Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

If It's Yellow Let It Mellow [Trump/Russia Scandal]: Timeline, News, Analysis

13468917

Posts

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    bitflipper wrote: »
    I give this controversy a lifespan of a week, tops. The level of detail supports the theory that it's bullshit. It's the pinocchio effect.

    It's pathetic how badly some people want this whole thing to be true.

    Ok mr guy who coincidentally joined 2 days ago in a total coincidence.

    Seriously though, this is a Big Story, and even if CNN decides to go spineless, there are news organizations that would love to have this. Imagine the NYT trying to reclaim their Watergate glory days or whatever.

    Desperately wanting something to be true does not make it true. Also, that's the Washington Post, not NYT that pulled Watergate.
    Variable wrote: »
    bit flipper and emissary what exactly are you denying is true? because no one is saying the specifics in the document are accurate, just that it was amassed and given to our intelligence community.

    all of which is corroborated by that statement

    only Trump's people are calling it a lie and they have done so vaguely and by correlating what CNN has said (what I posted here) and what Buzzfeed published (the specific accusations)

    According to DNI, nothing in that report is true. Not a single scrap is verifiable. Think long and hard about why all these organizations, both governmental and media, are shying from hunting Trump on this right now - or for the months they had it before - and you will understand that it's. not. real.




    Find me the words "Verified", "Unverifiable", or "False"

    Edith UpwardsGiggles_FunsworthOneAngryPossumPanda4YouMegaMekLoisLanejdarksunMan in the Mists
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    The only thing that CNN (and pretty much every other organization) is reporting on is that POTUS, POETUS and other leaders were briefed on a two page summary that the Russian government was attempting to compromise Donald Trump. It did not touch on the 35 page document that Buzzfeed released, and the DNI put out a press release affirming that their summary was in no way based on that 35 page document, which they had not verified.

    It did not say the document was fake.

    It did not say that it was real.

    It did say that they had, contrary to Trump's public statements, briefed him on the details of the two page report. So, Trump's already caught in a bald-faced lie.

    Trump has also denied having any kind of business relationship with Russia despite his son talking about his extensive business relationship with Russia. Another lie.

    Like, we're not saying that Trump absolutely paid prostitutes to pee on the bed the Obamas would be sleeping in. But 'dude who has constantly lied about having any ties to Russia might have shady ties to Russia' is not that much of a fucking reach.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
    SpoitSo It GoesenlightenedbumHarry DresdenGiggles_FunsworthFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenRetabaDarkPrimusCantideOrcaCommander ZoomArdolOneAngryPossumKristmas KthulhuQuidKetBratynicRhesus PositiveJohnny ChopsockyHakkekageelectricitylikesmeEtiowsaBurnageLoisLanejdarksunRainfallNobodyTofystedethN1tSt4lkerDoctorArchPLAA Kobold's KoboldCelestialBadgerNobeardIncenjucarHacksawRoz14357Man in the MistsMatevTubularLuggageSomestickguy
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    bitflipper wrote: »
    I give this controversy a lifespan of a week, tops. The level of detail supports the theory that it's bullshit. It's the pinocchio effect.

    It's pathetic how badly some people want this whole thing to be true.

    Ok mr guy who coincidentally joined 2 days ago in a total coincidence.

    Seriously though, this is a Big Story, and even if CNN decides to go spineless, there are news organizations that would love to have this. Imagine the NYT trying to reclaim their Watergate glory days or whatever.

    Desperately wanting something to be true does not make it true. Also, that's the Washington Post, not NYT that pulled Watergate.

    I just wanted to point out that the bolded statement is false. The New York Times did do some of the work in the Watergate story. Woodward and Bernstein get much of the credit (and they deserve a fair bit of credit, they were young and hungry and worked their asses off), but the New York Times was also breaking stories about the break in.

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    I don't want this heavily investigated because I believe it to be all true. I want it wrung dry because of two tweets and a quote.

    8 years ago:
    There is strong evidence that Trump’s businesses have received significant funding from Russian investors. Most notably, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. made that very claim at a real estate conference in New York in 2008, saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” Donald Trump Jr. added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/heres-what-we-know-about-donald-trump-and-his-ties-to-russia/2016/07/29/1268b5ec-54e7-11e6-88eb-7dda4e2f2aec_story.html

    4 years ago:


    Now:


    A lot can change in 8 years. But it would be nice to have, say, some financials to verify.

    VariableEdith UpwardsSpoitGiggles_FunsworthFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenCantideOrcaRMS OceanicPanda4YouQuidHakkekageelectricitylikesmeArbitraryDescriptorjdarksunNobodyDoodmannN1tSt4lkerA Kobold's KoboldNobeardHacksawErlec14357Man in the MistsMatev
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Even if every word of these allegations is true, it's very easy to see how the media could be gunshy. These are things that could be true, but which have not been verified. And they're pretty huge revelations, which means they will get lots of attention, which further means that if they're wrong, the organization that started it is now "that organization that posted the inaccurate allegations." But at the same time, they're big enough that maybe they're worth reporting on anyway.

