Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[hollodero]

(07-13-2018, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're mistaking not publicly admitting it with not doing anything about it.  There were calls for Trump to be impeached before he was even sworn in.  There are prominent Democrats calling for his impeachment on a regular basis.

Yeah I don't think I'm mistaking that. Trump is the chief executive, and as far as I know heads of the agencies testified that there is no presidential order or even effort to counter the threat. But apart from that. This is also about everyday folk acknowledging the threat, and all efforts of Trump and GOP are aimed at disregarding the threat. Not only that, aimed at calling everyone issueing the threat as an enemy.

I think that whatever Maxine Waters or anyone else pathetic figure (and yes, I do think Maxine Waters is a pathetic politician) should never factor into that, nor should their calls. That Trump was exposed to extreme scrutiny from the start, like no other GOP president would have faced, is on him. Using that very fact as an excuse for denying the Russian threat and calling everyone who challenges this position stupid or angry democrat or enemy of the people is astonishing. And it's not so much Trump astonishing me, it's you finding that excuse and throwing it out. I don't want to be insulting, but that one really makes my question your patriotism. There are things more important than Maxine Waters. Or having a republican president, if you honestly believe not acting like he does would kill him in the polls.

(07-13-2018, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Tribalism does not trump national security, but expecting Trump to own it publicly, or Hillary if the position was reversed, is going to disappoint you.  None of this is saying that Trump's "fake news" diatribes are right or productive (although the media has blown a fair amount of stories about him in their rush to condemn him),

Yeah? Which stories were extensively blown out of proportion from the media, to an account that the FOX news counter-narrative couldn't possibly even it out, so that you feel inclined to say "the media" as a whole is unfair in their condemnation. I know about some exaggerations from the more anti-Trump ones. But what has been that consistently blown out of proportion that it could ever function as an explanation for publicly denying the existence of a national security threat and slamming all those who insist it exists. Care to give an example how possible media bias is more important or decisive than a national security threat?

(07-13-2018, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: but it is not analogous to ignoring the threat.  Trust that there are thousands of good men in women in our government working on the Russian threat and how to counter it, Trump's statements don't change that.

I hope that, I don't trust that. And though essential of course, it's not only about that. The public needs to know what's going on and it needs to not be misinformed or lied to about that. That's a national security issue. And doing what's in the national interest is a president's primary obligation, aside from any tactics or vanity. That I'd expect from anyone with a job, I'd expect it even more from someone given the job as an US president. Or else, the US needs to publicly resign as leader of the free world, because having a different take on that really is disqualifying.

If interference happened in behalf of Hillary. First off, I really believe that would never have happened in the first place, there are reasons why Putin preferred Trump over her so massively. But I also believe, though that woman is sure not without faults (not a fan by a long stretch), she would not have acted like Trump. And if she did? You'd be out there and condemn her for it, and rightfully so. - I think she'd sure take efforts to diminish it, including statements I would have considered irresponsible possibly. But she would not have the audacity to call everyone who points to the threat an enemy of the people or a disgrace or fake news or the most horrible people on the planet or folks who can't get over a lost election or whatever. Nope, despite all her faults, she'd not done that. And that's massive still.

And that you forge points to see that differently still is harrowing. Don't get me wrong though. The reason it's so harrowing is that I consider you to be a thoughtful and intelligent person, in all probability beating me on any IQ test. If you were an idiot, I could live with that. But since you're not, since you're anything but, it distresses me. How could you ever propose that excuse for such an obvious failure in a leader and live with that intellectually.