Author Topic: House Closes Investigation  (Read 15022 times)

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #100 on: February 22, 2019, 09:59:10 PM »
Quote
I would love to know what the GOP would go after him for.
The Republicans would have impeached him already for Russian collusion and/or financial crimes.

Democratic support for Trump would have splintered and he'd be wearing a different shade of orange right now.

Trump leaks like a pervert pissing on a pair of prostitutes. We all already know the truth, it's just that many of us have declared ourselves incapable of understanding what it means.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 10:09:47 PM by seekingprometheus »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #101 on: February 23, 2019, 01:36:01 AM »
But an American politician publicly asked Russia to commit espionage against his opponent, and our national security apparatus has told us that Russia did it, and the selfsame politician has been sucking up to Russia like his job depends on it ever since, and some of y'all are pretending like the idea that there might be a case here is something that can only be explained by lunacy or outright FBI corruption.

/facepalm

You do realize the whole "Trump asked for the Russians to go out and commit espionage" thing, which the media loves to keep bringing up again and again, has been debunked on this forum multiple times already?

He specifically asked Russia to release the 30,000 some-odd "missing e-mails" from Hillary Clinton's private, and illegal(which violated FOIA, and numerous other federal statutes), server that she used while Secretary of State.

You know, e-mails that were destroyed so far as official sources were aware(well, until Anthony Wiener's laptop was discovered to have some more of them in October)?

So can you draw me a picture of how Trump asking Russia to release copies of deleted e-mails that not even US Law Enforcement had been able to obtain after considerable effort, somehow turns into "Russia please hack her more recent stuff while you're at it."

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #102 on: February 23, 2019, 02:01:55 AM »
Of course, I guess you could assume that any of the below are valid, in which case Trump was asking the Russians to hack Hillary's stuff.

  • The US Government Officials working on the E-Mail retrieval were so incompetent/corrupt that despite physical access, their failure to recover the e-mails was so astoundingly bad that Russian Hackers were going to be able retrieve them remotely.
  • The Clinton's actually still had copies of the e-mails somewhere that could be remotely accessed, but were oblivious to their continued existence, and remain so to this day.
  • That Russian hackers are capable of time travel.

Or Trump was making a joke and subtly pointing out the National Security Risks of what Hillary had done with that unauthorized private server. Because if the Russians DID produce those 30,000 missing e-mails. That would mean her private server, which did have classified material move through it, had likely been compromised during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #103 on: February 23, 2019, 02:21:01 PM »
Quote
You do realize the whole "Trump asked for the Russians to go out and commit espionage" thing, which the media loves to keep bringing up again and again, has been debunked on this forum multiple times already?
I think you're misusing the word: "debunked."

Trump asked Russia to commit espionage. (Not debunked.)
Quote
He specifically asked Russia to release the 30,000 some-odd "missing e-mails" from Hillary Clinton's private, and illegal(which violated FOIA, and numerous other federal statutes), server that she used while Secretary of State.

You know, e-mails that were destroyed so far as official sources were aware(well, until Anthony Wiener's laptop was discovered to have some more of them in October)?

So can you draw me a picture of how Trump asking Russia to release copies of deleted e-mails that not even US Law Enforcement had been able to obtain after considerable effort, somehow turns into "Russia please hack her more recent stuff while you're at it."
Well, when Putin hacked the Democrats, he didn't find what Trump was asking for--for the reasoning you provided. So he handed over the most comprising data he could find instead.

But this is a bizarre conversation: do you really need a picture drawn for you to connect the dots and perceive what the evidence seems to mean?

Partisanship is poisonous to perception. Literal blinders...

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #104 on: February 23, 2019, 02:40:11 PM »
Back to context of his comments. We know Trump speaks off the cuff, rambles, and says outrageous things.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/russia-hacking-trump-mueller/565157/

Quote
On July 27, 2016, at a Trump press conference in Florida, the candidate referred to 33,000 emails that an aide to Hillary Clinton had deleted from the former secretary of state’s personal email server. The DNC had recently announced the Russian intrusion, and Trump speculated that if Russia broke into the DNC, it would have accessed Clinton’s emails, too.

“By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails,” Trump said. “I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted. Because you’d see some beauties there.”

That was perhaps irresponsible speculation, but it wasn’t crazy. There were widespread questions about Clinton’s information security, and whether she might have compromised government secrets. But a few minutes later Trump said something much stranger.

“I will tell you this: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

The president was encouraging a foreign adversary to illegally hack into messages by a former secretary of state that might contain sensitive information, then release them publicly.

And hey, The Atlantic being the somewhat leftist partisan entity it is, seems to be in the tank right there with you on "Trump told them to hack Hillary's stuff" except the context they themselves give doesn't provide that.

Unless you operate on the belief that the Clinton's still had the emails.

But if you think the e-mails are truly deleted, and suspect that the server in question had previously been compromised by the Russians, such as with a comment like:

Quote
On July 27, 2016, at a Trump press conference in Florida, the candidate referred to 33,000 emails that an aide to Hillary Clinton had deleted from the former secretary of state’s personal email server. The DNC had recently announced the Russian intrusion, and Trump speculated that if Russia broke into the DNC, it would have accessed Clinton’s emails, too.

“By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails,” Trump said. “I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted. Because you’d see some beauties there.”

Which oddly enough seems to have been exactly what Trump said in the lead-up to that other comment.

In which case:

Quote
“I will tell you this: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Which brings up another question here that I just noticed. Did you notice the "rewarded mightily by our press" portion of his quote? Every time I hear the MSM play back that sound bite, it mysteriously stops afters "Rewarded mightily" almost as if they want it to seem that Trump was promising a reward from him, not the Press Corps.

But back on topic, "I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing" in the context of a speech where he previously said "They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted." Would make a reasonable person, as opposed to a partisan, conclude that Trump was essentially saying "Hey, I think the Russians had hacked that server, I think they still have the information, they just may not be fully aware of what they have. So if they'd go over the information they already have, and release these e-mails that we can't seem to find here in the United States, that'd be great."

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #105 on: February 23, 2019, 03:04:42 PM »
And looking at more of The Atlantic's article, it's useful in other ways for highlighting the clown-show:

The Trump Tower meeting, which evidently turned out to be about adoptions? Happened a month before the "Russia, if you're listening" speech.

Yes, they have reports of multiple hacking attempts on the Clinton Campaign from Russia that same day, but "Mueller alleges that there had been attempts to hack Clinton’s campaign since at least March 2016." But then again, maybe Russian hackers ARE really capable of time-travel and those hacking attempts in March were a response to a meeting in June, or a speech at the end of July.

Oh, and the Wikileaks release on July 22nd before the DNC was a response to Trump's speech on the 27th of July.  ::)

And it is so very convenient that the feud between Assange and Hillary Clinton, which was years old and "old news" by then, suddenly disappears from the press reporting after Trump wins election. Because making that feud disappear makes it oh-so-much easier to make it look like the Trump Campaign was actively coordinating with both wikileaks and Russia. Rather than three entities with their own respective agendas acting in ways they felt were of most benefit to themselves.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2019, 03:07:32 PM by TheDeamon »

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #106 on: February 23, 2019, 03:18:19 PM »
Partisanship is poisonous to perception...
Quote
Back to context of his comments. We know Trump speaks off the cuff, rambles, and says outrageous things.
The context here is the question of whether Trump's conduct merits investigation.

