4 ms·

"Irresponsible." March 5-6, 2018. Trump's comment to Theresa May over Putin's boast regarding nuclear weapons. Anywho... I'm tryin' hard not to roll my eyes a

"Irresponsible." March 5-6, 2018. Trump's comment to Theresa May over Putin's boast regarding nuclear weapons. Anywho... I'm tryin' hard not to roll my eyes as I write this, but here goes - Like everything Trump does, his discussions with Russia are all about Trump. He's probably not just looking at the here and now, but also at his post-Presidency. He is a businessman after all. (Hell, Trump tried landing property deals in Russia BEFORE he'd ever considered running, sooo...) I'm unsure that Trump told any Russian that 'Comey is taken care of,' but then, I'm skeptical of many things and, in this case, I consider this rabbit hole a waste of time. For future reference, you'll need more than you've proffered here to convince me (and others) Trump deserves the outrage others have spilled onto this thread considering - * Had the election gone for Clinton, no one would be tearing after her for all the good turns she did Russia in the Uranium One deal (and this is all-on-the-record-and-verifiable stuff,) and * Russia ain't the only country trying to influence American elections. China? Israel? Saudi Arabia? The UK? Please name me a major country that ISN'T trying to influence American politics. You really think Russia had more influence this past election than an Australian owning Fox or a Mexican owning the New York Times? That Russian hackery was more influential than non-citizens voting in California? Piffle. Considering the context, there is no there there, dude/tte.

chillwaves 9y ago
It's hard to have discussion with someone who will not acknowledge basic facts. > Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-... You also found the exception that proves the rule. I can't believe you would honestly think Trump is not deferential to Russia if you did try to look for a bad thing he has said any only found that one The pattern is clear for anyone who wants to look. The fact remains Trump is much harder on our allies -- all of them -- then Russia. The Trump admin has also been slow to enact sanctions passed by Congress, as is their constitution duty. There is no reasonable explanation behind these actions and actions speak louder than words. Finally, foreign countries try to influence our politics, but usually not in concert with a candidate and certainly not supplying said candidate with hacked info on their opponents. As more comes out, that may actually be some of the less scandalous ways Russian assets worked with the Trump campaign. Let's not forget Trump's campaign insisting the RNC change their platform at the party convention to be soft on Russia re: Ukraine. You are free to have your opinions about this but the facts speak for themselves. > Diana Denman, a Republican delegate who supported arming U.S. allies in Ukraine, has told people that Trump aide J.D. Gordon said at the Republican Convention in 2016 that Trump directed him to support weakening that position in the official platform. > Ultimately, the softer position was adopted. https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-trump-directed-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-t...
- atypicaluser 9y ago
  True enough - > It's hard to have discussion with someone who will not acknowledge basic facts. Let me acknowledge the article as 100% factual, and further let me concede that the New York Times (NYT) didn't leave any pertinent information (context) out or editorialize the meeting. Fair 'nuff for discussion? My next response is, 'So what?' He's free as anyone to talk as he likes to anyone he likes. Unless Congress passed a law saying otherwise... is Congress free these days to negate the First Amendment? Let's parse your earlier statements regarding the Russian ambassador - > Why would Trump meet with the Russian ambassador and tell him Comey is taken care of? Where does Trump say specifically Comey is 'taken care of'? I see no such quote. I see NYT quoted him as saying 'I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job.... I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off.... I'm not under investigation.' That's all of Trump's quotes in their entirety, the ones NYT thought fit to use. As you have a hard time discussing things with people who won't accept basic facts, I have an equally hard time with people who spin so-called facts to mean there's only one plausible explanation. So to answer your question - Trump could have said what he's reported to have said because he genuinely hated Comey and was proud of getting rid of him. Or maybe he wanted to show off to the Russian officials and, like he often does, jokingly and in an off-handed way decided to state what he just did to show what a man he was. Who knows? Trump wouldn't be the first person happy to fire a guy. Before I leave off this, take a look at what NYT itself wrote right after quoting Trump - 'The conversation... reinforces the NOTION that the president dismissed [Comey] primarily because of the bureau's investigation into possible collusion...' (Emphasis mine.) Notion. Not fact. Notion. Belief. Editorial. The fact is Trump dismissed Comey. The fact is Trump took no small amount of glee in it. The fact is, whatever Trump's feelings, as President he had every right to fire Comey. If he smiled when he told the Russians what he did, eh, again, so what? As far as I'm aware, that indicates Trump's a jerk, not that he's breaking a law or colluding with anyone. Moving on - > And do this secretly? If the meeting was recorded and reported on, it's not much of a secret. Besides, I can give at least one good reason why he WOULD want to keep this meeting a secret - because there are folks who will interpret such a meeting in the worst. Possible. Light. Ahem. Moving on - > Why would Trump have an insult for every US ally and not a single bad word about Russia? Mmm, as far as I know Trump's buddies with Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel's a US ally. I don't recall any insults, but I don't pay much attention to newspapers these days, so there's a chance one's slipped past me. Nor do I recall insults to the prime minsters of Japan and South Korea. But, again, newspapers. You did ask for a single bad word about Russia, yes? And I provided, yes? I can't help that you move the goal posts. Then again, I am told I have trouble with basic facts. P.S. Downvote me, but please explain why.

