Trump wins

Outgoing CIA chief rips into Trump on Russia threat

NEW YORK (AP) — The outgoing CIA director charged on Sunday that Donald Trump lacks a full understanding of the threat Moscow poses to the United States, delivering a public lecture to the president-elect that further highlighted the bitter state of Trump's relations with American intelligence agencies.

John Brennan's pointed message on national television came just five days before Trump becomes the nation's 45th president amid lingering questions about Russia's role in the 2016 election even as the focus shifts to the challenges of governing.

"Now that he's going to have an opportunity to do something for our national security as opposed to talking and tweeting, he's going to have tremendous responsibility to make sure that U.S. and national security interests are protected," Brennan said on "Fox News Sunday," warning that the president-elect's impulsivity could be dangerous.

"Spontaneity is not something that protects national security interests," Brennan declared.

Trump, who has unleashed a series of aggressive tweets against the U.S. intelligence community and his political rivals in recent weeks, responded aggressively on Twitter several hours later.
"Was this the leaker of Fake News?" Trump tweeted Sunday evening, referring to a recent document that contains unverified financial and personal information that could be damaging to the president-elect. The Associated Press has not been able to verify the contents of the document.

The president-elect remained behind closed doors in his Manhattan high rise Sunday. His team worked to answer questions about his plans at home and abroad once he's sworn into office on Friday.

Among Trump's immediate challenges: the United States' complicated relationship with Russia, crafting an affordable health care alternative that doesn't strip coverage from millions of Americans, and growing questions about the legitimacy of his presidency.

Without providing details, Trump promised his plan to replace the nation's health care law would provide universal coverage, according to a Washington Post interview published late Sunday.

"We're going to have insurance for everybody," he said. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."
Meanwhile, civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., is among several Democrats in Congress who vowed to skip Trump's inauguration, charging that Russian interference in the 2016 election delegitimizes his presidency.

"There will be many more members who join us in this decision," Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., wrote Saturday on his Facebook page.


Trump's lieutenants pushed back hard Sunday in a round of television interviews.

"I think it's incredibly disappointing and I think it's irresponsible for people like himself to question the legitimacy of the next United States president," incoming White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said of Lewis on ABC's "This Week," insisting that Republicans did not question the legitimacy of President Barack Obama's victory eight years ago. Vice President-elect Mike Pence said on "Fox News Sunday" that he hopes Lewis will change his mind and attend.

Priebus later acknowledged that conservatives — led by Trump himself — spent years questioning Obama's eligibility to serve as president, suggesting he was not born in the United States.
Trump has done little to encourage unity in recent days, instead inflaming tensions with his critics through a series of tweets. The incoming president tweeted Saturday that Lewis should pay more attention to his "crime ridden" Atlanta-area district, adding that the civil rights leader was "all talk."

Lewis suffered a fractured skull when he led a march in Selma, Alabama, more than a half century ago and has devoted his life to civil rights.

The current White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, said "Lewis has literally fought, ******* and gone to jail" during what he called his "remarkable life." He encouraged the incoming president to move past Lewis' criticism.

"That would be the kind of thing that would not only send a message to the American people that we're prepared to work together, but would also send a message to the Russians that we are united," McDonough said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Questions about Trump's relationship with Russia have dominated the days leading up to his inauguration.
Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is set to become Trump's national security adviser, has been in frequent contact with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. in recent weeks, including on the day the Obama administration hit Moscow with sanctions in retaliation for the alleged election hacking, a senior U.S. official said.

After initially denying the contact took place, Trump's team publicly acknowledged the conversations on Sunday.

"The conversations that took place at that time were not in any way related to the new U.S. sanctions against Russia or the expulsion of diplomats," said Vice President-elect Mike Pence, also in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday."

Repeated contacts just as Obama imposed sanctions would raise questions about whether Trump's team discussed — or even helped shape — Russia's response. Russian President Vladimir Putin unexpectedly did not retaliate against the U.S. for the sanctions or the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, a decision Trump quickly praised.

