[AMV] Amerikaanse verkiezingen voorbij 2016 #234

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:29 schreef monkyyy het volgende:

[..]

Sarcasme. Dat Trump hier zo hard op ingaat en gewoon feiten gaat ontkennen is dom.

Maar geef toe, het is wel weer typisch Trump. Een nieuwskanaal vergelijkt de opkomst per inauguratie en meteen wordt er tegengas gegeven door Trump en z´n team omdat ze denken dat het gezichtsverlies oplevert omdat Trump niet de grootste/beste zou zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:31 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Nee hoor ook in de westerse wereld willen ze liever Assad dan die koppenhakkers. Maar mag ik nog een voorbeeld van mijn positie over vrouwen en andersdenkende mensen?

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:33 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Het gaat hier nog steeds over de Amerikaanse verkiezingen, niet over irrelevante fok users.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:35 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt het in de verkeerde context gepakt Hebben ze geen gelijke rechten dan? Vrouwen zijn gewoon even gelijk tenminste hier in Nederland wel ik weet niet waar jij vandaan komt Wel hypocriet toch om niet aandacht te geven aan de vrouwen die echt lijden door onderdrukking in Afrika, Azië en het midden oosten. Dat vind ik veel belangrijker dan wat deze vrouwen hier te zeggen hebben. Ze schreeuwen moord en brand maar er is niets aan de hand. Aandacht zoeken vind ik dat. Maar nu over naar je andere argument, hoe is mijn positie tegenover andersdenkenden dan?

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:32 schreef Xa1pt het volgende:

[..]

Nee, je bent inderdaad heel tolerant t.a.v. homo's en transgenders bijvoorbeeld.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:35 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt het in de verkeerde context gepakt Hebben ze geen gelijke rechten dan? Vrouwen zijn gewoon even gelijk tenminste hier in Nederland wel ik weet niet waar jij vandaan komt Wel hypocriet toch om niet aandacht te geven aan de vrouwen die echt lijden door onderdrukking in Afrika, Azië en het midden oosten. Dat vind ik veel belangrijker dan wat deze vrouwen hier te zeggen hebben. Ze schreeuwen moord en brand maar er is niets aan de hand. Aandacht zoeken vind ik dat. Maar nu over naar je andere argument, hoe is mijn positie tegenover andersdenkenden dan?

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:36 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

VOORBEELDEN. Sarcastische opmerkingen is geen waarheid.

En ik vind homo's en transgenders ook gewoon mensen hoor en wat ze doen in hun huis etc dat interesseert mij helemaal geen reet dus waar doel je nou op? Intolerante mensen zoals jij echt...

quote:

Op vrijdag 23 december 2016 18:34 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Als je met een lul geboren wordt ben je een man klaar. Daar is geen woord Chinees bij. ER ZIJN MAAR 2 GENDERS.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:37 schreef monkyyy het volgende:
Gaat deze reeks trouwens dicht en wordt er een nieuwe reeks gemaakt over Trump?

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:24 schreef vigen98 het volgende:
En mij ultrarechts noemen Trouwens ben semi conservatief naar mijn mening

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:38 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Oké je hebt je kleuren wel duidelijk gemaakt. Jouw ''feiten'' bestaan niet uit feiten maar uit gevoelens. Succes verder in de wereld want die is keihard en niet zo roze kleurig zoals jij het ziet

Verder heb je ook geen bewijs geleverd van jouw accusaties tegenover mij maar ik had ook niets anders verwacht wanneer je zit te liegen over mij.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:40 schreef bluemoon23 het volgende:

[..]

Iedereen die rechts van de PvdA is, wordt op Fok al gauw ultra rechts of extreem rechts genoemd.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:40 schreef bluemoon23 het volgende:

[..]