chillwaves 9y ago

It's hard to have discussion with someone who will not acknowledge basic facts. > Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-... You also found the exception that proves the rule. I can't believe you would honestly think Trump is not deferential to Russia if you did try to look for a bad thing he has said any only found that one The pattern is clear for anyone who wants to look. The fact remains Trump is much harder on our allies -- all of them -- then Russia. The Trump admin has also been slow to enact sanctions passed by Congress, as is their constitution duty. There is no reasonable explanation behind these actions and actions speak louder than words. Finally, foreign countries try to influence our politics, but usually not in concert with a candidate and certainly not supplying said candidate with hacked info on their opponents. As more comes out, that may actually be some of the less scandalous ways Russian assets worked with the Trump campaign. Let's not forget Trump's campaign insisting the RNC change their platform at the party convention to be soft on Russia re: Ukraine. You are free to have your opinions about this but the facts speak for themselves. > Diana Denman, a Republican delegate who supported arming U.S. allies in Ukraine, has told people that Trump aide J.D. Gordon said at the Republican Convention in 2016 that Trump directed him to support weakening that position in the official platform. > Ultimately, the softer position was adopted. https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-trump-directed-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-t...

atypicaluser 9y ago
True enough - > It's hard to have discussion with someone who will not acknowledge basic facts. Let me acknowledge the article as 100% factual, and further let me concede that the New York Times (NYT) didn't leave any pertinent information (context) out or editorialize the meeting. Fair 'nuff for discussion? My next response is, 'So what?' He's free as anyone to talk as he likes to anyone he likes. Unless Congress passed a law saying otherwise... is Congress free these days to negate the First Amendment? Let's parse your earlier statements regarding the Russian ambassador - > Why would Trump meet with the Russian ambassador and tell him Comey is taken care of? Where does Trump say specifically Comey is 'taken care of'? I see no such quote. I see NYT quoted him as saying 'I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job.... I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off.... I'm not under investigation.' That's all of Trump's quotes in their entirety, the ones NYT thought fit to use. As you have a hard time discussing things with people who won't accept basic facts, I have an equally hard time with people who spin so-called facts to mean there's only one plausible explanation. So to answer your question - Trump could have said what he's reported to have said because he genuinely hated Comey and was proud of getting rid of him. Or maybe he wanted to show off to the Russian officials and, like he often does, jokingly and in an off-handed way decided to state what he just did to show what a man he was. Who knows? Trump wouldn't be the first person happy to fire a guy. Before I leave off this, take a look at what NYT itself wrote right after quoting Trump - 'The conversation... reinforces the NOTION that the president dismissed [Comey] primarily because of the bureau's investigation into possible collusion...' (Emphasis mine.) Notion. Not fact. Notion. Belief. Editorial. The fact is Trump dismissed Comey. The fact is Trump took no small amount of glee in it. The fact is, whatever Trump's feelings, as President he had every right to fire Comey. If he smiled when he told the Russians what he did, eh, again, so what? As far as I'm aware, that indicates Trump's a jerk, not that he's breaking a law or colluding with anyone. Moving on - > And do this secretly? If the meeting was recorded and reported on, it's not much of a secret. Besides, I can give at least one good reason why he WOULD want to keep this meeting a secret - because there are folks who will interpret such a meeting in the worst. Possible. Light. Ahem. Moving on - > Why would Trump have an insult for every US ally and not a single bad word about Russia? Mmm, as far as I know Trump's buddies with Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel's a US ally. I don't recall any insults, but I don't pay much attention to newspapers these days, so there's a chance one's slipped past me. Nor do I recall insults to the prime minsters of Japan and South Korea. But, again, newspapers. You did ask for a single bad word about Russia, yes? And I provided, yes? I can't help that you move the goal posts. Then again, I am told I have trouble with basic facts. P.S. Downvote me, but please explain why.