Trump MAGAthread VI

[Great Nepal]

Are you saying that you respect the wording of the law more than what you know is right?

I mean, not that I see a problem with this as a capitalist, but is that what you're arguing?

Not at all. I'm saying that this is not a real scandal and I'm annoyed that some people who I respect are caught up in it.

I believe that If a democrat was doing the same thing, the republicans would be against it and the democrats would be for it.

If one wants to remove the right of the president to make such decisions there are actual ways to accomplish this but it's far more fun to engage in partisan rivalry I suppose.

I guess it is too much to expect president to exercise level of discretion a fourth grader would be fluent in and we should instead try to pass laws to deal with the buffoon engaging in dick measuring contest with Russian foreign minister.

[Vassenor]

I don't think "scandal" is the right word. Scandal implies some kind of malfeasance. Since he has broad authority to declassify stuff, it's not malfeasance to do so.

It's just another stupid thing on a stupid day in stupid town.

Agreed.

There are so many real issues, are we really this upset about Trump doing his job in a way he was legally allowed to do it? It makes me sick to think that the united states has reached the point where Donald Trump is president.

But the democrats are not making compelling arguments (echo chambers are fun but kinda pointless) when they attack him on things like this.

Appeal to worse problems again?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If a Democrat would have done this I would think the same thing: namely, that they're stupid.

I think it is a serious issue, given that now people, and more importantly, intelligence agencies, do not know what to share and what not to share to the president anymore. So the president not only has put intelligence agencies in a bit of a compromised position, but if they choose what I think they will choose and just spoon feed the executive information they think is necessary for the carrying of Trump's duties as he should, and not the entire information, it is Trump's own damn fault.

Which, if they choose that, necessarily means the president will wind up working half blind.

I don't know if having Trump working half blind should be thrilling at this point because he can't break as much shit, or horrifying because he can now justify his conspiracy theories and he'll be more detached of the intelligence community, and do shit without intel, therefore breaking more than he would.

[Conserative Morality]

Can you prove that he did this to boost his ego?

"It's like"

As in, "It's like your analogy.", or "It's like the concept of an analogy", or even "It fucking is an analogy"

If you wanted to be more linguistically but less rhetorically precise, it'd be a simile.

How can we separate non ego boosting acts from ego boosting acts?

I mean, sure, it's a good principle, but enforcement would be impossible and if you've got someone in office who's ready to sink that low, you've kind of already lost.

... are you even reading my posts?

[Gauthier]

So the scuttlebutt is that Trump's loose lips moment burned an Israeli intelligence source.

is he dead yet?

We'll know when Trump uses the death to promote himself just like the SEAL killed in his Yemen clusterfuck.

[Natapoc]

Agreed.

There are so many real issues, are we really this upset about Trump doing his job in a way he was legally allowed to do it? It makes me sick to think that the united states has reached the point where Donald Trump is president.

But the democrats are not making compelling arguments (echo chambers are fun but kinda pointless) when they attack him on things like this.

Appeal to worse problems again?

It's more that this gives the impression that your main problem with trump is that his foreign policy with Russia is different than yours. Of course it's different than yours! This is expected when a party you oppose wins.

[Galloism]

I don't think "scandal" is the right word. Scandal implies some kind of malfeasance. Since he has broad authority to declassify stuff, it's not malfeasance to do so.

It's just another stupid thing on a stupid day in stupid town.

Agreed.

There are so many real issues, are we really this upset about Trump doing his job in a way he was legally allowed to do it? It makes me sick to think that the united states has reached the point where Donald Trump is president.

But the democrats are not making compelling arguments (echo chambers are fun but kinda pointless) when they attack him on things like this.

I'm mean sharing this info with the Russians, which McMaster stated Trump decided without seeking any advice in the context of the conversation he was having at the time. Oh, and he said it was "appropriate" and that basically Trump didn't have the information necessary to truly compromise the ally, because the intelligence agencies apparently don't give him that.

Thank the lord.

Anyway, the president, who walks around doing stupid shit all the time, did something else stupid, other people are calling it out as stupid. Another day in America.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Appeal to worse problems again?