Iedereen die rechts van de PvdA is, wordt op Fok al gauw ultra rechts of extreem rechts genoemd.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:40 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Euhm ja? Probeer je nou serieus te zeggen dat zoiets een leugen is? Het is een biologische feit. Mijn God als je dat als intolerant vindt tegenover transgenders dan ben jij niet zo goed in het beoordelen wat intolerant is.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:42 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

Ja, die massale PvdA-aanhangers hier verpesten het voor iedereen

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:44 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Het was toch echt jij die nee zei toen ik vroeg om bewijs Waarom zo defensief opeens dan? Je schets een incorrect beeld van mij en dat pik ik niet. Ik zit toch ook niet af te beelden als een communist/marxist? Je noemt mij vervolgens fundamentalist op ongegronde argumenten ( die je trouwens niet had ) Maar hoe ben ik een fundamentalist dan? Je hebt het nog niet echt duidelijk gemaakt hoe ik dat ben...

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:44 schreef bluemoon23 het volgende:

[..]

Jij bent anders aardig op dreef in dit topic met trollen en framen.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:48 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Hoe heb ik dat geuit dan? Is het simpel zeggen dat je christen bent genoeg om een fundi te zijn in jouw belevenis?

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:49 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Wat heb ik denigrerend gezegd over vrouwen dan?

quote:

Op zaterdag 21 januari 2017 17:30 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Vrouwen in het westen zijn puur trash.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:53 schreef monkyyy het volgende:

[..]


[..]

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:58 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Maak dat de kat wijs!!

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 02:02 schreef vigen98 het volgende:

[..]

Nounounou. Niet zo denigrerend doen he, dat is immers racistisch aangezien ik niet van een blanke afkomst ben he.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 01:31 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Dergelijke zaken zijn niet afhankelijk van een speech. Dat is gewoon anticiperen op de sentimenten die Trump al tijden propageert. Mexico slecht, Rusland goed. Ik betwijfel of het verstandig is. Afgezien van de Republikeinse partij denk ik ook dat het kabinet van Trump er wel vrij snel achterkomt dat wat vriendelijke woorden Twitteren niet betekent dat er opeens geen tegenstrijdige belangen meer zijn of handel met Mexico zonder zware consequenties de nek om kan worden gedraaid.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 02:05 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De beursgroei was wel degelijk een gevolg van de inauguratie en de speech, niet voor heel Amerika, wel een kleine indicatie hoe tegen de nieuwe President wordt gekeken. De emoties rondom de inauguratie hebben natuurlijk een 'versterkt' effect op de handelsdirft binnen de markt. De komende 100 dagen zijn echter nog belangrijker natuurlijker maar het is in ieder geval duidelijk dat de beurzen gematigd optimitisch zijn, of dat de gemiddelde Amerikaan ook maar een steek vooruit gaat helpen, is maar zeer de vraag.

quote:

Ik denk in dit geval ook niet dat Trump vriendelijke woorden gaat twitteren. Trump gaat zijn eigen werkelijkheid creeeren, en als hij voldoende aanhang krijgt binnen die werkelijkheid, dan kan het allemaal gaan zoals hij voor ogen heeft misschien. Nobelprijswinnaar voor de Economie Robert Shiller schreef een paar dagen terug een heel interessant stuk hoe 'storytelling' de economie daadwerkelijk kan beinvloeden. Als op een gegeven moment de investeerders, de burgers, en de weet ik veel wat gaan geloven in wat Trump zegt dan gaat (zoals hierboven kan worden gezien) Mexico veel Amerikaanse investeerders verliezen, dan gaat Rusland veel Amerikaanse investeerders winnen, maar nog veel belangrijker en dat benadrukt Shiller ook, de economie kan daadwerkelijk gestimuleerd worden omdat mensen verwachten dat het beter gaat, dat er meer verdiend gaat worden, bedrijven zullen dan meer risico nemen en investeren en mensen zullen meer geld gaan uitgeven en vertrouwen krijgen. Dit geldt niet alleen voor de grote investeerders maar volgens peilingen ook voor kleine ondernemers.

