|
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. |
United States42698 Posts
On February 16 2017 07:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 07:25 oneofthem wrote:On February 16 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
There are few people who actually are interested in a principled cleansing to remove the stench of Russian influence. It's all been about Trump and how to remove him. Some people actually care about Russia and the fact that a foreign government hacked the election. Most people care more about Trump and how to get rid of him. this is just not true. before evidence of wrongdoing surfaced even hillary staffers were simply talking about unfairness of public releases pertaining to investigations. the intelligence community itself is doing this because of the incredible and unprecedented threat to the foundations of this democracy. that's just it. it's the depth of bad that is trump causing all of the troubles, rather than some sort of heightened hatred or partisanship from his enemies. People seem to selectively care along lines of partisanship when certain generally unpopular entities help with such revelations. Hillary gets owned by leaks from Russia? Her supporters cry foul, Sanders and Trump people exploit the leaks. Trump gets owned by leaks from rogue executive branch employees and intelligence folk? His supporters and allies are unhappy, his opponents are gushing with excitement at how he will get owned from it. I wonder what would happen if Russia did something that made him look like a total fool. Would we have the ol' switcheroo of Democrats being the new "we <3 Russia" party? Obviously I don't know but I can definitely say that the opposition to Russian leaks wasn't an ideological one. Nor do I expect that Russian ties within the administration would be an ideological one, but rather a pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump one.
I was opposed to the Russian leaks trying to undermine Hillary because I saw it as a foreign power intervening in the American election to try and change the result in their favour. I am not suddenly a hypocrite because I am happy to be vindicated in that belief.
I really struggle to see how you're not getting this. It's not about one side or the other.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 16 2017 07:44 oneofthem wrote:
i mean if you are just saying, partisanship is really huge and makes people biased. then that's obviously true.
but let's not minimize the real problems around trump
I agree with you in principle as to what actually matters. What I'm saying is that at this point people don't actually care.
From a purely non-partisan standpoint, everything about the Russia ties should be troubling. But that's not where we are.
|
On February 16 2017 07:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 07:44 oneofthem wrote:
i mean if you are just saying, partisanship is really huge and makes people biased. then that's obviously true.
but let's not minimize the real problems around trump I agree with you in principle as to what actually matters. What I'm saying is that at this point people don't actually care. From a purely non-partisan standpoint, everything about the Russia ties should be troubling. But that's not where we are.
So your saying that despite people being mad about Russian interference in the past, and those people being mad about Russian interference now. The cause surely has to be partisan and cannot possible be that they do not like foreign powers interfering in the US?
I can't claim to 'know' you but I know enough to say your not this stupid.
Your Russian is showing through.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski says White House counselor Kellyanne Conway is “not credible anymore,” and she indicated she wouldn’t be booked on “Morning Joe,” an influential cable news show that President Donald Trump regularly watches.
“I don’t believe in fake news or information that is not true,” Brzezinski said Wednesday. “Every time I’ve ever seen her on television, something is askew, off, or incorrect.”
Co-host Joe Scarborough said he believes Conway “just goes out and makes things up” on air because she’s not a part of key White House meetings. On Monday, Conway said Trump had “full confidence” in National Security Adviser Michael Flynn just hours before his resignation.
“I don’t even think she’s saying something that she knows to be untrue,” Scarborough said. “She’s just saying things just to get in front of the TV set and prove her relevance.”
“She’s not credible anymore,” Brzezinski interjected.
“Behind the scenes, she’s not in these meetings,” Scarborough said, asking why Trump allows her to continue spreading “false information.”
Trump may have been watching “Morning Joe,” a program that was one of the coziest platforms for him during the Republican primary. Scarborough, who has shifted at times between being supportive and critical of Trump, is known to speak to the president privately as well as offer advice on TV.
Conway may still appear on other MSNBC shows. An MSNBC spokesman said each show makes its own editorial decisions.
But the “Morning Joe” team’s criticism follows CNN questioning Conway’s credibility last week after opting not to book her on a program as a substitute for Vice President Mike Pence.
In addition to appearing out of the loop when speaking on the president’s behalf, Conway claimed in multiple interviews that there was a “Bowling Green massacre,” a terrorist attack that never happened, to justify Trump’s immigration ban. She also infamously claimed the White House had “alternative facts” to back up its false claims about Trump’s inauguration crowd size.