    Like, if a guy gets arrested for a major crime and is on trial, do you not report on it because maybe he's innocent? In my eyes, most of the media has been very responsible here. "Here are things that are currently being circulated at the highest levels of government. We don't know if they're true, but they're at least credible enough to not be dismissed out of hat." Which is 100% accurate.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    RchanenPhoenix-DSurfpossumOneAngryPossumHarry DresdenGiggles_FunsworthDarkPrimusCantideOrcaElvenshaeVegemyteArdolQuidKetBraMegaMektynicHakkekageLoisLanejdarksunN1tSt4lkerDoctorArchA Kobold's KoboldNobeardLostNinjaHacksawMan in the MistsMatev
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    I don't know why anybody's even still talking about this we were told to drop it.

    SpoitFencingsaxKristmas KthulhuKetBratynicRhesus PositiveYamiB.LoisLaneQanamilTofystedethN1tSt4lker14357Somestickguy
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Even if every word of these allegations is true, it's very easy to see how the media could be gunshy. These are things that could be true, but which have not been verified. And they're pretty huge revelations, which means they will get lots of attention, which further means that if they're wrong, the organization that started it is now "that organization that posted the inaccurate allegations." But at the same time, they're big enough that maybe they're worth reporting on anyway.

    Like, if a guy gets arrested for a major crime and is on trial, do you not report on it because maybe he's innocent? In my eyes, most of the media has been very responsible here. "Here are things that are currently being circulated at the highest levels of government. We don't know if they're true, but they're at least credible enough to not be dismissed out of hat." Which is 100% accurate.

    You know what an intelligent, skilled politician would do? And should have done at the press conference today?

    Laugh it off. Turn it into a joke, disarm the story. 'It makes for entertaining reading, at least.'

    Talk about the CNN report. 'Yeah, Russia wants leverage on me. I'm the President Elect, of course they'd want something they could use on me. That's how it works at this level.' Let CNN ask their question. Flatly deny the accusations.

    A big part of why this has traction is that Trump has reacted in pretty much the worst way possible, by going ALL CAPS on Twitter and refusing to let it go. And then, the attacks at the press conference, plus Spicer's threat to kick out the CNN reporter who wanted to ask a question. He is terrible at reacting to things, and in some ways that's as big of a story as anything. This man is terrifying.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
    Giggles_FunsworthdavidsdurionsFencingsaxSo It GoesOrcaStiltstbloxhamHedgethornArdolAistanRhesus PositiveHakkekageelectricitylikesmeBurnagemrondeauLoisLanejdarksunQanamilTofystedethDoodmannN1tSt4lkerForarDoctorArchA Kobold's KoboldNobeardwanderingWaffenHacksawVeagle14357Man in the MistsMatev
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Even if every word of these allegations is true, it's very easy to see how the media could be gunshy. These are things that could be true, but which have not been verified. And they're pretty huge revelations, which means they will get lots of attention, which further means that if they're wrong, the organization that started it is now "that organization that posted the inaccurate allegations." But at the same time, they're big enough that maybe they're worth reporting on anyway.

    Like, if a guy gets arrested for a major crime and is on trial, do you not report on it because maybe he's innocent? In my eyes, most of the media has been very responsible here. "Here are things that are currently being circulated at the highest levels of government. We don't know if they're true, but they're at least credible enough to not be dismissed out of hat." Which is 100% accurate.

    As opposed to, say, anything having to do with emails. In which case, you get the story out as soon as possible, with as little context as possible.

    steam_sig.png
    Harry DresdenGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenSo It GoesArdolRMS OceanicKristmas KthulhuAistanQuidAstaerethHakkekageEdith UpwardsNartwakmrondeauLoisLaneAbsoluteZeroTofystedethDoctorArchA Kobold's KoboldNobeardHacksaw14357Man in the Mists
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Me personally, do I want them to be true? Hard question, but in a way, I kinda do.

    Not because I hate Trump, or want a bigger shit show, mind you. But what we already know for certain about Trump, his character, his allegiances, his proposed management style, his instability, and his relationship with Russia is fucking terrifying, and portends a disastrous future for our country. And if these allegations are true, it really doesn't put our country in worse shape.

    We know that Trump is a serial sexual predator. We know he's a detestable and petty human being. The prostitute thing isn't really any different, it's just specific.