Trump has repeatedly called for a better relationship between the U.S. and Putin's government. He suggested in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday that he'd consider easing the latest sanctions on Russia.


"I think he has to be mindful that he does not have a full appreciation and understanding of what the implications are of going down that road," Brennan said.
 
hell everyone thinks the guy is fucking whacko.... but we have all to our selves... well us and Russia

Defiant EU nations ready themselves for Trump presidency
European Union nations bracing for the looming Donald Trump presidency showed defiance Monday in the face of the president-elect's stinging comments on everything from NATO and German cars to the crumbling of the EU itself.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the U.S. president-elect's view that NATO was obsolete and his criticism that European allied members aren't paying their fair share had "caused astonishment."

Trump also said Britain's decision to leave the 28-nation European Union would "end up being a great thing," and he predicted that other countries would also leave.

At a meeting of EU ministers, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said the best response to such comments was simple — "it is the unity of the Europeans."

In Berlin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted: "We Europeans have our fate in our own hands."

"I'm personally going to wait until the American president takes office, and then we will naturally work with him on all levels," she told reporters.

French President Francois Hollande was even more outspoken in his defiance.
Europe "has no need for outside advice to tell it what to do," Hollande said at a ceremony for outgoing U.S. ambassador in Paris Jane Hartley.

"Europe will always be willing to pursue trans-Atlantic cooperation, but it will base its decisions on its interests and its values," he added.

Some EU officials fear Trump's frequent, often acerbic Twitter postings might be the prelude to a caustic presidency after Friday's inauguration.

"We are going to move away from, I guess, a kind of Twitter diplomacy, and then into a reality," said Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen, adding that reality could be "perhaps more difficult than what is going on on Twitter."

EU foreign ministers were already worried what Trump might do beyond their continent. They came out against any plan by Trump to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and warned that it could ratchet up tensions with the Arab world.

"It is very important for us all to refrain from unilateral actions," EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said. "We hope that there can be reflection on consequences of any move that is taken," she said.
Although Trump had made similar statements about NATO during his election campaign, his recent comments still came as a bit of a surprise since his choice for defense secretary, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, stressed his support for the NATO military alliance in his U.S. congressional confirmation hearing last week.


Trump's views, in an interview published Monday with German daily Bild and The Times of London, contradict Mattis, Steinmeier said.

"If one compares the positions of the designated president and the future foreign and defense ministers, then one can't discern a common foreign policy line among the new U.S. government," he said.

There have even been fears the U.S. military commitment to Europe would wane under Trump. A German newspaper group reports that Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite has urged Trump to continue meeting the U.S.'s financial obligations toward the alliance.

"Since World War II, the presence of U.S. troops has been a prerequisite for rebuilding the continent, safeguarding peace and ensuring security," she told the RND network of some 30 German papers.

We expect continuity from the new U.S. administration. Trump must maintain this leadership role, to ensure security, stability and peace," she was quoted as saying.

Trump indicated he was indifferent to whether the EU stays together or not, a sharp break from the Obama administration, which encouraged British people to vote to remain in the EU in the June referendum.

"I believe others will leave ... I do think keeping it together is not gonna be as easy as a lot of people think," Trump said in the interview.

The British exit from the EU would "end up being a great thing," he said.

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said it's "very good news that the United States of America wants to do a good free trade deal with us and wants to do it very fast."

Trump was less kind to German industry officials, saying car manufacturers including BMW could face tariffs of up to 35 percent if they set up plants in Mexico instead of in the U.S. and try to export the cars to the U.S.

Such tariffs would make the American auto industry "worse, weaker and more expensive," Sigmar Gabriel, Germany's economy minister, told Bild.

Gabriel suggested Europeans should exhibit more self-confidence in dealing with Trump. "We're not weak and inferior," he said.