Conway isn’t the only prominent member of the Trump White House to have raised concerns about credibility this month. Senior adviser Stephen Miller made false claims during a round of Sunday show appearances about voter fraud across the country and specifically in New Hampshire ― baseless theories also promoted by the president.
On Tuesday, Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan questioned networks still giving “proven liars” like Conway and Miller “a regular platform” on news programs.
Source
Possibly the beginning of the end here?
|
On February 16 2017 07:38 biology]major wrote:
called the use of troops in syria, we are about to knock the hell out of ISIS folks.
Yeah, send more military to fight in random deserts in the middle east. It's gonna be great. It was so much fun in Iraq and Afghanistan, gotta do it again.
|
On February 16 2017 07:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 07:25 oneofthem wrote:On February 16 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
There are few people who actually are interested in a principled cleansing to remove the stench of Russian influence. It's all been about Trump and how to remove him. Some people actually care about Russia and the fact that a foreign government hacked the election. Most people care more about Trump and how to get rid of him. this is just not true. before evidence of wrongdoing surfaced even hillary staffers were simply talking about unfairness of public releases pertaining to investigations. the intelligence community itself is doing this because of the incredible and unprecedented threat to the foundations of this democracy. that's just it. it's the depth of bad that is trump causing all of the troubles, rather than some sort of heightened hatred or partisanship from his enemies. People seem to selectively care along lines of partisanship when certain generally unpopular entities help with such revelations. Hillary gets owned by leaks from Russia? Her supporters cry foul, Sanders and Trump people exploit the leaks. Trump gets owned by leaks from rogue executive branch employees and intelligence folk? His supporters and allies are unhappy, his opponents are gushing with excitement at how he will get owned from it. I wonder what would happen if Russia did something that made him look like a total fool. Would we have the ol' switcheroo of Democrats being the new "we <3 Russia" party? Obviously I don't know but I can definitely say that the opposition to Russian leaks wasn't an ideological one. Nor do I expect that Russian ties within the administration would be an ideological one, but rather a pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump one.
Trump benefitted from leaks by a foreign government who is kinda our rival. Anti trump people are getting leaks from other Americans about the former leak issue so not really the same thing. Dens also would be pretty pissed if it were reversed and Clinton won with the aid of Russia, the people anyway and probably Sanders would be yelling. Dunno how the Dem idiots in Congress would react.
|
On February 16 2017 07:38 biology]major wrote:
called the use of troops in syria, we are about to knock the hell out of ISIS folks.
i'll wait and see what plan the military is proposing.
the question on taking out isis militarily has always been whether it's worth the cost, factoring in the aftermath scenarios.
|
On February 16 2017 07:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 07:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Amusing to note the irony of the current focus on fake news and propaganda dominating public discourse...
And yet, somehow, this turns out to be one of the most transparent election cycles in hindsight. Trump is doing exactly what he said he would,to the letter, with absolutely no additional thought or detail. And everything that Trump was accused of being during the election is also turning out to be true.
So kudos to Trump for being exactly the buffoon that he positioned himself as? Not really the case. The problem is just the sheer quantity of things he has said, most of which contradict other statements by him. Is he going to completely eliminate the national debt, all 20T of it, for example?
There is little doubt in my mind that, if his Presidency survives much longer, he will eventually sign an executive order that basically gives someone else a week to make a plan to deal with the national debt.
|
On February 16 2017 07:38 biology]major wrote:
called the use of troops in syria, we are about to knock the hell out of ISIS folks.
I look forward to ISIS being driven underground and focussing its efforts on attacking the US rather then defending territory.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 16 2017 07:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 07:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 07:44 oneofthem wrote:
i mean if you are just saying, partisanship is really huge and makes people biased. then that's obviously true.
but let's not minimize the real problems around trump I agree with you in principle as to what actually matters. What I'm saying is that at this point people don't actually care. From a purely non-partisan standpoint, everything about the Russia ties should be troubling. But that's not where we are. So your saying that despite people being mad about Russian interference in the past, and those people being mad about Russian interference now. The cause surely has to be partisan and cannot possible be that they do not like foreign powers interfering in the US? I can't claim to 'know' you but I know enough to say your not this stupid. Your Russian is showing through.
Depends which case we're talking about.
People who in principle believe that Russian interference was and continues to be the most important factor aren't being partisan. People who were on board with the leaks because Clinton was the one harmed by it but now upset about leaks against Trump? Partisan. People who were pro-DNC leaks but now cry foul at Russia ties? Partisan. People who were pro-Clinton from the start, bought fully into the idea that everything wrong with her was Russia, and now see Russian ties as a way to sink Trump? Partisan.
