Do you think this signals real shifts in his policy, or is it simply because he tends to change his opinion often and on many issues?
From what people - that are not from the Trump camp - are reporting about his behaviour against the heads of press recently - there is only little hope
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But the people Trump hires for his administration are a mix of those more moderate (UN ambasador) and more right wing (Bannon) than many had hoped/feared. It looks like he wants to make all parts of the Republican party happy. There is a tradisjon to have one cabinet minister from the oposition party, often the minister of defense. Will Trump do this, and will any Democrat accept?
But the people Trump hires for his administration are a mix of those more moderate (UN ambasador) and more right wing (Bannon) than many had hoped/feared. It looks like he wants to make all parts of the Republican party happy. There is a tradisjon to have one cabinet minister from the oposition party, often the minister of defense. Will Trump do this, and will any Democrat accept?
For Trump to prove he wants to be a president for all Amercans, he needs a more diverse cabinet that represents America: women, African-Americans, Muslims, Jews, Latinos, and yes, a Democrat. This is where Trump has the ability to show that he cares about different groups of people. A cabinet of all white Christian men would be disappointing.
Trump has a huge potential when it comes to exceeding expectations, he has that going for him. In many ways the oposite of what Obama started with. The expectstions to him were impossible to meet.
It's strangly comforting to see Donald Trump acting like himself again. Now he claims he would have gotten the highest number of votes if the "millions" of illigal votes are deducted. The proof? - because he said so )
It's strangly comforting to see Donald Trump acting like himself again. Now he claims he would have gotten the highest number of votes if the "millions" of illigal votes are deducted. The proof? - because he said so )
He also said he won the electoral vote by a landslide.
1. They don't actually VOTE until Dec. 19th.
2. I was unaware that a few % constituted a landslide.
8-)
It's strangly comforting to see Donald Trump acting like himself again. Now he claims he would have gotten the highest number of votes if the "millions" of illigal votes are deducted. The proof? - because he said so )
"The Clinton foundation discloses all of its donors, and, as Chelsea Clinton noted, it is now doing so more frequently as Hillary Clinton is running for president. That's more than other presidential libraries and foundations.
The George W. Bush Foundation, which has assets totaling $391 million, lists just corporate backers with no amounts attached. It raised just $37 million in 2013."
The obvious difference is that George W. Bush was neither holding nor running for public office in 2013.
Today I find that Trump was actually the best choice. With Obama proving himself to be a loss (TPP, endless drone killing, and NOW the sanctioned violence against Native Americans ON THEIR OWN SOIL), Hillary would have been just more of the same. They made sure Bernie was sidelined, so no revolution from the top down. Now Trump will basically make the poor MORE miserable, the armed citizens MORE angry and the police MORE emboldened to use excessive force... Yes, Trump will precipitate our civil war (pt. II) and we will get revolution from the bottom up. The 1% is forcing it, and they will not enjoy what's to come....
Today I find that Trump was actually the best choice. With Obama proving himself to be a loss (TPP, endless drone killing, and NOW the sanctioned violence against Native Americans ON THEIR OWN SOIL), Hillary would have been just more of the same. They made sure Bernie was sidelined, so no revolution from the top down. Now Trump will basically make the poor MORE miserable, the armed citizens MORE angry and the police MORE emboldened to use excessive force... Yes, Trump will precipitate our civil war (pt. II) and we will get revolution from the bottom up. The 1% is forcing it, and they will not enjoy what's to come....
You should head down to Cuba. I hear there's a vacancy in the Department of Rhetoric!
Today I find that Trump was actually the best choice. With Obama proving himself to be a loss (TPP, endless drone killing, and NOW the sanctioned violence against Native Americans ON THEIR OWN SOIL), Hillary would have been just more of the same. They made sure Bernie was sidelined, so no revolution from the top down. Now Trump will basically make the poor MORE miserable, the armed citizens MORE angry and the police MORE emboldened to use excessive force... Yes, Trump will precipitate our civil war (pt. II) and we will get revolution from the bottom up. The 1% is forcing it, and they will not enjoy what's to come....
