|
Post by celawson on Apr 4, 2017 9:50:00 GMT -5
I don't know about that, Rob. Yesterday and today, Fox News is heavily featuring this. Yesterday and today I haven't seen a peep about it on CNN.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 4, 2017 12:34:44 GMT -5
I predict this entire story--Trump's accusations and the Trump-Russia cabal--is going to quickly sink then disappear entirely from the news cycle. No one--on either side--really wants the public to know all of the facts here. Stuff and nonsense. The Trump-Russia Cabal Conspiracy is not about to disappear. If anything it has metasized like a cancer on Trump's presidency. Even a sniveling lackey like Devin Nunes has found zero proof Obama wiretapped Trump, so Trump's ludicrous accusations are simply a deflection. It's the equivalent of " squirrel!" This story isn't going away despite Trump, Putin and the Republicans wishing it would. America deserves to know whether they elected Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 12:40:56 GMT -5
I'm with c.e. and Ohio -- I don't think the story will disappear.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Apr 4, 2017 20:21:02 GMT -5
I'm sure this was all caused by a hateful Youtube video.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 4, 2017 20:50:40 GMT -5
I often agree with some of your points, Rob, even in light of the fact that our politics differ.
But, you're really drinking the Republican Spin Room kool-aid if you think that story is credible (which all of them stem from the same repub source from the original Daily Caller article).
To me, it seems like nothing but smokescreen. A red herring to take people's attention off of Trump and distract them with bullshit. It's the same "blame Obama" propaganda response that Trump's administration also used today in regards to Syria.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 5, 2017 6:24:30 GMT -5
Kool-aid? I'm just following the reports. If it turns out to be less-then-credible, fair enough. But from my perspective--based on the websites I check for news--I'm seeing a drop-off in the "coverage" of the Trump-Russian cabal (which has as much actual evidence as the Clinton-Russian-Uranium One cabal).
As to Syria, no one--from Bush to Obama to Trump--has covered or is covering themselves in glory there. How 'bout another red line?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 5, 2017 14:50:12 GMT -5
Kool-aid? I'm just following the reports. If it turns out to be less-then-credible, fair enough. But from my perspective--based on the websites I check for news--I'm seeing a drop-off in the "coverage" of the Trump-Russian cabal (which has as much actual evidence as the Clinton-Russian-Uranium One cabal). Oh, I see your problem. You're following the reports on the websites you check for news. You need to check some better sites. It's not that the reporting isn't out there. It's that you're not reading the right sites and you're getting the wrong ideas. How about a hot war in Syria with Trump squaring off against his butt buddy Vladimir Putin. How about that?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 5, 2017 16:35:07 GMT -5
Kool-aid? I'm just following the reports. If it turns out to be less-then-credible, fair enough. Well... www.facebook.com/Mediamatters/videos/10154463205591167/Yes, which was exactly my point. It's a total red herring. Nothing but smokescreen and propaganda, which seems to be the Trump Administration's main raison d'etat.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 5, 2017 19:16:36 GMT -5
I disagree. To be clear, I think the following: 1) Trump's accusation that Obama ordered wire tapping (or any surveillance) of Trump Tower, Trump himself, or any of Trump's people is bs. 2) The narrative of Putin and Russian operatives influencing the election is bs (to say nothing of the loony notion that Russia somehow "stole" the election). 3) That doesn't mean there was no contact between people in the Russian government and people in Trump's circle. 4) And it doesn't mean their was no surveillance and intelligence gathering going on by US agencies with respect to the same. Obviously, I think, things have been leaked--names and some general details--to the media that should never have been leaked. That's not good. But so far--and it's been four months--there's no damning evidence against Trump, here. There just isn't. So drawing out more details makes it look like there was political targeting going on, even if there wasn't. And again, I don't think the people who really know all the details want all of those details to come out, because it's going to look bad for all involved. Thus--since no one can actually provide any sort of smoking gun implicating Trump--I think this stuff is going to disappear sooner rather than later. YMMV, of course. And did you just link to a Media Matters page? For shame...