Whatever his goal, Trump's comments were strong enough to make him the talk of the town in European capitals.

"It is clear that we are discussing this issue all the time," Czech Foreign Minister Lubomir Zaoralek said at the EU meeting in Brussels.
 
wow, how wrong you are, northsb ... come on, there are a ton of charities these celebrities are involved in each year. To name a few ....
Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, Willie Nelson, Maria Shiver, Emmitt Smith, Kobe Bryant, Marlo Thomas, Gladys Knight, Dolly Partton, Steven Spielberg, Beyoncé, Chris Pratt, and who could forget Bill Gates? And bunches and bunches of Country & Western singers contribute to a ton of charities they host. These people raise millions andmillions a year for charities all over the US.​
Actually, you can google this and get a very long list of celebrities and their charities on the internet ... unlike Trump who sets up his charity then never contributes to it.
You should feel free, however, to contribute to any of them. I'm sure they'd appreciate it. :)
Of course I'm wrong because my opinion runs counter to the resident great mind of B2w. For those who you listed who are in Hollywood, which is who I am talking about, what they give is a drop in the bucket to what they earn. It also dosen't erase the fact that they work in an industry that is one of the most sexist, racist and least tolerant existing in our country.
 
It also dosen't erase the fact that they work in an industry that is one of the most sexist, racist and least tolerant existing in our country.
just a little slanted there aren't you?
you do know... they do not have to do or give anything.... they do it because they want to!.... how many big corp execs do you see giving or doing anything... can you come up with a list.. or even a couple names?... and yet they make far more
a lot of small biz has a charity of some type they support or get involved in... usually local... but it seems once the money level reaches a certain threshold... greed kicks in and they want it all and more
 
Of course I'm wrong because my opinion runs counter to the resident great mind of B2w. For those who you listed who are in Hollywood, which is who I am talking about, what they give is a drop in the bucket to what they earn. It also dosen't erase the fact that they work in an industry that is one of the most sexist, racist and least tolerant existing in our country.

The ONLY difference is they are Liberals. Corporations and other Rich individuals (Mark Cuban) give tons of cash to charities as well, many are the same charities. Like I stated before, Celebrities do it for PR, that is why it is assumed no one else contributes becasue it is not on the evening news. Hell even the Koch Brothers give millions to public television, National Geographic and other science channels as well as Science and Technology educations, BUT becasue they are not liberals the Koch brothers are pieces of ******* and Celebrities are GODs to be respected and trusted.

Somehow the millions that Warren Buffet makes off the backs of the working class is justified, but yet McDonalds are great sinners! It's the double standard of the liberal mind.
 
Hollywood. The Economy. Charity. Politics. These abstract labels are necessary because they allow us to think of them as monolithic entities. They aren't. We don't have the mental capacity to interpret the complexities found within the labels so we tend to assign the same behaviors and attitudes to all people and things contained in that label .

It's a very effective way to communicate and we employ it all the time successfully. It makes for sweeping statements and generalizations. We're impressed by those. My favorite line about Hollywood is "Show biz ******* makin' movies of themselves you know they don't give a fuck about anybody else" from Steely Dan. However, it is axiomatic that all show biz ******* do not think and act the same. None of us do.

That's a good thing, and one of the reasons this site exists. It should be obvious from this string that the members here don't think and act the same, but anyone on the outside looking this lifestyle will lump us all together. This sort of thinking reveals little; perhaps it's all we want.
 
Hollywood. The Economy. Charity. Politics
again... they don't have to!.... like I said earlier... name a company... well let me re-do that a lot of companies donate... strictly for tax reasons... but name a CEO who makes a lot more than a lot of celebs... that donates!
 
again... they don't have to!.... like I said earlier... name a company... well let me re-do that a lot of companies donate... strictly for tax reasons... but name a CEO who makes a lot more than a lot of celebs... that donates!
Bill Gates Elon Musk Mark Zuckerberg The Koch Brothers ceo's are not exceptional givers for the most part. The percentages for any umbrella label like ceo are going to follow a bell curve. Any group you sample will. Most people declare their donations.
 
