President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Leroy42

Is it wrong to talk to the Russians? Of course not. But you need to do so in a controlled and agreed way. Clear guidelines. An amicable working relationship where the grunts do most of the talking through structured process and the leaders come in at certain times to agree on sticking points or move on the process.

This is not what happened here. This is clearly not part of a strategy, as is proven by the denials of the WH that it even happened. Trump simply handed over top secret info for nothing.

Is it good to share info on a common threat? Again of course. But, as above, it must be done on a mutual and trusting basis. What did the Russians provide in return? If not at the WH then when? What was the point of giving this information?

The real issue in this story, as WH will attempt to play down the seriousness of the actual intel, is that everyone believed that this is true. The WP felt it could post such a story, the media felt they could run with it, all because that is where Trump's standing is. People have no faith in his ability, or his desire to show off. The lack of trust is the big issue. Trump has no international standing, isn't even trusted within his own country.

Nobody believes the press spokespeople, nobody believes Trump. The best that even the GOP can come out with is to try to focus on HC or say that he didn't mention

The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false. The president and the foreign minister [Sergey Lavrov] reviewed a range of common threats to our two counties, including threats to civil aviation. At no time -- at no time -- were intelligence sources or methods discussed.

SO he doesn't deny that information was given, he only states that sources weren't mentioned. They are not denying only trying to limit the damage.

Its the loss of credibility. Being a leader requires being able to lead, and that is very difficulty to do in a democracy when nobody believes a word you say. Look at Blair, Bertie etc. Once people start to disbelieve you the end is near.

People can make the valid case that working with Russia is better in the long term. But you do that as part of a plan, in conjunction with your intelligence agencies and other departments within government. As Russia is such a global player it would also be worthwhile to get on board NATO and possibly the EU. But he has done none of that. Why? Because it isn't a grand plan.

Wanderer78

I'd have to agree with noam chomsky in regards trump, the only policy he has is 'the me' policy. What a fool of a man, dangerous to

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is it wrong to talk to the Russians? Of course not. But you need to do so in a controlled and agreed way. Clear guidelines. An amicable working relationship where the grunts do most of the talking through structured process and the leaders come in at certain times to agree on sticking points or move on the process.

This is not what happened here. This is clearly not part of a strategy, as is proven by the denials of the WH that it even happened . . .

The White House hasn't actually denied that it happened.

McMaster, the National Security Adviser, has stated that "The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false." This is code for saying that the WP got some aspects of the story wrong, not that nothing of the kind ever happened. This kind of language lays the ground for picking nits with the details of a story, while ignoring its broad thrust. And this impression is confirmed by what he goes on to say:

"The president and foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries including threats to civil aviation. At no time … were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not publicly known … I was in the room, it didn’t happen."

What McMaster is denying here is allegations which nobody has made. The WP story did not suggest that Trump had discussed intelligence sources and methods; rather, they say that he had disclosed information from which the Russians could infer intelligence sources and methods. McMaster, tellingly, does not deny that this happened. Similarly, when McMaster says that Trump did not disclose "any military operations that were not publicly known", he's not contradicting the WP story.

We can see the same in Rex Tillerson's statement. He says that "a broad range of subjects were discussed, among which were common efforts and threats regarding counter-terrorism. During that exchange the nature of specific threats were discussed but they did not discuss sources, methods or military operations". Again, this does nothing to refute the WaPo story, which is that Trump disclosed classified information about a threat from which the Russians could infer the source of the information.

Kitsunegari

Christy42 wrote: »

Again though it does affect us citizens. It is info on Isis. It affects the ability of the security services to do their job. It affects how the US does business as now relations between them and others have become more strained.

He broke the trust of a US ally who will now be less willing to share information, which I am sure extends to others as well as they have no idea who will end up with the information if Trump spills the beans again. This hurts the safety of Americans as their IC is no longer as effective.

Finally the information was directly linked to a security threat with regards laptops on planes. This is obviously something that affects Americans.

You are simply attempting to downplay the seriousness of the situation without actually having to give an argument.