    We know that Russia interfered with our election, that they sabotaged Clinton, that they wanted Trump because he's an easily manipulated dunce. If he was literally a Manchurian candidate, it's not really any worse for our country.

    But if these things are true, then it cripples any support Trump might have and makes his removal from office that much more likely. Which, I mean, yay?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    Harry DresdenmcdermottGiggles_FunsworthtapeslingerSurfpossumFencingsaxCantideStiltsCommander ZoomArdolVegemyteKristmas KthulhuAistanMegaMekRhesus PositiveHakkekageelectricitylikesmeEdith UpwardsmrondeaujdarksunThe SauceTofystedethN1tSt4lkerDoctorArchA Kobold's KoboldNo-QuarterwanderingIncenjucarHacksawVeagle14357Man in the Mists
  • ArcTangentArcTangent Your sins lay heavy upon you, defiler of souls Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Even if every word of these allegations is true, it's very easy to see how the media could be gunshy. These are things that could be true, but which have not been verified. And they're pretty huge revelations, which means they will get lots of attention, which further means that if they're wrong, the organization that started it is now "that organization that posted the inaccurate allegations." But at the same time, they're big enough that maybe they're worth reporting on anyway.

    Like, if a guy gets arrested for a major crime and is on trial, do you not report on it because maybe he's innocent? In my eyes, most of the media has been very responsible here. "Here are things that are currently being circulated at the highest levels of government. We don't know if they're true, but they're at least credible enough to not be dismissed out of hat." Which is 100% accurate.

    You know what an intelligent, skilled politician would do? And should have done at the press conference today?

    Laugh it off. Turn it into a joke, disarm the story. 'It makes for entertaining reading, at least.'

    Talk about the CNN report. 'Yeah, Russia wants leverage on me. I'm the President Elect, of course they'd want something they could use on me. That's how it works at this level.' Let CNN ask their question. Flatly deny the accusations.

    A big part of why this has traction is that Trump has reacted in pretty much the worst way possible, by going ALL CAPS on Twitter and refusing to let it go. And then, the attacks at the press conference, plus Spicer's threat to kick out the CNN reporter who wanted to ask a question. He is terrible at reacting to things, and in some ways that's as big of a story as anything. This man is terrifying.

    And his continued attitude towards all the conflicts of interest stuff and general ethical agencies don't give a lot of weight to giving him the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty clear at this point that he's hiding quite a bit, and petulantly attacking people who call him out on it aren't endearing him to anybody but his most sycophantic followers.

    FencingsaxelectricitylikesmeEdith UpwardsmrondeaujdarksunTofystedethN1tSt4lkerA Kobold's KoboldNobeardMan in the Mists
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    ArcTangent wrote: »
    vsove wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Even if every word of these allegations is true, it's very easy to see how the media could be gunshy. These are things that could be true, but which have not been verified. And they're pretty huge revelations, which means they will get lots of attention, which further means that if they're wrong, the organization that started it is now "that organization that posted the inaccurate allegations." But at the same time, they're big enough that maybe they're worth reporting on anyway.

    Like, if a guy gets arrested for a major crime and is on trial, do you not report on it because maybe he's innocent? In my eyes, most of the media has been very responsible here. "Here are things that are currently being circulated at the highest levels of government. We don't know if they're true, but they're at least credible enough to not be dismissed out of hat." Which is 100% accurate.

    You know what an intelligent, skilled politician would do? And should have done at the press conference today?

    Laugh it off. Turn it into a joke, disarm the story. 'It makes for entertaining reading, at least.'

    Talk about the CNN report. 'Yeah, Russia wants leverage on me. I'm the President Elect, of course they'd want something they could use on me. That's how it works at this level.' Let CNN ask their question. Flatly deny the accusations.

    A big part of why this has traction is that Trump has reacted in pretty much the worst way possible, by going ALL CAPS on Twitter and refusing to let it go. And then, the attacks at the press conference, plus Spicer's threat to kick out the CNN reporter who wanted to ask a question. He is terrible at reacting to things, and in some ways that's as big of a story as anything. This man is terrifying.

    And his continued attitude towards all the conflicts of interest stuff and general ethical agencies don't give a lot of weight to giving him the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty clear at this point that he's hiding quite a bit, and petulantly attacking people who call him out on it aren't endearing him to anybody but his most sycophantic followers.

    The phrase 'where there's smoke, there's fire' came up a lot WRT e-mails, and we rightly called it out as garbage, but at this point not only is there smoke, but the top floors are filled with this orangey, fiery thing, I wonder what it might be.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
    FencingsaxtynicelectricitylikesmeEdith UpwardsjdarksunTofystedethN1tSt4lkerA Kobold's KoboldNobeard
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    Okay, so the Bush administration was extremely scandal ridden, with quite a few very bad ones, and pretty much the whole administration just drifted from one scandal to another, never not being in crisis mode of some kind. As soon as they'd ridden out the news cycle on one thing, something else would come along, and the cycle would repeat.