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 5, 2017 19:45:29 GMT -5
Yeah, unfortunately they were the only ones I could find with that specific clip.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 6, 2017 11:31:37 GMT -5
I disagree. To be clear, I think the following: 1) Trump's accusation that Obama ordered wire tapping (or any surveillance) of Trump Tower, Trump himself, or any of Trump's people is bs. 2) The narrative of Putin and Russian operatives influencing the election is bs (to say nothing of the loony notion that Russia somehow "stole" the election).3) That doesn't mean there was no contact between people in the Russian government and people in Trump's circle. 4) And it doesn't mean their was no surveillance and intelligence gathering going on by US agencies with respect to the same. Obviously, I think, things have been leaked--names and some general details--to the media that should never have been leaked. That's not good. But so far--and it's been four months--there's no damning evidence against Trump, here. There just isn't. So drawing out more details makes it look like there was political targeting going on, even if there wasn't. And again, I don't think the people who really know all the details want all of those details to come out, because it's going to look bad for all involved. Thus--since no one can actually provide any sort of smoking gun implicating Trump--I think this stuff is going to disappear sooner rather than later. YMMV, of course. And did you just link to a Media Matters page? For shame... Dude. Seriously. Read Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 Presidential Election. That's not a news article. It's a declassified version of the report given by the IC to Congress and the President. Read it. It's not that long. And remember, this is just the declassified version, with any damning smoking guns edited out. Set aside whether or not it implicates Trump or his circle, because those are two separate issues - the evidence is very strong that Russia did, in fact, attempt to influence the election, and clearly wanted Trump to win. That shouldn't even be controversial. We should expect that our biggest rivals have an interest in who wins our elections, and will certainly try to influence them if given the opportunity, and it's a no-brainer that Putin would rather have dealt with Trump than Clinton. The only thing new here is their level of escalation and audaciousness. The degree to which Russia actually did influence the election is debatable. But if you're blindly putting "Russian operatives influenced the election" in the same conspiracy theory basket as "Trump is Putin's agent," then you're either guilty of overly broad reading or you are indeed drinking the Kool-Aid.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 6, 2017 11:49:44 GMT -5
Seriously, yourself. Maybe I didn't say that exactly right, though, so I'll try again:
The narrative being pushed by Dems and some in the media that Russia influenced this election in a significant way, above and beyond any past efforts by them or by other governments--including the US--to influence other elections is bs. You want to claim the reverse? Fair enough. I think you're wrong, though.
And there is still no evidence that Trump won the election because of Russian action. Right? Certainly, there's no evidence that Trump was in cahoots with Putin. Circumstantially, there's better evidence that the Russians got Clinton to sign off on the Uranium One deal via payments to the Clinton foundation, imo.
So we can see Trump using whatever he can to distract people from his mistakes, no doubt. But the Russian cabal stuff--at every level--is no different: it's Trump's opponents not letting go of something they know is bs because it makes Trump look bad.
Everybody wins.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 6, 2017 12:08:43 GMT -5
Seriously, yourself. Maybe I didn't say that exactly right, though, so I'll try again: The narrative being pushed by Dems and some in the media that Russia influenced this election in a significant way, above and beyond any past efforts by them or by other governments--including the US--to influence other elections is bs. You want to claim the reverse? Fair enough. I think you're wrong, though. It's not just me and the Dems pushing that narrative - it's the entire Intelligence Community, including the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI. Read the report. If you still think they're all part of a liberal anti-Trump conspiracy, okay, I don't know what to tell you. There is evidence that Russian action influenced the election. Whether it made the difference? That is unknown - as I said. Saying "The Russians stole the election/gave it to Trump" is obviously an exaggeration (or at least, a very strong claim that seems to be lacking in sufficient evidence). But it's equally dumb to pooh-pooh Russian involvement and act like it was no big deal, not news, and had no effect, when lots of people who know what they're talking about are saying otherwise. That's a completely separate issue, as I said. You seem to be denying Russian influence because you fear it will strengthen accusations of Trump's personal culpability. It is entirely possible (and likely) that Russia wanted Trump to win without it meaning that Trump is a Russian agent. Are you claiming that the entire IC is just trying to make Trump look bad?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 12:36:32 GMT -5
I'm with Amadan et al. on the Russian election tampering issue.
I don't think there's any question that they did what they did in the hopes of swaying the election in Trump's favor -- not so much because they thought he'd be a puppet as that they recognized him as a petty know-nothing arrogant hothead who would weaken the United States.
Whether this was what made the difference in the election is another thing. Certainly there were many other factors, including Clinton's inexplicable failure to campaign hard enough in swing states.
That said -- the constant drumbeat of Clinton's alleged corruption certainly did not help her. As many of you will no doubt recall, I have plenty of criticisms about her and thought her far from an ideal candidate. But as far as corruption goes (and so many other things) -- ye gods and little fishes, she is nowhere near as bad as Trump. Good lord, follow the man's career, for christ's sake. Yet that's not the impression much of middle America had, and part of that, IMO, comes from the Russian hack job.
What I do agree with Rob on is that we cannot entirely blame Clinton's defeat on the Russians. It was one factor among many.
But even if it were not a factor at all -- even if she would have lost in a landslide without it, even if Trump were totally awesome and the best candidate ever -- we should care about this. A foreign government has no fucking business mucking about with our political institutions, period. And if the Trump campaign had anything to do with it, we should fucking care. If it's someone lower than Trump, heads should roll. If it goes all the way to Trump, it's as bad as or worse than Watergate.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 6, 2017 12:44:11 GMT -5
No one is saying Russia was the sole (or even most important) factor in Clinton's defeat. But people who hate Clinton/want to defend Trump are trying to downplay and dismiss the entire Russian angle for purely partisan reasons.
|
|