Finally there is no narrative on this thread but when was the last time anyone could give a competent defense of his presidency?

This thread has been a complete embarrassment from the get go. It's more politics cafe than politics thanks to the brigade of strawman arguments and moany liberal types than continue to attack anyone that tries to offer a counter argument to the narrative.

We get it. Every leak is true and nobody should question the integrity of the American Press.

I haven't seen anyone try and defend Trump on here but there is a lot of angry liberals who attack anyone on this thread who questions the narratives coming from the press.

Knowing what we know about Susan Rice we still have people producing information from the likes of Maggie Haberman, you know the journalist that sat on the Susan Rice story to protect Obama but will print anything against Trump. It's hard to have a discussion when the majority of people in here aren't interested in any form of critical debate. You completely misrepresented what he said and that has been the standard of this thread.

Also, just because you question the evidence doesn't mean you support Trump. There are a lot of stupid assumptions being continually made here.

ThisRegard

Kitsunegari wrote: »

This thread has been a complete embarrassment from the get go. It's more politics cafe than politics thanks to the brigade of strawman arguments and moany liberal types than continue to attack anyone that tries to offer a counter argument to the narrative.
.........
There are a lot of stupid assumptions being continually made here

Well at least you win the most ironic post on the thread. Can you read that paragraph back without laughing at yourself?

Kitsunegari

ThisRegard wrote: »

Well at least you win the most ironic post on the thread. Can you read that paragraph back without laughing at yourself?

The cringey thanks-whoring is a bit boring. Yawn.

The guy that thanked your post lied to offer a similarly dim reply last night.

The intolerance is strong in here.

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

This thread has been a complete embarrassment from the get go. It's more politics cafe than politics thanks to the brigade of strawman arguments and moany liberal types than continue to attack anyone that tries to offer a counter argument to the narrative.

We get it. Every leak is true and nobody should question the integrity of the American Press.

I haven't seen anyone try and defend Trump on here but there is a lot of angry liberals who attack anyone on this thread who questions the narratives coming from the press.

Knowing what we know about Susan Rice we still have people producing information from the likes of Maggie Haberman, you know the journalist that sat on the Susan Rice story to protect Obama but will print anything against Trump. It's hard to have a discussion when the majority of people in here aren't interested in any form of critical debate. You completely misrepresented what he said and that has been the standard of this thread.

Also, just because you question the evidence doesn't mean you support Trump. There are a lot of stupid assumptions being continually made here.

As a matter of interest, which news outlets do you consider to be reliable as you believe the Guardian, CNN, Wapo and NYT to be unreliable?

ThisRegard

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The intolerance is strong in here.

Says the person who went on a rant littered with name calling.

You've been asked over and over, and I see just just again, what sources do you trust consider you cast a giant net of mistrust over what seems like pretty much every reasonable media outlet?

Professor Moriarty

ThisRegard wrote: »

Says the person who went on a rant littered with name calling.

You've been asked over and over, and I see just just again, what sources do you trust consider you cast a giant net of mistrust over what seems like pretty much every reasonable media outlet?

I've actually asked him/her this question four times.

Professor Moriarty

The Guardian, The Telegraph, Fox News, CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS, Wapo and NYT all have pieces on Trump's leaking of intel at the meeting. Are they all unreliable? Breitbart has some rubbish about 'Deep State' . Maybe that's a reliable news source?

I like this piece from Breitbart's front page - this is its headline:

"Portland Bar Offers ‘Free Whiskey for Life’ to Customers That ‘Punch Steve Bannon’"

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is it wrong to talk to the Russians? Of course not. But you need to do so in a controlled and agreed way. Clear guidelines. An amicable working relationship where the grunts do most of the talking through structured process and the leaders come in at certain times to agree on sticking points or move on the process.

Having US media banned from an Oval office meeting and Russian media allowed is controlled and agreed.

This is not what happened here. This is clearly not part of a strategy, as is proven by the denials of the WH that it even happened. Trump simply handed over top secret info for nothing.

