TrumPutinGate

#727
#727
So... Again... Does the following paragraph from MSNBC sound like actual journalism, or... I don't know... What the hell?

To be sure, back-channel communications like these aren’t illegal or even uncommon, but the broader context matters: people close to Trump have been quietly passing around a pro-Putin plan, which may yet be part of a White House blueprint to ease Russian sanctions, which may help explain Russia’s illegal efforts to help put Trump in the White House.
Click to expand...

The above is tying an article together where MSNBC posted contradictory information about an envelope (which was never tied to Trump) that may have been delivered. The big reveal is that even if it happened, it would be neither uncommon nor illegal, yet we should doubt Trump because the envelope may have been delivered in the wider context that Trump may be hatching a plan that may alleviate Russian sanctions, which may explain why Russia illegally got Trump elected (please ignore the lack of facts that prove that spurious allegation).

All those "mays" clear and cloudy enough for you? They build a hit piece with absolutely no factual content, yet it successfully creates the narrative (for the weak minded) that Trump and his associates are cloak and dagger Russian operatives.
 
Last edited:
#728
#728
So, here's a hypothetical for the board.

Say Trump gets on board with a unified front against ISIS with Russia. Unified command structure and operations, the whole nine yards.

Who's head explodes first, VP or Carlos?
 
#729
#729
Grand Vol said:
So, here's a hypothetical for the board.

Say Trump gets on board with a unified front against ISIS with Russia. Unified command structure and operations, the whole nine yards.

Who's head explodes first, VP or Carlos?
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely scenario but for ****s and giggles, I say it would almost be a simultaneous explosion. As soon as it went out over twatter, boom!
 
#730
#730
hog88 said:
Highly unlikely scenario but for ****s and giggles, I say it would almost be a simultaneous explosion. As soon as it went out over twatter, boom!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think it's as unlikely as you believe. I wouldn't say "unlikely" with any conviction these days.

Remember who's President and what chances he had...
 
#731
#731
Grand Vol said:
I wouldn't think it's as unlikely as you believe. I wouldn't say "unlikely" with any conviction these days.

Remember who's President and what chances he had...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just can't picture US and Russian forces working in tandem. No way Russia puts their troops under our command and IF Trump put ours under theirs I'd be done with him. I can't see it working without a single command.
 
#732
#732
hog88 said:
Sorry, I just can't picture US and Russian forces working in tandem. No way Russia puts their troops under our command and IF Trump put ours under theirs I'd be done with him. I can't see it working without a single command.
Click to expand...

Perhaps unified command is the wrong term. Sharing of intelligence, assisting in strikes, joint command centers, etc. Not a unified command with a single person in charge. But coordinating the battles with each other.
 
#733
#733
Grand Vol said:
Perhaps unified command is the wrong term. Sharing of intelligence, assisting in strikes, joint command centers, etc. Not a unified command with a single person in charge. But coordinating the battles with each other.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I would see that as a recipe for disaster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#737
#737
hog88 said:
That's a hard ask.
Click to expand...

I've dealt with Russians before. Not bad folks, very proud. Kind of like Texans.

If you get past the John McCain warmongering talk, we could work together in the ME to defeat ISIS. Or as a minimum, disrupt them to the extent they cannot ever threaten power like before. And make no mistake, any long term plan for peace in the Middle East (don't chuckle) will have to involve Russia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#738
#738
Orange_Crush said:
So... I'm going to ask again... What evidence is there of any of this? News stories, conspiracy theories and IC mumblings don't count.

Out of curiosity, I did a search of "Trump Russia" on Google News this morning. I was inundated with news stories, most from the major printed and online press. The MSM. Not back-alley tabloid hit pieces. It was all the big, major players.

I saw SO MANY allegations. I saw SO MANY theoretical timelines, motives, connections, etc...

I didn't see one single piece of actual material evidence presented.

What does it say to you that the press has tried and convicted our sitting President already without being able to present a single shred of verifiable evidence? What does it say that they are so free to post so many damaging theories (as fact) without presenting any evidence.

Do you think that if they had evidence, they would release it?

The IC that leaked the calls to Russia... If they are looking to damage Trump's presidency (which they obviously are and have), and they all "agree" that Russia subverted our elections--and had the evidence that formed that agreement... Don't you think they would leak that as well?

