Wikileaks releases evidence, not sources. Its also willing to show you the evidence too unlike with guardian. I see the parallel now but its not quite the same when you release emails that have verifiable time stamps and web addresses.

i agree they're not the same, which is why anon sources aren't INHERENTLY an issue.

Did the Trump Administration Take Land from the Tribe That Welcomed the Pilgrims?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-wampanoag-land/

Thats fucking disgusting.

this has been stated quite a bit lately. it's also false due to different aspects for your different points.

Khashoggi- intelligence is still on-going and numerous people known to be involved have been apprehended, if not already sentenced. you are confusing turkish intelligence with ours, which i believe is in arabic, so everyone is going off transcripts of it.
our intelligence is not finished in regards to the rulers of sand and oil. although i'd like to clarify that it is very possible it could be swept under the rug or covered-up.

climate change- this recent report from the NCA was it? had very different extremes and are only pushing the worst case scenario. doubt about the worst case scenario isn't truly doubting findings at a whole.
although i'm reading about numerous flaws in the system of "modeling" as a whole. i will not claim they cannot be accurate within margin, but the rather large gap in projections gives a hint. i do trust that climate change is an issue. i do not trust the worst case scenario.

russian interference- now this is tricky because of how you stated it. this idea spawned from a loaded question he responded to at the Helsinki meeting. i have a thread i half-ass covered about that already.
people keep confusing the use of interference and collusion. i can 100% guarantee there was interference as you stated, i do not believe trump believes otherwise. russia is not the only country that did this though, and the republican party was not the only party that had help from outside interests.
the only reason russia is being brought into this claim is because of alleged "collusion" itself. which you would need to link me something solid for me to believe, especially at this point.

i know some of you are talking about Q now. but idk, i thought it was just a meme until yesterday. at least i think it's not a meme now.

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Nov 28 2018 06:35pm

I don't think that's true.

He understands how tenuous Saudi Arabia's security is, and how catastrophic a collapse would be. MBS is their defacto leader, destabilizing him is not in American interests. Put him on a short leash? Sure, but Saudi Arabia is a linchpin in the Middle East. The regime's collapse would be cataclysmically worse than the disintegration of Iraq.

nvm

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Nov 28 2018 06:57pm

how tortured do the facts have to be for you to latch onto them? Would it be unthinkable for you to find a legitimate grievance and focus on that? Why do you need to find the most absurd examples of dumbthink to post. I mean, its like you're going out of your way to find the most absurd connect-the-dots stretches of logic to make mango man look bad. The idea that some tribe named the Wampanoag 400 years ago greeted pilgrims has some bearing on anyone alive today is already idiotic. And as the article you linked points out, contrary to its own ruling of 'true', the land was not 'taken away' from the tribe, but was never given to the tribe, and this wasn't changed by Trump because it a court decision had already halted the process under Obama because it wasn't the federal government's land to give. So nothing changed.

Furthermore, what article completely fails to identify is the actual reason for the legal dispute: The tribe wants to build a $1 billion casino on that land, and this is nothing more than a dispute over state taxes and exploiting the legal code for real estate like Donald Trump does. The state estimates it would suffer tens of millions of lost taxes per year. Did you have some mental image of poor innocent savages sitting around teepees and campfires shaking their eagle feathers? They're businessmen seeking to build a casino exempt from state & federal regulations. And because the land was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed, the supreme court ruling in Carcieri v. Salazar 2009 holds that their lands cannot be placed into a trust by the federal government like Obama was trying to do. The supreme court already ruled on that exact issue, Obama was powerless to overturn it, and then Trump stopped the attempt to circumvent Carcieri via the precedent in Patchak v. Zinke. The difference being that the state sure as hell doesn't want those lands placed in a trust in this case.

Oh, i see... I see.
Maybe you could directly send it to Snopes if you think their statement is wrong, they need your lights !

These sad natives, always lying and trying to steal lands.

/e i read all i promise
/e2 and opening casinos without paying taxes, injustice.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Nov 28 2018 08:05pm

We should just bomb Saudi Arabia's desal plnts and kill them off for good. If we're going to violate human rights across the globe the least we can do is make that county's population drop dead from dehydration. Give the oil fields to Exxon or something. Who fucking cares.

It is true. The CIA concluded with "high confidence" that the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi was ordered by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The President said: “They didn’t conclude. No, no, they didn’t conclude. I’m sorry. No, they didn’t conclude. They did not come to a conclusion. They have feelings certain ways. I have the report … they have not concluded, I don’t know if anyone’s going to be able to conclude the crown prince did it.”

Trump disputes the CIA's conclusions.

The point you are making doesn't address whether the President believes the CIA or not but rather whether it makes geopolitical sense to punish Saudi Arabia given their power and influence in the Middle East. Which is a fair conversation to have in itself is, but is separate from whether the President believes his country's own intelligence.

It's possible to believe the CIA's conclusions and also take Trump's soft stance toward Saudi Arabia. Instead, he's disputing the CIA's report to help defend his administration's soft stance.