Trump MAGAthread VI

[Thermodolia]

More anonymous sources.

Have people forgotten how sources work? They're, you know, always anonymous. Because maybe they don't, I dunno, want to be murdered?

Or more likely fired.

[Jamzmania]

More anonymous sources.

Have people forgotten how sources work? They're, you know, always anonymous. Because maybe they don't, I dunno, want to be murdered?

It seems that pretty much all of the "evidence" of "collusion" is from anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are fine, if they are backed up by something else. When you start using anonymous sources for everything, I don't think it's unreasonable to question why we have nothing but anonymous sources.

[Jamzmania]

More anonymous sources.

They are UNNAMED sources.
Learn the difference.

Please explain the difference to me.

[Cannot think of a name]

Have people forgotten how sources work? They're, you know, always anonymous. Because maybe they don't, I dunno, want to be murdered?

It seems that pretty much all of the "evidence" of "collusion" is from anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are fine, if they are backed up by something else. When you start using anonymous sources for everything, I don't think it's unreasonable to question why we have nothing but anonymous sources.

Because it's an active administration with people in it who still have mortgages.

[Proctopeo]

I mean, it would be rather nice to have public sources for these things.

[Corrian]

Anyone else ever had the suspicion that Trump has a list of everything he's ever accused another politician of doing, and is on a personal mission to do each of those things himself as rapidly as possible? It just seems like even when you set aside the potential russian collusion, the appearance of obstruction of justice in his actions to defend himself from the investigation, the general unlawful and/or reckless behavior, the full on assault his administration has launched on basic government transparency........Trump also seems to do at least one thing every day that he once bashed someone else for doing on his twitter account. Forget the NYT and WaPo and cable news and Comey and Meuller, Trump's biggest critic is.....past Trump's twitter account.

It seems to be the case, and now nobody longer cares. The hypocrisy and gullibility nowadays is almost amazing.

[California Prime]

Have people forgotten how sources work? They're, you know, always anonymous. Because maybe they don't, I dunno, want to be murdered?

It seems that pretty much all of the "evidence" of "collusion" is from anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are fine, if they are backed up by something else. When you start using anonymous sources for everything, I don't think it's unreasonable to question why we have nothing but anonymous sources.

Maybe you should question why, after only around 120 days in office, Trump's WH staff and national security apparatus is leaking on him like a sieve. The last time we saw an administration leak like this against the president, it was in Nixon's final disgraceful year.

[Thermodolia]

They are UNNAMED sources.
Learn the difference.

Please explain the difference to me.

Unnamed sources are sources who have a vested interest in not revealing their identity. The media knows who they are but they don't release that information out of respect for the source.

Anonymous sources are a bit more random and generally the media has no clue who they are

[Luminesa]

Obama had 2 years to renegotiate with the Iraqi government, I never said he should just refuse to honor the deal, he should have made an agreement with the Iraqis to cancel the current withdrawal plan and devise a new deal to make sure Iraq was stable before US troops left.

How exactly do you think diplomacy works?

...His idea doesn't seem like an awful one, though...

[Jamzmania]

It seems that pretty much all of the "evidence" of "collusion" is from anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are fine, if they are backed up by something else. When you start using anonymous sources for everything, I don't think it's unreasonable to question why we have nothing but anonymous sources.

Maybe you should question why, after only around 120 days in office, Trump's WH staff and national security apparatus is leaking on him like a sieve. The last time we saw an administration leak like this against the president, it was in Nixon's final disgraceful year.

The most likely reason is because Trump does not have the loyalty of his staff because he is not loyal to them. He seems willing to throw anybody under the bus when they don't please him.

Also, please don't try to make comparisons to Nixon. By this point in the Watergate scandal we at least had some solid evidence. So far we have absolutely nothing in Trump's case.

[Uxupox]

Obama had 2 years to renegotiate with the Iraqi government, I never said he should just refuse to honor the deal, he should have made an agreement with the Iraqis to cancel the current withdrawal plan and devise a new deal to make sure Iraq was stable before US troops left.

How exactly do you think diplomacy works?

He fucked it up and ignored warnings from people like Ret. Gen Zinni, Ret. Gen. Mattis, Ret. Gen McCaffrey and Ret. Gen McChrystal in that theater.

[Thermodolia]

Maybe you should question why, after only around 120 days in office, Trump's WH staff and national security apparatus is leaking on him like a sieve. The last time we saw an administration leak like this against the president, it was in Nixon's final disgraceful year.

The most likely reason is because Trump does not have the loyalty of his staff because he is not loyal to them. He seems willing to throw anybody under the bus when they don't please him.

Also, please don't try to make comparisons to Nixon. By this point in the Watergate scandal we at least had some solid evidence. So far we have absolutely nothing in Trump's case.

