Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Leroy42

Sorry, how did we end up talking about immigration policy when Trump has already admitted that he was wrong and completely caved in on his 'policy'.

Trump admits that what he tried to do was wrong and he has tried, lazily and without much effort, to right the wrong.

Back to yesterday. Has anybody got an answer as to which of the options we should pick for what Trump said yesterday about Dan Coats?

Was he lying, misstated his position of he actually gives the same level of credence to Putin as to his own security services>

pixelburp

We're all in agreement about one thing though, right: that Putin absolutely recorded the private meeting between himself and Trump? Maybe it was just Trump getting tips on how to man-up and own his little autocracy in progress; maybe it was just a chat about golf courses, but the whole debacle is as usual, exhausting

And it's not even the first time Trump allowed himself to have unsupervised, unrecorded meetings with Russians. Correct me on the details, but didn't the Russian ambassador + camera crew get access to the Oval Office without clearance early on in the Presidency?

ELM327

pixelburp wrote: »

well if you have to separate children, keeping records might be a start: but given it was revealed that much of the documentation linking the children with their accompanying adults was either lost or destroyed, it doesn't speak to a policy that even cares about notions towards compassion.

It's all well and good standing on a soapbox about illegality and the horrors of migration, but the reality is to talk about upwards of 3000 children with little to no paperwork, and 100 under 5s. You can waffle all you want about terrorists, or welfare sponges or whatever it is you think is so awful, but discarding children in cages, with no paperwork,... well I'm not sure I'd call it evil - but it is lazily callous. Incompetence that has been a hallmark of this administration - and demonstrable in its inability to organise a p*ssup ina brewery

I did not suggest that putting children in cages was correct.

everlast75 wrote: »

Millennial tears? Lol. Aren't you the hard man? I'd bet your the same as Trump. All mouth and no trousers.

This isn't a willy waving "I'm harder than you" competition, I don't see the reason for this comment.
Like all pig headed stubborn men, Trump listens to no one but himself, and the only one to over rule him is his wife.

everlast75 wrote: »

You seem to confuse compassion for weakness.

I'd bet I'm older (and apparently a lot wiser) than you too.

That said, i sincerely hope for your sake, that the fate of your family is never placed in the hands of someone who has the same ethical disfunction that you seem to have.

Apparently a lot wiser by your judgment, which of course is not worth the cost of the Liberal Daily News or whatever paper you read, to me.


The attempts by the left to "take the high moral ground" is hilarious if only for its repetition.

ELM327

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, how did we end up talking about immigration policy when Trump has already admitted that he was wrong and completely caved in on his 'policy'.

Trump admits that what he tried to do was wrong and he has tried, lazily and without much effort, to right the wrong.

Back to yesterday. Has anybody got an answer as to which of the options we should pick for what Trump said yesterday about Dan Coats?

Was he lying, misstated his position of he actually gives the same level of credence to Putin as to his own security services>

He never admitted he was wrong, only that the caging was wrong and a result of the laws implemented and maintained by the previous administration.


This is what he said with putin re intelligence/security
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/16/17578500/trump-putin-summit-twitter-response

pixelburp wrote: »

We're all in agreement about one thing though, right: that Putin absolutely recorded the private meeting between himself and Trump? Maybe it was just Trump getting tips on how to man-up and own his little autocracy in progress; maybe it was just a chat about golf courses, but the whole debacle is as usual, exhausting

And it's not even the first time Trump allowed himself to have unsupervised, unrecorded meetings with Russians. Correct me on the details, but didn't the Russian ambassador + camera crew get access to the Oval Office without clearance early on in the Presidency?

I'm sure that Trump either a) genuinely believes Putin, or b) Putin has something on Trump and forced Trump to publicly support him

ELM327

prawnsambo wrote: »

So many factual errors here, it's hard to know where to start.

It is entirely legal to enter another country, ANYwhere. It is NOT a crime. You may not be permitted to stay, but there's a procedure to work that out. And finally, where are all the court hearings for all these family fakers? I presume you're a legislator based on all these laws that you just made up. :rolleyes:

Open borders is not the actual other choice here.


Does that actually mean something? Am I supposed to suspend my critical faculties on the basis of someone else's lack of them?

Disregarding the last insulting line of your post. (Moral superiority claimed by the left again.)


It is not legal to enter another country without appropriate clearance. Either you have a travel entitlement, naturalised or citizenship granted residency, or you claim (and are entitled to claim) asylum.