You should head down to Cuba. I hear there's a vacancy in the Department of Rhetoric!
Sorry, I was just reading about Standing Rock's current situation... don't post angry, I guess.
Today I find that Trump was actually the best choice. With Obama proving himself to be a loss (TPP, endless drone killing, and NOW the sanctioned violence against Native Americans ON THEIR OWN SOIL), Hillary would have been just more of the same. They made sure Bernie was sidelined, so no revolution from the top down. Now Trump will basically make the poor MORE miserable, the armed citizens MORE angry and the police MORE emboldened to use excessive force... Yes, Trump will precipitate our civil war (pt. II) and we will get revolution from the bottom up. The 1% is forcing it, and they will not enjoy what's to come....
You should head down to Cuba. I hear there's a vacancy in the Department of Rhetoric!
Sorry, I was just reading about Standing Rock's current situation... don't post angry, I guess.
I wasn't suggesting that you apologize, chris -- just having a bit of fun. I agree with you that the Standing Rock situation is upsetting.
The standing rock situation is a complete disgrace, and typical of big business bulldozing everything aside including the law to get the result they need, local judges and law enforcement can't be trusted I'm many cases. The little people who remain largely unrepresented are simply brushed aside and their rights further diminished. It's incredibly sad, I can't see trump giving two hours for the plight of the sioux, to him a profit trumps historical sacred sites of native Americans.
President Obama: That's it! I have to do something about Standing Rock! Vice President Biden: I'll make the calls. Non-descript Shadow-y dude walking in: Now now, you wouldn't want your last act as President to affect your safety, or your girl's... Obama: I'll have you- Dude: What? Arrested? Disappeared? Do it sir. And then do not weep at the results of your action. But you may live with your inaction.... *Maniacal laugh ensues*
I'd like to come back to the corruption accusations against the Clinton Foundation as there was a long article recently in my favorite new portal, Spiegel.
@N 24, can you give any details about the Norwegian contribution to the Clinton Foundation?
Which Norwegian organisation has contributed, since when and for which purpose? Do we have any information why the money has been cut?
I am just asking because recently there have been accusations against the german government having done contributed to the Clinton Foundation as well and a lot of research has gone into it.
The results are:
In general NGOs (non governmental organisations) are preferred against GOs because they are far more efficient and don't support governmental corruption in 3rd world countries. So the question why foreign NGOs are supported instead of the countries directly is replied.
German government says that the application process for the recent donation has started in 2013 and has started in 2014 and it project-related and not a general contribution. And they say that many national governments are acting like that with fixed milestones and checks if the projects are going into the right direction.
Due to their nature these projects are time-limited. Once the project has ended, the contributions stop.
So, the contributions from Norway to the Clinton Trust may be explained easy without "bad smell" - this is just another example how real life is much more complex than bold oneliners may imply.
And it still stands:
The Clinton Foundation is one of the largest and most effective chariable organisations and has done a LOT for the good of people in the country and in other countries.
The Clinton Foundation may have made mistakes in the past, but there is no evidence for corruption and the Clinton Foundation is far more open and transparent than most of the other Foundations and Trusts.
If anybody is interested in the mentioned article, it's here.
I'd like to come back to the corruption accusations against the Clinton Foundation as there was a long article recently in my favorite new portal, Spiegel.
@N 24, can you give any details about the Norwegian contribution to the Clinton Foundation?
Which Norwegian organisation has contributed, since when and for which purpose? Do we have any information why the money has been cut?
I am just asking because recently there have been accusations against the german government having done contributed to the Clinton Foundation as well and a lot of research has gone into it.
The results are:
In general NGOs (non governmental organisations) are preferred against GOs because they are far more efficient and don't support governmental corruption in 3rd world countries. So the question why foreign NGOs are supported instead of the countries directly is replied.
