Merged All things Trump + Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Childlike Empress said:
Why do you think he was "convinced"? As far as I'm aware he said that maybe it was the Russians, once, in quite ambiguous terms like for the sake of argument, and has since repeatedly said things along the line of "the Russia thing is a ruse". Which it is.
Click to expand...

Well, hell, if Trump says it, it must be... well, it must be false because everything he says is a lie.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, hell, if Trump says it, it must be... well, it must be false because everything he says is a lie.
Click to expand...

To be fair, he clarified his overall stance on all his stances in that CBS interview. "I don't stand by anything."(Speaking of his accusations that Obama spied on him.) He's now making the Buford Clodhopper Appeal to Ignorance argument. You hear it out of seventeen year olds, the functionally illiterate, and the President of the United States. "Hey, you've got your opinion and I've got mine."
 
The Existential Question of Whom to Trust

The looming threat of World War III, a potential extermination event for the human species, is made more likely because the world’s public can’t count on supposedly objective experts to ascertain and evaluate facts. Instead, careerism is the order of the day among journalists, intelligence analysts and international monitors – meaning that almost no one who might normally be relied on to tell the truth can be trusted.
Click to expand...

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/30/the-existential-question-of-who-to-trust/
 
The trouble is both America and Russia have been run by gangster businessmen instead of furthering the interests of the people. Ukraine is full of Nazis. It's no sense of history.
 
varwoche said:
Wow what a load of drivel, also irrelevant to this thread.
Click to expand...


Top notch critique, pal. Far from irrelevant, but here's one more relevant in a narrow sense, from the same outlet: Drinking the Russia-gate Kool-Aid

Norman Solomon said:
[...] A new book about Hillary Clinton’s last campaign for president — Shattered by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes — has gotten a lot of publicity since it appeared two weeks ago. But major media have ignored a revealing passage near the end of the book.

Soon after Clinton’s defeat, top strategists decided where to place the blame. “Within 24 hours of her concession speech,” the authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta “assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

Six months later, that centerpiece of the argument is rampant — with claims often lurching from unsubstantiated overreach to outright demagoguery. A lavishly-funded example is the “Moscow Project,” a mega-spin effort that surfaced in midwinter as a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s led by Neera Tanden, a self-described “loyal solider” for Clinton who also runs the Center for American Progress (where she succeeded Podesta as president). The Center’s board includes several billionaires.

The “Moscow Project” is expressly inclined to go over the top, aiming to help normalize ultra-partisan conjectures as supposedly factual. And so, the homepage of the “Moscow Project” prominently declares: “Given Trump’s obedience to Vladimir Putin and the deep ties between his advisers and the Kremlin, Russia’s actions are a significant and ongoing cause for concern.”

Let’s freeze-frame how that sentence begins: “Given Trump’s obedience to Vladimir Putin.” It’s a jaw-dropping claim; a preposterous smear. [...]
Click to expand...


Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid self-hypnosis - the most laughable spectacle seen in "Western" politics since many years, and that's saying something.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Why do you think he was "convinced"? As far as I'm aware he said that maybe it was the Russians, once, in quite ambiguous terms like for the sake of argument, and has since repeatedly said things along the line of "the Russia thing is a ruse". Which it is.
Click to expand...

CNN said:
President-elect Donald Trump said for the first time Wednesday he believes Russia was responsible for hacking ahead of the election but contemptuously rejected allegations that Moscow mounted a campaign to compromise him.
Click to expand...

ABC coverage of Trump press conference said:
As far as hacking, "I think it was Russia," Trump said. Putin "should not be doing it. He won't be doing it. Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I am leading it than when other people have led it. ... he shouldn't have done it"
Click to expand...

Reince Priebus, according to Reuters:

President-elect Donald Trump accepts the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that Russia engaged in cyber attacks during the U.S. presidential election and may take action in response, his incoming chief of staff said on Sunday.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like Trump was convinced. As far as I know there was no "maybe" there, and if he's stepped back from "I think it was Russia," I'm not aware of it.
 
Minoosh said:
Sounds to me like Trump was convinced. As far as I know there was no "maybe" there, and if he's stepped back from "I think it was Russia," I'm not aware of it.
Click to expand...


Find the press conference and read or better see for yourself. Don't accept secondary sources on these issues.
 
Stacko said:


What this implies is disturbing. Trump and, by their fealty to him, Republicans are seen as so destabilizing to America that a foreign enemy sees it as beneficial to help them win elections.
Click to expand...

There are two different things going on. Have they done what is pretty widely accepted (outside of the realm of our own little Boris and Natasha, at least) they done done? I'm of the opinion there's enough there there that it will become pretty clear that they done done it. Guilty as charged.

As to the motive? I think there's a whole lot of flag-waving cold war suspicion going on. Is it not equally possible that a simpler and more straightforward goal was "get someone who ain't so tough on Russia elected". All this talk of destabilizing the country is really back in George Smiley country. (I think the more interesting fact is that the heads of a right wing kleptocracy would favor certain people, who in turn favor them... Le Pen and Trump come to mind. But not because of the evil Russian Communist Empire, because Putin and his droogies are a bunch of thugs and thieves.)
 
Personally, I think there is a big IF the Russians interfered in the American elections. There is no supporting evidence at the moment that Wikileaks obtained its information and facts from the Russians. In any case it's not illegal for Assange to have published those facts. It's in the public interests for the public to be informed of child sex rings in high places, and it might even be connected to the Madeleine McCann abduction case in Portugal.

The Russians have a security service, as well as gangster businessmen. That is not against international law. Part of their job is to take an interest in elections around the world as it affects the Russian national interest. They don't support 'moderate' anti-Christian Al Qaeda groups for a political transition 'Assad must go', like McCain in America. Elections and coups, and Nazis, in Ukraine affect them directly. It appears that the Russians wanted Trump to win the election from what he had said about Russia before the election, instead of the Clinton war monger people.

The CIA has taken an interest in elections in Italy and Central America for decades. The CIA with, their political intelligence officers, is now involved in politics in Venezuela. There is deafening silence in the mainstream media about that.
 
Henri McPhee said:
Personally, I think there is a big IF the Russians interfered in the American elections. There is no supporting evidence at the moment that Wikileaks obtained its information and facts from the Russians. In any case it's not illegal for Assange to have published those facts. It's in the public interests for the public to be informed of child sex rings in high places, and it might even be connected to the Madeleine McCann abduction case in Portugal.

The Russians have a security service, as well as gangster businessmen. That is not against international law. Part of their job is to take an interest in elections around the world as it affects the Russian national interest. They don't support 'moderate' anti-Christian Al Qaeda groups for a political transition 'Assad must go', like McCain in America. Elections and coups, and Nazis, in Ukraine affect them directly. It appears that the Russians wanted Trump to win the election from what he had said about Russia before the election, instead of the Clinton war monger people.

The CIA has taken an interest in elections in Italy and Central America for decades. The CIA with, their political intelligence officers, is now involved in politics in Venezuela. There is deafening silence in the mainstream media about that.
Click to expand...

Planning to move to Russia any time soon?
 
Stacko said:


What this implies is disturbing. Trump and, by their fealty to him, Republicans are seen as so destabilizing to America that a foreign enemy sees it as beneficial to help them win elections.
Click to expand...
Well, most likely Trump specifically. And candidates with similar attributes internationally.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom