Traitor. What else could explain Trump?
- Thread starter cernjSHU
- Start date
More like Trump-haters vs. Trump-defenders vs. those that hate hypocrisy/selective outrage.
You may think my views here are biased. There is nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.
Though, objectively, we should all be upset that when any US president is standing next to a foreign adversary and casting doubts on US intelligence?
Do we really need to see that through a partisan lens?
Hypocrisy?
"one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory," and said Trump had "abased himself ... abjectly before a tyrant."
"The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naivete, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate," John McCain.
"The president must appreciate that Russia is not our ally. There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia, which remains hostile to our most basic values and ideals. The United States must be focused on holding Russia accountable and putting an end to its vile attacks on democracy." Paul Ryan
This is not partisan. Sometimes you just need to stand up and be counted. Trump kneeled to the alter of Putin.
Because your views are partisan and you only want to look at things through the "Trump lens" and not look at the broader picture. I can be upset at what Trump did, but also recognize that there's a lot of history and hypocrisy as well that we shouldn't ignore.
Trump F'd up big time here. He caved and said some dumb stuff. He certainly strengthened Putin's perception which is what Putin wanted. It won't change anything with NATO or the US official stance with Russia and in the end that is all that really matters here. In the end it was a very bad showing by a buffoon - but we knew he was that already.
And the US hypocrisy is significant as well, as is the hypocrisy of the intelligence community. They do in fact screw around way too much with other countries leaders and elections. But a sitting President should never dis our intelligence community in front of the world like he did. He feels like he got dissed by the intelligence community during the election so he will never see things any other way. I think one Repub Senator said it best when he said something like Trump will always say he is doing the best for America but he will always put the Trump brand first and in front of that. That is what you saw yesterday. Should be a few resignations coming soon. I just hope the adults endure and stay in the cabinet to keep a lid on him because once the adults leave we could be in real trouble.
And the US hypocrisy is significant as well, as is the hypocrisy of the intelligence community. They do in fact screw around way too much with other countries leaders and elections. But a sitting President should never dis our intelligence community in front of the world like he did. He feels like he got dissed by the intelligence community during the election so he will never see things any other way. I think one Repub Senator said it best when he said something like Trump will always say he is doing the best for America but he will always put the Trump brand first and in front of that. That is what you saw yesterday. Should be a few resignations coming soon. I just hope the adults endure and stay in the cabinet to keep a lid on him because once the adults leave we could be in real trouble.
People understand the hypocrisy to varying degrees. Those screaming the loudest about hypocrisy are willfully standing side by side with Vladimir Putin.
What is the broad picture that makes the US president standing next to a former KGB agent adversary while placing doubt on US intelligence less of a problem?
The broad picture from my view is that Putin may have leverage over Trump and his goal is to further divide Americans, build distrust between the citizens and their government and destabilize the US as the leader of the free world.
Thanks for the laugh. Legendary indeed. But simply because you asked, today's breaking news is President Trump misspoke yesterday. He meant to say.
"In a key sentence in my remarks I said the word 'would' instead of 'wouldn't,'" Trump said. He explained he reviewed a transcript and video of his remarks. "The sentence should have been: 'I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia,'" he said. "Sort of a double negative."
Hot take - On The Apprentice those kinds of errors wind up on the cutting room floor. Live TV is so much harder. I feel much better that it was all a big misunderstanding and I can go back to thinking Russia is our adversary.
Agree with you completely. Don't you think he should have articulated correctly the first time?
I wonder what the advice was the he received from his advisory team that he did not use. I'm not happy lately that he appears to be a "table for one".
I wonder what the advice was the he received from his advisory team that he did not use. I'm not happy lately that he appears to be a "table for one".
Yes but he also said while he misspoke and trusts the intelligence community, that it could have been other people, a lot of other people. Lol he can’t help himself. Buffoon
He says dumb stuff and then he comes back and tries to clarify each time - the act is getting old.
I’m seeing some partisanship masked as objectivity.
While I completely understand just how tricky double negatives can be, there remains a small part of me that believes the President only corrected himself after test audiences responded poorly to yesterday's press conference.
The explanation that he should have said wouldn’t is completely false given the context of what he said as a whole. Putin was very strong and powerful in his denial which leads Trump to believe him. That’s what trump believes.
Moreover, if he Truly trusted and believed the intelligence agencies, there would be no need for the additional comment of it could have been other people. He is the puppet of Putin. There is no other explanation.
Moreover, if he Truly trusted and believed the intelligence agencies, there would be no need for the additional comment of it could have been other people. He is the puppet of Putin. There is no other explanation.
To understand Trump, it is critical to understand that anything he says or does is always with his image and brand in mind first and foremost. Is that fit for the presidency? That's another issue worth debating.
In his mind, he needs to make his election win not look tainted. Accepting that Russians interfered, in his mind, cheapens his win and even makes it appear illegitimate.
Secondly, I do believe that Trump believes some in the intelligence community are out to get him. In my view, he's not entirely wrong on this line of thinking. He was elected to shake up the establishment and the establishment does not like that. They're used to doing things their way for decades.
I think these are explanations for what he did, other than being a Putin puppet. It certainly doesn't excuse standing next to him and embarrassing the office and the country.
In his mind, he needs to make his election win not look tainted. Accepting that Russians interfered, in his mind, cheapens his win and even makes it appear illegitimate.
Secondly, I do believe that Trump believes some in the intelligence community are out to get him. In my view, he's not entirely wrong on this line of thinking. He was elected to shake up the establishment and the establishment does not like that. They're used to doing things their way for decades.
I think these are explanations for what he did, other than being a Putin puppet. It certainly doesn't excuse standing next to him and embarrassing the office and the country.
If the establishment was out to get him, they would have let it leak that there was an investigation on his campaign with the Russians prior to the election. Somehow, the intelligence community was in the bag for Hillary, but the investigation into Hillary and then the reopening of the investigation when the Weiner emails were discovered was disclosed to the public prior to the election. Seems to me, that the intelligence community protected Trump during the campaign. They certainly did not harm him during the campaign.
I don't think there is anyone "out to get Trump" because he is anti establishment. I don't believe anyone within the IC cares about the "establishment"
Lets look at another line of thinking for a moment. I know you may feel this is a stretch, but assume this is true for arguments sake.
What if they believe the Dossier is credible? What if they believe that Trump has been compromised?
Assume Trump knows they will eventually present something damaging to his presidency?
Would Trump be acting any differently today if all of the allegations out there were true?
They have an axe to grind with him because he's not supportive of endless war, the military industrial complex, globalism, etc. The IC has been in that business for over 50 years and enjoyed countless US presidents looking the other way. Now they have one who doesn't and they aren't happy about it. They have a motive to undermine him. Are they doing it? Nobody knows for sure, but it sure seems like Trump believes they are. I think that explains some of his actions.
Merge said:
I don't know, he probably would be if I had to guess.
I have no idea if the establishment is out to get Trump or not, but I think HE believes they are, especially the intelligence community. This, along with the fact that he does not want his election victory "cheapened" has made him act and say things poorly about the Russian investigation in my opinion.
Trump was and is an unknown. That is unnerving to anyone whether you are in the IC or any establishment. No surprise companies like Novartis were paying hundreds of thousands to Cohn just to get any information on what he is thinking. And that's small potatoes.
It's been almost two years since the election and Trump doesn't seem to be going anywhere (no matter how much the MSM or his detractors want him to be impeached or step down) and I still believe he will only serve one term by choice. Instead of all this resist BS and posturing from both sides, the $64,000 question, is what did we learn from 2016 and does that change anything for 2020? Will leadership and results matter for any of the next Presidential candidates? I'm not optimistic.
