|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
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?
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.
|
So basically like this guy 'I live in a world where I always move forward, in a busy world you don't dwell on the past, at this point in time general Flynn has decided to resign, so be it'
|
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 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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.
Exactly. We all know Trump has Russian ties, and most of us rational people have an inking that "the dossier" is not bullshit. If the truth comes to light, it would be the most destructive thing to happen to the GOP in recent memory. And that's even after George Dubya. What shocks me more than anything, is that the numbskulls who voted Trump in still haven't realized that not only is he not following through with his promises, there's a very real chance that he is compromised, and he is flat out dangerous in his ignorance.
|
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.
3 senior advisors to Trump have had to resign over Russian scandals. I'm damn sure there is more going on then just seeing Russia as a 'partner'.
|
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?
Well Russia certainly seems to have won over a lot of the Republican voter base very quickly. Their representatives kind of reflect that. Those voters have always had a sort of "strong leader" image of Putin that helped people have some grudging respect for him. A lot of people seem to have been decisively swayed by the hacks, which they perceived as exposing someone they already hated a lot. It was a pretty clever way to play two enemies against each other.
And deep down, regardless of how wrong it is in principle, the Republican leadership is grateful that Russia basically handed them a win in a situation that very much looked like a losing battle for the Republicans. It's not very easy to continue hating an asshole who helped you win.
Does that sound quite fucked? It certainly is. It digs deep into a partisan divide in the country that runs so deep that foreign interference is a partisan issue. I don't know if that was what Russia expected to happen but if so it was a strategically brilliant pointed strike.
|
On February 14 2017 23:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 14:24 cLutZ wrote:On February 14 2017 13:55 Plansix wrote:
Scott Detrow of NPR pointing out that the fake news defense has limits. Much like crying wolf.
He covers congress and is a good follow on twitter. Mostly news and talking to other reporters. Yes, the limits are basically whether it actually is fake news (aka the Buzzfeed/Tapper report), unsourced "reports" that always seem to be 50/50 on whether its just musings of drunk ex-Clinton staffer, or actually veritably true. Also I always love the armchair Logan Act attorneys that pop up from time to time. If that law was actually Constitutional you'd think someone would have gone down for it during the Cold War. From Ted Kennedy, to the 1984 Letter to Ortega, to Henry Kissinger, to J ohn Kerry. But sure, this is gonna be the time! 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.
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.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
unnamed sources as in veterans from our intelligence community. you are seriously equivocating random bloggers with 20 year NSA veterans ljl
|
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 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.
I think it's a bit more indirect. They have influence over important people who have his ear. Look at the people Trump chose to surround himself with and that starts to look doable.
|
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.
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.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's very simple. trump is both a cuck and they have kompromat on him enough to destroy his personal and financial life.
throw in some lucrative oil deals.
the republicans are choosing between destroying their party and country, and obviously party and tax cuts comes before stuff like treason or corruption.
|
On February 15 2017 03:06 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
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 03:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2017 03:06 cLutZ wrote: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. 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. 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.
It's "en masse". =)
|
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
So, are all the intelligence veterans I've seen talk on RT America correct in their assessments?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 15 2017 03:31 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +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 So, are all the intelligence veterans I've seen talk on RT America correct in their assessments?
they are not active.
turncoats always exist, but you don't know that do you
RT also hugely embellish the credentials of their guests.
|
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.
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.
|
On February 15 2017 03:37 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
And how does this theory handle 3 senior advisors who had to resign over scandals involving Russia?
|
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.
Source
|
On February 15 2017 02:45 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 23:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 14 2017 14:24 cLutZ wrote:On February 14 2017 13:55 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/scottdetrow/status/831357656661114881Scott Detrow of NPR pointing out that the fake news defense has limits. Much like crying wolf. He covers congress and is a good follow on twitter. Mostly news and talking to other reporters. Yes, the limits are basically whether it actually is fake news (aka the Buzzfeed/Tapper report), unsourced "reports" that always seem to be 50/50 on whether its just musings of drunk ex-Clinton staffer, or actually veritably true. Also I always love the armchair Logan Act attorneys that pop up from time to time. If that law was actually Constitutional you'd think someone would have gone down for it during the Cold War. From Ted Kennedy, to the 1984 Letter to Ortega, to Henry Kissinger, to J ohn Kerry. But sure, this is gonna be the time! 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. 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 MexicoSecret Service in Turmoil? Australia's PMEtc. 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.
The leaks about the phone conversations with the Mexican and Australian leaders are real because Trump himself complained about the leaks. But I think you are citing a small minority of news stories which is not sufficient to dismiss them all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