You don't fing it the slightest bit suspicious that the Washington Establishment are all foaming at the mouth to undermine this rogue President, yet none of them are able to post actual evidence to do so?

That doesn't seem the slightest bit suspicious to you? All we really have is a narrative, created by a media that has proven to be in the Democrats' pocket. It just so happens to be an extension of the narrative created to try to distract us (the Amercian Citizens) from leaked Dem dirt.

That doesn't seem the slightest bit suspicious to you? All we really have is a narrative, created by the people whose job it is to crete narratives, the very people who have proven to be in the pocket of Trump's enemies?

And then there's you... You're on here like a schizophrenic Clark Kent. In one thread, you're posting allegations. In the next, you're castigating us unconvinced crowd as merely "Trumpers". You're claiming "concrete evidence" that we should believe but don't. However, when pushed and called out, you have to admit the complete lack of concrete evidence, but you still find a way to castigate us for being unconvinced.

Then you're back to posting all the "allegations" as though they're revealing some deep plot.

The entire time, you are posting all of this as though your over-activity on a football website is saving our country.

You will be offended, and I truly apologize in advance for offending you, but I write this out of genuine concern for you, VP. As you believe everything else so easily, please believe that just as easily.

...

Have you been prescribed meds that you've stopped taking? I don't say that as an insult, or trying to bait you. I say that because you appear to be displaying all of the symptoms of paranoid delusions, including delusions of grandeur.

I pray that you are OK, and all of this is just a lot of spare time on yours hands--nothing more. But I am genuinely concerned for you.
Click to expand...

Do you believe Sandy Hook happened?
 
#739
#739
volprof said:
Do you believe Sandy Hook happened?
Click to expand...

After all your talk about "concrete" evidence, and all of your surety, do you just want to deflect?

I'm giving you a genuine opportunity. This is the time for you to lay out your case in detail and convince me. If you convince me, based on available evidence (as opposed to hearsay and allusions), I will create a TrumPutin website and dedicate a large portion of my time to getting the word out, due to a genuine patriotic duty.
 
#740
#740
Orange_Crush said:
Note this, for whacky, whacky "reporting"... From the NYTimes, no less.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/donald-trump-russia.html

NY Times story reporting that Russian Deputy Foreign Minister claims that some of "them" (inferred to be Trump's inner circle in the election) were in communication with Russian officials.

The problem is, as NYT points out, that Trump has repeatedly claimed that none of his people were in communication with Russia ( as far as he knows) (and despite the fact that it's not uncommon for presidential candidates to speak to foreign countries to clarify that candidate's stance on various issues).

But... As NTY reports, it's a pretty damning article for trump at face value, since it proposes the "fact" that Russia is painting Trump as a liar on the matter.

Until...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/world/europe/trump-campaign-russia.html

Buried deeply in yet another NYT article on the subject, we see that the actual Russian Foreign Minister says that the deputy was basically misquoted, and he was talking about other politicians, and not Trump's campaign or inner circle.

There seems to be an amazing (and sickening) amount of "Sleight of Hand" reporting going on against our sitting and (until proven otherwise) duly elected American President.

Until shown otherwise, I consider the MSM media as attempting a public gov't coup.
Click to expand...

So, VolNation, just in case you need a shorthand here, the poster ranting about needing concrete proof and can't find it anywhere is taking both the statements of Donald Trump and the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, as concrete proof.

That's pretty special.
 
#742
#742
volprof said:
So, VolNation, just in case you need a shorthand here, the poster ranting about needing concrete proof and can't find it anywhere is taking both the statements of Donald Trump and the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, as concrete proof.

That's pretty special.
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out inconsistencies in the reporting, genius.
 
#743
#743
Orange_Crush said:
After all your talk about "concrete" evidence, and all of your surety, do you just want to deflect?

I'm giving you a genuine opportunity. This is the time for you to lay out your case in detail and convince me. If you convince me, based on available evidence (as opposed to hearsay and allusions), I will create a TrumPutin website and dedicate a large portion of my time to getting the word out, due to a genuine patriotic duty.
Click to expand...

Sandy Hook is relevant, because you don't know with objective fact (which seems to be your narrow definition of "concrete proof") that it happened. So, do you think it happened or not? Very simple, really.

I trust that it did, because I ultimately trust my news media and my government to tell me the truth about something like that, although I know the record of neither in truth-telling is unblemished. Kind of amazing, given that you trust there is a god, while I'm an atheist.