Bill Gates Elon Musk Mark Zuckerberg The Koch Brothers ceo's are not exceptional givers for the most part.
....Really, micki? Let's see, to date Bill & Melinda Gates have given OVER $28,000,000,000 (that's billion with a B) to charities ... and holds the record for the largest single donation to a charity of $500,000,000. Their Bill & Melinda Foundation is the largest transparently run private foundation in the world, and their foundation is global.
....The others you mention have and are giving sizable donations as well, but I'm not going to waste my time on such blanket type comments aimed solely at discrediting those who give the most to charities. I haven't a clue what their motivations are for these large donations ... you can say "to avoid taxes" if you wish, but once you reach the status of billionaire, the size of donations is irrelevant to them for the most part. Plus, you don't know that is their reason for giving substantial amounts to charities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...have-no-use-for-money.-This-is-Gods-work.html
 
Bill Gates Elon Musk Mark Zuckerberg The Koch Brothers ceo's are not exceptional givers for the most part. The percentages for any umbrella label like ceo are going to follow a bell curve. Any group you sample will. Most people declare their donations.

Yep, like I said. as long as it is a Liberal billionaire - It's OK. Their Billions will always be justifiable.

(2014 data) here are 10 and for the uneducated, a business owner is and can be a CEO
Only one man donated more than $1 billion to charity this year, and that man was Warren Buffett.

He may only be the world’s second richest man behind Microsoft MSFT, -0.39% co-founder Bill Gates. But Buffett, 84, topped the list as the most generous man in the world, according to private wealth consultancy Wealth-X, which released the Top 10 most generous donations of the year. He gave $2.1 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in the form of 16.6 million shares of his company, Berkshire Hathaway

Warren Buffett
Chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway [edit: just want to point out CEO is Chief Executive Officer]
Donation: $2.1 billion (3% of net worth)
Individual donation
Net worth: $66.9 billion
Recipient: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Nicholas Woodman
Founder of camera company GoPro
Donation: $497.5 million (10% of net worth)
Donation with spouse
Net worth: $4.4 billion
Recipient: Silicon Valley Community Foundation

Ronnie Chan
Hong Kong real estate developer
Donation: $175 million (10% of net worth)
Individual donation
Net worth: $1.5 billion
Recipient: Harvard University

Gerald Chan
Hong Kong investor and developer
Donation: $175 million (12% of net worth)
Individual donation
Net worth: $1.3 billion
Recipient: Harvard University

Kenneth Griffin
Hedge fund manager
Donation: $150 million (3% of net worth)
Individual donation
Net worth: $5.5 billion
Recipient: Harvard University

Gert Boyle
Chairperson of Columbia Sportswear
Donation: $100 million (16% of net worth)
Individual donation
Net worth: $540 million
Recipient: Oregon Health & Science University

John Morgridge
Former CEO and chairman of Cisco Systems
Donation: $100 million (6% of net worth)
Donation with spouse
Net worth: $1.5 billion
Recipient: University of Wisconsin-Madison

John “Jay” Jordan
Private equity investor
Donation: $75 million (21% of net worth)
Individual donation
Net worth: $290 million
Recipient: University of Notre Dame

Edward Meyer
Former CEO and chairman of Grey Global Group
Donation: $75 million (9% of net worth)
Donation with spouse
Net worth: $740 million
Recipient: Weill Cornell Medical College

Charles Munger
Vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway
Donation: $65 million (6% of net worth)
Individual donation
Net worth: $1.1 billion
Recipient: University of California Santa Barbara

Here is one on the "evil" Koch brothers
http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/Koch-Brothers-Philanthropy-Reid/2014/03/21/id/560986/

In conclusion - Basing an argument to justify Celebrities and other liberals "billions" based on their charity donation is simply stupid. If you are going to condemn the top 1%, you must include ALL OF THEM. I would much rather condition society not to need charities.
 
