US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7541

The Senate intelligence committee is seeking information from the White House on Tuesday about claims that President Donald Trump apparently disclosed classified information to Russian officials.

"The Senate intelligence committee has reached out to the White House to request additional information on recent reports about alleged dissemination of intelligence information," Becca Watkins, a spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, told CNN.

Burr, a Republican, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, say they have not yet heard from the White House on Trump's meeting with the Russian officials.

On May 17 2017 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing that I am curious about is how Trump is doing as a person being president. I can't help but wonder if the stress of this whole ordeal is getting to be a bit much. Will he grow as a person and become more resilient to direct criticisms and embarrassments? Or are we going to see a slow descent into complete madness? There are clearly a lot of people working behind the scenes to manage Trump and to keep him out of trouble, but I wonder how long that lasts.

I mean, we're 4 months in. It is still very, very early into his presidency.

On May 17 2017 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing that I am curious about is how Trump is doing as a person being president. I can't help but wonder if the stress of this whole ordeal is getting to be a bit much. Will he grow as a person and become more resilient to direct criticisms and embarrassments? Or are we going to see a slow descent into complete madness? There are clearly a lot of people working behind the scenes to manage Trump and to keep him out of trouble, but I wonder how long that lasts.

I mean, we're 4 months in. It is still very, very early into his presidency.

On May 17 2017 01:39 Grumbels wrote:

He can only get worse, he doesn't have the temperament to be able to deal with criticism and he isn't capable enough to be able to shield himself from criticism. Half of the country, including most of the media, is opposed to him, and he is dealing with criminal investigations and so on. He is always under more and more scrutiny, and he has a guilty conscience.

On May 17 2017 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:


Is anyone surprised that Hillary's reentry into politics (overshadowed by Trump "news") was at the helm of a SuperPAC funneling millions of dollars from super donors into the Democratic apparatus as if that's a good thing?

On May 16 2017 22:20 Yurie wrote:


If you can't trust the vast majority of what they say you should replace it as soon as possible with one you can trust. Overall the US government has historically been trustworthy and still is in my eyes. A few major glaring faults exist but they are a small small portion of the whole. Just ignore the white house during Trump and a large part of the GOP and you still have a small part.

On May 17 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:


Just ... wow. Thats supposed to make people feel better? If he had known would he have said? Why doesn't he know to begin with? Is he THAT untrustworthy!?!?

On May 17 2017 01:57 LemOn wrote:

Wait what,you trust the leaders when it comes to international politics interventions and secret intelligence? There's been background shenanigans ever since politics have started and always will be

On May 17 2017 01:54 ZeromuS wrote:


People need to play the game. And let's be honest - both parties play it.

The rules need to change before people will stop playing the game. But someone needs to have the political will to do so.

Also lol at calling Trump's actions a "news" with quotations. What he did was grossly incompetent and it has far reaching implications in the Intelligence Community. If you can't see that then you're an incorrigible Trump apologist.

On May 17 2017 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:


Is anyone surprised that Hillary's reentry into politics (overshadowed by Trump "news") was at the helm of a SuperPAC funneling millions of dollars from super donors into the Democratic apparatus as if that's a good thing?

On May 17 2017 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:

How dares she funnel millions into the democratic party? Shame on her!

Seriously, GH, the superPACs and in general the relationship between money and politics in the US is utterly messed up and probably the country biggest problem. I completely agree with that. But while it can't and won't be changed for the next four years, every progressive should welcome money pouring into the democratic cause because you can trust that money will keep pouring into the GOP too and that the next electiôs will partly be about who has the most to spend.

To change the system you need to govern (that is, if Clinton defeat and its SC consequence don't mean it's simply impossible). That means playing by the rules until you get there. It sucks, but at the moment the rule is superPAC and donors.

On May 17 2017 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yeah, that's what they said when Hillary raised more money than anyone ever and still blew it to the pussy grabber in chief. Both sides may do it but it works a lot better for the side that thinks being a billionaire is indicative of the pinnacle of success.

Essentially it acts more as a wealth transfer from donors to consultants, literally the same consultants that have lost 1000+ seats and the presidency to the worst candidate in our lifetime. But sure if you guys think they should still be pulling down those 6 figure salaries for losing against the worst candidate in our lifetimes with more money than any candidate has ever had on the premise that otherwise they can't compete, you do you.

EDIT: As for the Trump "news", you would think this is more important than the thousands of people who are having their homes stolen because they refused to pay for poison water, or the millions of kids who don't know where their next meal is coming from or whether they will get one at all, or the veterans that are killing themselves faster than ISIS is.

This isn't the international disaster it's being hyped up to be. It's within the typical range of stupid things Trump does, it likely isn't helpful in general, but it's clear already that the reporting is grossly outweighing the substance.

I tend to take these stories about the President with a grain of salt. We have seen key details of a number of salacious stories retracted within 48 hours. The media hates the President so much that they’ll run a negative story about him without very much provocation. Anti-Trump sources embedded within the administration in the career civil service, etc. will leak to the press and confirmation bias sets in.

What sets this story apart for me, at least, is that I know one of the sources. And the source is solidly supportive of President Trump, or at least has been and was during Campaign 2016. But the President will not take any internal criticism, no matter how politely it is given. He does not want advice, cannot be corrected, and is too insecure to see any constructive feedback as anything other than an attack.

So some of the sources are left with no other option but to go to the media, leak the story, and hope that the intense blowback gives the President a swift kick in the butt. Perhaps then he will recognize he screwed up. The President cares vastly more about what the press says than what his advisers say. That is a real problem and one his advisers are having to recognize and use, even if it causes messy stories to get outside the White House perimeter.

I am told that what the President did is actually far worse than what is being reported. The President does not seem to realize or appreciate that his bragging can undermine relationships with our allies and with human intelligence sources. He also does not seem to appreciate that his loose lips can get valuable assets in the field killed.

You can call these sources disloyal, traitors, or whatever you want. But please ask yourself a question — if the President, through inexperience and ignorance, is jeopardizing our national security and will not take advice or corrective action, what other means are available to get the President to listen and recognize the error of his ways?

This is a real problem and I treat this story very seriously because I know just how credible, competent, and serious — as well as seriously pro-Trump, at least one of the sources is.

On May 17 2017 02:10 Plansix wrote:

If you have a problem with Flint, when congress is your punching bag. They are the ones that would address the issue through emergency funding or pushing for the town to be placed into receivership. If you think it should be covered, blame Trump for dominating the news cycle day after day with scandal. Even reporters are saying that there is other news, but only so many hours in the day. This is not how the country is supposed to function and the press trying to pull people’s attention to Flint won’t change congress or the White House.