    Even they waited before getting into office before their first scandal. This has got to be a new low for an administration.

    Or am I crazy, and not remembering right? I wasn't super active on the forums until ~2005 after the second Bush election, but most people here now were here then as well, though a few like Thanatos and Shinto are gone.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    Giggles_FunsworthDoodmann
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    Okay, so the Bush administration was extremely scandal ridden, with quite a few very bad ones, and pretty much the whole administration just drifted from one scandal to another, never not being in crisis mode of some kind. As soon as they'd ridden out the news cycle on one thing, something else would come along, and the cycle would repeat.

    Even they waited before getting into office before their first scandal. This has got to be a new low for an administration.

    Or am I crazy, and not remembering right? I wasn't super active on the forums until ~2005 after the second Bush election, but most people here now were here then as well, though a few like Thanatos and Shinto are gone.

    Media covered for them. And I was 15, but I recall the transition being pretty corrupt.

    Never use the phrase "alt right." Call them what they are: white supremacists.
    shrykeGiggles_FunsworthSo It GoesSpoitHakkekageLoisLanejdarksunDoodmannIncenjucar
  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    Okay, so the Bush administration was extremely scandal ridden, with quite a few very bad ones, and pretty much the whole administration just drifted from one scandal to another, never not being in crisis mode of some kind. As soon as they'd ridden out the news cycle on one thing, something else would come along, and the cycle would repeat.

    Even they waited before getting into office before their first scandal. This has got to be a new low for an administration.

    Or am I crazy, and not remembering right? I wasn't super active on the forums until ~2005 after the second Bush election, but most people here now were here then as well, though a few like Thanatos and Shinto are gone.

    First controversy was hanging chad related and that came before inauguration.

    torchlight-sig-70.jpg
    Seeking writers, editors, researchers; sysadmin; accountant; marketing; social media.
    PM me to join our grassroots political news organization today! We really are doing this folks!
    Harry DresdenGiggles_FunsworthtynicRhesus PositiveEdith UpwardsLoisLanejdarksunIncenjucarMan in the MistsMatev
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Okay, so the Bush administration was extremely scandal ridden, with quite a few very bad ones, and pretty much the whole administration just drifted from one scandal to another, never not being in crisis mode of some kind. As soon as they'd ridden out the news cycle on one thing, something else would come along, and the cycle would repeat.

    Even they waited before getting into office before their first scandal. This has got to be a new low for an administration.

    Or am I crazy, and not remembering right? I wasn't super active on the forums until ~2005 after the second Bush election, but most people here now were here then as well, though a few like Thanatos and Shinto are gone.

    No, this is pretty unique. Not even going by "feels" or nostalgia, just looking at approval numbers shows that Donald Trump is uniquely horrible.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Well, Bush was not potentially outed as a traitor, so that's kind of a new one.

    Bush's pre-inauguration scandals were like "he used to be an alcoholic" and "he used his family connections to get a better assignment during 'Nam" and "he was a shitty baseball team owner."

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    Harry DresdenPotatoNinjaSurfpossumHappylilElfGiggles_FunsworthCommander ZoomVegemyteArdolKristmas KthulhuQuidKetBraMegaMektynicRhesus PositiveJohnny ChopsockyHakkekageelectricitylikesmeBurnageEdith UpwardsArbitraryDescriptorLoisLaneTofystedethN1tSt4lkerDoctorArchPLAA Kobold's KoboldCelestialBadgerNo-QuarterIncenjucarWaffenBarrakkethMan in the MistsMatev
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Well, Bush was not potentially outed as a traitor, so that's kind of a new one.

    Bush's pre-inauguration scandals were like "he used to be an alcoholic" and "he used his family connections to get a better assignment during 'Nam" and "he was a shitty baseball team owner."

    Exactly. It wasn't until post-9/11 that people realized what a terrible person they put into office, and that took a while to get going as well. Trump can't get past this at the PE stage.

    Giggles_FunsworthNobeard
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Don't forget the shit he pulled in the primary. GWB and his cronies had done horrible shit long before he took office too.

    GWB was a joke Presidency full of scandal till 9/11 turned it around for like 4 years or so. But generally the media was very kid gloves with the whole thing, as were the Democrats from my memory.

    The current situation feels alot more precarious.

    Harry DresdentapeslingerGiggles_FunsworthPotatoNinjaArdolHakkekageLoisLanejdarksunA Kobold's KoboldNo-QuarterIncenjucarMan in the Mists
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Well, Bush was not potentially outed as a traitor, so that's kind of a new one.

    Bush's pre-inauguration scandals were like "he used to be an alcoholic" and "he used his family connections to get a better assignment during 'Nam" and "he was a shitty baseball team owner."

    Part of the difference can probably be attributed to a faster information economy and higher partisanship.

    However, I don't think that alone can account for the approval numbers Trump is currently suffering. He's running at around 50-60% of where he should be as an incoming president.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
    ElJeffeElvenshae
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Well, Bush was not potentially outed as a traitor, so that's kind of a new one.

    Bush's pre-inauguration scandals were like "he used to be an alcoholic" and "he used his family connections to get a better assignment during 'Nam" and "he was a shitty baseball team owner."

    Also, I think in retrospect we can judge Dick Cheney as a pretty awful figure, but I don't recall if he was particularly well known at the time.

    If there was broad opposition to him as VP, I don't really recall it. Despite ending up an incredibly polarizing and unpopular figure, he didn't seem to inspire the immediate rejection that say, Bannon does.

    So I'd say part of the difference is that we're getting informed faster and we're more reliably partisan and part of the difference is that Donald Trump is a goddamn fucking failure before he even starts day 1.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
    Commander ZoomNobeard
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The difference is that GWB was regarded as more of a joke failure then a monster. I mean, he was the "compassionate conservative" or whatever and the media covered for him hardcore. Hence the approval ratings difference.

    But in general, this is, from election coverage to now, a basically complete repeat of the GWB presidency. But basically nastier, dirtier and darker. Like, GWB is a pretty awful human being but he's not Trump awful. And the way these campaigns and Presidencies have gone so far, they seem to be just like the candidates: the same thing over again, but worse and more disgusting this time.

    Harry DresdenGiggles_FunsworthDarkPrimusSpoitCommander ZoomFencingsaxArdolEdith UpwardsLoisLanejdarksunNobodyIncenjucarMan in the Mists
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    edited January 12
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Well, Bush was not potentially outed as a traitor, so that's kind of a new one.

    Bush's pre-inauguration scandals were like "he used to be an alcoholic" and "he used his family connections to get a better assignment during 'Nam" and "he was a shitty baseball team owner."

    Also "had his brother purge voters to keep Florida enough to keep it close."

    2000 and 2016 are remarkably similar elections. Both featured a wonky but not terribly charismatic Democrat. Both featured a Republican who was the fuck up third generation heir to a fortune. Both had the press relentlessly savage the Democrat with fake scandals of their own creation. Both the Republican was viewed as a joke and never taken seriously by anyone in the press. And both crucially had the unprecedented interference of Republican Government officials outside of all norms to win them the fucking election where they lost the popular vote. And then both of them appointed a set of corrupt assholes to every position except Justice, where they appointed racist assholes instead.

    It's the same fucking election, all over again.

    EDIT: Also the motherfucking Green Party.

    enlightenedbum on
    Never use the phrase "alt right." Call them what they are: white supremacists.
    shrykeGiggles_FunsworthHarry DresdenhippofantSo It GoesSpoitCommander ZoomdavidsdurionsArdolPanda4YouAistantynicRhesus PositiveHakkekageelectricitylikesmeBurnageEdith UpwardsLoisLaneCantidejdarksunTofystedethDoctorArchA Kobold's KoboldNobeardNo-QuarterwanderingDracomicronIncenjucarWaffenRedTideMan in the Mists
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Well, Bush was not potentially outed as a traitor, so that's kind of a new one.

    Bush's pre-inauguration scandals were like "he used to be an alcoholic" and "he used his family connections to get a better assignment during 'Nam" and "he was a shitty baseball team owner."

    Also "had his brother purge voters to keep Florida enough to keep it close."

    2000 and 2016 are remarkably similar elections. Both featured a wonky but not terribly charismatic Democrat. Both featured a Republican who was the fuck up third generation heir to a fortune. Both had the press relentlessly savage the Democrat with fake scandals of their own creation. Both the Republican was viewed as a joke and never taken seriously by anyone in the press. And both crucially had the unprecedented interference of Republican Government officials outside of all norms to win them the fucking election where they lost the popular vote. And then both of them appointed a set of corrupt assholes to every position except Justice, where they appointed racist assholes instead.

    It's the same fucking election, all over again.

    Yup. We've come around to the same thing except now the GOP is even more "party before country", the norms holding the US political system together are even more degraded then they were before, the corruption and bigotry and all that is even more horrible and blatant and the stakes are higher.

    It is, imo, a reflection of the GOP's evolution. This is how they win and who they win with. And this is what the party looks like today compared to 16 years ago.

    shryke on
    Commander ZoomSo It GoesGiggles_FunsworthArdolPanda4YouMegaMekHakkekageEdith UpwardsLoisLanejdarksunA Kobold's KoboldMan in the Mists
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Well, Bush was not potentially outed as a traitor, so that's kind of a new one.

    Bush's pre-inauguration scandals were like "he used to be an alcoholic" and "he used his family connections to get a better assignment during 'Nam" and "he was a shitty baseball team owner."

    Also "had his brother purge voters to keep Florida enough to keep it close."

    2000 and 2016 are remarkably similar elections. Both featured a wonky but not terribly charismatic Democrat. Both featured a Republican who was the fuck up third generation heir to a fortune. Both had the press relentlessly savage the Democrat with fake scandals of their own creation. Both the Republican was viewed as a joke and never taken seriously by anyone in the press. And both crucially had the unprecedented interference of Republican Government officials outside of all norms to win them the fucking election where they lost the popular vote. And then both of them appointed a set of corrupt assholes to every position except Justice, where they appointed racist assholes instead.

    It's the same fucking election, all over again.

    Elections is the same.

  • hippofanthippofant Chu. Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Well, Bush was not potentially outed as a traitor, so that's kind of a new one.

    Bush's pre-inauguration scandals were like "he used to be an alcoholic" and "he used his family connections to get a better assignment during 'Nam" and "he was a shitty baseball team owner."

    Also "had his brother purge voters to keep Florida enough to keep it close."

    2000 and 2016 are remarkably similar elections. Both featured a wonky but not terribly charismatic Democrat. Both featured a Republican who was the fuck up third generation heir to a fortune. Both had the press relentlessly savage the Democrat with fake scandals of their own creation. Both the Republican was viewed as a joke and never taken seriously by anyone in the press. And both crucially had the unprecedented interference of Republican Government officials outside of all norms to win them the fucking election where they lost the popular vote. And then both of them appointed a set of corrupt assholes to every position except Justice, where they appointed racist assholes instead.

    It's the same fucking election, all over again.

    Yup. We've come around to the same thing except now the GOP is even more "party before country", the norms holding the US political system together are even more degraded then they were before, the corruption and bigotry and all that is even more horrible and blatant and the stakes are higher.

    It is, imo, a reflection of the GOP's evolution. This is how they win and who they win with. And this is what the party looks like today compared to 16 years ago.

    Weird that we'd take either McCain or Romney over Bush II and Trump any day of the week. Is that just ironic coincidence, or something more meaningful about US politics?

    hippofant on
  • ArcTangentArcTangent Your sins lay heavy upon you, defiler of souls Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    ArcTangent wrote: »
    vsove wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Even if every word of these allegations is true, it's very easy to see how the media could be gunshy. These are things that could be true, but which have not been verified. And they're pretty huge revelations, which means they will get lots of attention, which further means that if they're wrong, the organization that started it is now "that organization that posted the inaccurate allegations." But at the same time, they're big enough that maybe they're worth reporting on anyway.

    Like, if a guy gets arrested for a major crime and is on trial, do you not report on it because maybe he's innocent? In my eyes, most of the media has been very responsible here. "Here are things that are currently being circulated at the highest levels of government. We don't know if they're true, but they're at least credible enough to not be dismissed out of hat." Which is 100% accurate.

    You know what an intelligent, skilled politician would do? And should have done at the press conference today?

    Laugh it off. Turn it into a joke, disarm the story. 'It makes for entertaining reading, at least.'

    Talk about the CNN report. 'Yeah, Russia wants leverage on me. I'm the President Elect, of course they'd want something they could use on me. That's how it works at this level.' Let CNN ask their question. Flatly deny the accusations.

    A big part of why this has traction is that Trump has reacted in pretty much the worst way possible, by going ALL CAPS on Twitter and refusing to let it go. And then, the attacks at the press conference, plus Spicer's threat to kick out the CNN reporter who wanted to ask a question. He is terrible at reacting to things, and in some ways that's as big of a story as anything. This man is terrifying.

    And his continued attitude towards all the conflicts of interest stuff and general ethical agencies don't give a lot of weight to giving him the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty clear at this point that he's hiding quite a bit, and petulantly attacking people who call him out on it aren't endearing him to anybody but his most sycophantic followers.

    The phrase 'where there's smoke, there's fire' came up a lot WRT e-mails, and we rightly called it out as garbage, but at this point not only is there smoke, but the top floors are filled with this orangey, fiery thing, I wonder what it might be.

    It's not the same thing though. With the e-mails, there was smoke. Absolutely. Not a lot, but things did seem hinky and she admitted she shouldn't have done it. But it was investigated. Millions of dollars were spent investigating it. Years were spent. No fire was ever found. Everything claimed turned out to be true. But the Republicans CONTINUED to insist that there must be a fire SOMEWHERE even after the building was completely cleared out and every inch of it poured over.