It's been almost two years since the election and Trump doesn't seem to be going anywhere (no matter how much the MSM or his detractors want him to be impeached or step down) and I still believe he will only serve one term by choice. Instead of all this resist BS and posturing from both sides, the $64,000 question, is what did we learn from 2016 and does that change anything for 2020? Will leadership and results matter for any of the next Presidential candidates? I'm not optimistic.
Trump put a target on his back the day he attacked the IC and the MSM. There is no way to come back from that, unless you know something. Playing the game like he doesn't care if he loses.
I don't think his actions match up with your assessment outside of his rhetoric. He signed a budget increasing defense spending including overseas spending.
I feel like if the IC really was out to get Trump personally - They are doing a horrendous job. Haven't even leaked his tax returns yet.
It’s worth noting, as CBS’s Michael Graham does, that Trump’s record is key: “Despite all the pillow talk with Putin, Trump has kept Obama-era sanctions in place, added new sanctions of his own, reversed Obama policies by giving offensive weapons to Ukraine and missile-defense systems to Poland, and allowed our military to wipe out a large group of Russian mercenaries fighting for Syria’s Assad regime.”
I agree, I think that is Trump, he doesn't care in the end. He is not a life long politician, and I am not sure he has ever planned to run for a 2nd term, or really ever planned to be President.
It is like a lot of his business moves, especially in the 80s, he took a risk, if it paid off he took all of the credit, if it failed, he blamed someone else, but either way he usually came out ahead. Same with run for President
Yes I am agreeing with you.
If there are actually issues that would lead to Trump leaving officer before the end of his first term, it would happen after the mid terms.
I'm not sure I would characterize the new sanctions as "of his own" - He did not support new sanctions but had to sign them because they passed with overwhelming support by both parties. He spoke out against the previous sanctions against Russia. He's a bit of a lame duck on Russian sanctions right now.
Certainly a possibility.
Personally I believe there has been way too much smoke for there to be no fire and I still see this investigation heading in a bad direction for Trump.
At today's Press Briefing Sarah Sanders made the following statement:
The President thinks that we have to focus on securing our election integrity and our election systems, which is why he has spent so much time with his administration making sure that this doesn't happen again. Let's not forget this didn't happen under President Trump's watch. This happened under the Obama administration. We’re taking steps, we're making bold reforms to try to fix this and make sure it never happens again.
This is welcome news although I had no idea this happened under the Obama administration. President Trump shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of this problem alone. He should have said something sooner.
I will be interested to learn more about the bold reforms that will be taken. Since voting is primarily a local and not federal process, there will eventually have to be large grants of money given to the states to shore up their election defenses.
The President thinks that we have to focus on securing our election integrity and our election systems, which is why he has spent so much time with his administration making sure that this doesn't happen again. Let's not forget this didn't happen under President Trump's watch. This happened under the Obama administration. We’re taking steps, we're making bold reforms to try to fix this and make sure it never happens again.
This is welcome news although I had no idea this happened under the Obama administration. President Trump shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of this problem alone. He should have said something sooner.
I will be interested to learn more about the bold reforms that will be taken. Since voting is primarily a local and not federal process, there will eventually have to be large grants of money given to the states to shore up their election defenses.
I have a friendly bet with my father that Trump won't make it the whole term. My gut tells me now he makes it in spite of whatever corrupt activity he has engaged in .
Jordon Peterson posed a question on Maher a couple months back that went like "So say you get your goal of removing Trump from office, what do you do with all of the disaffected Trump voters, surely they won't be happy about that?" He raised a good point - even if Trump coordinated with Russians to impact the election, and is impeached, his supporters will just yell "fake news!" and believe the government acted to take out an elected President. If you believe the government has taken out a leader you support, you don't go down without a fight and that can be dangerous.
Also, what if Trump just flat out refuses to leave the Presidency?
Scary and confusing times we live in.
Why would he do that?
I've said I don't think he will run again. He won't be impeached either. You can't impeach someone just because you don't like them.