....Really, micki? Let's see, to date Bill & Melinda Gates have given OVER $28,000,000,000 (that's billion with a B) to charities ... and holds the record for the largest single donation to a charity of $500,000,000. Their Bill & Melinda Foundation is the largest transparently run private foundation in the world, and their foundation is global.
....The others you mention have and are giving sizable donations as well, but I'm not going to waste my time on such blanket type comments aimed solely at discrediting those who give the most to charities. I haven't a clue what their motivations are for these large donations ... you can say "to avoid taxes" if you wish, but once you reach the status of billionaire, the size of donations is irrelevant to them for the most part. Plus, you don't know that is their reason for giving substantial amounts to charities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...have-no-use-for-money.-This-is-Gods-work.html
I don't give to avoid taxes. I give because I want to. Don't you? Isn't that what bill gates does? You misquoted me. I didn't say "to avoid taxes". And how would you know what is relevant to a billionaire unless you are one? Declaring giving is like declaring depreciation; no one buys a car to declare the depreciation, but they do declare it.

You have also misinterpreted what i wrote when you respond that mine is a blanket comment about those who give most to charity. I think everyone should be as generous and committed as bill and melinda gates.
What i said, rephrased, was that people as a group all give in a statistically measurable manner, and ceos and the 1% are people groups. Rich people are not the exception to a bell curve; some give more, some give less, others not al all.
TwoBiFour asked for the name of one ceo that makes more than celebs and donates, and i gave him four. They are exceptional in the amount they give, but that wasn't what he asked for. They are not exceptional as far as the number of ceos who give, and he wanted a number, one ceo.

Declaring giving on your taxes is simple and commonplace; what i said is also simple. I haven't taken a side in this; is it necessary for you to assign me one in order to respond? Im not being liberal or conservative, or for or against the rich or hollywood. You have disagreed with me without cause. I am saying that humans are very, very complicated. I'm saying that groups act in specific ways statistically. I'm saying that generalizations about individuals based on the group are invalid.
 
I still think he is nothing more than a Russian plant!... can't keep his lies straight now

Tape shows Trump contradicting himself (again) on Putin meeting

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump (Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Sergei Ilnitsky/Pool via AP, Evan Vucci/AP )

President-elect Donald Trump told a radio interviewer in October 2015 that he had met Vladimir Putin “one time … a long time ago” and that he “got along with him great” — a statement that conflicts with his later denials during the campaign that he had ever met or spoken with the Russian president.

The newly surfaced audio tape, uncovered by a political opposition-research group, could fuel new questions about the precise nature of Trump’s past relations with the Russian president—a subject about which he has made multiple contradictory comments. It was released just hours after Putin, speaking from Moscow, denounced officials in the Obama administration as “worse than prostitutes” for circulating “nonsense” personal allegations about Trump that were allegedly collected by Russian intelligence.

On the newly uncovered audio tape, released by the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, Trump discusses Putin with conservative radio host Michael Savage, telling him “it’s wonderful” that the Russians were “really hitting ISIS hard” in Syria.

“Have you ever met Vladimir Putin?” Savage asks.
Yes,” Trump answers, emphatically.

“You have?” Savage follows up.

“Yes, a long time ago. We got along great, by the way.”

Savage then asked, “If you win the presidency, do you feel you can do business with Vladimir?”

“Yes, I do. I think I would get along very well. I had the Miss Universe pageant, believe it or not, in Moscow two years ago. I got many of the Russian leaders, the top people in Russia, honestly. … These are people, they are looking to do things.”

