US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7577

On May 19 2017 02:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If it was a joke, why did they feel the need to deny it ever happened?

On May 19 2017 02:05 Mohdoo wrote:


I think its important to distinguish between fake, misleading and sensationalist. Fake news is pizza gate. Misleading and sensationalist is the Russia joke.

On May 19 2017 02:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
To do what? Expose a lie???

On May 19 2017 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


You've never had a private conversation as a public figure. It's a common joke. You say something that out of context will make you sound/look bad and you swear people to secrecy, not seriously, just like "don't be an asshole and feed this quote out of context".

That said, we know Trump is profiting off of Russia (and several other questionable countries), it's the people who find profiting from the presidency problematic (when it's a Republican) vs the people who don't care (when it's a Republican).

Then a few of us that think it's wrong when either side does it, whether it's egregious like Trump, or more insidious like the Clintons.

On May 19 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote:

I don't think it's that important. The term's been taken over and re-adopted (so completely so that it's original claim to the spotlight vanished when media figures realized how it would be used. As conservative posters noted at the time). I go more often with the primary purpose of the article to mislead. The news story is Paul Ryan McCarthy and others joke behind closed doors at all this Russia nonsense. The fake news story is one of Trump's closest allies made a politically explosive assertion in a private conversation, and was then immediately cut off and the entire group sworn to secrecy. I'll call the story farms out of eastern europe complete fabrications as well as another kind of fake news.

Ryan said Russia’s goal was to “turn Ukraine against itself.” Groysman underlined Russia’s intentions, saying “They’re just going to roll right through us and go to the Baltics and everyone else,” according to Ryan’s summary of the prime minister’s remarks in the recording.

“Yes,” Rodgers said in agreement, noting that the Russians were funding non-government organizations across Europe as part of a wider “propaganda war.”

“Maniacal,” Ryan said. “And guess, guess who’s the only one taking a strong stand up against it? We are.”

Rodgers disagreed. “We’re not…we’re not…but, we’re not,” she said.

That’s when McCarthy brought the conversation about Russian meddling around to the DNC hack, Trump and Rohrabacher.

“I’ll guarantee you that’s what it is...The Russians hacked the DNC and got the opp [opposition] research that they had on Trump,” McCarthy said with a laugh.

Ryan asked who the Russians “delivered” the opposition research to.

“There’s... there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy said, drawing some laughter. “Swear to God,” McCarthy added.

“This is an off the record,” Ryan said.

Some lawmakers laughed at that.

“No leaks, alright?,” Ryan said, adding: “This is how we know we’re a real family here.”

“That’s how you know that we’re tight,” Scalise said.

“What’s said in the family stays in the family,” Ryan added.

Three decades ago, I spent nearly a year hanging around Trump to write his first book, “The Art of the Deal,” and got to know him very well. I spent hundreds of hours listening to him, watching him in action and interviewing him about his life. To me, none of what he has said or done over the past four months as president comes as a surprise. The way he has behaved over the past week — firing FBI Director James B. Comey, undercutting his own aides as they tried to explain the decision and disclosing sensitive information to Russian officials — is also entirely predictable.

Early on, I recognized that Trump’s sense of self-worth is forever at risk. When he feels aggrieved, he reacts impulsively and defensively, constructing a self-justifying story that doesn’t depend on facts and always directs the blame to others.

...

The Trump I got to know had no deep ideological beliefs, nor any passionate feeling about anything but his immediate self-interest. He derives his sense of significance from conquests and accomplishments. “Can you believe it, Tony?” he would often say at the start of late-night conversations with me, going on to describe some new example of his brilliance. But the reassurance he got from even his biggest achievements was always ephemeral and unreliable — and that appears to include being elected president.

...

From the very first time I interviewed him in his office in Trump Tower in 1985, the image I had of Trump was that of a black hole. Whatever goes in quickly disappears without a trace. Nothing sustains. It’s forever uncertain when someone or something will throw Trump off his precarious perch — when his sense of equilibrium will be threatened and he’ll feel an overwhelming compulsion to restore it. Beneath his bluff exterior, I always sensed a hurt, incredibly vulnerable little boy who just wanted to be loved.

What Trump craves most deeply is the adulation he has found so fleeting. This goes a long way toward explaining his need for control and why he simply couldn’t abide Comey, who reportedly refused to accede to Trump’s demand for loyalty and whose continuing investigation into Russian interference in the election campaign last year threatens to bring down his presidency.

...

Over the past week, in the face of criticism from nearly every quarter, Trump’s distrust has almost palpably mushroomed. No importuning by his advisers stands a chance of constraining him when he is this deeply triggered. The more he feels at the mercy of forces he cannot control — and he is surely feeling that now — the more resentful, desperate and impulsive he becomes.

Even 30 years later, I vividly remember the ominous feeling when Trump got angry about some perceived slight. Everyone around him knew that you were best off keeping your distance at those times, or, if that wasn’t possible, that you should resist disagreeing with him in any way.

In the hundreds of Trump’s phone calls I listened in on with his consent, and the dozens of meetings I attended with him, I can never remember anyone disagreeing with him about anything. The same climate of fear and paranoia appears to have taken root in his White House.

On May 19 2017 02:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
So, what I got from this was that GreenHorizons beleive that it is prefectly acceptable to lie to the media, on the basis that what may be an important issue isn't, but it will become an important issue precisely because it was found to be a lie, thus proving the acceptability to lie.

Sounds complicated. So when a company under investigation starts shredding accounting documents, it too is perfectly fine I imagine.

On May 19 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:



This sounds more like you are choosing to be cynical and tongue and cheek regarding the term rather than serious. Saying the term has been taken over by pop news is besides the point. If you are discussing something with a group of people, I think it is fair to ask that terminology be roughly respected. We give each other shit for misusing terms like fascism and the like and I think the integrity of conversation is higher than the term "fake" is used in a literal sense rather than as a way to be spiteful regarding the term.

On May 19 2017 02:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Let's all take a moment to appreciate our employers for allowing us the freedom to post on TL 800 times a day.

On May 19 2017 02:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If it was a joke, why did they feel the need to deny it ever happened? Even if it was a joke, exposing the lies of an that an an important elected official is in the public interest. I don't understand why you would deny this.