It's more that this gives the impression that your main problem with trump is that his foreign policy with Russia is different than yours. Of course it's different than yours! This is expected when a party you oppose wins.

Trump's foreign policy with Russia can be that he wants to suck Putin's dick for all I care.

That still doesn't remove the fact that what he did was stupid.

[Ism]

Appeal to worse problems again?

It's more that this gives the impression that your main problem with trump is that his foreign policy with Russia is different than yours. Of course it's different than yours! This is expected when a party you oppose wins.

Oh boy. Look, we not upset that Trump wants to be friendly with Russia. We are upset that he is doing it in a way which undermines the US without any sort of concession from them. We are upset that he is incompetent in his pursuit of this friendship. We are upset that he is damaging other relationships in pursuit of this friendship.

[Gauthier]

Agreed.

There are so many real issues, are we really this upset about Trump doing his job in a way he was legally allowed to do it? It makes me sick to think that the united states has reached the point where Donald Trump is president.

But the democrats are not making compelling arguments (echo chambers are fun but kinda pointless) when they attack him on things like this.

I'm mean sharing this info with the Russians, which McMaster stated Trump decided without seeking any advice in the context of the conversation he was having at the time. Oh, and he said it was "appropriate" and that basically Trump didn't have the information necessary to truly compromise the ally, because the intelligence agencies apparently don't give him that.

Thank the lord.

Anyway, the president, who walks around doing stupid shit all the time, did something else stupid, other people are calling it out as stupid. Another day in America.

A former CIA official interviewed on public radio was pissed at Trump, and compared the excuses made for him to Churchill bragging to the Nazis on June 5th that D Day was going to start on the 6th.

[Salandriagado]

But Hillary is not.

HIllary may have been the beginning of the discussion, but she is not the totality of it. The logistics of a no-fly zone are only tangentially related to Mrs. Clinton.

And unless Trump has proposed a no-fly zone, both are off-topic.

[Corrian]

Did Trump really ADMIT to it today and say that he had a "right" to send them?

Dude, you just fired the FBI director, and then do that. Right or not, it comes off as extremely freaking suspicious.

I was actually leaning towards trusting McMaster, but then of course Trump comes out and throws that out the window.

[Natapoc]

I'm mean sharing this info with the Russians, which McMaster stated Trump decided without seeking any advice in the context of the conversation he was having at the time. Oh, and he said it was "appropriate" and that basically Trump didn't have the information necessary to truly compromise the ally, because the intelligence agencies apparently don't give him that.

Thank the lord.

Anyway, the president, who walks around doing stupid shit all the time, did something else stupid, other people are calling it out as stupid. Another day in America.

A former CIA official interviewed on public radio was pissed at Trump, and compared the excuses made for him to Churchill bragging to the Nazis on June 5th that D Day was going to start on the 6th.

Is it necessary to accept the opinion of a "former CIA official?" as fact?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A former CIA official interviewed on public radio was pissed at Trump, and compared the excuses made for him to Churchill bragging to the Nazis on June 5th that D Day was going to start on the 6th.

Is it necessary to accept the opinion of a "former CIA officials?" as fact?

Considering the CIA is actually good at keeping secrets for years after they did something?

I'd consider an Ex-CIA agent's opinion on the matter more valuable, yes.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Did Trump really ADMIT to it today and say that he had a "right" to send them?

Dude, you just fired the FBI director, and then do that. Right or not, it comes off as extremely freaking suspicious.

I was actually leaning towards trusting McMaster, but then of course Trump comes out and throws that out the window.

Well, he's not wrong, he does have an "absolute right", as he said, to disseminate information however, wherever, whenever, and to whomever he wants to.

That doesn't mean that this "right" doesn't come with responsibilities.

[Uxupox]

A former CIA official interviewed on public radio was pissed at Trump, and compared the excuses made for him to Churchill bragging to the Nazis on June 5th that D Day was going to start on the 6th.

Is it necessary to accept the opinion of a "former CIA official?" as fact?

Not a fact but it's a very valuable opinion.

[Sane Outcasts]

Did Trump really ADMIT to it today and say that he had a "right" to send them?

Dude, you just fired the FBI director, and then do that. Right or not, it comes off as extremely freaking suspicious.