The first group is pretty small.
|
On February 16 2017 07:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 07:52 Gorsameth wrote:On February 16 2017 07:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 07:44 oneofthem wrote:
i mean if you are just saying, partisanship is really huge and makes people biased. then that's obviously true.
but let's not minimize the real problems around trump I agree with you in principle as to what actually matters. What I'm saying is that at this point people don't actually care. From a purely non-partisan standpoint, everything about the Russia ties should be troubling. But that's not where we are. So your saying that despite people being mad about Russian interference in the past, and those people being mad about Russian interference now. The cause surely has to be partisan and cannot possible be that they do not like foreign powers interfering in the US? I can't claim to 'know' you but I know enough to say your not this stupid. Your Russian is showing through. Depends which case we're talking about. People who in principle believe that Russian interference was and continues to be the most important factor aren't being partisan. People who were on board with the leaks because Clinton was the one harmed by it but now upset about leaks against Trump? Partisan. People who were pro-DNC leaks but now cry foul at Russia ties? Partisan. People who were pro-Clinton from the start, bought fully into the idea that everything wrong with her was Russia, and now see Russian ties as a way to sink Trump? Partisan. The first group is pretty small.
considering your first and last one are basically the same except for your baseless commentary, lets call both not partisan. Which leaves Republicans who want to win at all costs.
Still not "its not Russia, its always partisan, please stop talking about Russia in a bad way".
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 16 2017 07:56 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 07:40 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 07:25 oneofthem wrote:On February 16 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
There are few people who actually are interested in a principled cleansing to remove the stench of Russian influence. It's all been about Trump and how to remove him. Some people actually care about Russia and the fact that a foreign government hacked the election. Most people care more about Trump and how to get rid of him. this is just not true. before evidence of wrongdoing surfaced even hillary staffers were simply talking about unfairness of public releases pertaining to investigations. the intelligence community itself is doing this because of the incredible and unprecedented threat to the foundations of this democracy. that's just it. it's the depth of bad that is trump causing all of the troubles, rather than some sort of heightened hatred or partisanship from his enemies. People seem to selectively care along lines of partisanship when certain generally unpopular entities help with such revelations. Hillary gets owned by leaks from Russia? Her supporters cry foul, Sanders and Trump people exploit the leaks. Trump gets owned by leaks from rogue executive branch employees and intelligence folk? His supporters and allies are unhappy, his opponents are gushing with excitement at how he will get owned from it. I wonder what would happen if Russia did something that made him look like a total fool. Would we have the ol' switcheroo of Democrats being the new "we <3 Russia" party? Obviously I don't know but I can definitely say that the opposition to Russian leaks wasn't an ideological one. Nor do I expect that Russian ties within the administration would be an ideological one, but rather a pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump one. Trump benefitted from leaks by a foreign government who is kinda our rival. Anti trump people are getting leaks from other Americans about the former leak issue so not really the same thing. Dens also would be pretty pissed if it were reversed and Clinton won with the aid of Russia, the people anyway and probably Sanders would be yelling. Dunno how the Dem idiots in Congress would react.
It's easy to say that you wouldn't be on board with Russia leaking in your favor. But in the heat of the moment, could you really say with certainty that that would be the case? For example, let's say that the Romney "47 percent" comment came from Russia hacking one of the attendees who filmed the tapes. Obama was in a pretty tough spot after the first debate. Would you not be quite tempted to use such a boost in your favor?
Although perhaps the problem with that example is that partisanship just wasn't as bad as it is now. We just reached a point where anything goes. And I have to say I'm impressed by whoever noticed that such a brazen interference would be met with a divided response.
|
Still bringing up Clinton... Is Russia not sending you new memos by now?
