-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
So the PDBs need to be searched ??By who? They are usually classified Top Secret (or higher).
Trump is saying that it wasn't there so unless someone who knows it was swears to it.....
It will take someone to crack for this to be proved unless a copy has been leaked or a GOP Senator pressures the White House.
However Trump has made plenty of enemies so who knows?
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I think you have brought into the 'fake news' trope too much.
Or maybe you haven't got the point yet. That the media just make stuff up. (Or rely on Trump haters who have made stuff up)
This is the world we live in today.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
A few days in politics is a long time as well.
If evidence comes to light that Trump was briefed on Putin paying a “bounty” on US troops that will be the end of him. Even his senate support won’t be able to ignore that.
My guess is that this is incompetence rather than conspiracy. It is well known that he demands stripped down briefings and even then doesn’t take them in. The intelligence community has almost given up on him.
This, however, goes further. This is the commander in chief apparently ignoring the fact that a foreign leader that he promotes is incentivising the killing of US soldiers.
He’ll try and spin this all over the place but there are already cracks showing and top GOP senators are asking for answers.Tone it down a bit and you might be more effective
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
A few days in politics is a long time as well.
If evidence comes to light that Trump was briefed on Putin paying a “bounty” on US troops that will be the end of him. Even his senate support won’t be able to ignore that.
My guess is that this is incompetence rather than conspiracy. It is well known that he demands stripped down briefings and even then doesn’t take them in. The intelligence community has almost given up on him.
This, however, goes further. This is the commander in chief apparently ignoring the fact that a foreign leader that he promotes is incentivising the killing of US soldiers.
He’ll try and spin this all over the place but there are already cracks showing and top GOP senators are asking for answers.Tone it down a bit and you might be more effective
Play the ball not the man please.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
A few days in politics is a long time as well.
If evidence comes to light that Trump was briefed on Putin paying a “bounty” on US troops that will be the end of him. Even his senate support won’t be able to ignore that.
My guess is that this is incompetence rather than conspiracy. It is well known that he demands stripped down briefings and even then doesn’t take them in. The intelligence community has almost given up on him.
This, however, goes further. This is the commander in chief apparently ignoring the fact that a foreign leader that he promotes is incentivising the killing of US soldiers.
He’ll try and spin this all over the place but there are already cracks showing and top GOP senators are asking for answers.Tone it down a bit and you might be more effective
To address your bolded bits.
Incompetence would be if he was provided the information but didn’t read it. Numerous sources back up this as being common, hence “it is well known” and “doesn’t take them in”. He even prides himself on acting from “gut instinct rather than info and has said so himself even in his Art of the Deal.
I also have direct sources that have confirmed this hence the “intelligence community “ comment.
“That he promotes” regarding Putin is obvious. Trump has promoted the cause of Putin rejoining the G7 since this information supposedly came out.No toning down needed.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I think you have brought into the 'fake news' trope too much.
Or maybe you haven't got the point yet. That the media just make stuff up. (Or rely on Trump haters who have made stuff up)
This is the world we live in today.
There is no 'The media' or does that include Trump promoting media as well? I'm confused.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I think you have brought into the 'fake news' trope too much.
Or maybe you haven't got the point yet. That the media just make stuff up. (Or rely on Trump haters who have made stuff up)
This is the world we live in today.
There is no 'The media' or does that include Trump promoting media as well? I'm confused.
I did notice that one of the source sites you posted was Fox News, so not exactly the anti-Trump MSM...
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I think you have brought into the 'fake news' trope too much.
Or maybe you haven't got the point yet. That the media just make stuff up. (Or rely on Trump haters who have made stuff up)
This is the world we live in today.
There is no 'The media' or does that include Trump promoting media as well? I'm confused.
I did notice that one of the source sites you posted was Fox News, so not exactly the anti-Trump MSM...
I didn't post the links. They were just reports on the story. It is the NYT that has broken the story, everyone else is just reporting on it.
The point is that you can't just say 'the media make things up' and group under that statement all reporting about Trump that doesn't paint him in a rosy light. Is the reporting that praises him or reinforces his lies also 'fake news'? He seems to love those guys.
If you disregard all media then you are going down the path of nutterdom. Where you make your mind up based on twitter statements and unchallenged 'facts'. Much like anti-vexers and 5G conspiracists. "The media and scientists all lie! I know this because my friend on Facebook posted something from Pete Evans. He's a TV star. He knows the truth."
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Crucial we are on the same page mate. MSM may have it's faults, but is the guy writing his own "news" blog or website more accurate or any less biased one way or another? I don't think so
At this point I put individual independent journalists with a good track record well ahead of most msm content.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
At this point I put individual independent journalists with a good track record well ahead of most msm content.
Great. Who do you read?
-
Starting to look like a clusterfuck caused in part by a reluctance of agencies to present information that they know will upset Trump.
The int. was possibly presented in pieces with so many caveats from different agencies that it wasn’t accepted as whole.
Some inter-agency squabbling over credibility.Story will shift to why this wasn’t taken seriously and presented as such.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Starting to look like a clusterfuck caused in part by a reluctance of agencies to present information that they know will upset Trump.
The int. was possibly presented in pieces with so many caveats from different agencies that it wasn’t accepted as whole.
Some inter-agency squabbling over credibility.Story will shift to why this wasn’t taken seriously and presented as such.
In other words, Trump didn't know and the intel' agencies fucked up.
Which would mean the Times story that Trump was briefed on it fake news.
Correct? -
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Starting to look like a clusterfuck caused in part by a reluctance of agencies to present information that they know will upset Trump.
The int. was possibly presented in pieces with so many caveats from different agencies that it wasn’t accepted as whole.
Some inter-agency squabbling over credibility.Story will shift to why this wasn’t taken seriously and presented as such.
In other words, Trump didn't know and the intel' agencies fucked up.
Which would mean the Times story that Trump was briefed on it fake news.
Correct?What’s “fake” about it?
Their sources have told them that the information was known and as far as the sources individual agencies and knowledge goes that could well be true.
Just because some of the details aren’t known doesn’t mean that it isn’t a story worth Publishing.
All still guesswork at the moment but there will be more questions being raised from the story so it can’t all be passed off -
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
So are you saying Trump knew about this or the intel agencies didn't tell him?Because the NY Times claims he was briefed.
That part appears to be fake right?From the DNI today. (unless he's on it some conspiracy too.)
The information was mostly correct and one source said they believed it was in a briefing. That’s hardly fake. It is information received from a reliable source that may prove to be incorrect .
Sorry, I just hate this “fake news” bullshit term that is applied to everything now. The usage is far removed from the original terminology.It certainly looks like the picture as painted by the informants wasn’t presented in that manner as a briefing to Trump as they thought. The topic and information does look to have been discussed though at NSC meetings with senior WH staff.
While the agencies disagree on the analysis of their information and veracity of what came from interrogators, the army still acted on the intel.
The question now is why Trump wasn’t aware of any of this.
US Politics