Claiming that Trump says outrageous things isn't a very convincing defense of his conduct. The outrageous thing he said was a request for Russia to commit espionage to help him win an election. And the "deep state" says that Russia did commit espionage to help him win...

Why are you outraged that the outrageous thing Trump said has created the outrage which outrageous things definitively create, here?

He brought the investigation onto himself. There isn't the need for a bizarre deep state conspiracy theory to explain the investigation into Trump's conduct. (This is the clown-show, here.)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #107 on: February 23, 2019, 04:30:58 PM »
Quote
Partisanship is poisonous to perception...

Apparently so Trump Derangement Syndrome...

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #108 on: February 23, 2019, 05:06:55 PM »
Partisanship is poisonous to perception...
Quote
Back to context of his comments. We know Trump speaks off the cuff, rambles, and says outrageous things.
The context here is the question of whether Trump's conduct merits investigation.

And I was speaking to that specific item, not the rest of the "larger picture" and that specific quote is people making a mountain out of a molehill. It only works if you take it out of context, in multiple ways, and twist it into something it's very highly unlikely to actually be.

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #109 on: February 23, 2019, 06:26:48 PM »
Quote
It only works if you take it out of context, in multiple ways, and twist it into something it's very highly unlikely to actually be.
I'd suggest that the context makes it look quite likely.

I'll ask about the context again: why do you think that Trump has been acting so contrary to American interests when it comes to Russia that even Mattis resigned over it?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #110 on: February 23, 2019, 08:52:22 PM »
I'll ask about the context again: why do you think that Trump has been acting so contrary to American interests when it comes to Russia that even Mattis resigned over it?

Because he's Donald Trump and likes Putin more than he likes most of the Technocrats in Washington?

Entirely believable. Doesn't mean it's the only option, but it certainly is viable. Trump isn't the type to let facts get in his way.

Garbage fires are garbage fires, they don't reliably behave how you either want or expect them to.

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #111 on: February 23, 2019, 09:09:10 PM »
Quote
Garbage fires are garbage fires, they don't reliably behave how you either want or expect them to
Lol!

I totally expect Trump to defer to Putin. All you have to do to understand Trump's behavior is stop sabotaging your intellectual integrity by defending him at every turn, and to recognize that he's corrupt. His behavior makes perfect sense if you merely make that one assumption...

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #112 on: February 23, 2019, 09:12:02 PM »
There is substantial evidence that the man is corrupt, after all...

Surely we can all (anybody reasonable, I mean) agree that there is evidence which suggests the man is corrupt, nay?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #113 on: February 23, 2019, 11:45:47 PM »
There is substantial evidence that the man is corrupt, after all...

Surely we can all (anybody reasonable, I mean) agree that there is evidence which suggests the man is corrupt, nay?

Possibly at least as corrupt as Benjamin Franklin. Not sure how much further down the rabbit hole it goes from there, but Ben Franklin levels of corruption aren't going to get me to foam at the mouth.

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #114 on: February 24, 2019, 02:34:08 PM »
Quote
Possibly at least as corrupt as Benjamin Franklin.
"Possibly at least..."

Really going out on a limb here, are you?
Quote
Not sure how much further down the rabbit hole it goes from there, but Ben Franklin levels of corruption aren't going to get me to foam at the mouth.
Don't sell yourself short. Your text in defense of our Russian puppet of a president runs fairly frothy...

Are you really comparing Trump to Benjamin Franklin now? Stop drinking that orange Kool Aid, yo!

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #115 on: February 24, 2019, 04:47:45 PM »
Quote
Yes, they have reports of multiple hacking attempts on the Clinton Campaign from Russia that same day, but "Mueller alleges that there had been attempts to hack Clinton’s campaign since at least March 2016." But then again, maybe Russian hackers ARE really capable of time-travel and those hacking attempts in March were a response to a meeting in June, or a speech at the end of July.
You've clearly had arguments with people who have pointed out that Trump was asking Russia to search in the future, and you've gone over the timeline in detail.

My concern isn't really the specificity of the request here, it's with the general case of the request for espionage to influence an election. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat--but I am an American, and I don't want my President chosen by Putin. I don't want Russia to be given permission to choose my President by committing selective espionage against one of the candidates. It's bizarre to me that any American thinks Trump's "joke" is in any way defensible, given the context that Russia clearly took the request seriously. The fact that this happened alone would justify an investigation IMO regardless of the context of the rest of the history of Trump's disposition toward Russia.

And the rest of that history seems like it should be harder for you to ignore like you do.

Do you really not care that our country has been abandoning its support of our allies in favor of Putin's preferences, time after time, while Trump whines to his historically illiterate base that everything the newspapers write is "fake news?"

Wouldn't you care if a Democrat had asked and gotten Russian support to win the presidency, and then that Democratic president had kissed Putin's ass over and over again?

Trump criticizes literally everyone in the world, except for Putin. He has repeatedly tried to alleviate sanctions on Russian, against the counsel of his own NSC. When asked to criticize Putin (for assassinations etc) Trump actually prefers to criticize America. ("You think we're so innocent?")

And Trump is so image conscious that he isn't unaware of how his behavior looks when he does it. If Putin didn't have dirt on Trump, Trump would attack him randomly just for imaging purposes, given all the allegations. If you understand Trump enough to follow his MO in responding to media memes, you know this is true--and you should need more of a reason than “maybe Trump just likes Putin.”

The fact that Trump's behavior seems unpredictable to you is really telling, in my view. Trump's behavior looks entirely predictable if you simply assume that he is a corrupt narcissist who has sold America out, and become Putin's puppet.

This is what history will write of him, regardless of whether or not our Justice system succeeds in rooting out this corruption.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #116 on: February 24, 2019, 05:12:39 PM »
Do you really not care that our country has been abandoning its support of our allies in favor of Putin's preferences, time after time, while Trump whines to his historically illiterate base that everything the newspapers write is "fake news?"

Sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to mention that this point would be a lot more poignant if Trump wasn't actually on point about this. I am amply convinced that the American media currently holds very little consideration for the truth, instead no doubt favoring various motives over and above "duty" to the people as the press. It doesn't help your point in particular to ridicule this issue as if Trump is delusional when he chastises the American media. They should be chastised, as should foreign people meddling in American elections.

But I would have a lot more sympathy with your position - and I do have a lot already - if I found that those who so vehemently condemn Trump's politics regarding Russia were as equally willing to condemn local parties who do far more damage to American than Putin ever could. I find it hard to sympathize with complaining of your neighbor throwing a candy wrapper on your yard, when you're already using your living room as a toilet. True, the littering and perhaps trespassing is indeed a serious matter, not to be discounted; but it surely rings as false to harp on that when doing worse oneself. The hypocrisy of it (not from you personally, but from certain factions) undermines any credibility the position may - and even does - have.

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #117 on: February 24, 2019, 06:07:17 PM »
Quote
Sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to mention that this point would be a lot more poignant if Trump wasn't actually on point about this.
But Trump isn't on point about this. The media may purvey "fake news," but Trump doesn't denounce legitimate instances of journalistic overreach, he consistently calls any news that makes him look bad "fake news."

And what he is calling fake news isn't fake news. The reporting of all the leaking from Trump's inner circle about his disposition toward Russia isn't "fake news" just because it makes him look bad.

Trump is way off point on the issue of fake news--he actually consistently shares/starts fake news, using the platform of the presidency, and he only uses the term fake news as a way to brush off any and every allegation that doesn't pander to his ego.

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #118 on: February 24, 2019, 06:51:17 PM »
Quote
But I would have a lot more sympathy with your position - and I do have a lot already - if I found that those who so vehemently condemn Trump's politics regarding Russia were as equally willing to condemn local parties who do far more damage to American than Putin ever could.
C'mon Fenring!

My whole point here is that partisanship distorts objective reasoning processes, and your response is essentially: "But what about the other American team being worse than Putin?"

What ever happened to one indivisible nation?!

Why are you claiming that your fellow Americans are more your enemy than Putin?!?!
« Last Edit: February 24, 2019, 06:53:18 PM by seekingprometheus »

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #119 on: February 24, 2019, 07:20:03 PM »
Seriously, Fenring: I'm pretty angry at Trump supporters for causing such damage to my country, but I don't see them as worse than Putin--they're still American, and that either means something to you as a patriot of your country or it doesn't.

Maybe I'm just crazy, but it almost sounds to me like your memestream has been infected by Russian propaganda, here. I hate what partisanship on the left and the right has done to my country, and I don't have a party, but for my part, I'm going to remain more critical of Putin than I am of any American (even moreso than I am of Trump--who's just a puppet clown, anyhow). Putin is a bad man, and he has proven that he has the ability to do a lot of damage to America.

No matter how this turns out, America isn't going to magically heal from what Putin has done to us, for years.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2019, 07:22:53 PM by seekingprometheus »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #120 on: February 25, 2019, 12:21:49 AM »
Quote
Sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to mention that this point would be a lot more poignant if Trump wasn't actually on point about this.
But Trump isn't on point about this. The media may purvey "fake news," but Trump doesn't denounce legitimate instances of journalistic overreach, he consistently calls any news that makes him look bad "fake news."

And what he is calling fake news isn't fake news. The reporting of all the leaking from Trump's inner circle about his disposition toward Russia isn't "fake news" just because it makes him look bad.

Trump is way off point on the issue of fake news--he actually consistently shares/starts fake news, using the platform of the presidency, and he only uses the term fake news as a way to brush off any and every allegation that doesn't pander to his ego.

I mostly agree with this, but here's the problem: if there really is fake news being propagated, the waters are already muddied. At that point it becomes easy for someone like Trump to dip in to the poisoned well and claim some piece of random news is "fake" if he doesn't like it, when in fact that particular one may be legit but many others really are fake. It's not going to be possible to show how wrong he is when his point (that the media can't be trusted) is generally right, but just not right in specifics. It's too muddied at that point and any quibbling over exactly *which* are the fake stories isn't going to sound compelling anymore. Does that make my point a bit clearer?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #121 on: February 25, 2019, 12:25:46 AM »
Quote
But I would have a lot more sympathy with your position - and I do have a lot already - if I found that those who so vehemently condemn Trump's politics regarding Russia were as equally willing to condemn local parties who do far more damage to American than Putin ever could.
C'mon Fenring!

My whole point here is that partisanship distorts objective reasoning processes, and your response is essentially: "But what about the other American team being worse than Putin?"

What ever happened to one indivisible nation?!

Why are you claiming that your fellow Americans are more your enemy than Putin?!?!

When a collective is intent on cooperating, and an outside force is undermining that, we could surely speak of "indivisible" and how this is being challenged. But when there is already no cooperation, and in fact the 'collective' would prefer to destroy itself than to build anything, it's of little import that a foreign person like Putin wants to add to that. In a funny way we could even suggest that he's 'cooperating' with the will of American politicians in that respect. Granted, Putin may widen an existing gap, but it's surely not his fault that there was a desire to create a gap in the first place. And I say desire because I believe it's completely deliberate. If American doesn't want to cooperate, and Putin doesn't want America to cooperate, then I see little reason for complaint: he's in alignment with the current policy.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #122 on: February 25, 2019, 12:35:17 AM »
Seriously, Fenring: I'm pretty angry at Trump supporters for causing such damage to my country, but I don't see them as worse than Putin--they're still American, and that either means something to you as a patriot of your country or it doesn't.

I'm not talking about Trump supporters really; or the other side either. Or at least, not in a vacuum. It's more the "leadership" and money interests that prefer to divide and conquer their own people. With that going on, Putin can't really compete. It's not so much that anyone is "worse" than him, so much as the net effect he's causing is (IMO) trivial compared to what America did to itself. And I mostly don't mean the average voter when I say that; although too long of living and growing up with corruption, and it becomes normalized, and then the public stops demanding honesty, in which case it becomes a vicious cycle more so than mere victimhood. But nevertheless my general instinct here isn't to blame the people.

Quote
Maybe I'm just crazy, but it almost sounds to me like your memestream has been infected by Russian propaganda, here. I hate what partisanship on the left and the right has done to my country, and I don't have a party, but for my part, I'm going to remain more critical of Putin than I am of any American (even moreso than I am of Trump--who's just a puppet clown, anyhow). Putin is a bad man, and he has proven that he has the ability to do a lot of damage to America.

Just remember that creating a bad guy or scapegoat is the standard method of distracting from a real problem. And scapegoats aren't always necessarily 'false' targets, but rather they're false because the tactic is used as a redirection or smokescreen. Putin may be bad, but over-focusing on him is just a way to turn attention away from (again IMO) more serious targets. And I think this is quite similar to what Pete has talked about in the past, which poor people of all stripes who have in common being subjected to a class war, instead having their ire redirected towards each other (the one side regarding race/etc, the other side regarding political correctness). It's politics 101! And it's going on with Putin, and people would prefer to hate the boogeyman than see it. But remark that the beauty of it is that since he is in fact a troublemaker this claim *sounds* plausible. Most dangerous is when the devil tells the truth, no? And that's Putin's best weapon, too.

Quote
No matter how this turns out, America isn't going to magically heal from what Putin has done to us, for years.

Well, I don't know how to assess this point. But I would wager that an actually united America could heal from a great many things pretty quickly in the grand scheme. What makes healing difficult is when there's no actual will to do so.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #123 on: February 25, 2019, 07:55:29 AM »
Quote
Yes, they have reports of multiple hacking attempts on the Clinton Campaign from Russia that same day, but "Mueller alleges that there had been attempts to hack Clinton’s campaign since at least March 2016." But then again, maybe Russian hackers ARE really capable of time-travel and those hacking attempts in March were a response to a meeting in June, or a speech at the end of July.
You've clearly had arguments with people who have pointed out that Trump was asking Russia to search in the future, and you've gone over the timeline in detail.

My concern isn't really the specificity of the request here, it's with the general case of the request for espionage to influence an election. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat--but I am an American, and I don't want my President chosen by Putin. I don't want Russia to be given permission to choose my President by committing selective espionage against one of the candidates. It's bizarre to me that any American thinks Trump's "joke" is in any way defensible, given the context that Russia clearly took the request seriously. The fact that this happened alone would justify an investigation IMO regardless of the context of the rest of the history of Trump's disposition toward Russia.

