CSNbbs

(07-17-2018 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 12:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny, Trump is derided for his 'lack of diplomacy', yet is chastised for not yelling 'Liar liar' to Putin's face at worldwide televised press conference.

Lets have a little Gedankenexperiment here:

Assume Trump does the opposite, precisely what many seem demand -- that is verbally and viciously assault Putin for all his authoritarian and expansionist actions (annexing the Crimea, Syria intervention, eastern Ukraine, DNC servers, etc.)?

What would have that explicit criticism *to his face* accomplished with these matters? My best guess is precisely nada.

What would be most likely if that occurred? Relations, already in the dumpster, would have been set back further.

I dont think that is rocket science to figure out.

Next, look at what has actually happened and in the course of happening. Trump's actions re: Russia amazingly more strict (some might say unfriendly) than his words yesterday -- let alone when comparing them to the actions *and* diplomatic treatment enjoined by Obama, mind you. For me, it's hard to categorize an explicit attack on the economic base of Russia (i.e. continuing and accelerating the opening of energy spigots), increasing sanctions, arming the Ukrainians, ejecting 60 Russian agents, etc. If Trump is in Putin's pocket, he's doing a terrible job of it on the actions front.

Being personally gracious and diplomatic to Putin on the largest stage ever provided to Putin doesnt seem to be a wholly improper item, especially in light of the tangible friction of Trump's actual policies to Putin's Russia. But I guess complaining about not being a dick on that world stage is something that Trump's opponents seem to truly care more about than tangible policies.

Have you watched the press conference?

I think describing Trump’s response to the reporter who asked about the meddling was in no way “gracious and diplomatic.” If anything, because he used it as a platform to attack Clinton. He could still have been gracious and diplomatic without siding with Putin and directly in opposition to our own intelligence community.

All I did was watch the portions that CNN is going batshit crazy about. Maybe we did watch different press conferences.

Please post the 'egregious portions' that he was 'siding with Putin on'. Would love to see what your take is on that. To belabor a point, trying to decide what automatic critics of Trump take exception to is not horribly limiting in that sense and can be quite taxing when it is seemingly 112 per cent of Trump's (actions, statements, raison d'être) seemingly infuriate that 45 per cent of the population (and the corresponding 92 per cent of the media, for that matter......)

And yes, I am aware that 112 per cent is more than unity.....

(07-17-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 11:52 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 11:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 11:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 11:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Make it easy? I think they knew all they would get in the way of push back was some finger shaking. I wanted a stronger response, and the left defended Obama's lack of action.

What a nonsensical response. In your response, you are suggesting that we are now responsible for a foreign country’s actions due to inaction when there wasn’t even an event to react to. Somehow we made Putin decide to invade another country.

You can argue about the severity of our response to Putin’s actions, but to suggest that Putin we are at fault because we “made it easy” doesn’t really cut the mustard.

So you must be furious about Trumps response, which was to bend over and take it, if you felt that Obama's finger wagging was too little, right?

You leave the door open, advertise that you will not do anything to any body who comes in, don't be surprised if your TV gets stolen.

You brought up Crimea. what do you think Obama should have done?

Nothing. What's Crimea to us, especially when most Crimeans identify as Russians?

Nothing. What's California to us, especially when about 30 per cent of Californians identify as Mexicans?

I guess you have no problems with Ossetia either, since they ostensibly 'identify as Russians'?

Any problems then with eastern Ukraine, who colorably 'identify as Russians'?

Not a great bulwark on national aggression there, I would proffer.

At the risk of violating Godwin's law, that attitude on national sovereignty is chilling. One has to remember that the German annexation of Austria and the following annexation of Sudentland just a tad later was ostensibly because the inhabitants in each 'identified as German'.

Call it what you might, but that supposed rationale was pretty much torched in 1938 (at least in my book) as nothing more than the pure pretext that that cute saying always seems to be when covering up simple, naked, national aggression.