If these are your honest opionions, i'm sorry, but that makes it even worse... NO ONE is talking/caring/whatever about clinton anymore, you are repeating talking points on and on and on. No one cares anymore. Get a gripl.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 16 2017 08:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 07:59 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 07:52 Gorsameth wrote:On February 16 2017 07:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 07:44 oneofthem wrote:
i mean if you are just saying, partisanship is really huge and makes people biased. then that's obviously true.
but let's not minimize the real problems around trump I agree with you in principle as to what actually matters. What I'm saying is that at this point people don't actually care. From a purely non-partisan standpoint, everything about the Russia ties should be troubling. But that's not where we are. So your saying that despite people being mad about Russian interference in the past, and those people being mad about Russian interference now. The cause surely has to be partisan and cannot possible be that they do not like foreign powers interfering in the US? I can't claim to 'know' you but I know enough to say your not this stupid. Your Russian is showing through. Depends which case we're talking about. People who in principle believe that Russian interference was and continues to be the most important factor aren't being partisan. People who were on board with the leaks because Clinton was the one harmed by it but now upset about leaks against Trump? Partisan. People who were pro-DNC leaks but now cry foul at Russia ties? Partisan. People who were pro-Clinton from the start, bought fully into the idea that everything wrong with her was Russia, and now see Russian ties as a way to sink Trump? Partisan. The first group is pretty small. considering your first and last one are basically the same except for your baseless commentary, lets call both not partisan. Which leaves Republicans who want to win at all costs. Still not "its not Russia, its always partisan, please stop talking about Russia in a bad way".
You can talk about Russia however you please. It's not my problem. I'm mostly just laughing at how badly the political climate got punked by a couple of emails.
The two examples are not the same. One is ideological, the other is about being twice on the side of benefiting from making a show of opposing Russia. One is a coincidence, the other is ideology.
|
It hasn't even been a month...
President Donald Trump is returning to the trail.
The president will hold a rally Saturday afternoon at a hangar in Melbourne, Florida. It will be his first campaign-style rally since his so-called thank-you tour during the transition period to states he won in November.
“Join me in Florida this Saturday at 5pm for a rally at the Orlando-Melbourne International Airport!” Trump tweeted from his personal Twitter handle, along with a link for supporters to RSVP.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the rally, but Trump himself had floated the idea of hosting them even as president.
The return to campaign form, if only for a day, could give a boost to Trump’s presidency. The early stages of his administration have been marred by damaging leaks compounded by withering criticism from the media, massive protests against his policies and Cabinet nominees, an increasing number of potential investigations against him and his allies, and some solitude, as his wife and 10-year-old son have spent most of their time in New York.
Saturday, however, will put Trump on friendly turf, likely in front of thousands of raucous supporters and a pool of TV cameras, a chance to be the sole star on stage after holding bilateral news conferences alongside Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday and Wednesday, respectively.
And it comes after yet another tumultuous week in his administration. Trump accepted the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, late Monday. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. during the transition but misled Vice President Mike Pence about it, for which he apologized and tendered his resignation, at Trump’s request.
Then on Wednesday, Trump's nominee to be labor secretary, Andrew Puzder, withdrew from consideration, amid ongoing controversy.
The rally will follow the president’s trip to Charleston, South Carolina, on Friday. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that Trump will attend the rollout of a new Boeing plane: the 787-10 Dreamliner.
“This visit will give the president an opportunity to celebrate a huge milestone for thousands of workers at Boeing, America’s No. 1 exporter in the millions of American workers involved in aerospace,” Spicer said. “This trip has been months in the making, and we’re thrilled to celebrating the rollout of this amazing plane.”
Source
|
On February 16 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 06:10 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 16 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:
Few people care about Russia. There are Russia hawks here and there, but most of this isn't really about Russia; it's about beating Trump. We have devolved to the point where actual conflicts of interest and foreign influences no longer matter.
I wonder if even the people who ordered the leaks could have expected how far the fallout of those would go. A few thousand emails was all it took to take internal tensions in the US to levels not seen in more than a century. Uhm, everything i've seen of Trumps adiministration so far has been about conflicts of interest and foreign influences. The problem is just that republicans don't seem to care. From my point of view, meaning getting my news from german news outlets and my daily dose of what the actual fuck from Colbert and Meyers, the whole part of the States that did not vote for Trump is in a constant state of "WTF?!?" while the government says everybody loves them and the GOP claims that it's all not that bad. Conway should have been fired. Miller made an Autocracy Infomercial. Spicer is so ridiculous that SNL has to cast him with a woman just to be a bit over the top. The nepotism and potential corruption and the incompetence of the administration are so blatant that everything that sticks is good. That people blow this scandal out of proportion is due to the real scandal, all of the last x weeks, was sucked out of proportion. And calling it the highest internal tensions since 100 years is blowing the civil resistance way out of proportion as well. Foreigners are different. They care specifically about what America can do for them, rather than about internal American issues. This would make Russia interests more important to foreigners. And of course the "news sources" you cited are quite literally a joke and they behave as such. I don't exaggerate when I say that tensions are as bad as they have been in over a century. For one, there have never been two candidates with such a low approval rate, nor has there ever been such a big popular-electoral discrepancy. In terms of how fucked Congress is, I'd have to go back to the 1876 election to find partisanship quite this brutal. The actual situations have been worse at times, but it's been a long time since people have been so strongly at each other's throats. Within the US... well the political parties hate each other so much that foreign influence is a genuinely partisan issue. In a sane world, the Wikileaks release should have been universally condemned. But the situation was so toxic that it didn't work out that way. We got this whole "contents of leaks vs. Russia" situation. And the way the campaign went, it was obvious that it was more about trying to tie Trump to Russia than about actually being connected to Russia. Same deal with CF donations from Saudi Arabia. There are few people who actually are interested in a principled cleansing to remove the stench of Russian influence. It's all been about Trump and how to remove him. Some people actually care about Russia and the fact that a foreign government hacked the election. Most people care more about Trump and how to get rid of him.