And the rest of that history seems like it should be harder for you to ignore like you do.

Do you really not care that our country has been abandoning its support of our allies in favor of Putin's preferences, time after time, while Trump whines to his historically illiterate base that everything the newspapers write is "fake news?"

Wouldn't you care if a Democrat had asked and gotten Russian support to win the presidency, and then that Democratic president had kissed Putin's ass over and over again?

Trump criticizes literally everyone in the world, except for Putin. He has repeatedly tried to alleviate sanctions on Russian, against the counsel of his own NSC. When asked to criticize Putin (for assassinations etc) Trump actually prefers to criticize America. ("You think we're so innocent?")

And Trump is so image conscious that he isn't unaware of how his behavior looks when he does it. If Putin didn't have dirt on Trump, Trump would attack him randomly just for imaging purposes, given all the allegations. If you understand Trump enough to follow his MO in responding to media memes, you know this is true--and you should need more of a reason than “maybe Trump just likes Putin.”

The fact that Trump's behavior seems unpredictable to you is really telling, in my view. Trump's behavior looks entirely predictable if you simply assume that he is a corrupt narcissist who has sold America out, and become Putin's puppet.

This is what history will write of him, regardless of whether or not our Justice system succeeds in rooting out this corruption.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is real.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #124 on: February 25, 2019, 02:48:39 PM »
The fact that Trump's behavior seems unpredictable to you is really telling, in my view. Trump's behavior looks entirely predictable if you simply assume that he is a corrupt narcissist who has sold America out, and become Putin's puppet.

This is what history will write of him, regardless of whether or not our Justice system succeeds in rooting out this corruption.

Corrupt Narcissist? Yes, undeniably so. "Sold America out" to Russia in particular? That remains to be seen, and I have my doubts.

I think it's his Corrupt narcissism paired with Putin's own persona that is creating what you're seeing there, in any other context it'd be called "chemistry" they seem to have it. No sell out required.  Ditto for Trump and North Korea, they seem to have a weird "understanding" between each other that is hard to quantify, but that doesn't mean Trump is selling out to North Korea either.

As to the activities of 2016. Trump's comments might have resulted "in an escalation" of Russian efforts to meddle, but I think the increase in effort was very fractional.

Putin didn't like Hillary before 2016, and that's probably putting it mildly. He wanted her to be challenged in every way possible, I don't think he honestly expected Trump to win. The Demcorats getting hacked and released was "payback" for a laundry list of real and imagined slights directed at him from the Clinton's and their allies.

Assange over at Wikileaks also had a well known dislike for Hillary dating to well before 2016 as well.

The Democrat narrative that without Trump, Wikileaks wouldn't have happened, the Russians wouldn't have meddled in the election, and so on is a Derangement which is very dangerous in that they still refuse to acknowledge that is even conceivable that pretty much the exact same things regarding Hillary would have probably happened if it was Mitt Romney, Tedd Cruz, Marco Rubio, John McCain, Jeb Bush or Adam Sandler running on the Republican ticket for 2016.

Even Trump, the narcissist he is, probably realizes this. Which puts us back to "Trump's behaving how he does in regards to Putin because he likes Putin, not because Trump feels particularly beholden to him(Putin)."

Is it possible that I'm wrong? Certainly so. But the simpler solution is Trump is being Trump in regards to not giving a ____ about optics, and doing whatever the ____ he wants.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #125 on: February 25, 2019, 04:01:54 PM »
Trump is predictable in that with regards to information he lives in the moment which is heavily influenced by what he all ready 'knows' and what appears to be little regard for reflection or nuance. (No need to concern oneself with history even the history of what he said 5 min before)  If the facts don't fit the reality he wants, its the facts that are wrong.
From that perspective everything he does and says makes sense. 

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #126 on: February 25, 2019, 07:41:38 PM »
Quote
if there really is fake news being propagated, the waters are already muddied. At that point it becomes easy for someone like Trump to dip in to the poisoned well and claim some piece of random news is "fake" if he doesn't like it, when in fact that particular one may be legit but many others really are fake.
Of course there is fake news being propagated, but that doesn't justify Trump in his broad-brush hasty generalization logic.

It certainly doesn't make him "on point" about fake news, especially when he is using the term to simply ignore valid questions, and generating his own fake news without regard for facts/data whenever he wants.
Quote
If American doesn't want to cooperate, and Putin doesn't want America to cooperate, then I see little reason for complaint: he's in alignment with the current policy.
You see little reason for complaint about Putin shaping our elections with propaganda...because we're already being divided against each other by domestic politicians?!?!

This is apathy and resignation. Where is your patriotism, Fenring? I thought you were an Ornery American...

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #127 on: February 25, 2019, 07:44:41 PM »
Quote
Certainly so. But the simpler solution is Trump is being Trump in regards to not giving a ____ about optics, and doing whatever the ____ he wants.
Except that Trump very much gives a *censored* about optics--he's a narcissist, who cares big league about his image.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #128 on: February 25, 2019, 08:19:49 PM »
You see little reason for complaint about Putin shaping our elections with propaganda...because we're already being divided against each other by domestic politicians?!?!

This is apathy and resignation.

Why does pointing out a better target for ire translate to you as "apathy"? And why do you not see the danger in allowing a foreign bad guy to be a distraction from an implosive device built in to modern American politics? It almost screams out to the Putins out there "hey! come join the clown fiesta!" It's not even a question to me about whether Putin is dangerous or not. It's a question about whether irrational over-focus on him, combined (as you say) with partisan over-focus on the evil other side, makes it all but impossible to address the real issues facing American. And one of those issues *is not* that the Soviets are about to conquer the world again. If you really want to be afraid about a foreign danger you ought to be looking toward China. But I'm personally not interested in fearing everyone else, when one's own house is not in order.

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #129 on: February 25, 2019, 09:27:43 PM »
Quote
If you really want to be afraid about a foreign danger you ought to be looking toward China.
China is the endgame, but Russian tactics still require attention.

And I'm not afraid of a Soviet takeover, I'm perplexed by the widespread complacency in response to evidence that it has already happened. lol!


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #130 on: February 25, 2019, 10:15:49 PM »
Quote
If you really want to be afraid about a foreign danger you ought to be looking toward China.
China is the endgame, but Russian tactics still require attention.

And I'm not afraid of a Soviet takeover, I'm perplexed by the widespread complacency in response to evidence that it has already happened. lol!

 :o ::) :'(

Good luck finding the forest while complaining about the tree blocking your.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #131 on: February 25, 2019, 10:36:21 PM »
You see little reason for complaint about Putin shaping our elections with propaganda...because we're already being divided against each other by domestic politicians?!?!

This is apathy and resignation.

Why does pointing out a better target for ire translate to you as "apathy"? And why do you not see the danger in allowing a foreign bad guy to be a distraction from an implosive device built in to modern American politics? It almost screams out to the Putins out there "hey! come join the clown fiesta!" It's not even a question to me about whether Putin is dangerous or not. It's a question about whether irrational over-focus on him, combined (as you say) with partisan over-focus on the evil other side, makes it all but impossible to address the real issues facing American. And one of those issues *is not* that the Soviets are about to conquer the world again. If you really want to be afraid about a foreign danger you ought to be looking toward China. But I'm personally not interested in fearing everyone else, when one's own house is not in order.

