-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
So again its 'anonymous sources'
Will have to be more than that to make people give a damn.
You can't always fob that off.
Watergate was anonymous sources as well.
When dealing with sensitive and highly confidential briefings/documents then of course sources will stay behind the curtains.
What is interesting here is that it looks at the moment like some people have been party to the 'evidence' and are asking the questions. You need to look at the quality of those raising the issue and ask if they would do so without substance. Even GOP Senators are saying 'this needs clearing up'. That is where the pressure will come from. If they realise that this can't be kept under wraps they will disavow Trump as quick as anything to jump on the bandwagon to save their own skins.
The next few days will be interesting, that's for sue.
-
@Crucial Of course not always. Sure 'Watergate' was anonymous sources but that was decades before this current media bs cesspit we currently deal with. Trust in media is at an all time low. Hell even if they managed to get something reputable trust is so low now that most still will probably think its bs.
I agree next few days will be interesting to see if there are any legs on this but at the moment it seems like hot air from the usual suspects.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crucial Of course not always. Sure 'Watergate' was anonymous sources but that was decades before this current media bs cesspit we currently deal with. Trust in media is at an all time low. Hell even if they managed to get something reputable trust is so low now that most still will probably think its bs.
I agree next few days will be interesting to see if there are any legs on this but at the moment it seems like hot air from the usual suspects.
I think you have brought into the 'fake news' trope too much.
Just as it is quite easy to spot those in the media looking to slant everything to their view it is also easy to spot things that make you sit up and watch for the evidence.
If any of this shit sticks it will spell the end for him.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
I agree he's fucked if its true.
What constitutes evidence he knew?
The Presidential Daily Briefing?
I don't know how these things work.Story seems to be that it was in a PDB.
So if you believe the story then he
- ignored it for policy reason (viable, but he has already scratched this out by denying knowing)
- ignored it because he likes Putin (as above)
- didn't see it because he is incompetent and doesn't listen to/read briefings
- is lying
Interesting part for me is that he has quickly denied knowing but hasn't said that if true (about Russia/Taliban) he will find out why he wasn't told.
-
@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.
US Politics