar.

Which is what is holding up the Giuliani nomination for SoS, his lucrative consulting and speechmaking career with extensive and complicated ties to governments all over the world. So I am sure they are relying on more than self reported involvements.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If MrBum decides to run for politics his slogan can be, Feel the Bum.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You're showing a serious lack of ability to discern between truth and fiction Turbostat. You're killing any semblance of credibility you may have.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, the Washington Post posted an interview with "Paul Horner, the 38-year-old impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire". It supports so much of what I've been saying all along.

This guy has made a fortune by posting fake news stories, including that one that we have heard so much about how Trump protesters being hired on Craiglist:

My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anythingthey’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.

And about the people he targets:

in doing this for six years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it’s the cure for cancer, is right-wing Republicans.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/

And remember that link someone posted the other day that claimed Trump won the popular vote? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/

1 ( +2 / -1 )

That's what worries me. This election was a dry run and by the next election it will explode.

You don't have to rig things or prove your side, you just have to create doubt. Turbo isn't claiming to have the real number of voters, for example, his goal is to create doubt in the official number and leave it at that. Fake news stories and the next step, fake documents, will be used to create doubt in pretty much any proven situation, then people will give up on trying to figure out what to believe.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Fact-checked, nothing

turbo lag

noun the Cognitive Dissonant's inability to suspend disbelief that his (rarely her) assumptions and biases are fallacious. Symptomatic behaviours include obsessive quoting of subjective material and repeated linking to discredited websites and other sources.

Suggested therapeutic interventions include physical intimacy, social interaction in diverse contexts, and 'fresh air.'

see also: post-truth; alt.right

3 ( +3 / -0 )

You don't have to rig things or prove your side, you just have to create doubt. Turbo isn't claiming to have the real number of voters, for example, his goal is to create doubt in the official number and leave it at that. Fake news stories and the next step, fake documents, will be used to create doubt in pretty much any proven situation, then people will give up on trying to figure out what to believe.

Quoted for truth. It's the same thing they do when they talk about what Hillary would have done if she had won - she didn't, so guessing is a pointless exercise, unless you mean to sow the seeds of doubt.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

SuperLib: Turbo isn't claiming to have the real number of voters, for example, his goal is to create doubt in the official number and leave it at that. Fake news stories and the next step, fake documents,

Nothing fake in a statistics paper and in the upcoming rebuttal to the rebuttal, all available online.

Read 'em and weep.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Your challenge to my post was based on it not being about the 2016 election, when I was clearly responding to your statement about 2012. Stop twisting.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nothing fake in a statistics paper and in the upcoming rebuttal to the rebuttal, all available online.

How can an 'upcoming rebuttal' be online, and how can you already know there is nothing fake in it?

It sounds like you've already pre-determined the conclusions of the rebuttal, without taking the time to cross-check it and check for confirmation bias.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Some people need to feel important/special, and politics is a great avenue for the "listen to me and all of my special, inside knowledge" narrative that gives people purpose in their otherwise regular lives. They might be a teacher or an engineer by day, but at night they are saviors by figuring out the secrets of the world all from their computer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stat,

The 3 million claim has been fact checked and debunked. Turbo spamming the discussion with links full of speculation and no hard facts or data doesn't change that. You claim that people can just sign up to vote with no checks on illegibility; if that's true it's ridiculous, and I don't believe it's true unless you've got some cold hard data to prove it. But if such data existed, I think we'd be hearing it from more places than just your posts.

Why are you so frantic to 'prove' that Clinton didn't win the popular vote? It doesn't change the fact that Trump will be president, and the whole election rigging conspiracy theory was put out there by the alt right to cry foul in the event that Trump lost. Well, he won, so you can stop the conspiracy theorising already.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yoshitsune: Stat, The 3 million claim has been fact checked and debunked.

If ignoring numbers and links and papers and claiming victory thereby is 'debunking', but it's not.

... But if such data existed, I think we'd be hearing it from more places than just your posts. ...

Links provided in those posts = 'more'. And you're aware of the reports that media coverage was biased 91% against Trump during the election, right? Why expect it to be different for voter fraud?

... You claim that people can just sign up to vote with no checks on illegibility; if that's true it's ridiculous ...

It's not me claiming it. It's the Democratic election commissioner of Manhattan. And de Blasio is firing him for it. One of the top contenders for his job is an assemblyman's staffer who was caught drunk driving last year:

http://nypost.com/2016/11/16/elections-official-resigns-after-video-blasting-de-blasios-id-program/

Elections official caught blasting de Blasio’s ID program to be replaced - November 16, 2016

... Schulkin was caught on tape by the conservative group Project Veritas saying, “Certain neighborhoods in particular, they bus people around to vote. They put them in a bus and go poll site to poll site.” ...

http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/de-blasio-demands-resignation-of-elections-official-who-blasted-id-program/

De Blasio demands resignation of elections official who blasted ID program - October 14, 2016

... “He gave out ID cards, de Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything,” Schulkin said on the recording. ... “But they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say, ‘I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card,’ ” he said on the video. ... “It’s absurd. There is a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud . . . This is why I get more conservative as I get older.” ...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

Fact checked and debunked. You tried to dismiss Snopes out of hand without actually arguing the facts therein.