I already explained that it wasn't "simple, naked aggression." Russia moved into the Crimea in direct response to NATO's moves, and for historical reasons that NATO's leadership should have been aware of, and in fact probably were aware of.

Like too many Americans, you think only the United States has the right to use aggression to defend its national interests. If the United States had gone to war over Russia's presence in Cuba, you'd have been fine with that.

I hope you realize California is a bad analogy, being that Russia did not invade the United States when it invaded Crimea.

Let me phrase it another way: is Crimea worth a nuclear war?

ETA: Hitler knew he was taking a huge gamble in annexing Alsace-Lorraine and the Sudetenland, and admitted he would have been forced to back down if creditably threatened with force by France and Great Britain. At that time, Germany had only begun rearming and was still militarily weak. Russia can and will defend the Crimea, with plenty of force.

The US was about 10 minutes away from war over Cuba, and yes, I would have bee Ok with that that, considering the threat. of course, I was just 17, so nobody asked me. You don 't make bullies bully less by giving in to them. at some point you have to at least threaten to stand up to them.

I would not have gone to war over Crimea, nor would I go to war over 12 meaningless indictments, as so many seem to want. But stronger responses were called for in both cases. Maybe Trump was telling Putin he could be more flexible after the election. Neither response was treasonous.

I personally have no problems with letting sovereigns be sovereign. I do have an issue with naked aggression being used to stop a freely elected government from being closer to the West, as was Ukraine's velocity to NATO.

Not a vindication of 'only the United States has the right to use aggression to defend its national interests' in the slightest. If the freely elected government of the Ukraine wished to 'head back to the sunny relationship with Moscow', more power to them. But, that isnt what seemingly happened, is it?

To the extent of 'nuclear war'? No. But, with that analogy I dont think I am the one arguing extreme results here, would I be?

I noticed you studiously avoided the Ossetia and eastern Ukraine issues, but, Ill let that pass.

(07-17-2018 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 12:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny, Trump is derided for his 'lack of diplomacy', yet is chastised for not yelling 'Liar liar' to Putin's face at worldwide televised press conference.

Lets have a little Gedankenexperiment here:

Assume Trump does the opposite, precisely what many seem demand -- that is verbally and viciously assault Putin for all his authoritarian and expansionist actions (annexing the Crimea, Syria intervention, eastern Ukraine, DNC servers, etc.)?

What would have that explicit criticism *to his face* accomplished with these matters? My best guess is precisely nada.

What would be most likely if that occurred? Relations, already in the dumpster, would have been set back further.

I dont think that is rocket science to figure out.

Next, look at what has actually happened and in the course of happening. Trump's actions re: Russia amazingly more strict (some might say unfriendly) than his words yesterday -- let alone when comparing them to the actions *and* diplomatic treatment enjoined by Obama, mind you. For me, it's hard to categorize an explicit attack on the economic base of Russia (i.e. continuing and accelerating the opening of energy spigots), increasing sanctions, arming the Ukrainians, ejecting 60 Russian agents, etc. If Trump is in Putin's pocket, he's doing a terrible job of it on the actions front.

Being personally gracious and diplomatic to Putin on the largest stage ever provided to Putin doesnt seem to be a wholly improper item, especially in light of the tangible friction of Trump's actual policies to Putin's Russia. But I guess complaining about not being a dick on that world stage is something that Trump's opponents seem to truly care more about than tangible policies.

Have you watched the press conference?

I think describing Trump’s response to the reporter who asked about the meddling was in no way “gracious and diplomatic.” If anything, because he used it as a platform to attack Clinton. He could still have been gracious and diplomatic without siding with Putin and directly in opposition to our own intelligence community.

All I did was watch the portions that CNN is going batshit crazy about. Maybe we did watch different press conferences.

Please post the 'egregious portions' that he was 'siding with Putin on'. Would love to see what your take is on that. To belabor a point, trying to decide what automatic critics of Trump take exception to is not horribly limiting in that sense.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/629462401...conference

Quote:REPORTER, AP: President Trump, you first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you sir is, who do you believe? My second question is would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016 and would you warn him to never do it again?

TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?

I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know where is the server and what is the server saying?

With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.

My people came to me, Dan Coates, came to me and some others they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia.

I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be. But I really do want to see the server but I have, I have confidence in both parties.

I really believe that this will probably go on for a while but I don't think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC?

Where are those servers? They're missing. Where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton's emails? 33,000 emails gone, just gone. I think in Russia they wouldn't be gone so easily.

I think it's a disgrace that we can't get Hillary Clinton's thirty three thousand e-mails.

I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer.

He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that's an incredible offer. Ok? Thank you.

Taking Putin’s side is when he equivocated Putin’s response in person with that of his intelligence agency and said “but...” In this instance, Trump threw the intelligence agency under the bus.

I cant discern there that Trump stated that there was anything that he actually believed.

Based on your comment, I guess it boils down to this statement?

Quote:I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer.

I guess he should have *****-slapped Putin (standing there, mind you) by simply stating the first portion? Again, my post seems on point.

Further, if you bother to notice, all he said was "President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today". Seems to me a diplomatic non-comment on on Putin's stance.

I cant tell you how many times I have seen people describe the stances of others that they disagree with as "they have a strong stance and deny it". Countless.

Count me unimpressed as evidence of bedding down with Putin. But then you and I also disagree that Trump's comments on Putin being a forceful leader are or are not explicit proof of Trump being a wannabe caudillo..... I'll chalk it up to that.

(07-17-2018 02:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I cant discern there that Trump stated that there was anything that he actually believed.

Based on your comment, I guess it boils down to this statement?

Quote:I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer.

I guess he should have *****-slapped Putin (standing there, mind you) by simply stating the first portion? Again, my post seems on point.

Further, if you bother to notice, all he said was "President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today". Seems to me a diplomatic non-comment on on Putin's stance.

I cant tell you how many times I have seen people describe the stances of others that they disagree with as "they have a strong stance and deny it". Countless.

Count me unimpressed as evidence of bedding down with Putin. But then you and I also disagree that Trump's comments on Putin being a forceful leader are or are not explicit proof of Trump being a wannabe caudillo..... I'll chalk it up to that.

As if physically assaulting Putin was the only option.

His response, if he had wanted to touch on Putin’s strength of resolve, should have been swapped around. He should have prefaced the resolve with the fact that his own intelligence agencies tell him that Russia conducted operations to influence our election. There is a HUGE change in implications of who he believes and can persuade him if he simply flipped that sentence around.

His current sentence says that Putin’s resolve makes him question his own intelligence findings, since he used “but,” a contradiction.

Also, that quote exemplifies how Trump was not diplomatic, or whatever other term you used to describe his manner in the press conference.

So Im confused. Are you all mad that Trump was 'cajoled' (diplomatic) or not so?

Better yet you go both.

Jeezus krist you all make every comment at every possible juncture.

If you want to say 'He wasnt tough enough he sucked Putin dry' -- say that. That is what you seemingly are driving at at the get go.

Then you finish your argument off with 'Trump was not diplomatic'. Lolz.

I have never seen a 'Trump attack' from completely opposite vectors in the same paragraph, yet your post is one of the first that comes arguably close.

As I would like to finish, Trump is one of the most inarticulate speakers I have ever seen at that position, no doubt whatsoever.

From by perspective, Trump seems to act around Putin as a co-equal dealmaker, not for bad reasons, in my opinion. The malapropism that seems to get you riled up is the "but' portion, a portion that I view as Trump *not* wishing to to state such a *****-slap as a simple, unfinished "I have great confidence in my intelligence people " in a raw form to such an equal, and definitely *not* in that type of forum.

Apparently, coming from the folks who get really pissed that Trump is 'too bellicose' and is 'way too undiplomatic' this starts to become funny.