If none of those criteria are met you have not entered the country legally and can and should be deported.


Open borders, as I alluded to earlier when you asked what was wrong with the merkel open borders policy in Europe ( reminder: https://www.dw.com/en/german-study-links-increased-crime-rate-to-migrant-arrivals/a-42006484), is the other end of the spectrum of options.


What we need is a closed border. Where no one passes but those who meet and are approved for one of the criteria above.

everlast75

pixelburp wrote: »

We're all in agreement about one thing though, right: that Putin absolutely recorded the private meeting between himself and Trump? Maybe it was just Trump getting tips on how to man-up and own his little autocracy in progress; maybe it was just a chat about golf courses, but the whole debacle is as usual, exhausting

And it's not even the first time Trump allowed himself to have unsupervised, unrecorded meetings with Russians. Correct me on the details, but didn't the Russian ambassador + camera crew get access to the Oval Office without clearance early on in the Presidency?

I think it was the day after?

everlast75

ELM327 wrote: »

I did not suggest that putting children in cages was correct.



This isn't a willy waving "I'm harder than you" competition, I don't see the reason for this comment.
Like all pig headed stubborn men, Trump listens to no one but himself, and the only one to over rule him is his wife.


Apparently a lot wiser by your judgment, which of course is not worth the cost of the Liberal Daily News or whatever paper you read, to me.


The attempts by the left to "take the high moral ground" is hilarious if only for its repetition.

*Insults someone*

(That person replies in kind)

*hey! That's uncalled for*

Hilarious





Anyway, reading headlines from around the world, the shock is palpable. Which leads to wondering.. if that's what we saw, what on earth went on behind closed doors

irishash

ELM327 wrote: »

Like all pig headed stubborn men, Trump listens to no one but himself, and the only one to over rule him is his wife.

The wife (his third) he cheated on twice, once mere weeks after she gave birth to his son, with a porn star and playboy model??

Yeah, tight leash there.

Leroy42

ELM327 wrote: »

He never admitted he was wrong, only that the caging was wrong and a result of the laws implemented and maintained by the previous administration.

Ah ok, so he wasn't wrong just the decision he made was wrong. Based on that HC never did anything wrong either though, just her actions were wrong!

ELM327 wrote: »

I'm sure that Trump either a) genuinely believes Putin, or b) Putin has something on Trump and forced Trump to publicly support him

First off, on what basis could he genuinely believe Putin? Simply because Putin said it? So we have a POTUS that makes decision based on no facts or evidence but simply on who he believes? And you think we should be ok with that.

or, that POTUS is compromised by the Russian President and is willing to lie in public im order not to annoy him. Imagine what he is handing over in private? Trump is a national security threat under your own position.

circadian

So on the Butina charges, the affidavit makes for some very interesting reading and I feel that this topic was moved on quite quickly by the usual posters.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/russian-national-charged-conspiracy-act-agent-russian-federation-within-united-states

Affidavit available here;

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1080766/download

7. U.S. Person 1 is a United States citizen and an American political operative. BUTINA established contact with U.S. Person 1 in Moscow in or around 2013. U.S. Person 1 worked with BUTINA to jointly arrange introductions to U.S. persons having influence in American politics, including an organization promoting gun rights (hereinafter "GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION"), for the purpose of advancing the agenda of the Russian Federation.

This Rolling Stone article highlights the relationship between Butina and David Keene, former President of the NRA https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/inside-the-decade-long-russian-campaign-to-infiltrate-the-nra-and-help-elect-trump-630054/

In November 2013, the president of the National Rifle Association, David Keene, was introduced as an honored guest at the conference of the Right to Bear Arms, a gun lobby in Moscow.

Butina founded the Right to Bear Arms in Russia. Also note that there is a connection to Alexander Torshin who Keene had hosted at NRA conferences. Torshin is more than likely the Russian operative that Butina has been in contact with.

Here's a video of Trump answering a question by Butina about removing sanctions against Russia

Paragraphs 36 and 37 are interesting, here's a snippet;

BUTINA suggested a phone call to discuss, and the RUSSIAN OFFICIAL noted that he liked the idea, but was worried that "all our phones are being listened to!" BUTINA suggested they talk via WhatsApp.
On November 11, 2016, BUTINA sent the RUSSIAN OFFICIAL a direct message via Twitter, in which she predicted who might be named Secretary of State and asked the RUSSIAN OFFICIAL to find out how "our people" felt about that potential nomination.

Remember Christopher Steele? Well he also had a memo from 2016

Former British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the influential dossier detailing President Donald Trump's connections to Russia, reportedly wrote a memo in 2016 that contained a bombshell claim that wasn't included in his original dossier — that Russia had told Trump not to nominate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for secretary of state because of his perceived hawkishness toward Russia.
The New Yorker detailed how Steele reportedly claimed that Moscow had contacted Trump and instructed him to drop Romney and instead nominate someone who would be willing to lift sanctions placed on Russia due to its incursions into Ukraine in 2014, and would be open to working with Russia on its own geopolitical goals in places like Syria.

From http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-told-trump-not-to-nominate-mitt-romney-secretary-of-state-2018-3?r=US&IR=T

Rex Tillerson got that position instead, note that he was awarded the Russian Order of Friendship back in 2013.

You could keep digging through the affidavit, but it's looking like the NRA were compromised at the highest level for quite some time and members of the GOP are most likely compromised considering the close ties they have to the NRA.

Feel free to have a read and add any more points that jump out.

Midlife

ELM327 wrote: »

Factually they cannot, this is not After Hours, and this is not Soccer, so please stick to the issues at hand thanks.
Now, after all your warbling, have you a point?

Yes, the point is that your posts have quite distinct racist undertones.

Midlife

ELM327 wrote: »

As for what it's done wrong in Europe:
https://www.dw.com/en/german-study-links-increased-crime-rate-to-migrant-arrivals/a-42006484

Ha ha. Read your own article a bit more there and find the obvious problems with your oversimplified, racist, immigrants=crime stance.

Leroy42

Yes, the Butina charges are really quite extraordinary. On their own they would be serious, but the links she had, the access she got. It was quite incredible.

And surely nobody believes that she was the only one? Most intelligence officials will tell you that multiple assets are attempted on the basis that most will fail to deliver. But it seems that many were more than happy to help these people get access to what they wanted.

So we are faced with another set of questions.

Either Trump knew about it or he didn't. If he didn't, well he certainly does now yet he has said nothing to indicate he is taking it seriously. And if he didn't, it means that he was totally unaware that those around him were compromised and as such he needs to reconsider any position he took after talking to any of them on the basis that it was a compromised position. That is the best position he can be in. So you did know? Did Trump Jr, Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, Pence, KAC, Kushner? It seems unlikely, but not impossible, that those closest to Trump weren't involved. The Russians were trying to gain influence over Trump, it makes sense for them to get as close to Trump as possible.

The other is he did know and therefore was complicit. I'm not sure anyone in the US wants to face up to that prospect.

everlast75

I just can't get over how pathetic trump looked yesterday.

I always knew he was a bully. The way he conducted himself in the primaries was my first viewing as a "politician". But going on from that, we have multiple examples. The first NATO meeting, where he pushed aside the Pres of Montenegro and stuck his chest out, the rallies where he threatened protesters, the way he treated the press, the way he berated his staff, the way he fired them - not doing it face to face.

But then when he was faced with May, the day after slating her to the press, having to flat out lie and for her to embarrassingly make a joke out of it, it was pitiful.

To then take it up a notch, beside Putin, who by the way arrived an hour late, making Trump wait, he looked completely subservient. Constantly looking across for reassurance, winking at him even.

You have to wonder, to those that saw Trump as an alpha male, how disappointed they must be to see him for who he truly is - a complete and utter coward

prawnsambo

ELM327 wrote: »

Disregarding the last insulting line of your post. (Moral superiority claimed by the left again.)

That wasn't an insult. It was a statement of fact. You are suggesting that I should be influenced in my judgment by the judgment of someone else, purely on the basis of their fame. If it's an insult to suggest that I should retain my own critical faculties, then guilty as charged. :rolleyes:

ELM327 wrote: »

It is not legal to enter another country without appropriate clearance. Either you have a travel entitlement, naturalised or citizenship granted residency, or you claim (and are entitled to claim) asylum.

It is NOT a crime. Which is what you said. It is a misdemeanour and people can not be imprisoned for it. It is illegal in the same way as breaking the speed limit is illegal.

ELM327 wrote: »

If none of those criteria are met you have not entered the country legally and can and should be deported.

Yes. But not imprisoned indefinitely.