In my case, its more a case of:

1) I can easily come up with alternative explanations that account for what's being seen through options other than malice.
2) It has already been investigated by multiple groups, nothing more than innuendo has been found/released to date.
3) There is another high powered investigation underway which has findings that are yet to be made known.
4) Stressing out over things I have no control or influence over is just a good way to need medical attention.
5) I did enough worrying over Obama, and he scared me a LOT more than anything Trump has done to date.
 
6) I think the Democratic political machine wants everybody to fixate on Trump and Russia, with particular emphasis on the Trump part. So that's a good reason not to. Until reason which isn't innuendo is provided for doing so.
7) Most of the "foreign interference problems" are oddly subjective. And historically are ineffective in most nations it gets attempted in. The only time they get close to being effective is when you're dealing with a deeply divided populace.
8) The solution to fixing foreign interference is to work on mending domestic political fences, rather than building more elaborate political fortifications.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #132 on: February 26, 2019, 12:04:42 AM »
SP,

If it makes you feel a bit more connected to my position, I would posit also that I am happy to view Trump's moves as often not only self-serving but even 'malevolent' in the sense that he must surely know at times that he's causing damage on purpose. I am happy to view Putin as also doing damage on purpose. So I don't negate your points, but rather suggest that those points are a symptom, not a cause, of the main issue. I truly think that these issues wouldn't be such series issues as they are, if the two parties believed in mutual cooperation for governance, where the one was about getting as much of their agenda on board, while the other was about protecting their interests. The disagreement would be how to implement both sets of desires in a mutually beneficial way. I mean ok, that's practically the UPF from Trek, but still, it's not rocket science to know how to cooperate. So when they don't it can only be for a few reasons: they are too incompetent to do their jobs; or they have no intention of cooperating at all; or they feel they can't in good conscience because the other side is evil. And part of the other side no doubt is, due to happy money interests and illicit affiliations guiding their actions. But big money dictating this and that, people who claim to believe one side work for some lobby, but others who supposedly believe in the same side, work for a contrasting lobby, and in end up as sometime political enemies. I mean, this is all a joke, right? I'm been saying for a while, go after money in elections, go after lobbyist influencing the Congress, go after any possibility of buying one's way into Washington, and then we can have a civil - even uplifting - talk about Putin and what should be done to build or burn bridges there to bring him around. And I can even have that talk now, but not under the auspices of what we're talking about being the great evil of our time. The great evil of our time is deceit. Just as it always has. That's partly why I blame the media as much as I do.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 12:08:43 AM by Fenring »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #133 on: February 26, 2019, 01:40:09 PM »
I'm curious how the "no evidence of collusion" crowd explains Mattis' resignation.

Are you implying there is a connection?  I don't see one.  Or are you just interested based on our political views.

It's generally tough to get the "real" story on something like this, but we have both Mattis' statements and Trump's reactions.  It looks, to me, like a philosophical difference (that with any other President we'd get over).  Trump is unconventional on his world view, he's a break from a philosophy that's dominated both sides of the political spectrum since the cold war, that views American safety as uniquely served by establishing a global order (without regard to our direct benefit at any moment).

The principal was sound, but it's become corrupt.  We didn't get want we intended, a world of enlightened actors who also put the group interests ahead of their own.  Instead, we got a bunch of countries that were happy to take the benefits but only willing to shoulder the duties grudgingly, if at all.

Trump's philosophy is an express rejection of the moral freeloading that is going on.  It's a demand that the other western countries do their fair share.  That they pay for NATO and don't leave the US to be the world's policeman - as they have routinely done to ease their own political problems at home.  That they stand up to China and Russia and other bad actors and don't expect the US to bear the brunt of all the economic and other sanctions while they cut side deals to their own benefit.

That's exactly what we've seen time and again.  The global community orders sanctions, US investment and ownership in country pulls out and our allies sign stand-by deals to take advantage when the sanctions are lifted.  This undermines the purpose of the sanctions and harms us to their benefit.  China policies?  Lots of side deals that undermine US manufacturing.  Russian polices - less aggressive than the Trump admin (or the Obama admin which was far less aggressive than Trump), and plenty of behind the scence deals (hello German pipeline).

So Mattis pretty much subscribes to a political philosophy that Trump believes is no longer viable and has been on an ever increasing path to failure.  Mattis believed his role was to "stop" Trump from enacting policy changes.

What exactly, is mysterious about the resignation?  Or should cause any concern?

Quote
I'm not just talking about Mattis, of course--I'm talking about the whole history of Trump's relationship with Russia.

I don't think you are.  I think you're talking about a soft media assertion about the Russian relationship.

It was Obama that wanted a Russian reset, that got caught on a hot mike telling Putin he could make concessions after the election, that did nothing when the Russians fomented rebellion in the Ukraine and ceased Crimea. 

If you look objectively, Trump's imposed a number of sanctions on Russia and Russians, armed the Ukranians, killed Russian allies and possible Russians in Syria (very Cold War proxy style if that's what you're looking for). 

What exactly do you think he's done in the Russian interest?

Quote
Do y'all not care about the way Trump keeps trying to shape American foreign policy to benefit Russia against the counsel of his own NSC because you don't care at all about America's interests, or are you too busy playing partisan word games to see what is going on right in front of everyone's eyes?

So walk through it, this time without being vague.  I don't need specific cites, but I do need to know what actions you think are clear and how you're weighing them objectively.

Quote
Some of y'all are acting like the fact that classified evidence isn't available to the masses is somehow evidence that no crime has been committed.

Classified information is leaked all the time when it helps a political argument.  I have no doubt that a smoking gun would have been leaked by the Democrats as soon as they saw it.

What I'm taking as evidence that "no crime has been committed" is the failure of the House, and now apparently the Senate to find it after conducting that investigation and being able to look at that classified evidence.

If, as is certainly possible, Mueller too comes up blank, then flat out it's a lie and false story.  You can double down and double down again, it's still a losing hand and a lie.  But we'll see.

Quote
But an American politician publicly asked Russia to commit espionage against his opponent, and our national security apparatus has told us that Russia did it, and the selfsame politician has been sucking up to Russia like his job depends on it ever since, and some of y'all are pretending like the idea that there might be a case here is something that can only be explained by lunacy or outright FBI corruption.

Yes a national politician making a joke on live tv.  Wow how damning.  I can't take your position seriously if this is what you think is convincing.

"Sucking up" as you call it is a style.  He uses it on a bunch of people.  There's not a lot of there there.

I don't remember Obama meeting with Putin and spitting in his face either.  In fact 2 seconds on google will grab you pictures of Obama, Hillary, Bill Clinton, Trump, heck even Bush all shaking Putin's hand with big ole smiles on their faces. 

Lest, we forget, Obama actually said gems like these:  "the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years"

So I'm curious, is this view on Russia (and unarguably Trump has been harder on China than any recent President) based on some massive change that increased their threat level?  The only one I'm aware of is the Obama admin ignoring Putin's rise to power and increasingly militant actions, up to and including Russian attempts to interfere in our election process.  Are you asserting that Trump is below that standard (I see no evidence to support you) or that Trump's policy needed to be more guided by the failures of the Obama admin?

And yest I wrote that in a partisan manner.  I reject that you are not a partisan, you write as a partisan even as you cloak yourself in calling out the partisan nature of others comments.

Quote
rightleft's wish of Trump magically switching teams is an impossibility, so why does it seem more plausible than a scenario in which people simply examine the man's history without rank bias against anything that harms their political team?

There's nothing impossible about Trump switching teams.  His policy is far more centrist than either political parties and has as much in common with the historical views of the Democrats as the Republicans.  Of course, the new Democratic party is falling over itself to adopt anything that is contrary to what Trump says, no matter how nonsensical.

There's plenty in Trump's history that isn't beneficial to my "team." 

EDIT - Removed a quote that I could not find a corroborating source for.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 01:45:29 PM by Seriati »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #134 on: February 26, 2019, 01:50:43 PM »
Quote
I would love to know what the GOP would go after him for.
The Republicans would have impeached him already for Russian collusion and/or financial crimes.

Democratic support for Trump would have splintered and he'd be wearing a different shade of orange right now.

There is no world in which a Democratic President gets impeached.  So long as there are 34 Democratic Senators.  There's no world in which a Democratic President has an illegal act overturned by Congress in which there are 41 Democratic Senators.

Republicans learned their lesson on impeachment.  They can't win a media fight unless it's rock solid and crystal clear and this doesn't get there.  I mean heck, as pointed out many times, Hillary's campaign hired a British spy to provide them dirt from Russian intell (which is the actual crime you seem to want found on the Trump campaign) and they can't even get them indicted when they are actually in power.

Quote
Trump leaks like a pervert pissing on a pair of prostitutes. We all already know the truth, it's just that many of us have declared ourselves incapable of understanding what it means.

I agree.  I disagree on who is deluding themselves.

Your side of the coin, includes some who called for impeachment one minute after the inaugeration.  TDS is a real thing.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #135 on: February 26, 2019, 06:19:06 PM »
My concern isn't really the specificity of the request here, it's with the general case of the request for espionage to influence an election.

Actually, your concern is with a quote that can be pulled ridiculously out of context to make it appear there was a request for espionage.  "To influence an election" is a gratitous addition of your own.

Your read is about as reasonable as the confession in My Cousin Vinnie, and then the defendant said, "I shot the Clerk."

In context, Hillary just turned over government property, including confidential information, to her attorneys - who did not have security clearances (I know another intentional violation), who in response to a subpeona tried to permanently delete the hard drive in question.  None of which you apparently think is suspicious?

Asking for the Russians to find the missing emails in that context can not even plausibly be construed as asking for an act of espionage. 

Quote
I'm neither Republican nor Democrat--but I am an American, and I don't want my President chosen by Putin. I don't want Russia to be given permission to choose my President by committing selective espionage against one of the candidates. It's bizarre to me that any American thinks Trump's "joke" is in any way defensible, given the context that Russia clearly took the request seriously. The fact that this happened alone would justify an investigation IMO regardless of the context of the rest of the history of Trump's disposition toward Russia.

But apparently, any other corruption choosing your President is okay. 

It's completely laughable to believe Putin or even Russia had a material impact.  Their spend was less that a fraction of a percent of the total spend.  Their "sophisticated targeting" was less sophisticated than the campaigns or most of the PACs involved.  Heck even their dirty tricks are routinely surpassed by multiple actors.

It's clearly not the foreign actor angle.  Never heard any complaints about endorsements by other countries of one candidate or the other.  Don't seem to be concerned about a British Agent colluding with the DOJ/FBI/Obama Administration to try and take down one candidate.

The corruption coming out of the DOJ and FBI leadership is the single biggest issue that threatens Americans, so as a non-political American why isn't that your biggest concern?

Quote
Do you really not care that our country has been abandoning its support of our allies in favor of Putin's preferences, time after time,...

Hasn't happened.  Literally hasn't happened.  Name the allies we've abandoned under Trump in favor of Putin's choices.

The only ones I recall are the ones Obama abandoned.  Ukraine, red line, even Iraq. 

Lots of "liberal truths" without support for a supposed non-partisan.

Quote
...while Trump whines to his historically illiterate base that everything the newspapers write is "fake news?"

I'm not "historically illiterate" and he's correct, most of what the newspapers write about him is in fact fake news.  In this case, that's a catchy term for stories written, selected and spun for the sole purpose of making him and/or his agenda look bad.

The fact that some of them rest on true statements, does not change the idea in the least when they are purpose designed to create a false impression.

Writing a story about a green man killed by a blue man can be completely true and yet by stringing four true ones together it creates a narrative that blue men are killing green men.  If however those four stories were the only four such, and there were dozens not covered of green men killing blue men, you've created a fake news narrative.

Coverage of Trump has been intentionally negative (much like coverage of Obama was intentionally positive).  That's how you end up with people convince that Obama's policies were better for the economy than Trumps, notwithstanding the actual evidence. 

Quote
Wouldn't you care if a Democrat had asked and gotten Russian support to win the presidency, and then that Democratic president had kissed Putin's ass over and over again?

Sure.  I'd also care if a Democrat murdered everyone in a town hall Rambo style on live tv.  But neither event happened so I'm a bit indifferent to the question.

Quote
Trump criticizes literally everyone in the world, except for Putin. He has repeatedly tried to alleviate sanctions on Russian, against the counsel of his own NSC. When asked to criticize Putin (for assassinations etc) Trump actually prefers to criticize America. ("You think we're so innocent?")

Lol.  Trump doesn't criticize everyone.  He does use criticism as a tactic, he also uses praise as a tactic.  Sometimes you seem a very deep thinker to me, other times you run with a surface idea as if it were the truth.

Assuming that Trump isn't a brainwashed Russian mole, can you not think of any other explanation for how he behaves with respect to Putin as a personal matter (you've already missed that he doesn't behave that way in actions).

Quote
And Trump is so image conscious that he isn't unaware of how his behavior looks when he does it.

Trump's a narcissist.  I don't think he views "how he looks" in the same way you or I would.

Quote
If Putin didn't have dirt on Trump, Trump would attack him randomly just for imaging purposes, given all the allegations.

In my view, at a guess, Trump would view attacking Putin as a sign of his own weakness.  Which by the way, any fool can see is exactly how the media would play it.  Trump attacks Putin today, and tomorrow the media headlines are about how weak Trump is and how he's risking Nuclear War to cover up his being in the tank.  No possibility - at all - that the media reports it positively.

Against that background, your "advice" really doesn't make sense.

Couple that with the reality, that at the moment, he has some advantage with Putin, and he's not going to throw it out without a benefit.  I mean come on, as bad as Trump is, Putin is the ultimate vanity project.  The man rigs professional hockey games so he can play and score the most goals, rides around shirtless on horses for publicity photos and loves the idea that he's potentially fooling the President.

Quote
If you understand Trump enough to follow his MO in responding to media memes, you know this is true--and you should need more of a reason than “maybe Trump just likes Putin.”

Well, it's only part of the analysis.  Trump's actions are far more consistent and logical than you give him credit for.  The "missing" piece isn't being indebted to Moscow (his narcissim would never allow him to believe they put him in office), nor is it being afraid of Moscow (there's literally nothing I could envision on a personal level that has a hope of being worse than his own personality and prior actions).

My guess, is the missing piece is believing that this is the best way to handle Putin, and with the added benefit of sticking it in the eye of the Democrats.  He's been most reasistent to those trying to force him to follow "traditional" policies or to those tying his hands.  Passing war level sanctions as a response to his own election, pretty much locked into his head that accepting them and prosecuting them would be delegitimizing himself.  That's part of the political calculus that Congress intended so it's not surprising he'd take that view.

Quote
The fact that Trump's behavior seems unpredictable to you is really telling, in my view. Trump's behavior looks entirely predictable if you simply assume that he is a corrupt narcissist who has sold America out, and become Putin's puppet.

He's not unpredictable, nor is your story a good fit for how he actually acts.  He's talked nice to Putin, frustrated Congresses lame attempt a delegitimizing his election, but otherwise been tougher on Russia than Obama.  All of which is consistent with his personal narcissm and his clearly expressed views on foreign policy, and not what you'd expect from a Manchurian candidate.

Quote
This is what history will write of him, regardless of whether or not our Justice system succeeds in rooting out this corruption.


History is written by history professors, last time I checked academia has been overwhelmed by a leftist philosophy.  Not surprising they'll record him poorly, even if their dead wrong.

Heck these are the same people who can't seem to actually record the history of Socialism and the misery and death it causes.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 06:24:40 PM by Seriati »

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #136 on: February 26, 2019, 09:57:51 PM »
Quote
TDS is a real thing.
Echoing Crunch, now, are we?

I'll have you know that my derangement precedes Trump's incumbency. ;)
Quote
And yest I wrote that in a partisan manner.  I reject that you are not a partisan, you write as a partisan even as you cloak yourself in calling out the partisan nature of others comments.
I have my biases, Seriati. I'll happily admit that I have a longstanding bias against Trump, stemming from learning about his character. My understanding of the man colors my perception of his actions.

But I'm not part of any party other than my own. I'd outlaw both parties if such a thing could be done. (It's like literal blinders are placed on anyone wearing a team uniform when ever political content comes up: it's fine if you really want to wear them, I guess, but you certainly shouldn't be permitted to engage in activities that require the full faculties of attention, like driving, or voting while wearing such blinders...)

They're spectacularly disruptive to objective reasoning--it's like reality distorts around political force fields, and BOTH sides have certain issues where they sidestep the simplest reality, and their entire stream of logic distends around a bend. You can usually tell when it's happening because the person becomes highly voluble, and strains logic as they reach for arguments that seem to completely defy the laws of common sense.

I don't understand why you insist on discussing such things through such a distortive lens, or why you insist that I'm a partisan. That's your bag, yo.
Quote
There's nothing impossible about Trump switching teams.  His policy is far more centrist than either political parties and has as much in common with the historical views of the Democrats as the Republicans.  Of course, the new Democratic party is falling over itself to adopt anything that is contrary to what Trump says, no matter how nonsensical.
I completely agree with your central points here--with the caveat that only some of Trump's views are centrist, and most of his views seem to be moving targets...

But It is a practical impossibility for Trump to literally change teams at this point in history.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 10:05:14 PM by seekingprometheus »

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #137 on: February 26, 2019, 11:08:02 PM »
Quote
If it makes you feel a bit more connected to my position, I would posit also that I am happy to view Trump's moves as often not only self-serving but even 'malevolent' in the sense that he must surely know at times that he's causing damage on purpose.
I see Trump as self-serving, not malevolent per se. But his venality is far from venial, and I think he prides himself on the damage he causes...

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #138 on: February 27, 2019, 11:17:37 AM »
Quote
In my view, at a guess, Trump would view attacking Putin as a sign of his own weakness.  Which by the way, any fool can see is exactly how the media would play it.  Trump attacks Putin today, and tomorrow the media headlines are about how weak Trump is and how he's risking Nuclear War to cover up his being in the tank.  No possibility - at all - that the media reports it positively.

Quite possibly. That's why diplomats, the opposite of Trump, always include some positives and some negatives about "A Thing". Binary Trump either has to be in full attack mode or full friend mode, and accordingly can be lampooned and criticized for his lack of nuance and his caricature view of international relations.

Other presidents do a little sanction, do a little rebuke, do a little outreach, do a little cooperation - simultaneously. Partly for the outcome, and partly for the ability to rebut naysayers.

Quote
Coverage of Trump has been intentionally negative (much like coverage of Obama was intentionally positive).  That's how you end up with people convince that Obama's policies were better for the economy than Trumps, notwithstanding the actual evidence. 

Gee, the guy who was fighting for more people to be able to see a doctor got positive press, while the guy who wants to fill our border with barbed wire got negative press. I wonder why that could be? Trump's approach to life is inherently combative and filled with vitriol, while Obama was measured and diplomatic. I wonder why people might have given the latter more benefit of the doubt?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #139 on: February 27, 2019, 11:28:10 AM »
Quote
Coverage of Trump has been intentionally negative (much like coverage of Obama was intentionally positive).  That's how you end up with people convince that Obama's policies were better for the economy than Trumps, notwithstanding the actual evidence. 

Gee, the guy who was fighting for more people to be able to see a doctor got positive press, while the guy who wants to fill our border with barbed wire got negative press. I wonder why that could be?

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in his first year in office.  Nominations closed 11 days after he was inaugerated.

Trump's received 90-95% unfavorable coverage from before he was in office.  They even went out of their way to criticize his inaugeration and to discuss impeachment from literally a minute after the oath of office.

You have your cause and effect completely backwards.  Praise and Condemnation, respectively, grossly proceeded any legitimate policies on which they could be layered.

Edited to add:  Not to mention, Obama stuck kids in cages and you never heard about it.  Not a signature of just Trump.  The media - to this day - has failed to actually teach you who's really responsible for kids in cages.  Ask yourself why we can't detain families together, or why we don't have facilities that are not prison like with enough capacity to hold everyone in a reasonable way.  It has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with decades of negilgence by Congress and activism by the Courts.

Quote
Trump's approach to life is inherently combative and filled with vitriol, while Obama was measured and diplomatic. I wonder why people might have given the latter more benefit of the doubt?

I hope you realize how much what you just said is a repetition of propaganda.  Obama never failed to have harsh words for his critics, "get in the back of the bus" is my favorite, but he routinely demeaned those he disagreed with (remember him calling the Cambridge cops racists without having any facts?).  Obama engaged in zero diplomacy on an internal basis, and even internationally his policies were more known for being jokes than successful.

Meanwhile Trump's actually said more positive than negative things, but you'd never know that from the way the media chooses what statements to emphasize (including some that they insist on mischaracterizing - take a look at Trump's actual statement on his famous p-grabbing line - clearly asserted that celebrities can get away with it (which is exactly what sparked the #metoo movement, powerful men that had been getting away it), yet the media often cites it as a statement that Trump said he did it, or even as proof that he did it).   

Obama was not crass or crude, Trump clearly is.  That should not be the end all be all of the world that leads anyone to think that Obama somehow because he spoke better had better ideas.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 11:31:12 AM by Seriati »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #140 on: February 27, 2019, 03:32:32 PM »
Quote
TDS is a real thing.
Echoing Crunch, now, are we?

