American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Or they just tell Isis and let them take care of it.

Maybe, it seems unlikely at the moment for that information to get to ISIS from Russia but not impossible given shifting alliances and changing fortunes of war.

But we'll never know, since the media told ISIS first.

[calgarybornnraised]

Originally Posted by accord1999

To build a stronger relationship in the fight against ISIS.


But it can, since the American president has final say on classification.

Jeffery Lord, Ladies and Gentlmen.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by calgarybornnraised

Jeffery Lord, Ladies and Gentlmen.

Or may be just someone with critical thinking. But I guess when you have no point to make, you call names?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by accord1999

To build a stronger relationship in the fight against ISIS.


But it can, since the American president has final say on classification.

No, the president should glad hand the Russian ambassador, let him know that the assistant CIA secretary or the like has permission to talk to the assistant KGB section chief or who ever it is that actually know what they are talking about in the office downstairs or the like, that is how you build stronger relationships, you know without scaring the living crap out of every other ally you have and making their cooperation less likely.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

No, the president should glad hand the Russian ambassador, let him know that the assistant CIA secretary or the like has permission to talk to the assistant KGB section chief or who ever it is that actually know what they are talking about in the office downstairs or the like, that is how you build stronger relationships, you know without scaring the living crap out of every other ally you have and making their cooperation less likely.

Maybe that makes sense for some chief executives or politicians, but then there are others that like to make the big announcement, or cut the ribbon, or sign a deal themselves.

And at least for now, the public stance of Israel is:

In a statement to the Times, Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer said Israel “has full confidence in our intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States and looks forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under President Trump.”

Since Israel and other allies need the US's intelligence capabilities as much as the US needs its allies'. Even after its been learned that the US has spied on its allies.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Or may be just someone with critical thinking. But I guess when you have no point to make, you call names?

Actually defending Donald Trump requires the suspension of critical thinking, and logical thinking and....really any kind of thinking.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Except that everything he has said on this topic in the past two pages makes some sense. But of course, if it isn't unequivocally critical of Trump / the Republican party, rather than someone else, it's blasphemy and he must be an apologist.

What exactly is the point of talking about any of this if there's only one prescribed, permissible reaction to anything bad that happens, and it's "This is 100% Donald Trump's fault"? We might as well all just shut up and leave it to Duffman, he's got that stuff on lock.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by accord1999

I quoted from the NY Times where even they say that Trump did not provide details about the source and method of the intelligence. That is something that the media disclosed to ISIS.

Whatever damage you think Trump did, the media did far worse.

If true, where did the media get this information?

[Bagor]

Time for a fundraising email.



https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/sta...botage-n760541

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Except that everything he has said on this topic in the past two pages makes some sense. But of course, if it isn't unequivocally critical of Trump / the Republican party, rather than someone else, it's blasphemy and he must be an apologist.

What exactly is the point of talking about any of this if there's only one prescribed, permissible reaction to anything bad that happens, and it's "This is 100% Donald Trump's fault"? We might as well all just shut up and leave it to Duffman, he's got that stuff on lock.

Do you really actually think Trump revealed the information to Russia because he wants them to help in the fight against ISIS, or do you think he did it because he wanted his usually reassurance that he's so amazing? If you're applying critical thinking given Trump's past, answer should be obvious.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If true, where did the media get this information?

Why didn't the rest of the media follow WaPo's lead and leave many details ( such as country ) out of their reporting?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by accord1999

To build a stronger relationship in the fight against ISIS. One way to do that is to help Russia improve its civilian airliner security if it didn't already know. After all, Russia in 2015 may have suffered a loss of an airliner with 200+ passengers from such an attack.

But it can, since the American president has final say on classification.

You claim critical thinking here, but it's not. It's rationalization.

Consider who Russia is:
-Openly hostile to US
-Murders journalists and opposition
-Prop up and help Syrian regime to kill it's own civilians
-Brazenly interferes in foreign elections
-Engaging in espionage in the US with the express intent to destabilize

Now, with knowing that, it should seem obvious to someone using critical thinking, that the Russians would be more than happy to compromise the US. Even if you aren't certain, you must suspect they might, which makes sharing Intel a bad idea. Especially considering the felt it so important they wouldn't even tell allies.

Then consider the fact that the US has already stopped laptops from entering the US from countries where they are concerned ISIS might have tried. You cannot say it was important to tell the Russians this to prevent it or they would've told their allies too.

Then comes the biggest flaw in your critical thinking analysis here: Trump was simply boasting about how good his Intel was. This was not granular info given as a way to improve security. He was boasting.

It's important not to follow group-think and to use critical thinking to ensure your not being misled, but I don't think you did much thinking here

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Actually defending Donald Trump requires the suspension of critical thinking, and logical thinking and....really any kind of thinking.

There can't be multiple wrongs on this topic?

Trump was wrong in sharing the Intel with the Russians.

The Media was wrong in sharing too many specific details with the public.

They aren't mutually exclusive, and believing the second is true doesn't preclude someone from believing in the first one (and certainly doesn't imply defending Trump in the slightest)

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Why didn't the rest of the media follow WaPo's lead and leave many details ( such as country ) out of their reporting?

That doesn't really answer the question....but anyway, were the media the first airing of the details, or was the info already out there because of Trump or someone else at the WH? Did it matter that the media reported it publicly, or would the leaked info make it's way out anyway?

[AltaGuy]

The media's responsibility and the POTUS's responsibility with respect to classified and/or sensitive information are nowhere near equivalent. They serve different masters, different goals, different checks and balances.

Conflating the two roles here is silly.

[Bagor]

Vladimir Putin has said he is willing to provide a transcript of Donald Trump's meeting with senior Russian officials, insisting the US President did not share classified intelligence.

The Russian President said he would not share an audio recording of Mr Trump's meeting with foreign minister Sergey Lavrov but would be prepared to provide the transcript, according to a Kremlin aide.

It was not immediately clear whether the meeting had been recorded by the Russian officials, and if so whether the US Government was aware the meeting was being taped.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7740416.html

This should clear things up.

[AltaGuy]

Haha - I, for one, trust the forthcoming Russian transcript's version of events unequivocally. No way there's some dude writing it up in the Kremlin right now is there?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Do you really actually think Trump revealed the information to Russia because he wants them to help in the fight against ISIS, or do you think he did it because he wanted his usually reassurance that he's so amazing? If you're applying critical thinking given Trump's past, answer should be obvious.

I think neither... I think he did it because he's Donald Trump, and he just says things without considering the consequences. I don't believe for a second that it even occurred to him that the information was protected, or that there would be any issue with discussing it. There doesn't need to be any rhyme or reason to his behaviour. But this isn't really a response to my post... two things can be wrong at once, as calculoso says.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

The media's responsibility and the POTUS's responsibility with respect to classified and/or sensitive information are nowhere near equivalent. They serve different masters, different goals, different checks and balances.



Conflating the two roles here is silly.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the two sets of responsibilities are completely different. That said, it doesn't mean that the concerns about either one aren't warranted and can't both be true at the same time.

I'm sure that Media gets intelligence all of the time that is not shared for one reason or another. Acting responsibly with the information (such as not naming sources, not naming rape victims, etc) goes beyond the letter of the law. Sure the intelligence may have been out there and ISIS may have learned the info, but the amount that the media has shared has changed that "may have learned" into a "would only not have learned if they stuck their heads in the sand". That difference is very large, to me.

That said, what Trump is doing is completely irresponsible and indefensible. Criticizing the Media is in no way defending him or his actions or words.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think neither... I think he did it because he's Donald Trump, and he just says things without considering the consequences. I don't believe for a second that it even occurred to him that the information was protected, or that there would be any issue with discussing it. There doesn't need to be any rhyme or reason to his behaviour. But this isn't really a response to my post... two things can be wrong at once, as calculoso says.

Oh he considers the consequences, namely to him they are "Will these people think I'm the coolest, toughest guy if I say this?". Remember this is the guy who is so insecure that he had the thought process of "I really need to impress professional celebrity ass kisser Billy Bush". I strongly suspect this was a case of Trump running his mouth in his usual attempt to try and impress people who likely think he's a dunce.

As to two things being wrong at once, correct you are. That doesn't mean they are equally wrong, nor does it mean one doesn't deserve more blame than the other. It's kind of a chicken/egg argument: do you blame the media for reporting it? Or do you blame Trump for running his mouth and having the leakiest administration in history, leakier than every other administration combined? Beyond that Israel has confirmed the media reports, which suggests the asset in question is no longer in play. Would be unusual for them to confirm it if there was an active, ongoing operation that could be jeopardized.