As for the finish (the "but" portion), nne only need to look at really older footage of Trump to see other "My position rocks, but the other side definitely has their viewpoint" when he deals with co-equals; *especially* when in that type of raw, public forum.

Trump doesnt have the decorum or diplomatic skills to say "My position rocks. I am sure we have different points of view on certain areas within this, and I am sure we as great partners in this venture will certainly work them out." *That* is the B+ response.

What you get from Trump is the C- version since he is amazingly inarticulate in being 'gracious' or 'diplomatic'. When you actually read the statement (the actual words, and *not* what you want to read into them) one does not see 'but Vlad's position is much better' the way the perennial wail of the galvanic anti-trumpers seem to want to interpret it, but simply a nod to Putin (again, standing right the fk there....) a very non-descript and inapt way of saying 'Yeah, Vlad has a story as well.'

But that is my opinion of course.

I need to get back to coordinating some emails I promised.

Edited to add this statement today from Trump:

Quote:“Let me be totally clear in saying that, and I’ve said this many times, I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also. A lot of people out there. There was no collusion at all and people have seen that and they’ve seen that strongly.”

Considering we are seemingly at peak 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears' realm of "Trump bashing" I am *sure* there will be something innately and horrifyingly wrong with that statement from some quarters. Bash away.....

In my mind, someone can be both forceful and diplomatic. I don’t view those as being mutually exclusive.

(07-17-2018 02:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I personally have no problems with letting sovereigns be sovereign. I do have an issue with naked aggression being used to stop a freely elected government from being closer to the West, as was Ukraine's velocity to NATO.

Not a vindication of 'only the United States has the right to use aggression to defend its national interests' in the slightest. If the freely elected government of the Ukraine wished to 'head back to the sunny relationship with Moscow', more power to them. But, that isnt what seemingly happened, is it?

To the extent of 'nuclear war'? No. But, with that analogy I dont think I am the one arguing extreme results here, would I be?

I noticed you studiously avoided the Ossetia and eastern Ukraine issues, but, Ill let that pass.

I wasn't avoiding them, I just didn't see enough distinction, for purposes of the point I was making, between Russia's actions there and in Crimea. But if you'd like, I'll mention all three.

Russia's intervention in Crimea, Ossetia, and eastern Ukraine followed the WEST sponsored 2014 coup that REPLACED the democratically elected government with one more friendly to the West. You've got the history very wrong there. What Russia reacted to was the overthrow of a government friendly to them, by a coup that NATO backed. Following this, they secured the bases in the Crimea before NATO could. That's Russia's perspective.

I'm not arguing moral justification, I'm arguing moral equivalence. Russia used military and diplomatic means to protect its own national interests in nearby countries. That's what other nation-states do, including the United States, using the same methods. To me, to be particularly morally outraged when Russia does it would be hypocrisy. I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance of educated and intelligent people such as yourself on the subject.

(07-17-2018 04:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So Im confused. Are you all mad that Trump was 'cajoled' (diplomatic) or not so?

Better yet you go both.

Jeezus krist you all make every comment at every possible juncture.

If you want to say 'He wasnt tough enough he sucked Putin dry' -- say that. That is what you seemingly are driving at at the get go.

Then you finish your argument off with 'Trump was not diplomatic'. Lolz.

I have never seen a 'Trump attack' from completely opposite vectors in the same paragraph, yet your post is one of the first that comes arguably close.

As I would like to finish, Trump is one of the most inarticulate speakers I have ever seen at that position, no doubt whatsoever.

From by perspective, Trump seems to act around Putin as a co-equal dealmaker, not for bad reasons, in my opinion. The malapropism that seems to get you riled up is the "but' portion, a portion that I view as Trump *not* wishing to to state such a *****-slap as a simple, unfinished "I have great confidence in my intelligence people " in a raw form to such an equal, and definitely *not* in that type of forum.