Trump’s responses to Savage add to the confusing, flatly contradictory comments the president-elect has made about his past dealings with the Russian president. While in Moscow during the Miss Universe content, Trump gave an interview to MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts — who was co-hosting the event — in which, when asked whether he had a “relationship” with Putin, he replied: “I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he’s very interested in what we’re doing here today.” He later said in a National Press Club speech in November 2015 that while in Moscow for the Miss Universe contest: “I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer.”
But later, when repeatedly pressed last July 31 by ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, Trump gave a very different answer about Putin. “I’ve never met him,” Trump said then. “I have no relationship with Putin. I don’t think I’ve ever met him. I never met him. … I mean if he’s in the same room or something. But I don’t think so.”

“You’ve never spoken to him on the phone?” Stephanopoulos followed up.

“I have never spoken to him on the phone, no,” Trump replied. “Well, I don’t know what it means by having a relationship. I mean he was saying very good things about me, but I don’t have a relationship with him. I didn’t meet him. I haven’t spent time with him. I didn’t have dinner with him. I didn’t go hiking with him. I don’t know — and I wouldn’t know him from Adam except I see his picture and I would know what he looks like.”

During the Stephanopoulos interview, Trump sought to clarify comments he made about Putin during a November 2015debateFox Business channel. In the debate, when discussing Putin and the Ukraine crisis, Trump said, “I got to know him [Putin] very well because we were both on 60 Minutes. We were stablemates, and we did very well that night.”

In the Stephanopoulos interview, Trump explained what he meant. “We did ’60 Minutes’ together,” Trump said. “By the way, not together-together, meaning he was probably shot in Moscow. … And I was shot in New York.”
Trump’s comments prompted Politifact, the fact-checking website, to give Trump a “full flop” last August for his comments about Putin. The surfacing of the Savage audio seemingly adds to the confusion. Its discovery comes just a few days after the Senate Intelligence Committee announced it will be conducting a full-scale investigation — including the use of subpoeanas — into the Russian hacking of the election, including “any intelligence” about “links” between the Russian government and any political campaigns in the United States.

A spokesman for the Trump transition did not respond to a request for comment.
 
You're right, they are owners. my bad, but your list is great. go warren!
well looks like we both were wrong... some... I knew Buffet gave away a ton of money... but he is owner... and doesn't do it for a tax write off... and gates I think has some thing going somewhere in Africa trying to fix their water problem.. just one of the many things he does... but he is owner and not doing it for a tax write off... I saw a special on some of them and the good they do.... and it's not for a tax write off... I'm sure there are a few that give out of goodness... but the majority send their money "elsewhere"
I saw a long time ago Buffet was on Larry king... and he is not giving his sons any of his money... although one is already on his way to being wealthy anyway... and the other manages his foundation... who knows what the pay is... but anyway giving it all away
I think Zuckenburg? or whatever is doing pretty much the same thing... I saw a thing on him also on the same program... but can't remember where he pumps money into
 
well looks like we both were wrong... some... I knew Buffet gave away a ton of money... but he is owner... and doesn't do it for a tax write off... and gates I think has some thing going somewhere in Africa trying to fix their water problem.. just one of the many things he does... but he is owner and not doing it for a tax write off... I saw a special on some of them and the good they do.... and it's not for a tax write off... I'm sure there are a few that give out of goodness... but the majority send their money "elsewhere"
I saw a long time ago Buffet was on Larry king... and he is not giving his sons any of his money... although one is already on his way to being wealthy anyway... and the other manages his foundation... who knows what the pay is... but anyway giving it all away
I think Zuckenburg? or whatever is doing pretty much the same thing... I saw a thing on him also on the same program... but can't remember where he pumps money into
I was surprised when i read that Buffet wasn't leaving his sons any money. He's probably been as generous with them as he is with others. generosity takes a lot of forms. Maybe his attitude is to say spit the silver spoons out, boys, time to work. I couldn't agree more; i love to work. Accomplishment can be a huge part of satisfaction.
 
Back
Top