The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

[alasdairm]

You're such an independent thinker yet you can't get out of this paradigm of "Trump needed to lambast Putin".

why do you struggle so much with the idea that i look at the situation and simply come to a different conclusion than you do?

"i arrived at my position independently but you can't possible have done the same"?

it's odd and a little arrogant to me.

i think trump should have stated, unequivocally, that he stands behind the u.s. intelligence community's analysis that russia meddled in the 2016 election. further, that russia must cease such meddling and, if not, there will be serious repercussions in the form of economic sanctions and diplomatic distance.

alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

i think trump should have stated, unequivocally, that he stands behind the u.s. intelligence community's analysis that russia meddled in the 2016 election. further, that russia must cease such meddling and, if not, there will be serious repercussions in the form of economic sanctions and diplomatic distance.

So the USA shouldn't say that they will stop first? Other countries must do as we say but not as we do? That's not how the world should work. It's completely hypocritical but feel free to explain to me why it isn't, and why the USA should receive special treatment when it comes to such meddling.

Now can you be specific about which community analysis you are talking about? Because it's all over the place

The AP reporter just told Trump that "every US intelligence agency has concluded that" Russia meddled in 2016. That's not true -- it was a group of "handpicked" analysts from NSA, FBI, and CIA. Noteworthy that DIA and State Dept's INR were excluded from process.

So basically, we've come to the point were people are actually pissed off because their president asked the intelligence agencies to provide some concrete evidence of collusion and showed some confidence in what Putin was saying. We're talking about the same intelligence agencies that are designed to lie, commit extrajudicial killings abroad and at home, spy on them, and basically work as the actual totalitarian regime that they fear so much. I have no words to express how incredible this is. Are we close to seeing the people actually calling for "a Hitler" to come and trash all their liberties while they think they're defending their cherished "American values"?

Well, Putin was very clear regarding them going against their own democracy:

I have worked in intelligence too, and I know how these dossiers are compiled. This is my first point.

My second point is that I consider Russia to be a democratic state. I hope you do not deny this to your country, the United States of America, either. Is the United States a democratic state? If so, then the final ruling in a dispute of this kind can only be made in court, not an intelligence service.

And since I'm mentioning the press conference itself, I think that we have testified another example of how brilliant Putin is when he invited Americans to be part of a joint investigation with Russia. What can the US say now without being seen as suspect for not wanting to cooperate with such an open Russia? They are invited, it's up to them now, the ball is on their side, quite literally.

And I think Trump's words here were very important and, in some odd way, even inspiring:

I am here today to continue the proud tradition of bold American diplomacy. From the earliest days of our republic, American leaders have understood that diplomacy and engagement is preferable to conflict and hostility. A productive dialogue is not only good for the United States and good for Russia, but it is good for the world.

The disagreements between our two countries are well-known. President Putin and I discussed them at length today. But if we are going to solve many of the problems facing our world, then we are going to have to find ways to cooperate in pursuit of shared interests. Too often in both the recent past and long ago we have seen the consequences when diplomacy is left on the table.

We have also seen the benefits of cooperation. In the last century our nations fought alongside one another in the Second World War. Even during the tensions of the Cold War, when the world looked much different than it does today, the United States and Russia were able to maintain a strong dialogue. But our relationship has never been worse than it is now.

However, that changed as of about four hours ago. I really believe that. Nothing would be easier politically than to refuse to meet, to refuse to engage, but that would not accomplish anything. As President, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics, or the media, or Democrats who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct.

Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forges the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics. As President, I will always put what is best for America and what is best for the American people.

I just wonder, how can all these people not be happy to hear that from the POTUS? Did people even hear what he said? I really doubt it, they're just eating what the media feeds them and few are talking about what has actually been said.


https://youtu.be/HFRmF0SfHUA
Tucker Carlson: People who mismanaged foreign policy are the same people who made Trump buckle

 

[alasdairm]

So the USA shouldn't say that they will stop first? Other countries must do as we say but not as we do? That's not how the world should work. It's completely hypocritical but feel free to explain to me why it isn't, and why the USA should receive special treatment when it comes to such meddling.

you're putting a lot of words in my mouth. let's try to not do that?

the u.s. should not be meddling in the elections of other countries but our stopping doing it - and stating same - is not mutually exclusive with the response trump should have made to putin on the subject of russian interference.

you seem to use the false dilemma a lot...

alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

No, I am highlighting your lack of words. You said call them out (without solid evidence imo).
You're still doing what you're calling them out for.
It's directly related.
And he did call it out. They addressed the crimes Mueller found and Putin invited Mueller to be involved with the investigations. Isn't that the best possible outcome for going after Russian meddling?

 

[alasdairm]

"...I will tell you that president Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today..." is far from an unequivocal call out.

he also said: "He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be..."

then he walked that back by saying he 'misspoke'. not the kind beginner flub one expects from the president in "serious international relations here among big boys" is it?

then on wednesday he said "...Russia is no longer targeting the United States..." contradicting his own walk-back and his top intelligence advisor's warning a few days earlier. not some deep state, liberal sjw traitor blah blah blah... his own advisor, dan coats.

his statements on the subject are so muddled, then remuddled who the hell knows what he really means...

alasdair

 

[swilow]

Bromance? What is this high school? We're describing serious international relations here among big boys. Even if you don't take Trump seriously everyone else does.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point, I think.

So let's just assume that's a thing:

Before going on to assume many things.

So you don't want war.
But you also don't want cozy relations?
So you don't want them to be at war but you want them to be kinda fighting, mad at each other? You realize that will further the arms race and lead to more nuclear proliferation?

False dilemma, again. Seriously, can you do us a favour and read what is meant by false dichotomy, because it plays a large role in invalidating your arguments. There are a myriad possible other options in between nuclear war and coziness.

But at no point have I said that Russia should, or should not, be inherently distrusted so there is no real basis for you assuming anything about my position. Personally, I think that Russia/US relations have been adversarial due to actions from both parties; and I agree with you if you believe it is more often the US that is the aggressor. I happen to think there is a current status quo that could be better, could be worse.

I just happen to believe that Russia meddled in the US presidential elections, and Trump has a conflict of interest with regards that nation that is suggestive of his having played a role, given how much he had to gain from their involvement. That is speculation, of course, but perhaps you could at least entertain the notion that Trump was involved. Or that, ultimately, Russian inteference was not motivated by benevolence or concenrn for the welfare of US (or global) citizens. Its plausible that Russia simply wanted anyone but Clinton, but I am sure they were pretty thrilled that the candidate was Trump, given the potential finanicial leverage they had over him.

Would you want them to make peace while Trump was President? You'd also have to say yes to that because peace with Russia is still desired even though it sucks that Trump may get credit.
"But... we can't make peace with Russia because we think that they interfered with the election." Really though?

You appear to be arguing with your alter-ego there, 'Jgrimez'.

Russia and the US are not at war. Russia and the US are currently at peace, and were at peace when Putin's best mate, Obama, was in office and before that, and even before that. I don't want the two states to make peace, I just want them to stay at peace. What I want from Trump is for him to not fuck it up.

I can certainly see that relations could be much better too, but I don't think that should require the president dismissing findings of his own intelligence community.

Here's an interesting hypothetical: would you prefer Hillary as president and war with Russia, or Trump as president and peace with Russia? If you say Clinton then we can't be friends.

Did you get a chance to read this wikipedia article yet?

Trump even sold weapons to Ukraine!! This is actually one of his moves that I massively opposed. But is that bending over for Russia?
If you don't think Russians or the Russian government altered the results of the election then this issue is not important enough to be bringing up at a summit.

Its not going to be an important problem for Trump; he has gained everything from it. Its evidently pretty opinion to a bunch of irrelevant nobodies "the American people".

I mean you can bring up the issue of everyone committing cybercrime,

Great, thanks for letting me bring up one of my own arguments for once!

but it is insane to suggest lambasting a nuclear superpower over it. And you can't be up there and say "we do it too" so we just mention it.

Who suggested somebody "lambast" somebody else for something?

Demanding Trump mention it is just you wanting Trump to fuck up and look bad, but in the process hurt the relationship with the opposing nuclear superpower, not help it.

You've just used the president's ineptitude to excuse him from making a pretty solid political point "for fear of fucking it up" and yet you blame every other fuck up on something but his ineptitude.

And if you honestly think that if it was Obama up there, that you'd suggest Obama to tell Putin off, then ask yourself why Obama said nothing when they found those Russians hacking crimes in 2016 and then later on he said that there was no way you could even rig a US election. That proves it wasn't that serious.

No, it proves that these were nascent allegations which had yet to give rise to an actual investigation.

Its really difficult to take your stances seriously when you constantly assume and generalise and ask loaded questions in bad faith, but I've done my best.

 

[JGrimez]

False dilemma, again. Seriously, can you do us a favour and read what is meant by false dichotomy, because it plays a large role in invalidating your arguments. There are a myriad possible other options in between nuclear war and coziness.

Yeah I was trying to ask you to be specific as to exactly what type of relationship you would desire between the two powers, if you had the choice.
"False dichotomy" seems like an excuse not to answer.
You can have peace, you can have war, you can have good relations or bad relations.
And things can either be moving in a positive direction or a negative direction.
What Trump is attempting to do is move things in a positive direction, what you and others are demanding is to move it in a negative direction.

I just happen to believe that Russia meddled in the US presidential elections

Even if you heard nothing about Russia meddling at all and someone came to us and said "Russia was trying to meddle in US elections". You know what I would say? "Yeah well, no shit". Then I would ask them "Did the Russian meddling alter the results, or even change any votes??" If the answer is "no" then I'd accept the results and move on with my life. Increase your cyber-security. Use a password more complicated than "Obama08" to log into the DNC. Also btw you may have some evidence that RUSSIANS meddled but not that RUSSIA meddled. That's a huge difference, so until you have evidence that Putin ordered it you cannot say it was the state of Russia, and doing so make one an uninformed and ignorant/dangerous warmonger.

and Trump has a conflict of interest with regards that nation that is suggestive of his having played a role, given how much he had to gain from their involvement. That is speculation, of course, but perhaps you could at least entertain the notion that Trump was involved. Or that, ultimately, Russian inteference was not motivated by benevolence or concenrn for the welfare of US (or global) citizens. Its plausible that Russia simply wanted anyone but Clinton, but I am sure they were pretty thrilled that the candidate was Trump, given the potential finanicial leverage they had over him.

This is a conspiracy theory. And the irony is that you consistently chastise me for offering similar theories. The difference is I never suggest confronting and threatening a world leader over a conspiracy theory. So that would make you more of a conspiracy theorist than myself. You want Trump to act based on those theories. You have zero evidence that Trump helped Russians influence the election. Trump was too busy influencing the election himself by campaigning in 5 different states in one day. You realize that your logic is faulty:
-Russia probably didn't want Clinton as she was threatening them with war
-Clinton lost
= Russia was definitely involved?
I'm sure you can pinpoint the fallacy there.

You know who else was pretty thrilled that Trump won? Me LOL because I don't want a fucking war with Russia.
You know I even shared a whole bunch of memes during the election and told the truth about Hillary's crimes to anyone who would listen.
DID I MEDDLE???

Russia and the US are not at war. Russia and the US are currently at peace, and were at peace when Putin's best mate, Obama, was in office and before that, and even before that. I don't want the two states to make peace, I just want them to stay at peace. What I want from Trump is for him to not fuck it up.

Some expert analysts say that the situation is worse now and more tense than the Cuban missile crisis. The Syrian situation could have easily have escalated to something very serious, and crazy Hillary even suggested at the debates to implement a no-fly zone. No wonder she lost. One of her suggestions was to shoot Russian planes out of the sky over Syria. A fair amount of people would've voted against her to stop this. Actually the amount of people that I've spoken to who say "I reluctantly voted for Trump. I don't really like him at all, but Hillary needed to be stopped".

The establishment screwed you all over, not Russia.

I can certainly see that relations could be much better too, but I don't think that should require the president dismissing findings of his own intelligence community.

Iraq, Libya, Syria. Untold war, death and suffering based on shitty recommendations from the intelligence community.
The IC is not God, ESPECIALLY when they refuse offer solid evidence. They can't even get their one story straight.
You tell me what you think the findings are. Is it 17 intelligence agencies agree with Crowdstrike? Is it 4? Is it Russia hack the DNC? Is it the 12 Russians that hacked a different server?
Was it Facebook ads?

How many members of the intelligence community have look at the DNC's hacked servers? None. Yet we should trust their assessment? Why? This makes no sense.

Who suggested somebody "lambast" somebody else for something?

That's what you guys are suggesting, because that's what the media is telling you to demand.
The meeting went fine but you want Trump to be finger-wagging at Putin threatening him with a spanking if he continues to do (with no conclusive evidence) the same things that we will continue to do.
Do you think that the USA will stop meddling in other countries elections after what they've just discovered from Russia? Think about this seriously. The answer is obviously no. So stop being a hypocrite.
If you're actually serious about the election meddling - then let's see if you cheer for Robert Mueller to send his team over to work with Putin to get those 12 agents.
What's the odds Mueller even takes up Putin's offer? That was a brilliant move by Putin because Mueller is not going to accept which is going to further prove that this isn't actually serious about stopping Russian meddling, it's about obstructing peace wit Russia and removing Trump.

Another brilliant move by Putin was bringing up Bill Browder, who made a ton of money in Russia illegally and then donated $400,000 of that dirty money to the Clinton campaign.
Just to repeat: that is dirty Russian money used to influence a US election. I wonder if you guys will demand an equal investigation into that thread.... or how about we all just forget about that one and never bring it up again? What if it was Trump?

You've just used the president's ineptitude to excuse him from making a pretty solid political point "for fear of fucking it up" and yet you blame every other fuck up on something but his ineptitude.

No my point is that what you wanted Trump to do at that meeting would have been the definition of "fucking up". You just want Trump to fail, at all times. I'm sure you'll be happy to admit that.

No, it proves that these were nascent allegations which had yet to give rise to an actual investigation.

This is actually a super important point. What do you mean by nascent allegations? If Clinton had won would the Russian meddling thing have been brought up?
I don't think it would have because then questions would have been raised surrounding Clinton's win and Trump's loss.

The investigation started in July 2016 when Obama was still President.
Then on October 18, 2016 Obama said:
"There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections. In part because they are so decentralized and the number of votes involved. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances in which that will happen this time."

I don't mean to be flippant, but this is too easy ^ Go ahead and explain that away.

Its really difficult to take your stances seriously when you constantly assume and generalise and ask loaded questions in bad faith, but I've done my best.

Thanks for answering. I'm not purposefully trying to ask loaded questions but I find them important to prove a point.
I know that you know where I'm coming from. Even if you don't want to publicly state it, I'm not not making sense.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020008975922810883

We want very much to have a strong Russia,because a strong, competent, prosperous, stable Russia is we think in the interests of the world.

 

[Sturnam]

Hi, thank you so much for this insightful and constructive question.
I think it's a fairy tale to suggest the US will cease meddling/hacking, the problem here is that the US is one of the if not the worst violators of other states' sovereignty.
But hypothetically if we stop and they continue - the punishment really depends on the severity of the attacks.
I'm pretty sure it's actually legal for their trolls farms to buy Facebooks ads. Last count I heard it was at least 6,000 FB ads. I mean if people think that they can change voters' minds through some ads then that's really a problem FB and Zuckerberg should be addressing.
But let's say that Russians DID hack the DNC's servers and give their emails to Wikileaks (which they didn't) but if that were the case then that calls for serious disciplinary action.
The tricky part is if we can only prove it was some Russian nationals vs proving it was actually ordered by the government.
If it's the former we could just demand that the guilty parties be held accountable and/or extradited. Apart from that it's the DNC's fault for having such shitty cybersecurity.
If the Russian government ordered it..... shit that is extremely serious. At the very least powerful sanctions, to the point of kicking out diplomats.
I mean that's basically an act of war, and the worst part is, and I'm sorry to have keep harping on it, but the USA has interfered in 81 elections in the past 50 years.
Oftentimes removing democratically-elected governments and replacing them with dictators. That isn't just election-meddling that is straight evil behavior. And we're worried about Russia.
(although one good thing about this recent conspiracy theory is that it's made people more aware of foreign espionage)

Also if I was policy-man I would pull NATO troops back to the buffer zone line agreed upon at the end of WWII. I would remove US army bases directly alongside the Russian border and work seriously on tacking nuclear proliferation, revising the ABM-treaty etc. If Russia continues to cooperate and make mutual concessions proving itself to be a peaceful/fair player then I would look at dismantling NATO completely as they would no longer serve a purpose.
Unfortunately this is fantasy but it's nice to speculate on what could be possible. Thanks again for the question.

-I will add though that every president through Clinton to Obama tried and failed to get through to the North Korean regime and handle that situation yet the current president made objectively far more progress than the previous ones. So honestly, with Russia as an ally (long shot) I can see us potentially diffusing the Iranian and Israeli situations. All this nothingburger hooplah about the meeting isn't helping though.

Thank you for this; I enjoyed your response.

For the FB ads, it's not an issue for me that Russia bought them, the issue was they tried to disguise the real buyer. But if they want to buy ads with it being known who paid for them I don't have an issue with that.

I agree with you that determining whether it was Russian nationals vs. the Russian government is tough. I assume that Russia would go to great length to create plausible deniability and be more than willing to throw its agents under the bus if needed.

And we as a country (USA) absolutely need to stop messing with worldwide elections, especially those democratically elected governments that just don't happen to like us. However, now that it's all happened, I don't think we need to go back in to 'fix' our mistake, given that the 'fix' would probably be even more harmful.

 

[alasdairm]

That's what you guys are suggesting, because that's what the media is telling you to demand.

this is tired...

i can only speak for myself but, while you and i disagree frequently, i respect the mechanism by which you've arrived at your position, whatever it is. why don't you extend the same common courtesy to those with whom you disagree? i would sincerely appreciate an answer to this question.

i think when people accuse you of trolling, it's things like this they have in mind.



alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

the administration continues to hum along like a finely-tuned machine: Watch Dan Coats' Stunned Reaction to Trump's Putin Invite



alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

this is tired...

I concede this point. My bad
Rest of my post stands

From earlier NBC interview with Megyn Kelly (they omitted this part):

Please listen and pass what I'm about to say on to your viewers and listeners.
We're holding discussions with our Americans friends and partners, people who represent the government by the way, and when they claim that some Russians interfered in the US elections we tell them (and we did so fairly recently at a very high level): "But you are constantly interfering in our political life"
Can you imagine, they don't even deny it, you know what they told us last time?
They said "yes, we do interfere, but we're entitled to do it because we're spreading democracy, and you're not so you can't do it".
Does seem like a civilized and modern approach to international affairs?
At the level of the Russian government and at the level of the Russian president, there has never been any interference in the political processes of the United States.
Not long ago President Trump said something that was absolutely correct. He said that if Russia's goal was to sow chaos, it has succeeded. But that's not the result of any Russian interference. That's the result of your political system; the internal struggle, the disorder, and division. Russia has nothing to do with it, whatsoever. We have nothing to do with it at all. Get your own affairs in order first.
And the way the question's been framed as I mentioned - that you can interfere anywhere you want because you bring democracy but we can't - that's what causes conflicts.
You have to show your partners respect and they will respect you.

Can I ask you a different question?
Why did you support the government coup in Ukraine? Why did you do that?
The US has directly acknowledged spending billions of dollars on it. This was openly acknowledged by US officials.
Why do they support government coups and armed conflicts in other countries?
Why has the US deployed missile systems along our borders?

 

[Noodle]

 

[swilow]

Yeah I was trying to ask you to be specific as to exactly what type of relationship you would desire between the two powers, if you had the choice.
"False dichotomy" seems like an excuse not to answer.
You can have peace, you can have war, you can have good relations or bad relations.
And things can either be moving in a positive direction or a negative direction.
What Trump is attempting to do is move things in a positive direction, what you and others are demanding is to move it in a negative direction.

Where am I demanding this? I repeat: I am not looking to dramatically change US/Russia relations. Things could be better, things could be worse.

Even if you heard nothing about Russia meddling at all and someone came to us and said "Russia was trying to meddle in US elections". You know what I would say? "Yeah well, no shit". Then I would ask them "Did the Russian meddling alter the results, or even change any votes??" If the answer is "no" then I'd accept the results and move on with my life. Increase your cyber-security. Use a password more complicated than "Obama08" to log into the DNC. Also btw you may have some evidence that RUSSIANS meddled but not that RUSSIA meddled. That's a huge difference, so until you have evidence that Putin ordered it you cannot say it was the state of Russia, and doing so make one an uninformed and ignorant/dangerous warmonger.

To imply that there are Russian elements working beyond control of the Russian leader is a criticism of this leader. It is implausible and disengenous in the extreme.

This is a conspiracy theory. And the irony is that you consistently chastise me for offering similar theories. The difference is I never suggest confronting and threatening a world leader over a conspiracy theory.

Nor do I, really. I agree that my post was speculative; the vast majority of your posts are speculative, which is where our methodology parts ways.

Again, who is mentioning a confrontation besides yourself? Why would speaking the truth as prodvided by intelligence services be aggressive? Would a white lie have been better? I have higher standards myself.

You know who else was pretty thrilled that Trump won? Me LOL because I don't want a fucking war with Russia.
You know I even shared a whole bunch of memes during the election and told the truth about Hillary's crimes to anyone who would listen.
DID I MEDDLE???

That's interesting because I don't recall you posting during the election.

I assume you mean under the Liquid Method account?

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I of course want good US/Russian relations. But there's no going back in time and reviving the Romanovs. The Russia that should exist today died a long time ago, specifically July 16, 1918. The government that now operates in Russia is an illegitimate one, and no matter what Trump does, he'll be out of office and the US will resume our efforts to denigrate and slow down their technological/economic prowess. Totalitarian, despotic regimes are going to become a thing of the past. It is just a matter of time.

 

[JGrimez]

Again, who is mentioning a confrontation besides yourself?

If people (nor saying yourself) are unaware of the consequences of certain actions, especially on the world stage between nuclear adversaries, then they shouldn't be suggesting anything.

Why would speaking the truth as prodvided by intelligence services be aggressive? Would a white lie have been better? I have higher standards myself.

I'm not going to keep hammering this point home, but what the intelligence community say most of the time is not truth. And I think it's fair to demand, considering the lies they've told in the past that have led to millions of deaths, indisputable evidence of their claims. It is very hard to argue with that and so far nobody has. You didn't answer my question about being specific about what you personally consider the findings of the intelligence community. Also yes, saying that would be aggressive. If you read Putin's own words above while he was pleading for the American public to attain some common sense, he's highlighting that this hypocrisy (that you suggest acting on, even just in rhetoric) is the cause of conflict.

Trump Has Been Set Up, Framed And Relentlessly Persecuted By The American Intelligence Community
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/19/t...cuted-by-the-american-intelligence-community/

The frenzied furor and fomented outrage over President Donald Trump’s reluctance to express blind trust for our “intelligence community” defy reason and reality. In their choreographed cries of contempt for Mr. Trump, the “left’s” increasingly shrill proclamations of political apocalypse make “Chicken Little” look rational. At least we’ve moved on from the impending annihilation from the nuclear war with North Korea.

That's interesting because I don't recall you posting during the election.

I meant on the internet in general. Check my join date. I do wonder if I could have swayed some votes around here. Mueller would probably be trying interview me by now though

 

[aihfl]

Cohen apparently made a tape of Trump discussing his payout to Karen McDougal so there goes his credibility on that subject:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

[JGrimez]

About those trustworthy intelligence agencies that we should all blindly trust and listen to:

Former Director of the CIA, William Colby, described CIA's culture in his memoir, said of the CIA:

"a cult of intelligence ... that holds itself to be above the normal processes of society, with its own rationale and justification, beyond the restraints of the Constitution ..."

"Those fellows in the CIA don't just report on wars, they go out and make their own (wars), and there's nobody to keep track of what they're up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble. The CIA has become a government all of its own."
- Pres. Harry Truman (who set up the CIA)

In an article carried in The Guardian on December 18th 1981 entitled 'How the Secret Service shaped the news', Richard Fletcher stated:
"For over 30 years the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS - forerunner of MI6) ran a world-wide network of news agencies which, at their peak, had some 250 employees and for 15 years acted as sole agents for Reuters in the Middle East."

 

[alasdairm]

^ aren't you just blindly trusting and listening to those sources? it's seems like you gent bent when people do that but you're quite happy to do it yourself when it fits your narrative...

those quotes don't prove anything - they're just opinions...

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

Cohen apparently made a tape of Trump discussing his payout to Karen McDougal so there goes his credibility on that subject

indeed.

We have no knowledge of any of this...

more lies.

alasdair

 

[Roger&Me]

Really though, how many people here really praise Obama? I've seen some positivity regarding some of his policies, as well as criticism.

The way you regularly bring up Obama is more of your red herring soup IMO,

QFT. It really gets old, especially considering the massive amount of criticism Obama received. I voted for him twice, but I was always very critical of him--like I'd be critical of any president. I'm an American, so the president works for me and the other American people, and his job is to represent us and serve our interests (and, in a broader sense, the interests of all of humanity, because all our fates are intertwined and human existence is a positive-sum game). Of course I'm going to hold that person to the highest standard, whoever it is. The job is so important that excellence is a basic requirement, it's the floor not the ceiling.

But Trump is different. His poor behavior reflects badly on Americans, and his cavalier attitude toward toying around with dark and powerful forces is kind of terrifying. Monsters that were lurking in the depths only months ago have been lured to the surface by his siren song. The problem with Trump is simply Trump himself. His mere existence as president grants legitimacy to the worst aspects of American society. And the only coherent thread holding his whackadoodle policy regime together is the full scale assault on everything that actually did make America great, or at least respectable.

Obama was a pretty good president who also had some flaws, but I believe he did his best to help move his people ahead a step--or a few steps. But Trump is a national embarrassment of the highest order and he's incredibly damaging to America's standing in the world in a way that might be permanent. Unfortunately, we're having a Chief Wiggum kind of moment right now:

"oh boy, this is gonna get worse before it gets better..."