Apparently, coming from the folks who get really pissed that Trump is 'too bellicose' and is 'way too undiplomatic' this starts to become funny.

As for the finish (the "but" portion), nne only need to look at really older footage of Trump to see other "My position rocks, but the other side definitely has their viewpoint" when he deals with co-equals; *especially* when in that type of raw, public forum.

Trump doesnt have the decorum or diplomatic skills to say "My position rocks. I am sure we have different points of view on certain areas within this, and I am sure we as great partners in this venture will certainly work them out." *That* is the B+ response.

What you get from Trump is the C- version since he is amazingly inarticulate in being 'gracious' or 'diplomatic'. When you actually read the statement (the actual words, and *not* what you want to read into them) one does not see 'but Vlad's position is much better' the way the perennial wail of the galvanic anti-trumpers seem to want to interpret it, but simply a nod to Putin (again, standing right the fk there....) a very non-descript and inapt way of saying 'Yeah, Vlad has a story as well.'

But that is my opinion of course.

I need to get back to coordinating some emails I promised.

Edited to add this statement today from Trump:

Quote:“Let me be totally clear in saying that, and I’ve said this many times, I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also. A lot of people out there. There was no collusion at all and people have seen that and they’ve seen that strongly.”

Considering we are seemingly at peak 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears' realm of "Trump bashing" I am *sure* there will be something innately and horrifyingly wrong with that statement from some quarters. Bash away.....

To your edit, there is something wrong - just like in Charlottesville this man is incapable of not stepping in crap.

Watch the footage of him reading this statement - as soon as he finishes the script, he goes off the cuff and starts talking about how there could have been other people. This man is incapable of strictly condemning actions that need to be condemned. White supremacists and a foreign government actively and brazenly trying to influence the outcome of our presidential election.

Don’t think that I’m saying this is horrifyingly wrong as you said, but c’mon, how is this man so incapable of speaking in a definitive manner about this? He shows over and over that he can speak definitively about other topics...

(07-17-2018 05:14 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 02:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I personally have no problems with letting sovereigns be sovereign. I do have an issue with naked aggression being used to stop a freely elected government from being closer to the West, as was Ukraine's velocity to NATO.

Not a vindication of 'only the United States has the right to use aggression to defend its national interests' in the slightest. If the freely elected government of the Ukraine wished to 'head back to the sunny relationship with Moscow', more power to them. But, that isnt what seemingly happened, is it?

To the extent of 'nuclear war'? No. But, with that analogy I dont think I am the one arguing extreme results here, would I be?

I noticed you studiously avoided the Ossetia and eastern Ukraine issues, but, Ill let that pass.

I wasn't avoiding them, I just didn't see enough distinction, for purposes of the point I was making, between Russia's actions there and in Crimea. But if you'd like, I'll mention all three.

Russia's intervention in Crimea, Ossetia, and eastern Ukraine followed the WEST sponsored 2014 coup that REPLACED the democratically elected government with one more friendly to the West. You've got the history very wrong there. What Russia reacted to was the overthrow of a government friendly to them, by a coup that NATO backed. Following this, they secured the bases in the Crimea before NATO could. That's Russia's perspective.

I'm not arguing moral justification, I'm arguing moral equivalence. Russia used military and diplomatic means to protect its own national interests in nearby countries. That's what other nation-states do, including the United States, using the same methods. To me, to be particularly morally outraged when Russia does it would be hypocrisy. I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance of educated and intelligent people such as yourself on the subject.

I guess it is somewhat easy to pass off any revolution as a (pick your bugaboo)-backed coup.

I very much agree with the fact that there was a revolution there that replaced the previous government. Cant argue against that. But the leap to "west sponsored coup" is a rather dramatic one, one must say. And somewhat unsubstantiated, tbh.

Just saying.

And further, perhaps when you kind of make up the basis of an event, that doesnt help your statement about other's supposed 'cognitive dissonance'.

Again, just saying.

There are a lot of assumptive premises in your comments, Frizz. Lots of them.