How can you state this as true? US media are banned from the meeting and Trump leaks classified intel to the Russians. The best excuse is that he bungled it. They are denying allegations that were not made but they are OK for the media to run with the bungle angle.

Is it good to share info on a common threat? Again of course. But, as above, it must be done on a mutual and trusting basis. What did the Russians provide in return? If not at the WH then when? What was the point of giving this information?

I think you're missing the point entirely:

The breach of trust was between the US and an ally who shared classified intel with it. The intel was not even shared with many parts of US Govt. This intel was given on the basis that it would not be shared with anyone, never mind Russia.
The trust of this ally was breached.

WHAT ALLY WILL SHARE INTEL WITH THE USA NOW?

We dont know how the Russians etc. will use this info, but lives will be lost at some point over this.

(The story has been verified by NYTimes and Reuters. CIA and NSA did take emergency action to damage limit the leak (Trump's).)

Just to clarify: A president who is de facto under investigation for treason with Russia, meets the Russian foreign minister and chief spy master in the oval office with no US media allowed and passes over classified intelligence.

Akrasia

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The cringey thanks-whoring is a bit boring. Yawn.

The guy that thanked your post lied to offer a similarly dim reply last night.

The intolerance is strong in here.

When Trump says he is being 'treated unfairly' by the media or the RNC or whoever, it's an obvious deflection tactic.

Whinging about 'intolerance' is just as obvious.

You're the one putting your head above the parapet, defending a man who is obviously unfit to be the president of the USA and an administration that is getting more ridiculous every day. If you choose to defend indefensible things, don't be surprised when you find your statements mocked

Kitsunegari

ThisRegard wrote: »

Says the person who went on a rant littered with name calling.

You've been asked over and over, and I see just just again, what sources do you trust consider you cast a giant net of mistrust over what seems like pretty much every reasonable media outlet?

Why don't you pay attention? I've already answered this question.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I've actually asked him/her this question four times.

See above.

As usual, the detail isn't really important.

Kitsunegari

Akrasia wrote: »

When Trump says he is being 'treated unfairly' by the media or the RNC or whoever, it's an obvious deflection tactic.

Whinging about 'intolerance' is just as obvious.

You're the one putting your head above the parapet, defending a man who is obviously unfit to be the president of the USA and an administration that is getting more ridiculous every day. If you choose to defend indefensible things, don't be surprised when you find your statements mocked

Where have I defended Trump? You should really get your facts rights before you accuse someone of something.

You should stop assuming things.

demfad

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Why don't you pay attention? I've already answered this question.



See above.

As usual, the detail isn't really important.

Like clockwork.

Another big Trump-Russian story and here you are back again to send this thread off in any direction other than one that involves a conversation on what happened in the US yesterday.

Leroy42

Demfad, I think you misunderstood my post, or at least my intention.

I was not defending anything. I was replying to issues that posters had brought up in regards to why this was an issue.

I clearly mentioned the breaking of trust, even saying that the real worry here for the US is that this story is seen as true and people are willing to accept it. That in itself tells you how Trump is seen across the world. The fact that the WP felt the ability to post this story, I mean think about it. They basically called the president out on handing over top secret info and they went with it. Pretty big call but A) their sources seem legit (the WH has not refuted the basic tenet of the story) and b) they know that they are are pretty solid ground in terms of the likelyhood of this happening.

If, for eg, the Guardian ran a similar piece about May, or Merkel etc I would not believe it. But it is not beyond the probable that this happened. As the saying goes "get the name of an early riser and you can sleep till noon" well Trump already has the name of a untrustworthy, unreliable partner and as such allies will be very circumspect with giving info to the US.

This is terrible for US security. They rely heavily on ME partners in their fight against terrorism, giving this intel to the Russians will only damage that partnership.

I cannot see how any GOP member can defend this. It may have been nothing more than bravado, rather than say a deliberate attempt to pass classified info, but that nearly makes it worse. At least a spy, there is some underlying reason behind it. Bravado means that there is nothig more than his ego and the need to be the big man.

jooksavage

I can only imagine what the original source of this intel must be thinking. "He said f**%ing what?! To the Russians?!"

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Why don't you pay attention? I've already answered this question.



See above.

As usual, the detail isn't really important.

Can't actually find the answer to my question in your posts. Mea culpa.

Humour me. Just a sentence or two is all it will take. Please just state which news outlets you consider to be reliable.

mcmoustache

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone try and defend Trump on here but there is a lot of angry liberals who attack anyone on this thread who questions the narratives coming from the press.

Seriously, what's with the assumption that people who hate trump are all liberals? Trump is such an incompetent fraud that it's amazing anyone can support him. There's nothing conservative about supporting this guy.

If you think that everyone who hates Trump is a liberal, you need to broaden your horizons.

Akrasia

demfad wrote: »

Having US media banned from an Oval office meeting and Russian media allowed is controlled and agreed.



How can you state this as true? US media are banned from the meeting and Trump leaks classified intel to the Russians. The best excuse is that he bungled it. They are denying allegations that were not made but they are OK for the media to run with the bungle angle.



I think you're missing the point entirely:

The breach of trust was between the US and an ally who shared classified intel with it. The intel was not even shared with many parts of US Govt. This intel was given on the basis that it would not be shared with anyone, never mind Russia.
The trust of this ally was breached.

WHAT ALLY WILL SHARE INTEL WITH THE USA NOW?

We dont know how the Russians etc. will use this info, but lives will be lost at some point over this.

(The story has been verified by NYTimes and Reuters. CIA and NSA did take emergency action to damage limit the leak (Trump's).)

Just to clarify: A president who is de facto under investigation for treason with Russia, meets the Russian foreign minister and chief spy master in the oval office with no US media allowed and passes over classified intelligence.

It is so obvious that Trump cannot actually control the things he says. He talks in a stream of consciousness and he tends to play up to the crowd depending on who he is talking to.

He has an urge to be respected and to impress other people, so he will tell people things that he thinks will make them like him or be impressed by him.

He cannot be trusted with any sensitive information. He can't even keep his own alibi straight when he think it makes him look weak, why would anyone think he would be able to engage with seasoned diplomats who are skilled at getting people to do things for them?

The danger of Trump has never been his campaign promises (other than global warming denial), it has been his total lack of stability and the likelihood that he will do something stupid when his back is against a wall.

Luckily, so far, his stupidity has been self destructive and this may be enough to end his presidency before he has a chance to cause long term global conflict.

There have been many psychologists and psychiatrists diagnosing him with mental illness. They have been criticised on the basis that mental illness requires that there is an impairment that causes distress or harm to the individual. ("How could he be impaired, he is the president of the USA")

It's getting harder to ignore the Don's self destructive narcissism. He managed to get himself to the pinnacle, he somehow got himself the most important job in the world, and since then, he has been unable to restrain himself and is turning into a tragic figure, a car crash that the whole world is watching in real time and if he manages to escape from this without a Jail sentence he'll be very lucky.

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

It is so obvious that Trump cannot actually control the things he says. He talks in a stream of consciousness and he tends to play up to the crowd depending on who he is talking to.

He has an urge to be respected and to impress other people, so he will tell people things that he thinks will make them like him or be impressed by him.

He cannot be trusted with any sensitive information. He can't even keep his own alibi straight when he think it makes him look weak, why would anyone think he would be able to engage with seasoned diplomats who are skilled at getting people to do things for them?

The danger of Trump has never been his campaign promises (other than global warming denial), it has been his total lack of stability and the likelihood that he will do something stupid when his back is against a wall.

Luckily, so far, his stupidity has been self destructive and this may be enough to end his presidency before he has a chance to cause long term global conflict.

There have been many psychologists and psychiatrists diagnosing him with mental illness. They have been criticised on the basis that mental illness requires that there is an impairment that causes distress or harm to the individual. ("How could he be impaired, he is the president of the USA")

It's getting harder to ignore the Don's self destructive narcissism. He managed to get himself to the pinnacle, he somehow got himself the most important job in the world, and since then, he has been unable to restrain himself and is turning into a tragic figure, a car crash that the whole world is watching in real time and if he manages to escape from this without a Jail sentence he'll be very lucky.