    Here, we have smoke. A lot of smoke. Assloads of smoke. And he's not even bothering to say that there's no fire. When asked to his face if there's a fire, he doesn't say no. And that we should go fuck ourselves if we want to send anybody in to investigate if there is. It's fake news to say that the smoke is probably coming from a fire.

    N1tSt4lker
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    ArcTangent wrote: »
    vsove wrote: »
    ArcTangent wrote: »
    vsove wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Even if every word of these allegations is true, it's very easy to see how the media could be gunshy. These are things that could be true, but which have not been verified. And they're pretty huge revelations, which means they will get lots of attention, which further means that if they're wrong, the organization that started it is now "that organization that posted the inaccurate allegations." But at the same time, they're big enough that maybe they're worth reporting on anyway.

    Like, if a guy gets arrested for a major crime and is on trial, do you not report on it because maybe he's innocent? In my eyes, most of the media has been very responsible here. "Here are things that are currently being circulated at the highest levels of government. We don't know if they're true, but they're at least credible enough to not be dismissed out of hat." Which is 100% accurate.

    You know what an intelligent, skilled politician would do? And should have done at the press conference today?

    Laugh it off. Turn it into a joke, disarm the story. 'It makes for entertaining reading, at least.'

    Talk about the CNN report. 'Yeah, Russia wants leverage on me. I'm the President Elect, of course they'd want something they could use on me. That's how it works at this level.' Let CNN ask their question. Flatly deny the accusations.

    A big part of why this has traction is that Trump has reacted in pretty much the worst way possible, by going ALL CAPS on Twitter and refusing to let it go. And then, the attacks at the press conference, plus Spicer's threat to kick out the CNN reporter who wanted to ask a question. He is terrible at reacting to things, and in some ways that's as big of a story as anything. This man is terrifying.

    And his continued attitude towards all the conflicts of interest stuff and general ethical agencies don't give a lot of weight to giving him the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty clear at this point that he's hiding quite a bit, and petulantly attacking people who call him out on it aren't endearing him to anybody but his most sycophantic followers.

    The phrase 'where there's smoke, there's fire' came up a lot WRT e-mails, and we rightly called it out as garbage, but at this point not only is there smoke, but the top floors are filled with this orangey, fiery thing, I wonder what it might be.

    It's not the same thing though. With the e-mails, there was smoke. Absolutely. Not a lot, but things did seem hinky and she admitted she shouldn't have done it. But it was investigated. Millions of dollars were spent investigating it. Years were spent. No fire was ever found. Everything claimed turned out to be true. But the Republicans CONTINUED to insist that there must be a fire SOMEWHERE even after the building was completely cleared out and every inch of it poured over.

    Here, we have smoke. A lot of smoke. Assloads of smoke. And he's not even bothering to say that there's no fire. When asked to his face if there's a fire, he doesn't say no. And that we should go fuck ourselves if we want to send anybody in to investigate if there is. It's fake news to say that the smoke is probably coming from a fire.

    Oh, I know.

    Trump refuses to even admit that fire exists.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Well, Bush was not potentially outed as a traitor, so that's kind of a new one.

    Bush's pre-inauguration scandals were like "he used to be an alcoholic" and "he used his family connections to get a better assignment during 'Nam" and "he was a shitty baseball team owner."

    Also "had his brother purge voters to keep Florida enough to keep it close."

    2000 and 2016 are remarkably similar elections. Both featured a wonky but not terribly charismatic Democrat. Both featured a Republican who was the fuck up third generation heir to a fortune. Both had the press relentlessly savage the Democrat with fake scandals of their own creation. Both the Republican was viewed as a joke and never taken seriously by anyone in the press. And both crucially had the unprecedented interference of Republican Government officials outside of all norms to win them the fucking election where they lost the popular vote. And then both of them appointed a set of corrupt assholes to every position except Justice, where they appointed racist assholes instead.

    It's the same fucking election, all over again.

    EDIT: Also the motherfucking Green Party.

    The difference of course is that Bush could make a credible case that he could have won a true popular vote cost, considering how close it was. Trump has no such ability. Bush was also far smarter than trump, and could minimize and calm scandals.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    so we all know the only person who needed to see the post at the top of the page won't read it or respond to it so what on earth is the correct course of action?

    steam_sig.png
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Who lives Who dies Who Guacamoles? Registered User regular
    so we all know the only person who needed to see the post at the top of the page won't read it or respond to it so what on earth is the correct course of action?

    report him if he decides to shit up the thread

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
    GNU Terry Pratchett
    Panda4YouLoisLaneMan in the Mists
  • ArdolArdol Registered User regular
    So this article from the BBC has a bunch of real interesting stuff about the dossier and OTHER Russia/Trump things.