German government says that the application process for the recent donation has started in 2013 and has started in 2014 and it project-related and not a general contribution. And they say that many national governments are acting like that with fixed milestones and checks if the projects are going into the right direction.
Due to their nature these projects are time-limited. Once the project has ended, the contributions stop.
So, the contributions from Norway to the Clinton Trust may be explained easy without "bad smell" - this is just another example how real life is much more complex than bold oneliners may imply.
And it still stands:
The Clinton Foundation is one of the largest and most effective chariable organisations and has done a LOT for the good of people in the country and in other countries.
The Clinton Foundation may have made mistakes in the past, but there is no evidence for corruption and the Clinton Foundation is far more open and transparent than most of the other Foundations and Trusts.
If anybody is interested in the mentioned article, it's here.
The Norwegian state has given money to the Clinton Foundation (CF) for years, at least since 2007. Norway has a foreign aid budget of roughly 1% of our GDP, and it's channeled through many NGO's. Since we give so much money to foreign aid, we have a pretty good system to check if the money is well spent and reaches the intended projects.
The money to CF was given to support spesific development and environmental projects, as far as I can see. There was some criticism because Norway has a number of "main cooperation countries". These are countries where we focus all our foreign aid to, because it's more efficient and transparent this way. But also countries outside the main cooperation countries benefited from the money to CF, and this is not according to official guidelines.
There has been a dozen meetings between the Clintons and Norwegian PM's and Foreign Ministers since 2007, but
the sums given to CF were tripled after a meeting between Foreign Minister Børge Brende and Bill Clinton in 2014.
The total sum of money from the Norwegian government to CF is more than 76 million US dollars. Only Saudi Arabia and Australia gave more. If the payments were made to get access to the presumed future US president, this seems strange. All three countries are close allies that get the meetings they need with any US administration. If the sysstem worked the way some say, other countries would benefit far more than these three.
From 2007 to 2013 the payments to CF were roughly five million USD annually. In 2014 it rose to about 15 million USD and more than 20 million in 2015. This year the paymets are back to nearly five million.
Not that I can find. The only project I can find any mention of is one that involves changing large diesel generators into renewable power sources in poor island nations.
The money was given to Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) and Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), two organisations that are parts of the Clinton Foundation. The Norwegian Department of Foreign Affairs say all the money were given to individual projects to support the health of children and women and to stop climate change.
"Bill Clinton was serving as the U.N. special envoy for Haiti, and after the quake he helped lead the Clinton-BushHaiti Fund and a key Haitian reconstruction commission, in addition to helping oversee the relief work of the Clinton Foundation there."
A charitable project in one of the poorest and most catastrophe affected * countries "at best, had mixed results".
What exactly have the Clintons done wrong?
Where is the corruption and where is the evidence?
And much more importantly - what will Trump or your libertarian hero ( who believes in capitalism and market only) do better for Haiti?
*But you don't believe in climate change, eh? :v
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The new Secretary of Defence seems competent and sane. He is experienced and he's against torture. 15 years ago this would be obvious, but sadly not anymore
Comments
From what people - that are not from the Trump camp - are reporting about his behaviour against the heads of press recently - there is only little hope
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
For Trump to prove he wants to be a president for all Amercans, he needs a more diverse cabinet that represents America: women, African-Americans, Muslims, Jews, Latinos, and yes, a Democrat. This is where Trump has the ability to show that he cares about different groups of people. A cabinet of all white Christian men would be disappointing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada
1. They don't actually VOTE until Dec. 19th.
2. I was unaware that a few % constituted a landslide.
8-)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Here's the actual link to the article you're talking about: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38126438
It sounds like Trump should be funding the recount.
The obvious difference is that George W. Bush was neither holding nor running for public office in 2013.
Are you sitting down? Well, I think it sounds sensible ...
Point missed again 8-) by a mile or two -{
I guess that you only notice what you want to see - hopeless case imo, not worth any furter discussion
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yep.
On Dalton we disagree; on most else we see eye to eye.... -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
One day, you will be on your knees admitting that I am always right!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO1kcRYemic
President Obama: That's it! I have to do something about Standing Rock!