Links provided in those posts = 'more'

But i'm only hearing about them from you. Were there anything of substance to them it would be a huge scandal. Trump would have had a field day with it.

you're aware of the reports that media coverage was biased 91% against Trump during the election, right?

No, I am not. Sounds like more alt right conspiracy rubbish. Any actual facts to back that outlandish claim up with? Even were it true, it still wouldn't be relevant to the matter of voter fraud in 2012.

And if one official got fired in New York that doesn't constitute evidence that the same thing has happened on such a staggering scale that 3 million people could vote illegally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yoshitsune: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp ... Fact checked and debunked. You tried to dismiss Snopes out of hand without actually arguing the facts therein.

Your snopes link has nothing to do with the topic at hand, except generally. It's addressing a series of email tropes about voter fraud. For all I know, all those tropes are wrong, and snopes is right on them. And for the same reason, the snopes link is not debunking voter fraud. It's just debunking a bunch of emails floating around.

None of these tropes are items I posted, so why should I bother addressing it or reading further, especially as you haven't bothered to specify which part of the snopes link is pertinent to our discussion? You just tossed out a link and said, 'Look! Debunked!' If you can find something in there that directly addresses something I posted, I might address it.

Yoshitsune: But i'm only hearing about them from you.

That's up to you. If you click the links or google more about them you can hear more. If you just listen to news sources that don't report on these items, plus JT comments, I guess it would look like the information only appeared in JT comments.

No, I am not. Sounds like more alt right conspiracy rubbish.

Google news "media 91%", immediately five hits: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=media+91%

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2016/10/25/mrc-study-documenting-tvs-twelve-weeks-trump-bashing

MRC Study: Documenting TV’s Twelve Weeks of Trump Bashing - October 25, 2016

Yoshitsune: And if one official got fired in New York that doesn't constitute evidence that the same thing has happened on such a staggering scale that 3 million people could vote illegally.

That was in answer to your claim 'ridiculous' made in this sentence: "Yoshitsune: You claim that people can just sign up to vote with no checks on illegibility; if that's true it's ridiculous".

He spoke while he thought he was off-camera, lending more credence that it's true. Also lending more credence is that he's a Democrat, and that he was subsequently fired by de Blasio. Appears the Dem elite don't like whistleblowers, even inadvertent ones.

As far as 3M, the source of those figures have been posted a few times.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As far as 3M, the source of those figures have been posted a few times.

And not one of them anything even approaching reliable.

Anyone with even a slight ability to discern reality from fiction would recognize those sources for what they are.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland: And not one of them anything even approaching reliable.

Anyone with even a slight ability to discern reality from fiction would recognize those sources for what they are.

Without anything concrete in your posting (and in your other similar postings), this amounts to a simple 'I don't like your information, therefore it must be wrong.'

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Readers, this comment ends the bickering. Please focus your comments on what is in the story and not at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If ignoring numbers and links and papers and claiming victory

We're not locked in a personal battle to "claim victory". There's nothing personal to this at all. All that's happening here is you're attempting to prove (all evidence and official vote counts to the contrary) that Hillary Clinton in fact lost the popular vote (not that it makes any difference) on the completely factually unfounded basis that 3 million illegal votes were cast in 2012 (all evidence to the contrary). I'm merely explaining why you're not succeeding. The links you've given do not contain any factual evidence or hard data, just speculation and wild assumptions from obviously partisan sources.

you haven't bothered to specify which part of the snopes link is pertinent to our discussion

The bit about illegal voting in 2012 i.e. the entire basis of the position you're taking.

If you just listen to news sources that don't report on these item

It has not been reported on any news sources, including the highly partisan Fox and Russia Today. Those two would have run and run with it if there were anything to run with. As would Trump himself have, but it was too incredible a falsehood even for him.

Google news "media 91%", immediately five hit

And they're all highly partisan alt right sites quoting the same single article that you linked to: a 'newbusters' article, which quotes a study by MRC. MRC's stated mission is to prove liberal bias (never mind conservative bias) i.e. it is a self-declared biased source. Not only that, but MRC owns and indeed set up the newsbuster site which then quotes MRC... "we say this happened, because the other we says so!". The MRC 'study' doesn't explain its methodology and just says 'our analysts found', as though that is in any way credible. Anyone with a quantum of critical reasoning can see that this is a fake news site with a self-declared bias quoting a completely unscientific piece of 'research' to be promulgated around the alt right sites to feed into their readers' confirmation bias feedback loops. There is not enough salt on Earth with which to take that article.

As far as 3M, the source of those figures have been posted a few times.

Aye, a tweet from some random guy called Greg Phillips who has provided zero evidence or data for his claim:

http://www.snopes.com/three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites