American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by calculoso

You seem to lack the understanding of the distinction between public information that people or groups have to hunt for and public information that is widely publicized.

Enlighten me, oh brilliant one. What is the difference? And remember, that any information that is public has potential to be widely publicized because of, a) public interest, and b) media access. What is your exact expertise in Data Classification and Handling, and the rules pertaining to its dissemination? Because that is what the argument is here. That is where Trump slipped up and why the domestic media has actually gone well beyond its responsibility and maintaining the integrity and safety of our intelligence assets.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by photon

Support among his base is starting to show signs of weakening? Either way, if his approval stays that low that's always been a prelude to a party losing a large number of seats in the midterms.

In the HoR, yes. Unfortunately, only 8 current GOP senators (of 52) are up for re-election in 2018. Dems can't get to the 2/3 threshold until at least 2021 (and more likely never), so to get an impeachment conviction in the senate, there will have to be GOP senators voting against their own guy.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by photon

Perhaps more worrying for the president — and for Republican members of Congress ahead of the 2018 midterm elections — is a declining strength in support among the voters who elected him. While 84 percent of Trump voters still say they approve of the president’s work, the share of those voters who strongly approve of him is down to 42 percent, another new low. In the previous poll, 49 percent of Trump voters strongly approved of him.

how could 84% of Trump voters still support him and 42 of that strongly support him?
why?

they used to support him because he was draining the swamp and getting things done, but you have to be completely delusional to still believe that.
unbelievable.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Forgive me if I've misinterpreted you, but according to this article, former Israel spies are might pissed at trump. I think they might have some insight into how the Israeli administration is thinking.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/former-...intel-sharing/

What I'm saying is, there's an assumption of press innocence because of a lack of proof the didn't do something, and an assumption of guilt based on lack of proof Trump did do something.

I have no doubt the Israelis are in fact pissed. But this doesn't absolve the press either.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by New Era

Enlighten me, oh brilliant one.

And this is where I say good day.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

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.

This is a fair point, I tend to agree. It would have been nice to see this as a rejoinder rather than accusing him of being a Trump surrogate.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by New Era

Enlighten me, oh brilliant one. What is the difference? And remember, that any information that is public has potential to be widely publicized because of, a) public interest, and b) media access. What is your exact expertise in Data Classification and Handling, and the rules pertaining to its dissemination? Because that is what the argument is here. That is where Trump slipped up and why the domestic media has actually gone well beyond its responsibility and maintaining the integrity and safety of our intelligence assets.

You're being obtuse.

It's press have an ethical obligation to regard what they're reporting beyond legal definitions.

You're the expert on classification in this thread for sure. In this case it's not really relevant because we aren't discussing legal ramifications here

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

how could 84% of Trump voters still support him and 42 of that strongly support him?
why?

they used to support him because he was draining the swamp and getting things done, but you have to be completely delusional to still believe that.
unbelievable.

I floated into the_donald on reddit to try to understand what was going on. They are literally seething about their own created conspiracy theories about Seth Rich murder for apparently "leaking" stuff to wikileaks that was debunked in half an hour.

I don't think the Trump-Russia scandal even registers on their radar.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by photon

You not being sure probably shouldn't be the deciding factor. Many from the IC I've read and listened to recently say even the fact that Trump didn't know the means and sources was itself a massive failure; the President should be briefed on things so that they're aware of the context and implications. So that the President doesn't dissuade intelligence partners from sharing information (which will likely happen now) by sharing information that isn't theirs to share.

And many from the same community that I've read and listen to say that Trump did something completely normal and expected, to pass on threat intelligence to another country, as Russia did in the past regarding the Tsarnaev brothers, or both countries agreed to do against ISIS.

Many in the IC I've read and listened to have said that knowing the city could very well be sufficient for a highly developed intelligence state like Russia to figure out the source/means. That's why the info was classified the way it was.

Maybe, but thanks to the media Russia doesn't even have to figure it out. And even if they know, they would need to retake the city first from ISIS. The only party who could have acted quickly is ISIS, who were informed by the media.

Edit: And after reading an old article today, the city is probably Raqqa, which the US publicly announced was the source of the laptop program at the end of March:

http://wwlp.com/2017/03/31/sources-n...vade-security/

[chemgear]

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Spoiler!

Okay, I'm just going to pose a simple question. Does anyone actually think that this chain of events says something nefarious about Donald Trump? That this indicates that he did something unethical or abnormal, or reflects poorly on him in any way at all?

[DuffMan]

Damn I love this reality tv show.

[photon]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

how could 84% of Trump voters still support him and 42 of that strongly support him?
why?

they used to support him because he was draining the swamp and getting things done, but you have to be completely delusional to still believe that.
unbelievable.

They're not delusional, they just believe different sources of info. All their sources of info tell them he's getting things done, that the swamp is being drained, and all these things are lies and distractions because the swamp denizens are panicking.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You're being obtuse.

It's press have an ethical obligation to regard what they're reporting beyond legal definitions.

You're the expert on classification in this thread for sure. In this case it's not really relevant because we aren't discussing legal ramifications here

Then what is being discussed here, because the press have an obligation to expose wrong doing in the government? I think they did a great job in holding back details and not disclosing all of the information they could have. I think they lived up to their "moral" obligations, especially when "their" obligation is to provide transparency and information. So please explain what I am missing here, because it seems like the demonization of the media is a handy dodge for the White House to use to make people look past a major #### up on the diplomatic and intelligence fronts.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay, I'm just going to pose a simple question. Does anyone actually think that this chain of events says something nefarious about Donald Trump? That this indicates that he did something unethical or abnormal, or reflects poorly on him in any way at all?

If he traded influence or promised specific action based on money received, yes it would be extremely unethical and illegal. Money chain linking Trump to Russia money also gives Russians leverage over Trump.

While it's not anything necessarily unethical if it was a business deal on it's own, it really depends on what actions were taken by Trump as a result of this and the amount of money that Trump made on this deal.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

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

Consider who Russia is:

True, Russia may be a "bad guy" but the US has little problem dealing with "bad guys" if it serves a common goal, in which case is the fight against ISIS.

There's even an agreement that the two countries signed in 2014 to do exactly that:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/w...e-on-isis.html

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.

Haven't they though, at least to the UK who've implemented a similar ban on laptops. And there were reports that Canada and France were thinking about such a ban but perhaps determined that they weren't likely targets of such an attack.

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

Mostly my posts were to separate the difference between what Trump has been claimed to have provided to Russia, compared to what the media has provided to world.

Even for those who blame Trump for releasing classified information about the program or the name of the city, he should not blame for outing the Israeli operative, the facts of which were provided by the media.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay, I'm just going to pose a simple question. Does anyone actually think that this chain of events says something nefarious about Donald Trump? That this indicates that he did something unethical or abnormal, or reflects poorly on him in any way at all?

That depends on a few things, did he know where the money was coming from, did he get massively more cash for his 'product' than it was worth, like his house in Miami.
With Trump I suspect he was happy to be bought, I doubt he has the brains to work out where this was going but I have no doubt now he is utterly beholden to the Russians financially, if he wasn't we would have seen his tax records by now.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by photon

They're not delusional, they just believe different sources of info. All their sources of info tell them he's getting things done, that the swamp is being drained, and all these things are lies and distractions because the swamp denizens are panicking.

here's 3 out of the 4 opinion pieces on Fox right now

-Mainstream media, Dems, RINOS: They all want to overthrow Trump

-Liberals (and the media) are finally getting the violence they wanted

-Comey's revenge is a gun without powder

The main story

-Putin on Trump-Lavrov meeting: I'll hand over records

the secondary story

-Paul Ryan on Comey memo: 'We need the facts'

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay, I'm just going to pose a simple question. Does anyone actually think that this chain of events says something nefarious about Donald Trump? That this indicates that he did something unethical or abnormal, or reflects poorly on him in any way at all?

This all depends on how much homework he did to understand who he was getting involved with. I would hope that someone "as successful" as Trump would fully vet the parties he was getting involved with and know if they have any shady connections. If he didn't, then he's not as bright as he claims to be?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by New Era

Then what is being discussed here, because the press have an obligation to expose wrong doing in the government? I think they did a great job in holding back details and not disclosing all of the information they could have. I think they lived up to their "moral" obligations, especially when "their" obligation is to provide transparency and information. So please explain what I am missing here, because it seems like the demonization of the media is a handy dodge for the White House to use to make people look past a major #### up on the diplomatic and intelligence fronts.

People are discussing (everyone but accord1999 that I've noticed anyways) that Trump is far more in the wrong here. But the media in an effort to be the first to report divulged more than necessary. No one is exonerating or ignoring what the president did

The press leaked that it was Israel, and that it was related to the laptop bomb threat. Neither of those details were necessary for the story (arguably I'll admit). You can make the argument they didn't divulge too much and I'll listen to that, but to suggest they have no moral obligation when reporting declassified information is not reasonable IMO.