Om alleen die reden al zou ik de beurzen toch een beetje meenemen, je hebt gelijk het zegt niet veel zeker niet na 1 dag, maar het zegt wel wat.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 02:10 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Je noemde specifieke zaken als investeringen in Rusland en Mexico. Vrij knap als je dat rechtstreeks aan de speech weet te koppelen. Natuurlijk roepen analisten van alles, maar dat maakt een correlatie nog geen causaal verband.

[..]

Je lijkt ergens te lezen dat ik de 'beurzen niet mee zou nemen'. Ik weet niet waarin ik die mee zou moeten nemen, maar ik neem aan dat je het als een economische indicator bedoelt. Daar heb ik het echter nooit over gehad. Ik had het over een rechtstreeks verband tussen dagkoersen en een speech.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 02:12 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Rel nou eens een keertje mee, jij stijve hark jij

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 02:13 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Prima.

Ga lekker slapen net als ik, zeikwijf.

quote:

Op zondag 22 januari 2017 02:10 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Je noemde specifieke zaken als investeringen in Rusland en Mexico. Vrij knap als je dat rechtstreeks aan de speech weet te koppelen. Natuurlijk roepen analisten van alles, maar dat maakt een correlatie nog geen causaal verband.

quote:

Je lijkt ergens te lezen dat ik de 'beurzen niet mee zou nemen'. Ik weet niet waarin ik die mee zou moeten nemen, maar ik neem aan dat je het als een economische indicator bedoelt. Daar heb ik het echter nooit over gehad. Ik had het over een rechtstreeks verband tussen dagkoersen en een speech.

quote:

President Trump used his first full day in office on Saturday to unleash a remarkably bitter attack on the news media, falsely accusing journalists of both inventing a rift between him and intelligence agencies and deliberately understating the size of his inauguration crowd.

In a visit to the Central Intelligence Agency designed to showcase his support for the intelligence community, Mr. Trump ignored his own repeated public statements criticizing the intelligence community, a group he compared to Nazis just over a week ago. He called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” and he said that up to 1.5 million people had attended his inauguration, a claim that photographs disproved.

Later, at the White House, he dispatched Sean Spicer, the new press secretary, to the briefing room in the West Wing, where he delivered an irate scolding to reporters and made a series of false statements. Mr. Spicer said news organizations had deliberately misstated the size of the crowd at Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Friday in an attempt to sow divisions at a time when Mr. Trump was trying to unify the country, warning that the new administration would hold them to account.

quote:

In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has upbraided the intelligence community for leaks and questioned its conclusion that Russia meddled in the United States election on his behalf. On Saturday, he said journalists were responsible for any suggestion that he was not fully supportive of intelligence agencies’ work.

“I have a running war with the media,” Mr. Trump said. “They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth, and they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community.”

“The reason you’re the No. 1 stop is, it is exactly the opposite,” Mr. Trump added. “I love you, I respect you, there’s nobody I respect more.”

Mr. Trump also took issue with news reports about the number of people who attended his inauguration, complaining that the news media used photographs of “an empty field” to make it seem as if his inauguration did not draw many people.

“We caught them in a beauty,” Mr. Trump said of the news media, “and I think they’re going to pay a big price.”

Mr. Spicer said that Mr. Trump had drawn “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration,” a statement that photographs clearly show to be false. Mr. Spicer said photographs of the inaugural ceremonies were deliberately framed “to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall,” although he provided no proof of either assertion.

Photographs of Barack Obama’s first inauguration in 2009 and of Mr. Trump’s plainly showed that the crowd on Friday was significantly smaller, but Mr. Spicer attributed that disparity to new white ground coverings he said had caused empty areas to stand out and to security measures that had blocked people from entering the Mall.

“These attempts to lessen the enthusiasm of the inauguration are shameful and wrong,” Mr. Spicer said. He also admonished a journalist for erroneously reporting on Friday that Mr. Trump had removed a bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office, calling the mistake — which was corrected quickly — “egregious.”

And he incorrectly claimed that ridership on Washington’s subway system was higher than on Inauguration Day in 2013. In reality, there were 782,000 riders that year, compared with 571,000 riders this year, according to a study by The Washington Post.

In Mr. Trump’s remarks at the C.I.A., he wandered off topic several times, at various points telling the crowd he felt no older than 39 (he is 70); reassuring anyone who questioned his intelligence by saying, “I’m, like, a smart person”; and musing out loud about how many intelligence workers backed his candidacy.

“Probably everybody in this room voted for me, but I will not ask you to raise your hands if you did,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re all on the same wavelength, folks.”

The remarks touched off a fierce reaction from some current and former intelligence officials.

Nick Shapiro, who served as chief of staff to John O. Brennan, who resigned Friday as the C.I.A. director, said Mr. Brennan “is deeply saddened and angered at Donald Trump’s despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of C.I.A.’s Memorial Wall of Agency heroes.

“Brennan says that Trump should be ashamed of himself,” Mr. Shapiro added.

“I was heartened that the president gave a speech at C.I.A.,” said Michael V. Hayden, a former director of the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency. “It would have been even better if more of it had been about C.I.A.”

twitter:

nick_shapiro twitterde op zaterdag 21-01-2017 om 21:32:32 Trump now complaining to the CIA about the media reporting how few people showed up at his inauguration. This is insane reageer retweet

quote:

Well. I want to thank everybody. Very, very special people. And it is true: this is my first stop. Officially. We’re not talking about the balls, and we’re not talking about even the speeches. Although, they did treat me nicely on that speech yesterday [laughter].
I always call them “the dishonest media”, but they treated me nicely.

But, I want to say that there is nobody that feels stronger about the Intelligence Community and the CIA than Donald Trump. [applause]. There’s Nobody. Nobody.

And the wall behind me is very very special. We’ve been touring for quite a while. And I’ll tell you what: twenty … nine? I can’t believe it.. No. Twenty eight. We’ve got to reduce it. That’s amazing. And we really appreciate it what you ‘ve done in terms of showing us something very special. And your whole group. These are really special, amazing people. Very. very few people could do the job you people do.

And I want to just let you know: I am so behind you. And I know, maybe sometimes, you haven’t gotten the backing that you’ve wanted. And you’re going to get so much backing. Maybe you’re going to say “please don’t give us so much backing”. [laughter] “Mr President, please, we don’t need that much backing”.
But you’re going to have that. And I think everybody in this room knows it.

You know, the military, and the law-enforcement generally speaking, -- but, all of it -- but the military, gave us tremendous percentages of votes. We were unbelievably successful in the election with getting the vote of the military and probably almost everybody in this room voted for me, but I will not ask you to raise your hands if you did. [laughter]
But I would guarantee a big portion. Because we’re all on the same wavelength, folks. We’re all on the same wavelength. [applause] Alight? [pointing to the crowd] He knows. Took Brian about 30 seconds to figure that one out, right? Because we know. We’re on the same wavelength.

We’re going to do great things. We’re going to do great things. We’ve been fighting these wars for longer than any wars we’ve ever fought. We have not used the real abilities that we have. We’ve been restrained.
We have to get rid of ISIS. We have to get rid of ISIS. We have no choice [applause]
Radical Islamic terrorism - and I said it yesterday - has to be eradicated. Just off the face of the Earth. This is evil. This is evil.
And you know, I can understand the other side. We can all understand the other side. There can be wars between countries. There can be wars. You can understand what happened. This is something nobody could even understand. This is a level of evil that we haven’t seen.
You’re going to go to it, and you’re going to do a phenomenal job. But we’re going to end it. It’s time. It’s time right now to end it.

You have somebody coming on who is extraordinary. You know for the different positions, of secretary of this and secretary of that and all of these great positions, I’d see five, six, seven, eight people.
And we had a great transition. We had an amazing team of talent.
And by the way, General Flynn is right over here. Put up your hand, Mike. What a good guy [applause]
And Reince, and my whole group. Reince. You know Reince? They don’t care about Reince. He’s like, this political guy that turned out to be a superstar, right? We don’t have to talk about Reince.
But, we did. We had just such a tremendous, tremendous success.