You think acknowledging TDS is echoing Crunch?  You know what I remember, Van Jones on election night in 2016 crying about how parents would have to have a conversation with their children about how someone so hateful could win (maybe they shouldn't have lied to the kids in the first place by demonizing the other side).  Literally, people suffering shock in the weeks that followed.  Literally mental health professionals attributing PTSD to Trump being elected.

TDS is a real thing.  It's not remotely based in reality, it's based in a panicked misperception of reality, fed by partisans in the media.

Quote
I'll have you know that my derangement precedes Trump's incumbency. ;)

Hope you're feeling better.

Quote
I have my biases, Seriati. I'll happily admit that I have a longstanding bias against Trump, stemming from learning about his character. My understanding of the man colors my perception of his actions.

I must have said a thousand times, an ethics voter had no candidate in the last election.

Quote
But I'm not part of any party other than my own. I'd outlaw both parties if such a thing could be done. (It's like literal blinders are placed on anyone wearing a team uniform when ever political content comes up: it's fine if you really want to wear them, I guess, but you certainly shouldn't be permitted to engage in activities that require the full faculties of attention, like driving, or voting while wearing such blinders...)

Whether any particular person is overwhelmed by a partisan affinity is actually a question of fact.

You're just engaging in a poisoning the well fallacy.  And you're doing it so you can just assert it and then proceed as if you've made a valid argument against a position they took.

I don't take unconsidered positions.  I do inherently mistrust the positions of people on the other side of the political spectrum (for good reason, they're usually misepresenting something).  But you know what, I also mistrust the positions on my own side (for good reason, they're often pursuing undisclosed motives with which I disagree).

My strongest political affinity is to the primary importance of the Rule of Law.  For that reason I generally can not support the Democrats, to them rules only exist when to their benefit.  That's why you see inconsistent applications of justice by party, abuse of administrative agencies by the Dems, that's why they led the pack the courts strategy (to my dismay they've got the Republicans doing it as well).   I mean heck, they even do t in petty ways - just today they intentionally violated the rules around Michael Cohen's testimony that required he submit written records 24 hours in advance to 'prevent the other side picking them apart,' never mind that they also intentionally scheduled his hearing to damage the President during the midst of the NK nuclear talks. 

But what I was criticizing is that you seem to be blind to the fact that party loyalists are the ones that write virtually all the content you are consuming.  Propaganda works even on intelligent people.  Everything we think we know is colored by what others wanted us to know.  When you write from an unacknowledged partisan side it's not because you are free from partisanship and acting as an objective critic, it's because you've grown blind to it in what you're consuming as information.

Quote
They're spectacularly disruptive to objective reasoning--it's like reality distorts around political force fields, and BOTH sides have certain issues where they sidestep the simplest reality, and their entire stream of logic distends around a bend. You can usually tell when it's happening because the person becomes highly voluble, and strains logic as they reach for arguments that seem to completely defy the laws of common sense.

Adhering to views you don't believe because they are associated with a group you like is a bit off.  It's a natural instinct, and we'd all be lieing if we said we never let something go or passively agreed to something because we wanted to be liked by the speaker.

Taking teams has led to some serious nonsense in US politics. 

But vaguely asserting a non-partisan truth while using it to call down one side of the spectrum is a tactic not an expression of honest brokerage.

Quote
I don't understand why you insist on discussing such things through such a distortive lens, or why you insist that I'm a partisan. That's your bag, yo.

And this is where you go off the rails.  Rather than address the arguments you call down the poisoned well. 

If you're not partisan maybe you can point out where you've held both sides accountable.  You know personally, I think there's a very good case that 75% or more of the nonsense comes from the left.  There's no "liberal swing justice" for instance.  There's little progressive compromise, there are just absolutes that as soon as they get a simple majority become moral perogatives and dissenters must now be persecuted and destroyed.  The left believes in the rights of the minority (when in the minority) but in the unfettered rights of the mob when in the majority. 

But an argument on philosphy is really just a distration from the actual points. 

Without just asserting conclusions, lay out some of the specific things that you think support your argument that Trump is owned by Putin.  Feel free to compare and contrast with prior administrations.

Quote
I completely agree with your central points here--with the caveat that only some of Trump's views are centrist, and most of his views seem to be moving targets...

Bill Clinton was the master of the moving position.  Trump's been pretty consistent on carrying out the positions he laid out in his campaign, even at great political cost.  What exactly are these "most" of his positions that are 'moving targets'?

No one though is consistently centrist.  Trump's been pretty far right on abortion for example.  But his criminal reforms and family leave policies are clearly center or left of center.  All border security really is, is exposing the lies that both parties have been telling for decades about their support of securing the border and "doing something" about illegal immigration.  What's the old saying?  The best way to get a law changed is to enforce it.  Why are people blaming Trump for slightly more enforcement of a law rather than those who made the law?

Quote
But It is a practical impossibility for Trump to literally change teams at this point in history.

Probably.  But only because the media goal is to put Trump on Team Evil, and who wants a member of Team Evil on their side.

Of course, one might be suspicious of team media's views, when Reagan was a senile fool, Bush 1 was an evil CIA mastermind, Bush 2 was Hitler and a War Criminal (with the added benefit that Cheney was an evil mastermind from the illuminati) and of course Trump is a racist, homophobe, whatever phobe that wants to kill innocent immigrant children.

Lucky for us, Obama put his Halo aside long enough to try and fix things, and Bill Clinton was so wonderful that he was even the first black President (at least until Obama came along and we had our second first black President).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #141 on: February 27, 2019, 07:27:15 PM »
[I must have said a thousand times, an ethics voter had no candidate in the last election.

Speak for yourself, I voted 3rd party for the first time in 2016.

Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #142 on: February 27, 2019, 10:09:07 PM »
Quote
You're just engaging in a poisoning the well fallacy.
It may well be a poisonous well, but that doesn't make it a fallacy if we assume that partisanship does poison the well.

And it does. It totally colors the judgments of people who adhere to it.
Quote
If you're not partisan maybe you can point out where you've held both sides accountable.
You've seen me criticize liberal craziness here before.

You were in the mandatory voting thread, where the left was trying to force me to participate in your dumbocrazy by making voting mandatory. You've seen me arguing with the left against nonsensical political correctness, which they are constantly (insanely) pitting against free speech on issues like stifling criticism of Islam by broad-brushing it all as xenophobia. If you've paid attention, you might have even seen me push back when they misrepresent science, which they often erroneously presume is always on their team, such as when folks on the left have claimed that homosexuality is something people are born with (people might be born with a natural predisposition, but studies on identical twins who have been separated at birth provide fairly conclusive evidence that nurture plays some role in the expression of such a trait, too).
Quote
But what I was criticizing is that you seem to be blind to the fact that party loyalists are the ones that write virtually all the content you are consuming.
So I'm a partisan because I read newspapers, in spite of the fact that I'm critical of both parties, and would never associate myself with either...

This is distortion from drinking from a poisoned well.

You're in this thread making open accusations of deep state conspiracies, and yet you claim I'm deranged because I read the newspapers (and can tell the difference between the NYT and the National Enquirer when it comes to the concept of Fake News)?

You need to stop drinking from that well...
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 10:13:18 PM by seekingprometheus »