Vice President Biden: I'll make the calls.
Non-descript Shadow-y dude walking in: Now now, you wouldn't want your last act as President to affect your safety, or your girl's...
Obama: I'll have you-
Dude: What? Arrested? Disappeared? Do it sir. And then do not weep at the results of your action. But you may live with your inaction....
*Maniacal laugh ensues*
?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
@N 24, can you give any details about the Norwegian contribution to the Clinton Foundation?
Which Norwegian organisation has contributed, since when and for which purpose? Do we have any information why the money has been cut?
I am just asking because recently there have been accusations against the german government having done contributed to the Clinton Foundation as well and a lot of research has gone into it.
The results are:
In general NGOs (non governmental organisations) are preferred against GOs because they are far more efficient and don't support governmental corruption in 3rd world countries. So the question why foreign NGOs are supported instead of the countries directly is replied.
German government says that the application process for the recent donation has started in 2013 and has started in 2014 and it project-related and not a general contribution. And they say that many national governments are acting like that with fixed milestones and checks if the projects are going into the right direction.
Due to their nature these projects are time-limited. Once the project has ended, the contributions stop.
So, the contributions from Norway to the Clinton Trust may be explained easy without "bad smell" - this is just another example how real life is much more complex than bold oneliners may imply.
And it still stands:
The Clinton Foundation is one of the largest and most effective chariable organisations and has done a LOT for the good of people in the country and in other countries.
The Clinton Foundation may have made mistakes in the past, but there is no evidence for corruption and the Clinton Foundation is far more open and transparent than most of the other Foundations and Trusts.
If anybody is interested in the mentioned article, it's here.
https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fpolitik%2Fdeutschland%2Fclinton-stiftung-keine-deutschen-gelder-fuer-den-us-wahlkampf-a-1123745.html&edit-text=&act=url
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The money to CF was given to support spesific development and environmental projects, as far as I can see. There was some criticism because Norway has a number of "main cooperation countries". These are countries where we focus all our foreign aid to, because it's more efficient and transparent this way. But also countries outside the main cooperation countries benefited from the money to CF, and this is not according to official guidelines.
There has been a dozen meetings between the Clintons and Norwegian PM's and Foreign Ministers since 2007, but
the sums given to CF were tripled after a meeting between Foreign Minister Børge Brende and Bill Clinton in 2014.
The total sum of money from the Norwegian government to CF is more than 76 million US dollars. Only Saudi Arabia and Australia gave more. If the payments were made to get access to the presumed future US president, this seems strange. All three countries are close allies that get the meetings they need with any US administration. If the sysstem worked the way some say, other countries would benefit far more than these three.
From 2007 to 2013 the payments to CF were roughly five million USD annually. In 2014 it rose to about 15 million USD and more than 20 million in 2015. This year the paymets are back to nearly five million.
Is there any informations which projects have been funded attidionally in 2014 and 2015 (to explain the increases) and if and why those ended in 2016?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The money was given to Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) and Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), two organisations that are parts of the Clinton Foundation. The Norwegian Department of Foreign Affairs say all the money were given to individual projects to support the health of children and women and to stop climate change.
If you hear more about it, I'd appreciated to be informed.
{[] {[] {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sure, it's a seemingly endless discussion.
In Haiti, a Factory Where Big Money, State Department and the Clintons Meet
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/haiti-factory-big-money-state-department-clintons-meet/story?id=42729714
"Bill Clinton was serving as the U.N. special envoy for Haiti, and after the quake he helped lead the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund and a key Haitian reconstruction commission, in addition to helping oversee the relief work of the Clinton Foundation there."
A charitable project in one of the poorest and most catastrophe affected * countries "at best, had mixed results".
What exactly have the Clintons done wrong?
Where is the corruption and where is the evidence?
And much more importantly - what will Trump or your libertarian hero ( who believes in capitalism and market only) do better for Haiti?
*But you don't believe in climate change, eh? :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!