So when I’m interviewing all of these candidates that Reince and his whole group is putting in front, it went very, very quickly, and in this case went so quickly. Because I would see six or seven or eight for secretary of agriculture, who we just named the other day. Sunny Perdue. Former Governor of Georgia. Fantastic guy. But I’d see six, seven, eight people for a certain position. Everybody wanted it.
But I met Mike Pompeo, and he was the only guy I met. I didn’t want to meet anybody else. I said “cancel everybody else”. Cancel. Now he was approved, essentially. But they’re doing a little political games with me. You know, he was one of the three.

Now, last night, as you know, General Mattis - fantastic guy - and General Kelly got approved [applause]
And Mike Pompeo was supposed to be in that group; it was going to be the three of them. Can you imagine? All of these guys. People respect … they respect that military sense. All my political people? They’re not doing so well. The political people aren’t doing so well… but you … We’re going to get them all through. But some will take a little bit longer than others.

But Mike was literally -- I had a group of, what, we had nine different people? -- Now. I must say, I didn’t mind cancelling eight appointments. That wasn’t the worst thing in the world.
But I met him, and I said “he is so good”. Number one in his class at West Point. Now, I know a lot about West Point. I’m a person that very strongly believes in academics. In fact, every time I say, I had an uncle who was a great professor at MIT for 35 years, who did a fantastic job in so many different ways academically. He was an academic genius.
And then they say: “is Donald Trump an intellectual?” Trust me. I’m like a smart person. [laughter] [pointing at Mike Pompeo] And I recognized immediately,

So he was Number 1 at West Point. And he was also essentially number 1 at Harvard Law School. And then he decided to go into the military. And he ran for Congress. And everything he’s done has been a home run.
People like him. But much more importantly to me, everybody respects him.
When I told Paul Ryan that I want to do this, I would say, he may be the only person that was not totally thrilled, right, Mike? Because he said “I don’t want to lose this guy”.
You will be getting a total star. You going to be getting a total gem. He is a gem. And I just …. [applause] You’ll see. You’ll see. And many of you know him anyway. But you’re going to see.

And again: we have some great people going, but this one is something, going to be very special, because this is one of -- if I had to name the most important, this would certainly be, perhaps, you know, in certain ways, you could even say my most important.
You do the job like everybody in this room is capable of doing.
And the generals are wonderful and the fighting is wonderful. But if you give them the right direction? Boy does the fighting become easier. And boy do we lose so fewer lives, and win so … quickly.
And that’s what we have to do. We have to start winning again.

You know what? When I was young, And when I was … of course, I feel young. I feel like I’m 30. 35. 39. [laughter]. Somebody said “are you young?” I said “I think I’m young”.
You know, I was stopping when we were in the final month of that campaign. Four stops, five stops. Seven stops. Speeches -- speeches -- in front of twenty five, thirty thousand people. Fifteen thousand, nineteen thousand, from stop to stop.
I feel young.
But when I was young -- and I think we’re all sort of young -- when I was young, we were always winning things in this country. We’d win with trade. We’d win with wars.
At a certain age I remember hearing from one of my instructors “The United States has never lost a war”.
And then, after that, it’s like, we haven’t won anything. We don’t win anymore.,

The old expression: “to the victor belong the spoils” - you remember? You always used to say “keep the oil”. I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you. When we were in, we got out wrong.
And I always said: “In addition to that, keep the oil”.
Now I said it for economic reasons, but if you think about, Mike, if we kept the oil we would probably wouldn’t have ISIS, because that’s where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil.
But okay. [laughter] Maybe we’ll have another chance.
But the fact is: we should’ve kept the oil. I believe that this group is going to be one of the most important groups in this country towards making us safe, towards making us winners again. Towards ending all of the problems -- we have so many problems that are interrelated that we don’t even think of, but interrelated -- to the kind of havoc and fear that this sick group of people has caused.