    Some exerpts:
    And the former MI6 agent is not the only source for the claim about Russian kompromat on the president-elect. Back in August, a retired spy told me he had been informed of its existence by "the head of an East European intelligence agency".
    Later, I used an intermediary to pass some questions to active duty CIA officers dealing with the case file - they would not speak to me directly. I got a message back that there was "more than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature".
    On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

    "I'm going to write a story that says…" I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he would reply, if my information was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.
    Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.

    It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.

    The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying.

    Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

    Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.
    There's quite a bit more there as well as general background information.

    Harry DresdenGiggles_Funsworth
  • KetBraKetBra Mixing Drinks and Changing Lives Registered User regular
    Honestly, the IC being so concerned about Russian meddling that they formed a special joint task force seems like pretty big news on its own.

    ndvrSJx.png?1Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692
    So It GoesRMS OceanicGiggles_FunsworthHakkekageEtiowsaSurfpossumEdith UpwardsLoisLaneArdoljdarksunshrykeQanamilNobodyTofystedethPanda4YouDedwrekkaN1tSt4lkerFencingsaxA Kobold's KoboldNobeardNo-QuarterDavid WalgasIncenjucarCommander ZoomKayne Red RobeMan in the Mists
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    so we all know the only person who needed to see the post at the top of the page won't read it or respond to it so what on earth is the correct course of action?

    report him if he decides to shit up the thread

    Okay but that doesn't answer the question. He is probably not the only person that feels that way. While I can see that it's a result of having found this thread very late in the news cycle I don't know how you take someone back in time and show them the course of events.

    steam_sig.png
  • KetBraKetBra Mixing Drinks and Changing Lives Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    so we all know the only person who needed to see the post at the top of the page won't read it or respond to it so what on earth is the correct course of action?

    report him if he decides to shit up the thread

    Okay but that doesn't answer the question. He is probably not the only person that feels that way. While I can see that it's a result of having found this thread very late in the news cycle I don't know how you take someone back in time and show them the course of events.

    I guess you could get them to read the OP

    ndvrSJx.png?1Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692
    Giggles_FunsworthknitdanRhesus PositivePanda4You
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    KetBra wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    so we all know the only person who needed to see the post at the top of the page won't read it or respond to it so what on earth is the correct course of action?

    report him if he decides to shit up the thread

    Okay but that doesn't answer the question. He is probably not the only person that feels that way. While I can see that it's a result of having found this thread very late in the news cycle I don't know how you take someone back in time and show them the course of events.

    I guess you could get them to read the OP

    so convince them to come to a liberal bastion of FAKE NEWS reporting on things that are not. real.

    i'm sorry. i'm just frustrated. like a person maybe legitimately got confused and we ran them away with a wave of ridicule.

    idk :(

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
    KonphujunSpoitLoisLaneA Kobold's Kobold
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    People who don't want to believe something generally aren't going to regardless of what you show them. The most you can do is walk a person through the timeline of events as best you can.

    KetBraGiggles_FunsworthtynicMegaMekSpoitHarry DresdenEdith UpwardsmcdermottNartwakLoisLanejdarksunshrykePanda4YouN1tSt4lkerFencingsaxKristmas KthulhuA Kobold's KoboldNobeardNo-QuarterCommander ZoomIncenjucar14357Man in the Mists
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    I've saved the timeline from the OP in my phone in case this stuff comes up in conversation.

    Another successful post, thanks to the power of Spacestar Ordering™!
    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudIncenjucar
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    i'm sorry. i'm just frustrated. like a person maybe legitimately got confused and we ran them away with a wave of ridicule.

    idk :(

    I'd wager that's more to do with his infraction for an earlier post occurring right about the same time as his last post. Most people interested in posting in the future realize it's time to take a break for a bit when they get dinged.

    DasUberEdwardKonphujunLoisLane
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    i'm sorry. i'm just frustrated. like a person maybe legitimately got confused and we ran them away with a wave of ridicule.

    idk :(

    I'd wager that's more to do with his infraction for an earlier post occurring right about the same time as his last post. Most people interested in posting in the future realize it's time to take a break for a bit when they get dinged.

    I agree with you.

    But the people who were infracted and were sitting in study hall carving their names into the desks are. . .supporting our commander-in-chief.

    steam_sig.png
  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    With all this stuff coming out frankly I'm shocked that noone at the IRS had leaked his financials yet.

    Giggles_FunsworthRMS OceanicHexmage-PAHarry DresdenEtiowsaEdith UpwardsArbitraryDescriptorLoisLaneshrykePanda4YouDoodmannN1tSt4lkerKristmas KthulhuBrutal JA Kobold's KoboldNo-QuarterRedTidediscriderMan in the MistsMatev
13468917
Sign In or Register to comment.