1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

  1. lakefront

    lakefront Well-Known Member

    "This idea is going nowhere," the official said and stressed neither the agency nor the director of the CIA is or was ever considering the proposal.
    National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton told CNN that "the White House does not and would not support such a proposal" and that, "I can find no evidence that this ever came to the attention of anyone at the NSC or (White House) at all."
  2. Slacker

    Slacker Well-Known Member

  3. DeskMonkey1

    DeskMonkey1 Active Member

  4. 3_Octave_Fart

    3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

    Ignoring the reality that Trump is already on a pretty direct path to totalitarianism, or at the least, a one-party/religious-based autocracy. (Which ain't a democracy).
  5. daemon

    daemon Well-Known Member

    Respectfully, I think this is another misconception. By this, I mean, the notion that the Russians somehow "bet" on Trump and were actively engaged in a mission to install him as POTUS. Maybe it is true. But I'm pretty sure an objective -- read: non-revisionist -- view would suggest that it is far more likely that the Russians were simply attempting to sow as much chaos as possible into the U.S. political system. Is it possible that the Russians thought they had the wherewithal to install Trump as POTUS by working in cooperation with his campaign? Sure, it's possible. It's possible they had a far better grasp of the psychology of American voters than both party establishments and the mainstream media. It's possible they had far better polling data. But isn't the far more likely scenario that they were operating on the assumption that the most likely outcome of their efforts would be a Clinton presidency weakened by the combination of a disaffected Sanders/Warren contingent inside the Democratic party and an enflamed Trump/Bannon contingent inside the Republicans? One can argue that such a scenario would actually have been more beneficial to the Russians, because a Trump presidency in which he must prove that he is not Putin's errand boy has the potential to be tougher on Russia than a Clinton presidency in which Russia is not a focal point. In the latter scenario, any Clinton policy decision regarding Russia must accommodate the America First leanings of two factions of economic nationalists (Sanders and Trump). The path of least resistance would be to let Russia be Russia while focusing on China, NAFTA, student debt, etc. Look at it this way: if Putin invaded Crimea on Trump's watch, would it gain more attention and exert more pressure on a response from POTUS than was the case on Obama's watch? I think there's a strong argument that it would.

    There's a realistic chance that Russia and Trump did collude to discredit Clinton. But the odds are as good or perhaps even greater that the Russians viewed themselves as agents of chaos, and that their interests happened to overlap with Trump's interests, and that the only question is whether Trump was dumb enough to actively involve himself in a scheme that the Russians would have orchestrated regardless. That wouldn't excuse Trump for taking an active role, but it would be a lot different than the Manchurian scenario that anti-Trumpers desperately want to believe. And anybody who has been paying attention to public opinion should realize that the majority of Americans would view those two scenarios differently. One is, "Politicians be politicking," the other is, "Yeah, we can't have a foreign government installing a puppet regime in our country."
    FileNotFound and Deskgrunt50 like this.
  6. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    Steve Bannon thinks he's talking to a barn full of rubes, and he's right.
  7. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    Sheesh. Trump IS the law.
  8. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Bannon slagged Romney, his religion and his entire family in defense of the perv.
    HanSenSE likes this.
  9. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

  10. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

  11. Just the facts ma am

    Just the facts ma am Well-Known Member

    I am not upset about a 17 year old having consensual homosexual sex with an older man for money. I am upset about having to pay tax money to enforce religious bias.
    Wall of text is not a good look bro.
  12. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page