I will agree that NATO and the West very much courted Ukraine to be closer to the West. No doubt. But to characterize the events on the scale of Nov 2103 - Feb 2014 and the *entire* Euromaidan movement (protests with literally hundreds of thousands of protesters) as a 'Western-backed coup' is strangely disingenuous. Or was *every* single member of the 500k - 900k sized rallies at that time all secretly 'coup plotters'?

Sorry, the size of the protesting crowd and the timing really seems to indicate a true popular uprising and protest. The popular sentiment was one of absolute reform. Your painting of this as a western-backed western-hatched 'coup' just doesnt ring true.

Now if Russia felt 'penned in', well, tbh, that is a different and independent question. But to characterize the entire Euromaidan movement that effectuated the change in the Ukrainian Government between Nov 2013 and Feb 2014 as a 'coup' just doesnt seem to fit. But hell, just write that off to us stupid 'cognitive dissonancers' we are..... Its always a coup plot I guess.....

Edited to add:

Putin's statements were very clear on the 'nfw' Ukraine *or* Georgia goes NATO. I am *not* disputing that they feel emphatically about that. That much is crystal clear. I do, however, seriously doubt your characterization of of the total Euromaidan as a 'NATO-backed coup'.

(07-17-2018 06:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 04:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So Im confused. Are you all mad that Trump was 'cajoled' (diplomatic) or not so?

Better yet you go both.

Jeezus krist you all make every comment at every possible juncture.

If you want to say 'He wasnt tough enough he sucked Putin dry' -- say that. That is what you seemingly are driving at at the get go.

Then you finish your argument off with 'Trump was not diplomatic'. Lolz.

I have never seen a 'Trump attack' from completely opposite vectors in the same paragraph, yet your post is one of the first that comes arguably close.

As I would like to finish, Trump is one of the most inarticulate speakers I have ever seen at that position, no doubt whatsoever.

From by perspective, Trump seems to act around Putin as a co-equal dealmaker, not for bad reasons, in my opinion. The malapropism that seems to get you riled up is the "but' portion, a portion that I view as Trump *not* wishing to to state such a *****-slap as a simple, unfinished "I have great confidence in my intelligence people " in a raw form to such an equal, and definitely *not* in that type of forum.

Apparently, coming from the folks who get really pissed that Trump is 'too bellicose' and is 'way too undiplomatic' this starts to become funny.

As for the finish (the "but" portion), nne only need to look at really older footage of Trump to see other "My position rocks, but the other side definitely has their viewpoint" when he deals with co-equals; *especially* when in that type of raw, public forum.

Trump doesnt have the decorum or diplomatic skills to say "My position rocks. I am sure we have different points of view on certain areas within this, and I am sure we as great partners in this venture will certainly work them out." *That* is the B+ response.

What you get from Trump is the C- version since he is amazingly inarticulate in being 'gracious' or 'diplomatic'. When you actually read the statement (the actual words, and *not* what you want to read into them) one does not see 'but Vlad's position is much better' the way the perennial wail of the galvanic anti-trumpers seem to want to interpret it, but simply a nod to Putin (again, standing right the fk there....) a very non-descript and inapt way of saying 'Yeah, Vlad has a story as well.'

But that is my opinion of course.

I need to get back to coordinating some emails I promised.

Edited to add this statement today from Trump:

Quote:“Let me be totally clear in saying that, and I’ve said this many times, I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also. A lot of people out there. There was no collusion at all and people have seen that and they’ve seen that strongly.”

Considering we are seemingly at peak 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears' realm of "Trump bashing" I am *sure* there will be something innately and horrifyingly wrong with that statement from some quarters. Bash away.....

To your edit, there is something wrong - just like in Charlottesville this man is incapable of not stepping in crap.

Watch the footage of him reading this statement - as soon as he finishes the script, he goes off the cuff and starts talking about how there could have been other people. This man is incapable of strictly condemning actions that need to be condemned. White supremacists and a foreign government actively and brazenly trying to influence the outcome of our presidential election.