I am informing myself by credential serious media. I am also watching your political satire, because mine is boring compared to it. We also do not care about what America can do for us. We have a morbid fascination with how you tear yourselves apart over there, if anything, we only care for your internal issues. Your tensions are not as bad as they were this century. The divide between your political parties may be bigger then before, but you cannot be serious to compare the times of the vietnam war or MLK with today. You have white people disagreeing with other white poeple over policy, call me when the police starts smashing the heads of protesters in on anti trump rallyes.
Anyway, this was not your point. Your point was that the outrage is politically motivated and not genuine. Which is partially true, context always determines our reaction. However, that does not make irrelevant. They have to be upset, they are the opposition. They can care about the russian influence and hope it destroys Trump. Kind of the same way how you could call Trump out right now for pandering to the criticism in asking Russia to return Crimea and still being content that he didn't tell them to keep it and annex Donetsk with it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
more will come out about trump's activities during the campaign, including his active use of russian intelligence services, as in with coordination, against political opponents not only during the general election but in primary stage as well.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 16 2017 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
more will come out about trump's activities during the campaign, including his active use of russian intelligence services, as in with coordination, against political opponents not only during the general election but in primary stage as well.
I have to call [citation needed] on all this. Trump seems more clueless and easily manipulated than actively involved with a foreign intelligence operation. Hell, I'm sure even the Russian intelligence branch would be loathe to give any actual access to Trump, they would just give him a few freebies along the way. Like the leaks.
Primaries Trump had a sort of impressive Trumpian celebrity charm. What came after was something else entirely.
|
On February 16 2017 08:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:It hasn't even been a month... Show nested quote +President Donald Trump is returning to the trail.
The president will hold a rally Saturday afternoon at a hangar in Melbourne, Florida. It will be his first campaign-style rally since his so-called thank-you tour during the transition period to states he won in November.
“Join me in Florida this Saturday at 5pm for a rally at the Orlando-Melbourne International Airport!” Trump tweeted from his personal Twitter handle, along with a link for supporters to RSVP.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the rally, but Trump himself had floated the idea of hosting them even as president.
The return to campaign form, if only for a day, could give a boost to Trump’s presidency. The early stages of his administration have been marred by damaging leaks compounded by withering criticism from the media, massive protests against his policies and Cabinet nominees, an increasing number of potential investigations against him and his allies, and some solitude, as his wife and 10-year-old son have spent most of their time in New York.
Saturday, however, will put Trump on friendly turf, likely in front of thousands of raucous supporters and a pool of TV cameras, a chance to be the sole star on stage after holding bilateral news conferences alongside Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday and Wednesday, respectively.
And it comes after yet another tumultuous week in his administration. Trump accepted the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, late Monday. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. during the transition but misled Vice President Mike Pence about it, for which he apologized and tendered his resignation, at Trump’s request.
Then on Wednesday, Trump's nominee to be labor secretary, Andrew Puzder, withdrew from consideration, amid ongoing controversy.
The rally will follow the president’s trip to Charleston, South Carolina, on Friday. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that Trump will attend the rollout of a new Boeing plane: the 787-10 Dreamliner.
“This visit will give the president an opportunity to celebrate a huge milestone for thousands of workers at Boeing, America’s No. 1 exporter in the millions of American workers involved in aerospace,” Spicer said. “This trip has been months in the making, and we’re thrilled to celebrating the rollout of this amazing plane.” Source
He needs a morale boost. In Washington he's not in friendly territory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