Regarding your demand for evidence, this whole thread is weaving the narrative together. There's not just one link with one document I can provide you that, upon clicking on it, says, "Donny is a traitor. The end," and you'll buy it.

You've got to follow the trail. And all the evidence you need to follow the trail is there. If you're committed and will follow it.

Here, I'll link you this Twitter account. One of the leading Kremlingate investigators, who was basically threatened by a Russian mobster (with Trump ties, and who is one of the key figures at the center of this scandal) yesterday (his "you and yours" gesture was a threat):

https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur

This is just one spot upon many to look, but just stick with this to make it simple.

The thing that is difficult here is that you don't accept anything our IC or government says as fact, so, when I say, for instance, that other claims in the Steele dossier should be given serious attention because our own IC has corroborated at least some of the phone calls between Russian officials alleged in the dossier, you think no such thing because you refuse the basic premise (that the Steele dossier has at least some partial truth).

It's like two people having two separate debates but thinking they're having the same debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#744
#744
volprof said:
Sandy Hook is relevant, because you don't know with objective fact (which seems to be your narrow definition of "concrete proof") that it happened. So, do you think it happened or not? Very simple, really.

I trust that it did, because I ultimately trust my news media and my government to tell me the truth about something like that, although I know the record of neither in truth-telling is unblemished. Kind of amazing, given that you trust there is a god, while I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...

I don't blindly trust the Sandy Hook story because I don't blindly trust the IC, nor the media. I am very suspicious of both, actually.

volprof said:
Regarding your demand for evidence, this whole thread is weaving the narrative together. There's not just one link with one document I can provide you that, upon clicking on it, says, "Donny is a traitor. The end," and you'll buy it.

You've got to follow the trail. And all the evidence you need to follow the trail is there. If you're committed and will follow it.

Here, I'll link you this Twitter account. One of the leading Kremlingate investigators, who was basically threatened by a Russian mobster (with Trump ties, and who is one of the key figures at the center of this scandal) yesterday (his "you and yours" gesture was a threat):

https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur

This is just one spot upon many to look, but just stick with this to make it simple.

The thing that is difficult here is that you don't accept anything our IC or government says as fact, so, when I say, for instance, that other claims in the Steele dossier should be given serious attention because our own IC has corroborated at least some of the phone calls between Russian officials alleged in the dossier, you think no such thing because you refuse the basic premise (that the Steele dossier has at least some partial truth).

It's like two people having two separate debates but thinking they're having the same debate.
Click to expand...

So, turn your nose up to my definition of evidence all you want, all you've really done in that bit was reiterate that a belief in the TrumPutin story is little more than faith in our IC and media. Little more.

As such, I would recommend that you find a healthy bit of skepticism as you trace this out. And barring that, at least develop a bit of empathy for those of us that consider it with skepticism until we need less than faith to believe it.
 
#746
#746
Orange_Crush said:
I don't blindly trust the Sandy Hook story because I don't blindly trust the IC, nor the media. I am very suspicious of both, actually.



So, turn your nose up to my definition of evidence all you want, all you've really done in that bit was reiterate that a belief in the TrumPutin story is little more than faith in our IC and media. Little more.

As such, I would recommend that you find a healthy bit of skepticism as you trace this out. And barring that, at least develop a bit of empathy for those of us that consider it with skepticism until we need less than faith to believe it.
Click to expand...

So, basically, as I've said a half-dozen times already, there is no evidence that will suffice for you, outside of perhaps witnessing something with your own eyes.

This is essentially chasing a unicorn, and I won't be a party.

But, I've given you the tools, should you ever change your narrow definition of evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#748
#748
volprof said:
https://www.channel4.com/news/trump-carter-page-interview

For initiates, Carter Page was formerly a Trump "foreign policy adviser."

He is alleged by Steele to have been at the heart of sanctions discussions with Russian intelligence services last summer, including an agreement to gain Russian energy assets in exchange for lifting sanctions.
Click to expand...

Funny that he was fired by Trump, why would a man in the pocket of Putin fire someone like Page?
 
#750
#750
Till this day, I'm still taken aback by Americans who will believe foreign intelligence leaks, like Wikileaks, but not the claims and/or leaks of our own intelligence community.

A sign of the times, I suppose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top