Trump gives classified info to russians

Post Reply New Topic

I'll admit, you have some pretty decent news sources there. But why all the Trump and Russia apologetics?

Have you considered the fact that you've been duped about Russia? This is WMD's all over again.

I was going to ask why, but... what would be the point? Even IF CNN really were reliable, don't you at least think that, for the sake of balance and to be sure that what CNN told you really was true, it would be wise to consult other sources as well? I don't know, maybe you do. Do you?

Yes, I would like to know as well. I often go to RT, but even though I think it better than most Western sources, I still understand that they can be, and often are, biased (pro-Russia). I go there because they tell me about things that I would never even hear about, due to the pathetic media in my country that is just so incredibly parochial (a story about some stupid footballer breaking his leg would get greater coverage than a story about a killer asteroid on its way to wipe out humanity - I'm not exaggerating, that's how bad it is).

Okay, that's clearer. I tend to take everything literally. Damn this Asperger's!

I can understand why he would want to restore his nation to what it was before, or to something similar. Every leader wants what is best for his or her country, that's not a surprise.



Well, when one is the leader of a nation that is constantly demonised in the Western press, it's easy to see why he would come to believe that in order for his nation to even survive he must push back, and hard. The (former Soviet) Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania now belong to N.A.T.O. There are American bases in Central Asia. How would you like it if there were Soviet (or Russian) bases in Canada and Mexico? That's how close they are. His country is being encircled. Why?



The accusation of interference again, based upon misinformation and gossip on slow news days.



I don't belong to the "right". Some of my views would be considered to be "far left" (ex. I fully support universal health care - we've had it in Australia for decades now - I despise all religions, hate tax-dodging corporations, believe that the U.S. has such a high homicide rate due to - among other things - the hopelessly inadequate control of firearms, and will always stand with the poor and disadvantaged against the slander that is often directed our way - ex. the obscene generalisation that "those who are on welfare are drug-addicts too lazy to work").

Because I think think a lot of things being said are untrue, incorrect, inaccurate, conflated and exaggerated - regardless of liking or disliking Trump or Russia.

If this was 2003 I would be saying the same thing about the supposed Hussein Bin Laden collusion and Iraq having a secret stockpile of WMD's. That wouldn't be because I was pro-Hussein or pro-Bin Laden or pro-Iraq or an apologist. I would have just thought the whole thing was baloney. There were independent expert analysts who knew all about Hussein and Bin Laden who said the two wouldn't be in collusion with each other based on their ideologies and how they operate and I would have been in agreement with them. There were independent expert analysts saying there was insufficient and incorrect intel that Iraq had a WMD stockpile and I would have agreed with them.

Now when I first heard that Russia had hacked the election, I was alarmed. But when I found out what the details were, I became skeptical. Not because I thought Russia were the good guys and wouldn't do something like that. But because I thought Russia was too sophisticated to operate that way. And there were independent expert analysts of cyber hacking and cyber warfare who said the same thing and explained why it was unlikely and I agreed with them. It wasn't that Russia wouldn't do something like that, it was if Russia did do something like that, they wouldn't have operated that way. It was just too amateurish and sloppy. And I thought the official report on it that was issued by the intelligence community was flimsy and lacked substance.

That's objective deductive reasoning free of feelings for or against Russia.

I think the Trump in collusion with Russia accusations that morphed out of that carries the same pattern. It's simply looking at something and objectively deducing whether it's true or false, likely or unlikely, credible or lacking credibility, regardless of liking or disliking Trump or Russia.

Now take North Korea for example. NK experimenting with nukes is plainly obvious. There's very solid evidence that's what's happening. There isn't a situation where the evidence of this is intangible and based on speculation and conjecture. There aren't all these anonymous sources being cited. No one is saying pertinent evidence can't be divulged that this is happening because it's classified or it would compromise national security and so on. We the public know exactly what North Korea is doing regarding testing nuclear weapons and test launching missiles. I don't think anyone is deputing it whatsoever. I'm sure there is some classified information regarding this that isn't being released. But it's not like the whole thing is classified or vague or insubstantial or based on conjecture and speculation or based on circumstantial or anecdotal evidence.

Now there's one WP member who has expressed fear that what's going on with NK is going to result in WWIII and a nuclear apocalypse and I argued against the likelihood of that happening. Does that make me an apologist for North Korea? No.

I would have argued against a Hussein and Bin Laden alliance and argued against Iraq having a stockpile of WMD's and argued against the US invading Iraq. Would that have made me an apologist for Iraq and Hussein? No.

I don't think that the Kremlin was behind the crude phishing scam email that had "this was us Russians" fingerprints all over it. Does that make me an apologist for Russia? No. It's just using Occam's razor.

I already answered that. Reuters, PBS, CSPAN, NPR, AP, BBC, USA Today, World News. Plus I run stuff through Snopes and Politifact.

Plus I run news sources through tools like https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Now I don't think CNN is all that unreliable or even all that far to the left overall. Except when it comes to Trump.

Being critical of the President is fine. Reuters, PBS, CSPAN, NPR, AP, BBC, USA Today, World News and the like produce articles that are objectively critical of the President. But they don't produce mountains of sensationalist hit pieces because they have a vendetta based agenda like CNN does.

I really don't understand how anyone could consider that reliable.

As a matter of fact, it was CNN and MSNBC that had cast doubt on Bush's WMD bullsh*t.
And considering what I know about Trump who has slandered others, weaseled his way out of paying his workers and contractors, cheated on his taxes, ran confidence scams like Trump University, about how Russian oligarchs are the only people who will lend him money, how he has a boner for strongmen but disdains democratic governments, etc, I have to say, no, I don't believe I was duped about Russia, because Trump fits right in with such a conspiracy.

If the phishing of the DNC was sloppy, have you considered the possibility that it was made to look sloppy? That, and these hackers are hardly Russian intelligence agents, but cutouts who are harder to trace back to Putin. Putin is a spymaster whose business has long entailed using people who can't be traced back to him, as does our own CIA.

I am delighted you aren't to the far right on the issues you've named off. But the fact is, those people who support Trump in my country are the very same people who take the opposite political stance you do.

I think it's extremely likely the sloppiness was intentional, because the sloppiness is what left a trail.

One part of using Occam's razor, is the more assumtions that have to be made, the less likely the possibility.

There are three possibilities.

One is any garden variety hacker from anywhere did it and left a false trail. It's like the only reason there would even be a trail would be to create a false lead.

Or the Kremlin hired some hackers who were too inept to cover their tracks. The hacker agency or whatever you call it was supposedly Fancy Bear (yeah good cover, fancy bear sounds so very Russian). So what's Fancy Bear's operating history? If they're that sloppy would the Kremlin have hired them? If they're not that sloppy, then it wasn't them.

Or it was made to look like a trail leading to Putin so that it would be concluded that Putin set himself up to look guilty on purpose so that the FBI CIA whoever would conclude that wasn't really Putin when it was, but somehow that backfired and Putin making it look like it was Putin actually made it look like it was Putin instead of having the hoped for reverse psychology effect.

As to possibility number one, the entire Iraq having WMD's which lead to the invasion of Iraq and many deaths, was started by one person pulling a prank.

Putin has used hackers as cutouts in his interference against elections in Ukraine, France, Germany, and elsewhere. So why not in America?

Having other similar situations to compare with this one could make a big difference. So I would have to know what the particulars were. I randomly picked France and got this Snopes article. I don't have time to study it now, but here it is: http://www.snopes.com/2017/05/10/french ... sian-hack/

One thing that just crossed my mid though, is if Putin is doing this all over the place, it seems to make him interfering with our election less of a special case to me. Like the idea he did it because of some special relationship with Trump, seems less likely to me if he's done it so many times with other candidates.

That special relationship with Trump has more to do with stroking Trump's ego, and telling him what he want to hear in order to manipulate him. In reality, their bromance is one sided, with Trump being played for a sucker. The whole idea behind all this Russian meddling is to break down Anti-Russian alliances, and replace democratic governments with strongmen who are ultimately answerable to Putin.

That seems more like a disproved rumor considering Trumps actions against Putin's ally Assad by bombing his airbases.
That's a major demonstration of Trump going against Putin. So what's something that stands out showing Trump is doing Putin's bidding?

In fact, Assad had had warning from Trump through Putin to remove all aircraft and other equipment prior to the bombing. If anything, the bombing of the Syrian airfield was more show for the west who disapproved of Assad's attacks on civilians.