You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
So let's look at the latest 24 hours:
Fusion GPS set the GOP straight about their selective cherry picking in OP ED. Confirming many of the dossiers findings, and that they were startled by what they found (among many things.) They also point out (as did the Papa story) that the dossier was just one piece of the puzzle and not the starting point for the Trump investigation (as he likes to claim.)
We find out that Australia was alarmed and was one of the many countries who notified our intelligence communities about Trump/Russia. This is after Trump's "Coffee Boy" bragged to an Australian diplomat about the Russian dirt they had on Hillary via email hacking.
Trump has threatened nuclear war on Twitter. Like it's some big joke.
Bannon has turned on the Trump family in a big way.
Cripes.
Re: US Politics Thread
Bizarre 24 hrs.
One thing to keep in mind with Bannon is he's basically just looking for longevity & stability of his news empire. I am curious as to his dismissal, and the reasons why. Wondering if that'll ever come out. Anyway, wonder if he's positioning Breitbart to be post-Trump or more uber-right as Trump & many Repubs seem to be leaning back to center now that they got all they wanted & trying to shift for midterms.
Re: US Politics Thread
One thing is absolutely for certain...Hillary needs to be further investigated for her role regarding Benghazi?!?@&
That’s all that matters here...that’s all that ever matters.
I don’t care about what Trump did that’s cause multiple people to go down...what i care about is the 9 year on going investigation of Hillary and her role in perpetrating, organizing and financially supporting al-qaeda...
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
One thing is absolutely for certain...Hillary needs to be further investigated for her role regarding Benghazi?!?@&
That’s all that matters here...that’s all that ever matters.
I don’t care about what Trump did that’s cause multiple people to go down...what i care about is the 9 year on going investigation of Hillary and her role in perpetrating, organizing and financially supporting al-qaeda...
Has anyone here advocated that? And should Benghazi and why Americans were killed by a surprise attack never have been investigated?
If Hillary was honest from the start, and admitted the ambassador refused to leave despite repeated warnings, rather than push the lie some random video on YouTube was to blame, the investigations probably would have been business as usual.
You seem to forget the wrong doing that served as a catalyst for a GOP witch hunt. So I’ll ask again, has anyone here celebrated the Benghazi nonsense. Obama was embarrassed they fucked up, so they sent Susan Rice to lie on all the talk shows - no different than what Conway does.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl … 1c16d81e80
Interesting article from WaPo on how credible Wolff’s Book is. Case in point Wolff claiming Trump had no idea who John Boehner is, despite Trump tweeting several times badmouthing Boehner directly.
I suspect there’s an element of truth to a lot of his book and will be buying it. But I also don’t doubt some is exaggerated or fabricated to draw attention. Who knows what’s what.
But “Bannon flips on Trump” is too juicy a narrative for the chronically misinformed to pass up.
Re: US Politics Thread
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl … 1c16d81e80
Interesting article from WaPo on how credible Wolff’s Book is. Case in point Wolff claiming Trump had no idea who John Boehner is, despite Trump tweeting several times badmouthing Boehner directly.
I suspect there’s an element of truth to a lot of his book and will be buying it. But I also don’t doubt some is exaggerated or fabricated to draw attention. Who knows what’s what.
Turns out, he has tapes of his conversations, so I'm guessing it's pretty truthful.
I can't ignore, however, that some of these people might have thought they were off the record. As a former journalist myself, this is not the way most do things. If an interview is off the record, you honor that. Saying something is off the record then using that information is not an acceptable practice. It could be, though, that the people being interviewed said "this is off the record" after the fact. That doesn't work. You must go "off the record" first. Similarly, if someone being interviewed says "this is off the record" but the reporters says "no its not," the agreement is not valid. If you keep talking after the reporter says "no" to off the record, it's your fault if you kept blabbing.
Now, there is something called "on background," which means you use the information but don't quote the person. That's where you get anonymous sources.
https://twitter.com/JimVandeHei/status/948877481414676480
Re: US Politics Thread
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl … 1c16d81e80
Interesting article from WaPo on how credible Wolff’s Book is. Case in point Wolff claiming Trump had no idea who John Boehner is, despite Trump tweeting several times badmouthing Boehner directly.
I suspect there’s an element of truth to a lot of his book and will be buying it. But I also don’t doubt some is exaggerated or fabricated to draw attention. Who knows what’s what.
But “Bannon flips on Trump” is too juicy a narrative for the chronically misinformed to pass up.
Wasn't that kind of the point that he couldn't remember things, constantly repeated himself and not recognizing people he knew?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Oh, I have no doubt there is a lot of truth in there and that people said shit they probably shouldn't have said. I just don't know what's legit and what's inflated. Both Bannon and Wolff apparently have reputations for exaggerating the truth for attention. But pretending Bannon claimed Trump met with the Russian, or Bannon has any idea what occured in that meeting (like some want to) is disingenuous. If you didn't care what Bannon said about any issue Sunday, it's hard to reconcile all of a sudden thinking he's rolled on Trump on Tuesday and is now credible. That's all I'm saying. No matter which way you spin this, it ain't good for Trump.
Re: US Politics Thread
Bannon basically said he finds it unlikely Trump didn't talk with Russians not that he knows for a fact he did. Bannon is totally self serving, and it could be a subtle warning that he knows more shit. You never know. It's funny.
I totally believe him that Trump never wanted to be President, though.
