Trump: No Politician in history has been treated WORSE

[Teddy B 17,251]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

I guess I am just a bit more skeptical than you are.  Everyone in DC has an agenda, so if I want to hurt someone politically, I just have to make something up and let the proverbial chips fall.  No ramifications to me even if I made it up, no ramifications to the reporters as the are protected.  So if it smells like a rat...  If I worked at the WH and wanted to talk about what is happening, and I was on the other side, I would leave.  No amount of money is worth that much.

 

 

That's much easier said then done, especially if you have a family dependent on your income.

[CaliCat 3,957]

16 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The only reason people are still talking about the loser of the last election is that her party and supporters still haven't come to the realization that she lost.  Personally, I wouldn't care if we ever heard or talked about Hillary ever again, but since we are going to perpetuate the whole Russian narrative for at least another year or so, I guess that wish will not happen.

 

in this case, the person talking about the loser of the last election is the posted Nature Boy Flair. You should direct your comment at him. I am only the messenger. 

[Dashinka 23,338]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

You're right I can't help it. I can't help that fact that you, and people like you, keep feeling the need to talk about Hillary. It makes me wonder who really is her fan club.

 

In my mind the "Russian investigation" at this point traces back to people like Flynn, Manafort and the others that we have already shown to have real connections that are highly questionable. Beyond that I don't know details because none of us do. That is why it's an investigation. No rational person truly believes that the Russian influence was solely responsible for Trump's victory. That would be silly. However, just because it wasn't solely responsible doesn't mean we shouldn't want to have a clear understanding of the ways in which they meddled so we can stop them in the future. I for one don't want anyone (whether it is the President, the National Security Advisor or anyone else) beholden to the Russians in government.

So is that based on anonymous sources, or one administration spying on another administration as Susan Rice and Evelyn Farkas told us.  If no rational person believes it, then why are the Left and the DNC and their allies in the political press running around like squirrels on crack telling me it does matter.  I just love how this narrative grew after the election, and it was predictable to now Russia is solely responsible if you believe the press. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I guess I am just a bit more skeptical than you are.  Everyone in DC has an agenda, so if I want to hurt someone politically, I just have to make something up and let the proverbial chips fall.  No ramifications to me even if I made it up, no ramifications to the reporters as the are protected.  So if it smells like a rat...  If I worked at the WH and wanted to talk about what is happening, and I was on the other side, I would leave.  No amount of money is worth that much.

 

 

I agree that what you are describing is a real possibility. I would say most journalists, while they do want to focus on getting a "scoop" also have an inate desire to get a "true scoop" and most wouldn't run with something anonymously if it seemed completely off. However I do agree that journalism lately (last decade) has fallen from grace somewhat so that may not be as true anymore.

 

That being said, I think the place where we mostly disagree is with what "smells like a rat". To me, nothing that is being "leaked anonymously" is that far out of line with what I would expect from Trump. I don't like a lot of it, but it all seems pretty reasonable based on his public persona. Is it believable that Trump would ask Comey to stop investigating Flynn? I think so. Maybe it was some new kind of "locker room talk" that I don't know about. 

 

I also don't think that everyone would act like you suggest you would act. I can definitely imagine people not wanting to lose their job, but also wanting to leak information that they find important. Not just financial reasons. Even higher ranking politicians may want to do so anonymously to protect their own career (even if in they end what they leak is true, they still may prefer not to be known as the person that leaked it). A lot of people in politics are rather selfish and always have their own careers in the back of their mind. People like Ryan. I'm sure he hates Trump's guts and is annoyed that he is President, but he also wants to keep his position so he goes along with things. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if even he anonymously leaked things that help disparage Trump.

[Dashinka 23,338]

2 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

That's much easier said then done, especially if you have a family dependent on your income.

Then don't do it and just do your job.  I realize we like to think of all these anonymous sources as some sort of heroic whistle blowers, but what have we learned from them?  Not a thing concrete, so I don't think they really qualify as whistle blowers.

[Dashinka 23,338]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I agree that what you are describing is a real possibility. I would say most journalists, while they do want to focus on getting a "scoop" also have an inate desire to get a "true scoop" and most wouldn't run with something anonymously if it seemed completely off. However I do agree that journalism lately (last decade) has fallen from grace somewhat so that may not be as true anymore.

 

That being said, I think the place where we mostly disagree is with what "smells like a rat". To me, nothing that is being "leaked anonymously" is that far out of line with what I would expect from Trump. I don't like a lot of it, but it all seems pretty reasonable based on his public persona. Is it believable that Trump would ask Comey to stop investigating Flynn? I think so. Maybe it was some new kind of "locker room talk" that I don't know about. 

 

I also don't think that everyone would act like you suggest you would act. I can definitely imagine people not wanting to lose their job, but also wanting to leak information that they find important. Not just financial reasons. Even higher ranking politicians may want to do so anonymously to protect their own career (even if in they end what they leak is true, they still may prefer not to be known as the person that leaked it). A lot of people in politics are rather selfish and always have their own careers in the back of their mind. People like Ryan. I'm sure he hates Trump's guts and is annoyed that he is President, but he also wants to keep his position so he goes along with things. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if even he anonymously leaked things that help disparage Trump.

If you want to leak political information you have an agenda.  Remaining anonymous is just a way of protecting yourself.  If these sources were true whistle blowers and what they are saying is true, they will be protected.  Otherwise, just keep your mouth shut.

 

Journalism is a business, and with the levels of competition out there today, they are doing anything they can to get the story.  Anything to get the sales, or hits, or views, etc.  Therefore, there are no ethics in journalism anymore.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So is that based on anonymous sources, or one administration spying on another administration as Susan Rice and Evelyn Farkas told us.  If no rational person believes it, then why are the Left and the DNC and their allies in the political press running around like squirrels on crack telling me it does matter.  I just love how this narrative grew after the election, and it was predictable to now Russia is solely responsible if you believe the press. 