I was actually leaning towards trusting McMaster, but then of course Trump comes out and throws that out the window.

Well, he's not wrong, he does have an "absolute right", as he said, to disseminate information however, wherever, whenever, and to whomever he wants to.

That doesn't mean that this "right" doesn't come with responsibilities.

It still has to hurt to try to protect your boss in the face of a very tenuous news story, only for him to both demolish all of your work on his behalf and confirm the news story in two tweets.

[Natapoc]

Is it necessary to accept the opinion of a "former CIA officials?" as fact?

Considering the CIA is actually good at keeping secrets for years after they did something?

I'd consider an Ex-CIA agent's opinion on the matter more valuable, yes.

The opinion of the CIA is not the same as the opinion of a Ex- CIA agent's opinion. Ex-CIA agents can be as subject to fallacy as anyone else. Ex-CIA agents have opinions as broad and diverse as those held by the general public.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, he's not wrong, he does have an "absolute right", as he said, to disseminate information however, wherever, whenever, and to whomever he wants to.

That doesn't mean that this "right" doesn't come with responsibilities.

It still has to hurt to try to protect your boss in the face of a very tenuous news story, only for him to both demolish all of your work on his behalf and confirm the news story in two tweets.

As someone who has had to deal with that before, believe me, I sympathize with his staff.

[Lady Scylla]

Clearly the Russians are going to give us a giant basket full of sweets with an adorable card full of kindhearted messages.

Probably not. But a revival of the cold war is not a good idea. I can't believe that a cold war revival is the best american liberals think they can do to compete with american conservatives.

I think you're making some really excessive generalizations.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Considering the CIA is actually good at keeping secrets for years after they did something?

I'd consider an Ex-CIA agent's opinion on the matter more valuable, yes.

The opinion of the CIA is not the same as the opinion of a Ex- CIA agent's opinion. Ex-CIA agents can be as subject to fallacy as anyone else. Ex-CIA agents have opinions as broad and diverse as those held by the general public.

Ex-CIA agents do have experience in the field of intelligence gathering and sharing though. So yes, their opinion, even if biased, is more valuable than someone who wasn't or isn't a CIA agent.

Your argument is like saying a retired computer repairperson's opinion on computer hardware and software and its practicalities is irrelevant just because they're not working in computer repairs anymore. Experience begets authority, and an ex-CIA agent's opinion is more valuable than someone who has never been in the intelligence community or industry because they have experience how it all works.

[Salandriagado]

So why would she be going to prison for it if she had nothing to do with it?

I said she didn order the hit. I didn said that she wasn't involved.

Things could have been interpreted as order though. Read the twitter link.

Hillary Clinton continues to not be in any way relevant to the topic, and your desperate attempts to distract attention from Trump (who is the topic) literally handing top-secret information to Russia are getting pathetic.

[Wallenburg]

Am I the only one who does not understand what the big deal is with Trump giving Russia information about ISIS?

Both the US and Russia claim to be fighting ISIS. Isn't sharing information that could lead to increased cooperation against an international terrorist group a good thing?

No. Sharing information with the Russians just makes their lives easier. We should be trying to make theirs as difficult as possible.

Making Russians' lives "as difficult as possible" means launching World War III. I'm not sure what makes anything more difficult for them than that.

[Natapoc]

Agreed.

There are so many real issues, are we really this upset about Trump doing his job in a way he was legally allowed to do it? It makes me sick to think that the united states has reached the point where Donald Trump is president.

But the democrats are not making compelling arguments (echo chambers are fun but kinda pointless) when they attack him on things like this.

Yes, because as you have been told numerous times by now, just because something is legal doesn't mean it isn't stupid. We're not mad because what Trump did was illegal, we're mad because it was stupid and destructive, just like almost everything else he's done as president.

If this was destructive, and there is no publicly available information that proves it was, it was likely one of the least destructive things he has done as president. I don't understand the amount of seemingly faux outrage it's generating.

[Thermodolia]

Again I ask what kind of idiot do you take me for?

Did you honestly think that I'd believe your story just because it came from a left wing site? Some of those left wing sites are the most unreliable sources for news, buzzfeed is one of those.

As a fellow leftist I applaud your integrity.

Why thank you