If the claims that Trump tried to stop a federal investigation and asked the DIA and NSA to hide evidence turn out to be true then that's obstruction of justice and grounds for impeachment

[Genivaria]

Maybe you should question why, after only around 120 days in office, Trump's WH staff and national security apparatus is leaking on him like a sieve. The last time we saw an administration leak like this against the president, it was in Nixon's final disgraceful year.

The most likely reason is because Trump does not have the loyalty of his staff because he is not loyal to them. He seems willing to throw anybody under the bus when they don't please him.

Also, please don't try to make comparisons to Nixon. By this point in the Watergate scandal we at least had some solid evidence. So far we have absolutely nothing in Trump's case.

I would've gone with "Nixon was actually a mostly decent president." myself.

[Gauthier]

And Trump digs himself a deeper hole

The hole just got 10 ft deeper.

Trump thinks that how he can make Da Wahl bigger.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

And Trump digs himself a deeper hole

More anonymous sources.

At this point, it doesn't even matter if they are anonymous sources or not.

[Jamzmania]

The most likely reason is because Trump does not have the loyalty of his staff because he is not loyal to them. He seems willing to throw anybody under the bus when they don't please him.

Also, please don't try to make comparisons to Nixon. By this point in the Watergate scandal we at least had some solid evidence. So far we have absolutely nothing in Trump's case.

If the claims that Trump tried to stop a federal investigation and asked the DIA and NSA to hide evidence turn out to be true then that's obstruction of justice and grounds for impeachment

The claims that Trump tried to stop a federal investigation aren't very solid even if it is shown to be true that he did say what Comey claimed he did (I assume that's what you're talking about). Trump said some things that may, depending on how you want to read into it, have sounded like an implication to drop the investigation, but if Comey actually took it that way, why didn't he ever say anything before being fired?

The thing is, the CNN article that was linked to doesn't actually claim that he asked the DIA and NSA to hide evidence. It's rather vague, actually:

President Donald Trump called two top intelligence community figures to request that they deny in public any evidence of collusion between his campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 election, multiple current and former US officials with knowledge tell CNN.

What this probably means is that he asked them to admit publicly that there was no evidence, thus helping to clear his name. Seeing as how this came from unnamed sources, we have to be cautious about how we interpret it before more evidence comes out.

[United Muscovite Nations]

"Yo, King Salman, we need a good photo pose for you with Trump and Sisi, what are you feeling like playing? Elder statesman? Regal figure or how abou--"
"Bond villain."
"W-what?"
"I want to look like a Bond villain."

[United Muscovite Nations]

The most likely reason is because Trump does not have the loyalty of his staff because he is not loyal to them. He seems willing to throw anybody under the bus when they don't please him.

Also, please don't try to make comparisons to Nixon. By this point in the Watergate scandal we at least had some solid evidence. So far we have absolutely nothing in Trump's case.

I would've gone with "Nixon was actually a mostly decent president." myself.

He did win reelection by the largest landslide in US history.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

"Yo, King Salman, we need a good photo pose for you with Trump and Sisi, what are you feeling like playing? Elder statesman? Regal figure or how abou--"
"Bond villain."
"W-what?"
"I want to look like a Bond villain."

You made me laugh.

The hole just got 10 ft deeper.

Trump thinks that how he can make Da Wahl bigger.

If you dig the hole deeper you have more material to build that wall out of!

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

How exactly do you think diplomacy works?

...His idea doesn't seem like an awful one, though...

Obama also had a campaign promise to get the troops out of Iraq, so he would be breaking a promise.

Also, Iraq was doomed to instability as soon as the US decided to invade.

[Alsheb]

"Yo, King Salman, we need a good photo pose for you with Trump and Sisi, what are you feeling like playing? Elder statesman? Regal figure or how abou--"
"Bond villain."
"W-what?"
"I want to look like a Bond villain."

Either that or summoning Satan.

[Uxupox]

...His idea doesn't seem like an awful one, though...

Obama also had a campaign promise to get the troops out of Iraq, so he would be breaking a promise.

Also, Iraq was doomed to instability as soon as the US decided to invade.

No such thing.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Obama also had a campaign promise to get the troops out of Iraq, so he would be breaking a promise.

Also, Iraq was doomed to instability as soon as the US decided to invade.

No such thing.

Eh, yeah he did, his 2008 campaign had him say multiple times that the Iraq war was a shit idea and he wanted to get the US out of there.

[Corrian]

Also, please don't try to make comparisons to Nixon. By this point in the Watergate scandal we at least had some solid evidence. So far we have absolutely nothing in Trump's case.

There's really only no evidence if you try to make that so as hard as possible.

Even if not blatant evidence, Trump not shutting the fuck up and continuously digging a deeper hole does not help.

And even if not directly tied to him, it seems pretty likely people in his campaign at least are a part of it.

[Uxupox]

No such thing.

Eh, yeah he did, his 2008 campaign had him say multiple times that the Iraq war was a shit idea and he wanted to get the US out of there.

What I mean't was there was no such thing as pulling troops out of Iraq. That was a farce.