US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6870

On February 15 2017 01:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Why are normal GOP representatives not more critical of this whole Russia love affair? I can imagine Putin working his way to the current leadership but run of the mill dude from Alabama or something should surely be worried about something like this?

On February 15 2017 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:

The same reason that many Republicans in this thread went from being critical of Russia to loving them within a day.

If they go probe to deep there is big chance the whole thing comes crashing down in a massive scandal and a Democratic victory from its ashes is to be avoided at all cost, no matter how deep the shit we are standing in becomes.

On February 15 2017 02:35 biology]major wrote:
Out of every ridiculous thing trump has done, his attitude towards Russia is the most abnormal. Either he sees russia as the only way to stabilize the Middle East or they have something compromising on him forcing him to dodge and really not make any direct statements on the matter. I'm thinking it's the latter, but I hope not.

On February 14 2017 23:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:


You realize that the unsourced reports were what started this whole story, right? It's not like anyone went on record confirming the FBI had wiretaps demonstrating Flynn had lied to Pence about discussing sanctions. There's no way for us to verify these stories were true any more than there was a way for us to verify the dossier was an appendix to docs briefing Trump (shockingly, both turned out to be true because people don't fabricate sources when they work at real papers).

Also, clearly Trump picks the best people. I can't remember who it was in the thread that wanted a Flynn running mate at one point, but that would clearly have been a disaster judging by how he couldn't even last a month.

On February 15 2017 02:51 Plansix wrote:
Unnamed sources are the backbone to good journalism. If you have issues with them, find a reporter that you trust and read only their work. But no journalist is going to wait to break a story until the source is willing to be named.

On February 15 2017 03:06 cLutZ wrote:

That's not my point either. Its that there is such a proliferation of these unnamed sources pieces at legacy media that end up being false, or at best half truths that those publications have lost much of the "oh this is in the Times, it must be true" that actually makes them valuable. This is what editors are for, so that 50% of your most sensational stories based on a torrent of leaks don't end up in the trash. Even blogs can do that. To be useful the Times should be at least 80% on its most sensational stories with unnamed sources.

On February 15 2017 03:13 Plansix wrote:

When you lump the Daily Caller in with NPR, WSJ and NYTs, I have a hard time taking you seriously. And as someone who has read the Times for about a decade, I question your math. This sounds like an easy way to dismiss "the media" on mass.

On February 15 2017 02:47 oneofthem wrote:
unnamed sources as in veterans from our intelligence community. you are seriously equivocating random bloggers with 20 year NSA veterans ljl

On February 15 2017 03:31 a_flayer wrote:


So, are all the intelligence veterans I've seen talk on RT America correct in their assessments?

On February 15 2017 02:35 biology]major wrote:
Out of every ridiculous thing trump has done, his attitude towards Russia is the most abnormal. Either he sees russia as the only way to stabilize the Middle East or they have something compromising on him forcing him to dodge and really not make any direct statements on the matter. I'm thinking it's the latter, but I hope not.

On February 15 2017 03:37 Krikkitone wrote:


Actually I think his attitude towards Russia makes perfect sense with the rest of what he says

America first...

Russia is not a serious short-term threat to America.

It is a serious threat to our allies.

If we didn't have oil they could be a threat to our short-term interests in the Middle East.

Trump is deliberately ignoring threats to our allies/diplomatic standing in favor of short/midterm economic/security interests (at least as he perceives them)

A second Holodomor is not going to threaten jobs in Wisconson, and there's no reason to bug Russia about it because Russia already is doing the thing Trump wants them to do (attack terrorists in the Middle East).. and Russia isn't making stuff that used to be made in the US.
(hence Trump emphasizing support for nations like Japan that surround a power, China, that is making stuff that used to be made in the US)



Now its possible he is a Russian puppet/they have scandalous material on him/he's grateful for the fact that they made Clinton look bad... or that he is just randomly making stuff up and thinks Russia is part of Africa. But that isn't necessary to explain his attitude.

WASHINGTON – Russia has secretly deployed a new cruise missile despite complaints from U.S. officials that it violates a landmark arms control treaty that helped seal the end of the Cold War, administration officials say.

The move presents a major challenge for President Donald Trump, who has vowed to improve relations with President Vladimir Putin of Russia and to pursue future arms accords.

The new Russian missile deployment also comes as the Trump administration is struggling to fill key policy positions at the State Department and the Pentagon — and to settle on a permanent replacement for Michael Flynn, the national security adviser who resigned late Monday. Flynn stepped down after it was revealed that he had misled the vice president and other officials over conversations with Moscow’s ambassador to Washington.

The ground-launched cruise missile at the center of U.S. concerns is one that the Obama administration said in 2014 had been tested in violation of a 1987 treaty that bans U.S. and Russian intermediate-range missiles based on land.

The Obama administration had sought to persuade the Russians to correct the violation while the missile was still in the test phase. Instead the Russians have moved ahead with the system, deploying a fully operational unit.

On February 15 2017 02:45 cLutZ wrote:


Actually that is kind of the point. The the "fake news" problem and the general deterioration of trust in legacy media overall. The Flynn reports were very similar in style to various other unsourced reports that had come out over the last few weeks:

The State Department "Resignation" Story
EPA "Gag Order" (see also "Trump took XXX off the official website" etc in the bucket of "standard operating procedure is an outrage)
MLK's Head removed from the oval office
whatever this is
Russian Sanctions Repealed?
Fake Invasion Threat of Mexico
Secret Service in Turmoil?
Australia's PM

Etc. The point is not that the unnamed sources were right on Flynn, its that they have been wrong so many times that no outside observer can know if a media report is correct, or as I said, just the drunk musings of a Democratic operative until its been confirmed by several independent sources. Frankly, Watergate, if it happened today, would not be a credible story because a cub reporter relying on a single unnamed source is as likely to be relaying propaganda as the truth.