Don’t think that I’m saying this is horrifyingly wrong as you said, but c’mon, how is this man so incapable of speaking in a definitive manner about this? He shows over and over that he can speak definitively about other topics...

Absolutely -- the guy rambles like crap. And builds himself up. And stokes the flywheel of 'victimhood'. Amongst the worst I have seen in a long time.

Doesnt mean he is secretly Vlad's 'partner' as I have seen and heard so much in the last day.

(07-17-2018 07:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 06:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 04:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]So Im confused. Are you all mad that Trump was 'cajoled' (diplomatic) or not so?

Better yet you go both.

Jeezus krist you all make every comment at every possible juncture.

If you want to say 'He wasnt tough enough he sucked Putin dry' -- say that. That is what you seemingly are driving at at the get go.

Then you finish your argument off with 'Trump was not diplomatic'. Lolz.

I have never seen a 'Trump attack' from completely opposite vectors in the same paragraph, yet your post is one of the first that comes arguably close.

As I would like to finish, Trump is one of the most inarticulate speakers I have ever seen at that position, no doubt whatsoever.

From by perspective, Trump seems to act around Putin as a co-equal dealmaker, not for bad reasons, in my opinion. The malapropism that seems to get you riled up is the "but' portion, a portion that I view as Trump *not* wishing to to state such a *****-slap as a simple, unfinished "I have great confidence in my intelligence people " in a raw form to such an equal, and definitely *not* in that type of forum.

Apparently, coming from the folks who get really pissed that Trump is 'too bellicose' and is 'way too undiplomatic' this starts to become funny.

As for the finish (the "but" portion), nne only need to look at really older footage of Trump to see other "My position rocks, but the other side definitely has their viewpoint" when he deals with co-equals; *especially* when in that type of raw, public forum.

Trump doesnt have the decorum or diplomatic skills to say "My position rocks. I am sure we have different points of view on certain areas within this, and I am sure we as great partners in this venture will certainly work them out." *That* is the B+ response.

What you get from Trump is the C- version since he is amazingly inarticulate in being 'gracious' or 'diplomatic'. When you actually read the statement (the actual words, and *not* what you want to read into them) one does not see 'but Vlad's position is much better' the way the perennial wail of the galvanic anti-trumpers seem to want to interpret it, but simply a nod to Putin (again, standing right the fk there....) a very non-descript and inapt way of saying 'Yeah, Vlad has a story as well.'

But that is my opinion of course.

I need to get back to coordinating some emails I promised.

Edited to add this statement today from Trump:

Quote:“Let me be totally clear in saying that, and I’ve said this many times, I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also. A lot of people out there. There was no collusion at all and people have seen that and they’ve seen that strongly.”

Considering we are seemingly at peak 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears' realm of "Trump bashing" I am *sure* there will be something innately and horrifyingly wrong with that statement from some quarters. Bash away.....

To your edit, there is something wrong - just like in Charlottesville this man is incapable of not stepping in crap.

Watch the footage of him reading this statement - as soon as he finishes the script, he goes off the cuff and starts talking about how there could have been other people. This man is incapable of strictly condemning actions that need to be condemned. White supremacists and a foreign government actively and brazenly trying to influence the outcome of our presidential election.

Don’t think that I’m saying this is horrifyingly wrong as you said, but c’mon, how is this man so incapable of speaking in a definitive manner about this? He shows over and over that he can speak definitively about other topics...

Absolutely -- the guy rambles like crap. And builds himself up. And stokes the flywheel of 'victimhood'. Amongst the worst I have seen in a long time.

Doesnt mean he is secretly Vlad's 'partner' as I have seen and heard so much in the last day.

I actually haven't seen many people try and posit that what he said was indicative that he was a partner of Putin. Most of the criticisms I've seen focus on how he seemingly chose the word of Putin over, or at best, on equal footing, to his own intelligence community, and that he did not stand up to Putin in the public sphere.