ELM327 wrote: »

Open borders, as I alluded to earlier when you asked what was wrong with the merkel open borders policy in Europe ( reminder: https://www.dw.com/en/german-study-links-increased-crime-rate-to-migrant-arrivals/a-42006484), is the other end of the spectrum of options.

THat has nothing to do with what I said. Perhaps you need to re-read it?

ELM327 wrote: »

What we need is a closed border. Where no one passes but those who meet and are approved for one of the criteria above.

That's impractical. What do you do with the people who are at the border waiting for their case to be adjudicated on?

Leroy42

Yeah, the display yesterday flies directly in the face of the position that Trump took with Nato.

We have some here lauding his treatment of Nato, saying it was about time, US needed to stand up for itself, Europe had been taking advantage etc. And I understood, if not agreed, with that position.

But how can one square that with such a pitiful and subservient display that we witnessed yesterday? He has gotten more upset about underspending by countries to counteract the threat of Russia than he got about a direct attack by Russia itself.

dr.fuzzenstein

Leroy42 wrote: »

First off, on what basis could he genuinely believe Putin? Simply because Putin said it? So we have a POTUS that makes decision based on no facts or evidence but simply on who he believes? And you think we should be ok with that.

or, that POTUS is compromised by the Russian President and is willing to lie in public im order not to annoy him. Imagine what he is handing over in private? Trump is a national security threat under your own position.

The VERY fact that some Trump suporters will defend to the absolute hilt that Trump seems to put more trust in Putin than his OWN bloody advisors tells you all you need to know about them.
I find it fascinating how one can blindly defend such obvious borderline treasonous behavior in the face of blinding evidence.
Why are some Trump supporters so blind that they are willing to simply ignore this masive issue?
One could understand such towering ignorance and stupidity in the 1930's or North Korea, when the only source of information is the official state propaganda, but in today's world where all the info is but a mouseklick away, it is unforgivable.
And also it points toward a fanatical that has an agenda.

And of course Trump rowing back on separating children from their families.
His presidency has been an orgy of ignorance and xenophobia. Of course that is precisely why some people voted for him.

FreudianSlippers

ELM327 wrote: »

Open borders, as I alluded to earlier when you asked what was wrong with the merkel open borders policy in Europe ( reminder: https://www.dw.com/en/german-study-links-increased-crime-rate-to-migrant-arrivals/a-42006484), is the other end of the spectrum of options.

Not proof of an alleged "open borders policy in Europe"

Water John

The only reasonable conclusion to Trump's interaction with Putin, is that he is beholden to him.
In Trump's hand he had 25 Russian operatives who sought to interfere with the 2016 election. He couldn't play the hand. Why? It was the US national interest that he do so.

With Butina we can now also begin to see in public view the links between the NRA, GOP and Russia.

weisses

Water John wrote: »

With Butina we can now also begin to see in public view the links between the NRA, GOP and Russia.

But Hillary .......... servers......... witch hunt ....... No collusion .... Vlad denying it.... Deep state ....

relax carry on

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The VERY fact that some Trump suporters will defend to the absolute hilt that Trump seems to put more trust in Putin than his OWN bloody advisors tells you all you need to know about them.
I find it fascinating how one can blindly defend such obvious borderline treasonous behavior in the face of blinding evidence.
Why are some Trump supporters so blind that they are willing to simply ignore this masive issue?
One could understand such towering ignorance and stupidity in the 1930's or North Korea, when the only source of information is the official state propaganda, but in today's world where all the info is but a mouseklick away, it is unforgivable.
And also it points toward a fanatical that has an agenda.

And of course Trump rowing back on separating children from their families.
His presidency has been an orgy of ignorance and xenophobia. Of course that is precisely why some people voted for him.

Read some of the Twitter responses from yesterday from his supporters. It's all a deep state conspiracy I tells ya! USA, USA USA! It's enough to make me believe there is something to certain conspiracy theories about chemicals in the water. How else can you explain the reaction/responses from some of those people. Something has got to be interfering with their cognitive abilities.

dr.fuzzenstein

relax carry on wrote: »

Read some of the Twitter responses from yesterday from his supporters. It's all a deep state conspiracy I tells ya! USA, USA USA! It's enough to make me believe there is something to certain conspiracy theories about chemicals in the water. How else can you explain the reaction/responses from some of those people. Something has got to be interfering with their cognitive abilities.

Must be all them chemtrails.

edit:
I keep hearing Deep State as an argument and it seems I'm not the only one.
That would explain some of it, i.e. that some Trump supporters are the equivalent to flat-earthers and lizard conspirators. They state something they absolutely know to be completely incorrect simply to have a great laugh at all those ejjits falling over themselves trying to put them right.
It has alway been my theory that a large percentage are real-life trolls who publicly support him simply because it upsets any sane thinking person.
Some others really are that naive. But I cannot fathom what makes a person support Trump.
Maybe if your intellect was insufficient to tie shoelaces together and you had absolutely no other source of informaton about the man.
But even then, if you had any sense of humanity or decency you would see that the big orange gorilla is saying mean things and is not a nice person.
And who else would vote for him?
Well, if you like xenophobia, racism, sexism, elitism and tearing babies away from their mothers for no other reason that they are filthy foreigners, you are a hatefilled creature and you secretly get aroused at the fact that your president stands for all the above, then you will be at the rallies shouting for Trump like it's the second coming.

Captain Obvious

weisses wrote: »

But Hillary .......... servers......... witch hunt ....... No collusion .... Vlad denying it.... Deep state ....

Don't forget Merkel and Europe's open borders.

RIGOLO

The hysteria is epic on the left. I sense desperation. 
Treason, impeachment, not to mention strippers and their lawyers, and more gates than a Dairygold co-op. 
Most yanks are in vacation mode, this news will blow over. 
Russian spys, do a russian spy thing , that American intellegience warned in 2015 Russia spys would do, and all with 12 people and 200K in FB ads and it defeated the might of Langley, Pentagon and the NSA. 
Most of the issues with the intelligence agency has been self imposed, Brennan, Clapper, Comey all inflicted more damage than a few Trump comments. 
It was a summit folks, no need for Trump to come out all guns blazing on Putin considering he had made the trip to Finland. Russia is in flux, it has plenty domestic issues, and if Trump were to undermine Putin publicly it would do no end to add to the instability in Russia. It may work it may not work, but the hysteria on the left is just embarassing the left.  No one should be hoping for added instability in Russia. Heck Kennedy had a direct phone line to the Kremlin in his office, does that mean he was compromised or a traitor. 
8 years of deteriorating Russia-US relations under Obama and HRC Secretary of State, the Russian state welcomed a change of regime. Besides Putin didnt get any of the things he wanted from the summit, recognition for Crimea annexation, relaxing sanctions, reduced NATO expansion, none of these were given to Putin. Theres no evidence to indicate Trump administration is acting under 'Kompromat'
The ridiculous hysteria and OTT headlines around treason are just feeding the GOP machine for November, the more the left vocalises its contempt , its flying baby blimps, and its sensationalism, the more it will encourage the right and moderates to come out in Nov for the GOP.

Christy42

Do you have evidence Kennedy believed the Kremlin over his own intelligence services? On nothing more than the word of the Russians?

pixelburp

RIGOLO wrote: »

The hysteria is epic on the left. I sense desperation. 

Hysteria on the left, yet how do you account for the slew of condemnation, concern from the Republicans, Fox News? Even Paul Ryan has been moved to condemn (insofar as he's capable) Trumps obvious obsequiousness . But no, let's move the goalposts to talk about how the 'Left' are hysterical.

And again, Trump has directly contradicted the statements put out by his own security services, a separate investigation and so on, in favour of 'the word' of Putin.

Leroy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

The hysteria is epic on the left. I sense desperation. 
Treason, impeachment, not to mention strippers and their lawyers, and more gates than a Dairygold co-op. 
Most yanks are in vacation mode, this news will blow over. 
Russian spys, do a russian spy thing , that American intellegience warned in 2015 Russia spys would do, and all with 12 people and 200K in FB ads and it defeated the might of Langley, Pentagon and the NSA. 
Most of the issues with the intelligence agency has been self imposed, Brennan, Clapper, Comey all inflicted more damage than a few Trump comments. 
It was a summit folks, no need for Trump to come out all guns blazing on Putin considering he had made the trip to Finland. Russia is in flux, it has plenty domestic issues, and if Trump were to undermine Putin publicly it would do no end to add to the instability in Russia. It may work it may not work, but the hysteria on the left is just embarassing the left.  No one should be hoping for added instability in Russia. Heck Kennedy had a direct phone line to the Kremlin in his office, does that mean he was compromised or a traitor. 
8 years of deteriorating Russia-US relations under Obama and HRC Secretary of State, the Russian state welcomed a change of regime. Besides Putin didnt get any of the things he wanted from the summit, recognition for Crimea annexation, relaxing sanctions, reduced NATO expansion, none of these were given to Putin. Theres no evidence to indicate Trump administration is acting under 'Kompromat'
The ridiculous hysteria and OTT headlines around treason are just feeding the GOP machine for November, the more the left vocalises its contempt , its flying baby blimps, and its sensationalism, the more it will encourage the right and moderates to come out in Nov for the GOP.