Where in the press are they CURRENTLY stating that Russia was "soley responsible"? Real press (the big agencies), not fringe. 

 

Saying that something "matters" DOES NOT equal "solely responsible". You don't have to go to that extreme. I think investigating what influence Russia had on members of Trump's election campaign and/or administration matters. I don't think whatever that influence is was solely responsible for his election (or even responsible at all). What I care about is Russian influence on policy and decision making in the US.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

If you want to leak political information you have an agenda.  Remaining anonymous is just a way of protecting yourself.  If these sources were true whistle blowers and what they are saying is true, they will be protected.  Otherwise, just keep your mouth shut.

 

Journalism is a business, and with the levels of competition out there today, they are doing anything they can to get the story.  Anything to get the sales, or hits, or views, etc.  Therefore, there are no ethics in journalism anymore.

Sadly I do tend to agree with your second statement. I don't think ALL journalists think like that, but it is getting harder and harder to distinguish.

 

Of course they have an agenda when they are leaking information. However the agenda could be "Damn what Trump just said to Comey was crazy and illegal, the public should know". Things that are illegal are NOT subject to "political opinion".

 

Of course the leaks about how much television Trump watches etc... are more likely politically-based leaks. Still doesn't mean they may not be true, but in those cases likely the agenda of the person is to leak something that makes Trump continually look like a baffoon. Even those people though may want to keep their job (either for financial reasons or political reasons...if they feel like eventually Trump will fall from grace they may want to stay anonymous so that they can continue on after).

 

Of course remaining anonymous is a way to protect yourself. That is why many of them do it. They may have an agenda, and they may want the information released, but they are also a little seflish and want to protect themselves as well. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by bcking

[Teddy B 17,251]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Then don't do it and just do your job.  I realize we like to think of all these anonymous sources as some sort of heroic whistle blowers, but what have we learned from them?  Not a thing concrete, so I don't think they really qualify as whistle blowers.

I don't necessarily think of them as heroic, but they do serve a purpose when the info pans out. Like you I am skeptical about any anonymous claims until they are proven, but the phony claims tend to fizzle out on their own after a while and the ones with some truth to them tend to stick around a bit longer.

[Dashinka 23,338]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

Where in the press are they CURRENTLY stating that Russia was "soley responsible"? Real press (the big agencies), not fringe. 

 

Saying that something "matters" DOES NOT equal "solely responsible". You don't have to go to that extreme. I think investigating what influence Russia had on members of Trump's election campaign and/or administration matters. I don't think whatever that influence is was solely responsible for his election (or even responsible at all). What I care about is Russian influence on policy and decision making in the US.

The only problem with that logic, is that there are many other plausible explanations that could be behind any of the acts that you associate with Russia.  This is reasonable doubt from what I can see, and the Russians may not be involved at all.  So the executive branch of the federal government has members that have business ties/relationships with foreign officials.  Are we going to investigate all of them?  Is Russia any worse than Israel, or GB, or Canada?

[CaliCat 3,957]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The only problem with that logic, is that there are many other plausible explanations that could be behind any of the acts that you associate with Russia.  This is reasonable doubt from what I can see, and the Russians may not be involved at all.  So the executive branch of the federal government has members that have business ties/relationships with foreign officials.  Are we going to investigate all of them?  Is Russia any worse than Israel, or GB, or Canada?

 

 

Yes. Politically Russia in our enemy, and openly so.

 

Israel, GB, and Canada are our allies, also openly so. 

 

If any of our allies had interfered in our elections it would be a problem worth of investigation. That the evidence points to Russia makes it all the more sensitive, pressing and urgent.

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The only problem with that logic, is that there are many other plausible explanations that could be behind any of the acts that you associate with Russia.  This is reasonable doubt from what I can see, and the Russians may not be involved at all.  So the executive branch of the federal government has members that have business ties/relationships with foreign officials.  Are we going to investigate all of them?  Is Russia any worse than Israel, or GB, or Canada?

The reasonable doubt seems to me like a good reason to have an investigation...

 

In general outside influence on politicians and elections is something to be avoided and should be investigated if there is evidence. Outside influence from Countries that tend to allign with our values and beliefs (GB/Canada), as well have being close allies for decades is less worrisome, in my opinion, than outside influence from a country like Russia. You can't ignore the decade long history of conflict between our two countries. Our relationship with Russia is still somewhat tenuous.

 

Israel is a whole different discussion.

Edited May 18, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 23,338]

13 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

I don't necessarily think of them as heroic, but they do serve a purpose when the info pans out. Like you I am skeptical about any anonymous claims until they are proven, but the phony claims tend to fizzle out on their own after a while and the ones with some truth to them tend to stick around a bit longer.

The issue I have is when the info does not pan out no one is held accountable, and retractions are buried or as you said, it fizzles.  But the damage is done.  If we had a little more ethics in journalism, maybe we wouldn't seen this so much.

 

[Dashinka 23,338]

2 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

 

Yes. Politically Russia in our enemy, and openly so.

 

Israel, GB, and Canada are our allies, also openly so. 

 

If any of our allies had interfered in our elections it would be a problem worth of investigation. That the evidence points to Russia makes it all the more sensitive, pressing and urgent.

So you were fine with the US interfering with the Israeli election?

[CaliCat 3,957]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

The issue I have is when the info does not pan out no one is held accountable, and retractions are buried or as you said, it fizzles.  But the damage is done.  If we had a little more ethics in journalism, maybe we wouldn't seen this so much.

 

 

 

I think the ethics we see in journalism mirrors the ethics practiced by the administration. The WH sets the tone - the journalists take their cues from them.