I haven't seen if connected back to the collusion issue, except for when Trump himself does it.

And, I dont see that in his vaunted and horrific 'but' terminology. And, further, he seems to have unequivocally today made sure that is not what he meant.

(07-17-2018 07:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't seen if connected back to the collusion issue, except for when Trump himself does it.

It is of the variety "How can he call the Mueller investigation a witch hunt when they indicted 12 Russians".

See the Chris Combs interview, for example.
\
Trying to use the Russian meddling to legitimize the collusion investigation.

(07-17-2018 08:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And, I dont see that in his vaunted and horrific 'but' terminology. And, further, he seems to have unequivocally today made sure that is not what he meant.

I feel like Trump's off-the-cuff comment during today's statement made it obvious that Trump doesn't believe what he read today. Heck, he said today he still thinks that there could have been others who were involved with the election interference.

And are you telling me that you think Trump meant what he said today? That he just happened to misspeak and said the word "would" instead of wouldn't" when he was responding to the reporter?

(07-17-2018 09:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]. Heck, he said today he still thinks that there could have been others who were involved with the election interference.

Do we have evidence that that ONLY Russia was involved in election interference? Or is that just another opinion presented as fact?

What would it matter if others were involved? Or were not?

(07-17-2018 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 09:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]. Heck, he said today he still thinks that there could have been others who were involved with the election interference.

Do we have evidence that that ONLY Russia was involved in election interference? Or is that just another opinion presented as fact?

What would it matter if others were involved? Or were not?

Your comment suggests there's reason to believe that non-Russian related outside actors were involved in the operations that focused on influencing the 2016 election. We know that these activities happened, and all the evidence that has been released points to Russia being the actor behind the activities. You're using a lack of evidence to suggest that there may be evidence out there.

That logical leap is gigantic. But I guess after the birther issue, I shouldn't be surprised that Trump, and many of his followers, do not need actual evidence to try and push a narrative.

Your defense is akin to me saying the moon is made of cheese because we don't have evidence that there isn't some cheese on the moon.

(07-17-2018 09:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2018 08:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And, I dont see that in his vaunted and horrific 'but' terminology. And, further, he seems to have unequivocally today made sure that is not what he meant.

I feel like Trump's off-the-cuff comment during today's statement made it obvious that Trump doesn't believe what he read today. Heck, he said today he still thinks that there could have been others who were involved with the election interference.

And are you telling me that you think Trump meant what he said today? That he just happened to misspeak and said the word "would" instead of wouldn't" when he was responding to the reporter?

Lad,

He was unequivocal in both his support of the US intelligence apparatus, and of their findings that he thinks Russia did this at least in some way, shape, or form. That seems like an absolute crystal

But the 'others' language does not on its face mean 'Russia, no how, no way' as you are so apparently keen to read it.

So here is a 'greatest hits':

"As far as hacking, I think it was Russia. But I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people." (January 2017)

"I've said it very, I've said it very simply. I think it could well have been Russia, but I think it could well have been other countries. I won't be specific, but I think a lot of people interfere." (June 2017)

"I believe that he feels that he and Russia did not meddle in the election. As to whether I believe it or not, I'm with our agencies, especially as currently constituted with their leadership. I believe in our intel agencies, our intelligence agencies. I've worked with them very strongly." (November 2017)

And just Tuesday *this* shocker:

"I have on numerous occasions noted our intelligence findings that Russians attempted to interfere in our election,"

and he equivocates a lot:

"I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK? You don't know who broke in to DNC." (Debate v Clinton)

"Certainly there was meddling. Probably there was meddling from other countries." (March 2018)


I cant believe with that litany of statements that "Russia fing interefered" that people are parsing this sow's ear.

And he is clear that there is the possibility in his mind, for better or for worse, that others might be in on it as well.

Jeezus Krist this is tiresome....