So does Trump, POTUS, believe in his country security apparatus and direct reports or the word of Putin? He said yesterday he took Putin word on it, thereby dismissing the director of National Intelligence evidence backup position.

Do you think it is appropriate for POTUS to disregard the National Intelligence? And if so, on what basis, due to the security services now no longer being fit for purpose, is America in any position to protect itself or its citizens?

On what basis would he even take the word of Putin? DOes he make all decisions based on who he believes regardless of the evidence at hand?

It is easy to make these "its all hysteria" comments, but that leads to having to question why he said the things he said. And neither, or anyone else, has been able to give a answer to that or indeed understand what that actually means in terms of the future of the US.

For example, can all evidence now be considered open to interpretation? Are the FBI not allowed to pursue any criminals as it is clearly corrupt (according to Trump) so surely all previous FBI cases need to be reopened?

RIGOLO

Christy42 wrote: »

Do you have evidence Kennedy believed the Kremlin over his own intelligence services? On nothing more than the word of the Russians?

Kennedy hadnt been under investigation by his own intellegince agencys. 
Actually historians of that period do confer that the US intellegience agency overplayed, and overstated Russian capabilities, most of this was driven by a US mititary establishment who wanted Russian capabilities over-egged so they could increase spending. Effectively each level of reporting would add 10% to the report they recieved before passing on to their superior, so by the time it reached POTUS you had a completely over-stated represenation (WMDs remember them) 
So yeah US Intelleigeince agency have a pretty consistent record of getting it wrong, many times over many decades. 
So in this instance they are right about Russian invovlment, but dont take it all de-facto and verbatim. 
The only ones doing that are hysterical left anti-Trumpers, and anyone who understands the long running long view history behind this stuff knows its far more nuanced.

pixelburp

RIGOLO wrote: »

Kennedy hadnt been under investigation by his own intellegince agencys. 
Actually historians of that period do confer that the US intellegience agency overplayed, and overstated Russian capabilities, most of this was driven by a US mititary establishment who wanted Russian capabilities over-egged so they could increase spending. Effectively each level of reporting would add 10% to the report they recieved before passing on to their superior, so by the time it reached POTUS you had a completely over-stated represenation (WMDs remember them) 
So yeah US Intelleigeince agency have a pretty consistent record of getting it wrong, many times over many decades. 
So in this instance they are right about Russian invovlment, but dont take it all de-facto and verbatim. 
The only ones doing that are hysterical left anti-Trumpers, and anyone who understands the long running long view history behind this stuff knows its far more nuanced.

I ask again, how do you square the Republicans own shock, disappointment, condemnations of Trumps behaviour?

You talk about hysteria of the Left, yet consciously ignore this is a rare case of unified condemnation (albeit filtered through partisan politics) just to make tacit insult towards those who find Trumps obsequiousness pretty galling.

molloyjh

RIGOLO wrote: »

Kennedy hadnt been under investigation by his own intellegince agencys. 
Actually historians of that period do confer that the US intellegience agency overplayed, and overstated Russian capabilities, most of this was driven by a US mititary establishment who wanted Russian capabilities over-egged so they could increase spending. Effectively each level of reporting would add 10% to the report they recieved before passing on to their superior, so by the time it reached POTUS you had a completely over-stated represenation (WMDs remember them) 
So yeah US Intelleigeince agency have a pretty consistent record of getting it wrong, many times over many decades. 
So in this instance they are right about Russian invovlment, but dont take it all de-facto and verbatim. 
The only ones doing that are hysterical left anti-Trumpers, and anyone who understands the long running long view history behind this stuff knows its far more nuanced.

If that were the case then surely Trump would need to have received some sort of evidence based case against his own intelligence agency before announcing to the world he was taking Putin at his word.

You're making a case here that suggests that elements within the US intelligence community have a stake in the game and are not being completely truthful as a result. Surely Putin also has a stake in the game. So what makes his word more reliable?

I think, without really realising it, you are actually defending Putin here. Not Trump. Because you too seem to be happy to take his word for it.