This.

Lux23

It probably wasn't a very smart idea to annoy all the intelligence community by sacking Comey. It just shows what poor judgement Trump has.

mcmoustache

Let's also not forget, pretty much all of his problems to date have been down to him running his mouth off. It's his lack of self control that keeps getting him in trouble. If he'd behave like a grown-up, the mess that he is in would be a lot smaller than it is now.

Akrasia

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Where have I defended Trump? You should really get your facts rights before you accuse someone of something.

You should stop assuming things.

You can say you're not supporting Trump all you like, but your post history is page after page of you casting doubt on all the reports of Trumps bad behaviour, while arguing in favour of Trumpcare and giving him the benefit of doubt in practically every post.

mcmoustache

Lux23 wrote: »

It probably wasn't a very smart idea to annoy all the intelligence community by sacking Comey. It just shows what poor judgement Trump has.

Poor Judgement is an understatement. If you remember back to his inauguration day, this buffoon went to the CIA office with laughing lackeys in tow to go on about how great he was in front of a memorial to dead CIA agents. Even prior to that, he was attacking the intelligence agencies.

Sacking Comey was just not just poor judgement, it was such a monumentally stupid move that it could be remembered as the turning point in this shítshow of a presidency.

cnocbui

Funny you should mention his lack of self-control, I was just reading this:

When the world is led by a child

At base, Trump is an infantalist. There are three tasks that most mature adults have sort of figured out by the time they hit 25. Trump has mastered none of them. Immaturity is becoming the dominant note of his presidency, lack of self-control his leitmotif.

"We badly want to understand Trump, to grasp him," David Roberts writes in Vox. "It might give us some sense of control, or at least an ability to predict what he will do next. But what if there's nothing to understand? What if there is no there there?"

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/when-the-world-is-led-by-a-child-20170516-gw5ri0.html

jooksavage

mcmoustache wrote: »

Seriously, what's with the assumption that people who hate trump are all liberals? Trump is such an incompetent fraud that it's amazing anyone can support him. There's nothing conservative about supporting this guy.

This is exactly it. Trump is not a conservative. He's anything but. He told Fox News that the checks and balances system enshrined in the constitution is "an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country". Being an authoritarian doesn't make him a conservative any more than it makes a him communist. And the Republicans enablers doing verbal gymnastics in an attempt to translate his statements into something approaching acceptable should never be forgiven for this betrayal.

Kitsunegari

mcmoustache wrote: »

Seriously, what's with the assumption that people who hate trump are all liberals? Trump is such an incompetent fraud that it's amazing anyone can support him. There's nothing conservative about supporting this guy.

If you think that everyone who hates Trump is a liberal, you need to broaden your horizons.

Where have I stated that 'people who hate Trump are all liberals'? Yet, again another strawman argument on this thread. I don't support Trump either.

Is this a thread about political discussion or is it just nauseating strawman arguments?

Kitsunegari

Akrasia wrote: »

You can say you're not supporting Trump all you like, but your post history is page after page of you casting doubt on all the reports of Trumps bad behaviour, while arguing in favour of Trumpcare and giving him the benefit of doubt in practically every post.

There is no such thing as Trumpcare. It's called the AHCA. I don't support it. Can you stop making up complete nonsense? Where have I said that I support the AHCA?

Why are you lying to try and make an argument? We've nearly reached rock bottom.

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

This thread has been a complete embarrassment from the get go. It's more politics cafe than politics thanks to the brigade of strawman arguments and moany liberal types than continue to attack anyone that tries to offer a counter argument to the narrative.

We get it. Every leak is true and nobody should question the integrity of the American Press.

I haven't seen anyone try and defend Trump on here but there is a lot of angry liberals who attack anyone on this thread who questions the narratives coming from the press.

So what did you mean by the above post. You mention liberals twice in a negative way in terms of the negativity to Trump. i think it safe to assume that you blame liberals for their reactions to Trump.

You didn't say some, or a proportion, so one can only infer you meant all.

What was the point you were trying to make?