Why are Preibus and Spicer so against this chap? What's his 101?
Only as a comical figure a la Baghdad Bob.Spicer is potentially gonna go down as a legendary character in the annals of American political history.
The problem with this stance is it is very unlikely that Trump has done anything wrong. Throwing dirt and suspicion hoping something sticks is a left tactic, not really based on evidence or fact. The fact people in the campaign meet foreign representatives during a campaign is not unusual. Discussing policy when not elected i believe is a big no-no. We hear lots of "Russia published dirt in Clinton to sway voters". The only dirt I recall was from wikileaks. Not seen any other dirt that wasn't already public, like Clinton foundation corruption and email server. How is Russia wanting Trump, any different to Europe, Canada and Central & South America being very vocal for Clinton.
Whether you support or dislike Trump, can't believe people really believe there is a there there.
If I implied the left are the only ones throwing suspicion then that is not what was intended. I thought by giving the Clinto reference that would have indicated it is all sides.Theres a lot wrong with your post:
How is it unlikely Trump has done anything wreong? You know nothing just like everybody else in this thread, you are choosing to believe something just like those you are criticising.
Throwing dirt and suspicion is something only the 'left' do?
Where do you think wikileaks got that data then?
The difference between Russias attempt to influence vs Europe, Canada and Central & South Americas attempt to influence would be the exetent to which they apparently went to do so. Haven't heard much about European hacking or Candadian botnets, have you?
It seems that as unbiased as you may think you are being, you are acting just like everyone else, being influenced just like everyone else, biased just like everyone else. You just happen to be on the over side of the argument.
As for Wikileaks, you have Wiki leaks People saying not Russia and no evidence to counter that. Like you say I am not aware, but I don't see any reports saying Russia acquired and then gave Wiki leaks the info.
SCHIFF: This is a question I think you can answer. Do you know whether the Russian intelligence service has dealt directly with WikiLeaks or whether they too used an intermediary?
COMEY: We assessed they used some kind of cutout. They didn't deal directly with WikiLeaks. In contrast to D.C. Leaks and Guccifer 2.0.
Thankfully I am not a Yank, just live here. There seems to be so much outrage on here, whereas I live in a very big gay community, with an enormous illegal immigrant population, with a pretty equal split of left and right, and this topic does not seem high on their list of concerns. Very little hatred or fear between the differing ideologies. More worried about money and jobs than Russia.No there there but let's fire the FBI director cause that's quite normal during an investigation. It's great seeing America regress itself and I'm alive to see Americans actually defend the actions of Russians.
You are not basing it on fact, you ate basing it on opinion.
I do not know of one person who argues that Russia attempted to interfere with the election by cyber attacks on Government and software vendor systems. Howver, It is widely reported by the security people they did not change voting scores. So attempt, rather than impacted, is probably more accurate..
There has been no proof that Russia were in bed with Wikileaks. There is no proof that Trump or his campaign coordinated with Wikileaks.
A number of Trump campaign people or surrogates met with Russians. This has caused suspicion, but has not actually been proven to be collusion or cooperating with a foreign entity to impact the election.
The reason I say it is unlikely is that Pence appears to be as straight as an arrow and would have raised this, countless Obama advocates in the security domain, have said no evidence.
As for propaganda, look at your own recent tweets. You want it to be true so you are jumping on the first thing that may support your position.
If he or one of his satellites did wrong they will get what they deserve, but press juries are not the way this should be done
What about the ties though?Oh dear. Chris Wallace now saying Trump wasn't happy with Spicer's suits.
What's the likelihood that spicer will leak some scandal? Or will we have to wait til Trump is out of office to read his memoirs?
Thankfully I am not a Yank, just live here. There seems to be so much outrage on here, whereas I live in a very big gay community, with an enormous illegal immigrant population, with a pretty equal split of left and right, and this topic does not seem high on their list of concerns. Very little hatred or fear between the differing ideologies. More worried about money and jobs than Russia.
Firing the FBI director is strange, but a big jump to say that is to stop the Russia investigation.
What about the ties though?
Why are Preibus and Spicer so against this chap? What's his 101?
What's the likelihood that spicer will leak some scandal? Or will we have to wait til Trump is out of office to read his memoirs?
You are not basing it on fact, you ate basing it on opinion.
I do not know of one person who argues that Russia attempted to interfere with the election by cyber attacks on Government and software vendor systems. Howver, It is widely reported by the security people they did not change voting scores. So attempt, rather than impacted, is probably more accurate.
Russia wanting Trump is also known, so what, just about everyone else wanted Clinton.
There has been no proof that Russia were in bed with Wikileaks. There is no proof that Trump or his campaign coordinated with Wikileaks.
A number of Trump campaign people or surrogates met with Russians. This has caused suspicion, but has not actually been proven to be collusion or cooperating with a foreign entity to impact the election.
So to jump from a I hate the guy, to he is guilty as hell, shoild be impeached and his aids imprisoned is a bit of a stretch.
The reason I say it is unlikely is that Pence appears to be as straight as an arrow and would have raised this, countless Obama advocates in the security domain, have said no evidence.
As for propaganda, look at your own recent tweets. You want it to be true so you are jumping on the first thing that may support your position.
If he or one of his satellites did wrong they will get what they deserve, but press juries are not the way this should be done.
Thankfully I am not a Yank, just live here. There seems to be so much outrage on here, whereas I live in a very big gay community, with an enormous illegal immigrant population, with a pretty equal split of left and right, and this topic does not seem high on their list of concerns. Very little hatred or fear between the differing ideologies. More worried about money and jobs than Russia.
Firing the FBI director is strange, but a big jump to say that is to stop the Russia investigation.
You are not basing it on fact, you ate basing it on opinion.
I do not know of one person who argues that Russia attempted to interfere with the election by cyber attacks on Government and software vendor systems. Howver, It is widely reported by the security people they did not change voting scores. So attempt, rather than impacted, is probably more accurate.
Russia wanting Trump is also known, so what, just about everyone else wanted Clinton.
There has been no proof that Russia were in bed with Wikileaks. There is no proof that Trump or his campaign coordinated with Wikileaks.
A number of Trump campaign people or surrogates met with Russians. This has caused suspicion, but has not actually been proven to be collusion or cooperating with a foreign entity to impact the election.
So to jump from a I hate the guy, to he is guilty as hell, shoild be impeached and his aids imprisoned is a bit of a stretch.
The reason I say it is unlikely is that Pence appears to be as straight as an arrow and would have raised this, countless Obama advocates in the security domain, have said no evidence.
As for propaganda, look at your own recent tweets. You want it to be true so you are jumping on the first thing that may support your position.
If he or one of his satellites did wrong they will get what they deserve, but press juries are not the way this should be done.
Pretty much how I imagine the average non die-hard Trump voter to write and think:
He fired Comey? Ah, strange, but so what.
There seem to be ties between Russia and Wikileaks and between Russia and the Trump campaign? Ah, it's not proven, and the fact that there's a constant drip of newly discovered meetings, ties and interactions between the parties doesn't matter and doesn't give the claims any legitimacy.
He lost his Security advisor weeks into the presidency because of ties to Russia he didn't disclose? Who cares, I already forgot about that.
Also, look at Pence! He, as a right wing nutjob with a failed gouvernatoral career, would surely have done ANYTHING to stop some unfair dealings an thus ending his chances of becoming vice president!
Seriously, how dumb, blindfolded and ignorant do you have to be...
Sean Spicer just phoned Dana Bash (CNN) and Scaramucci gave an interview to CNN about an hour ago too. So much for FOX being the preferred network and CNN being the fake news network. Dana said Sean didn't sound upset and actually sounded like the old Sean they used to know before he started working at the White House. His official reason for resigning is that he wanted to give Trump a clean slate and the chance to work from fresh. Apparently Trump told him he didn't want him to leave.
It's difficult to judge when your only info is from a second hand conversation. It will be much easier to read his body language later when he's on Hannity. I do believe Dana though in that he seems relieved, that definitely rings true.
Second only to Baghdad Bob in modern propaganda men.
Only as a comical figure a la Baghdad Bob.
But hey, nothing has been proven!
Which is kinda the point @SalfordRed1960 was trying to make. If you keep believing every tweet or news article as credible source you will only be led down a frustrating path.
He's basically repeating talking points that Trump surrogates on CNN make - there's no collusion. we've been investigating or 6 months and there's nothing etc. There is clearly something otherwise there would be no investigation or special prosecutor.
What about the ties though?
I was only referring to his point about taking tweets and news articles at face value. After the last election cycle, we should be wary of making that same mistake again.
Scaramucci saying he regrets making negative comments about Trump in 2015