So I can only say that I am with you 1000%. And the reason you’re my first stop is that as you know, I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth. [laughter, applause]
And they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the Intelligence Community. And I just want to let you know, the reason you’re the number 1 stop is exactly the opposite. Exactly. And they understand that too.

And I was explaining about the numbers. We did a thing yesterday, the speech, and everybody really liked the speech, you had to right? [applause]
We had a massive field of people. You saw that. Packed.
I get up this morning. I turn on one of the networks and they show an empty field. I say: “wait a minute. I made a speech. I looked out. The field was…. It looked like a million, a million and a half people.” They showed a field where there was practically nobody standing there. And they said “Donald Trump did not draw well”. And I said “well it was almost raining”. The rain should have scared them away. But God looked down and he said “we’re not going to let it rain on your speech”.
In fact, when I first started I said “oh no”. First line, I got hit by a couple of drops. And i said “oh, this is too bad, but we’ll go right through it”. But the truth is: that it stopped immediately. It was amazing. And then it became really sudden, and then I walked off and it poured right after I left - it poured.

But you know, we have something that’s amazing because, we had, it looked honestly, it looked like a million and a half people. Whatever it was. But it went all the way back to the Washington Monument.
And I turn on, with my steak … and I get this network shows an empty field. And it said we drew 250,000 people.
Now that’s not bad. But it’s a lie. We had 250,000 people literally around, you know, the little bowl that we constructed. That was 250,000 people. The rest of the 20 block area all the way back to the Washington Monument was packed.
So we caught them. And we caught them in a beauty. And I think they’re going to pay a big price.

They had another one yesterday which was interesting. In the Oval Office there’s a beautiful statue of Dr Martin Luther King. And I also happen to like Churchill. Winston Churchill. I think most of us like Churchill. He doesn’t come from our country. But he had lot to do with it. He helped us. A real ally.
And as you know, the Churchill statue was taken out. The bust. And as you probably also have read, the Prime Minister is coming over to our country very shortly, and they wanted to know whether or not I’d like it back. And I said “absolutely, but in the meantime we have a bust of Churchill”.
So a reporter for Time magazine. And I have been on their cover like 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all time record in the history of Time magazine. Like it Tom Brady is on the cover of Time magazine, it’s one time, because he won the Superbowl or something, right? [laughter]. I’ve been on for 15 times this year.
I don’t think that’s a record, Mike, that they can ever be broken, do you agree with that? What do you think?

But I will say that, he said something that was very interesting: that “Donald Trump took down the bust, the statue, of Dr Martin Luther King”. It was right there. But there was a cameraman that was in front of it.
So Zeke - Zeke - from Time magazine writes a story about how I took it down. But I would never do that, because I have great respect for Dr Martin Luther King. But this is how dishonest the media is: a big story. And the retraction was like -- was it a line? Or did they even bother putting it in?
So I only like to say that because I love honesty. I like honest reporting. I will tell you the final time: although I will say it, when you let in your thousands of other people that had been trying to come in, because I am coming back.
We may have to get you a larger room. [laughter, applause] We may have to get you a larger room.

And maybe - maybe - it’ll be built by somebody that knows how to build and we won’t have columns [laughter] You understand that? We’d get rid of the columns.
I just wanted to really say that I love you. I respect you. There’s nobody that I respect more. You’re going to do a fantastic job. And we’re going to start winning again. And you’re going to be leading the charge.

So thank you all very much. Thank you, beautiful. Thank you all very much.

Have a good day.

I’ll be back. I’ll be back. Thank you.

quote:

The President sought to send a message of support to the intelligence community following the turbulent transition, telling the 300 employees in attendance, "I am so behind you."

[..]

The CIA audience was separated into two sections: a main area of all agency staff and a separate section directly in front of the stage that consisted of senior agency leadership, including agents. During Trump's address, the senior leadership stood the entire time. When Trump began drifting into political topics, the main crowd broke into cheers and applause at points. The senior leadership remained stoic, and did not applaud the political lines.