Is the Russia thing even real?

POSTED BY: BYTEMITE
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 19:29
VIEWED: 6563
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

BYTEMITE

Friday, February 17, 2017 4:32 AM

Okay. I took a leave of absence from the board for a while after I got into it a bit with Sig I think a month or so back. Sorry Sig. Haha, I know you all probably didn't even notice because it's not like I'm here that much anyway - I just nowadays feel like getting into heated yelling matches on the internet isn't good either for my political interests/activism or my chill.

Anyway, although there's still back and forth I notice, I feel like things have sort of calmed down around here a bit (Though maybe I'm wrong), or at least enough that I can ask this question and get some perspectives from both sides of this aisle.

Being that I am still a bit of a conspiracy theorist, and I was reading articles that started my mind spinning, I felt like I needed to ask this question. Forgive what are probably logical and illogical leaps around here, I'm factoring in hunches, impressions, and opinions that I feel are pertinent.

I'm going to lay out what I see as the details here for and against. Before I started thinking about this I thought the Russia Trump thing was real, I am not so sure now.

Pro-It's-Real: I don't really like Trump or a whole lot of his policies (Goddammit the hell is up with that Muslim Ban, do not agree). I think he's a childish, shallow, materialistic, megalomaniacal narcissist who swept into power on the wave of a personality cult that he created and on the fears of the same people who feel like they have to go to a used car salesman because they still need a car and couldn't afford any other options. I don't trust him at all. I feel that he could be hiding or conducting criminal activity in his business dealings, and also don't really like his attitude towards women (which could itself be a source of blackmail material).

Con-It's-Not-Real: I like the CIA and other intelligence agencies even less. Their bloody history with manipulation, blackmail, and human experimentation speaks for itself. I despise how much power they've gained since 9-11. You want a bunch of nationalists and sketchy operatives "building a better world", they're right there.

I mean, pretty sure the CIA probably loves the damn Muslim ban and all the nay-saying is just lip-service. It's a recruiting tool for terrorism, gives them a job to do and a nice feeling of superiority.

Pro: For all Trump's talk about the Muslim ban, he's also turning around saying that he's going to decrease the funding and staff for the intelligence community - maybe Trump isn't very committed to keeping foreign threats out after all? Specifically Trump has talked about purging the ranks of the intelligence community and removing people who have ties to the investigation of the Trump Russia connection. I'm all for reducing the size of the spook squad, but that seems a bit suspiciously targeted and political.

Con: But the intelligence community is inherently untrustworthy. They hold back information all the time to make it seem like something is there when it isn't. I considered briefly maybe they wanted in on a piece of the "blackmail Trump" pie, but if they were blackmailing him Trump couldn't make threats to shrink them like he is.

Ultimately we have little information besides that the intelligence agencies think that this Russia connection is "credible" and 24-7 news coverage that says even less. Which in of itself raises questions.

So I see about four possible explanations here.

1) It's real, Trump has been blackmailed or is colluding with foreign powers for profits, investigators are keeping a tight lid on it to gather more information.

2) It's real, Trump is trying to take out whistleblowers and is in CYA mode, but the intelligence community is continuing to try to use the leverage of what they know against Trump. Trump is bluffing that he will take them down first because he can't risk whatever it is being known.

3) It might be sorta real but the importance of it all is greatly exagg

RIVERLOVE

Friday, February 17, 2017 5:02 AM

BYTEMITE

Friday, February 17, 2017 5:03 AM

Maybe I do need to respond. I like your thoughts here, I was considering some of them at the time of writing but I forgot to include them.

- The emails. Yes. I wanted to discuss this and forgot. I think there was hacking - Trump even was goading Russia to keep hacking, though maybe that was a joke. But there is reason that Putin would not want Hillary in the whitehouse, besides the fact that she is also untrustworthy and the Clintons have kinda made a mess in the middle east. Hillary questioned Putin's election results in 2012, and I think he's had it out for her since. I also think Russia/Putin have the resources to do this hacking.

I also think both sides were hacked, and only Clinton's were leaked for the same reason. I think everyone probably has egg on their face over this.

And yes, I think they looked the other way on purpose. I think initially that the intelligence community wanted Trump in office, not Clinton. I think they thought they could control Trump.

The way they were not forthcoming about the hacking or the email leaks is why I mentioned how they had a history of concealing or downplaying information while intending to use it to their advantage later.

-"Trump was an idiot to start out of the gate with negative remarks about the Intel community." Yeah, that is seriously dangerous.

-Yeah I really don't like his attitude towards women. Putin is maybe Trump trying to be diplomatic (or make bundles of money) but it's also kinda weird. It's not like we haven't had presidents before willing to speak openly about leaders of countries that we have poor relationships with.

-"I don't think they want that job any larger than it already is." I think they just like the feeling of power, but maybe I am turning them into more of a boogeyman than they are.

-"they're all untrustworthy!" Amen.

BYTEMITE

Friday, February 17, 2017 5:05 AM

Quote:

Yeah, I think there's no question just how that particular leak might have happened.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 17, 2017 7:11 AM

At this point Byte, I'm really just going to sit this one out and see what happens. If you look in other threads here, the regular left seems to be having a big party and celebrating the undeniable impeachment. If fff.net RWED were your only source of news, it would sure seem that it was an undeniable fact.

If I had to pick one of your 3 options in your first post, I would probably go with 3.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Friday, February 17, 2017 10:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
At this point Byte, I'm really just going to sit this one out and see what happens. If you look in other threads here, the regular left seems to be having a big party and celebrating the undeniable impeachment.

The only opinions about impeachment that count are those of Congressional Republicans. The Democrats have already decided Trump has to go. Maybe the Republicans will flip on Trump, but only if he really screws up badly, say, dancing naked in the fountain at the World War II Memorial. It could happen if Trump’s dementia gets worse. Sad -- for his embarrassed children.

The nine most insane moments from Donald Trump’s reality-challenged press conference
https://qz.com/912956/real-leaks-fake-news-nine-insane-moments-from-tr
umps-press-conference/

Here Are Your Highlights of Today's Trump Press Meltdown
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/here-are-your-highlights-todays
-trump-press-meltdown

Donald Trump’s explanation for why he fired Michael Flynn makes no sense
www.vox.com/2017/2/16/14640956/trump-press-conference-flynn-fired

By the way, the entire point of this press conference seemed to be directed at one thing: accusing the press of being horrible and dishonest. This came up in nearly every Trump answer. This is a great strategy for shoring up his base, of course. As near as I can tell, conservatives all thought this dumpster fire of a press conference was a terrific performance.

SECOND

Friday, February 17, 2017 8:06 PM

Trump suggested he could boost his popularity by destroying a Russian naval ship operating off the US East Coast—but that he would do the politically unpopular thing and seek a peaceful relationship with Moscow instead.

The US president said the following, making reference to his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson:

“If we could get along with Russia, that’s a positive thing. We have a very talented man, Rex Tillerson, who’s going to be meeting with them shortly, and I told him, I said, ‘I know politically it’s probably not good for me.’ The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say, ‘Oh, it’s so great.’ That’s not great. That’s not great. I would love to be able to get along with Russia. Now, you’ve had a lot of presidents that haven’t taken that tack. Look where we are now.

In fact, shooting the Russian ship “out of the water” would be well outside the bounds of legality, very likely provoke a heavily armed foreign power. The US would face an increased likelihood of similar attacks on its own ships around the globe, with Russia and other potential enemies drawing justification from the US’s aggressive, out-of-the-blue act.

THGRRI

Friday, February 17, 2017 8:39 PM

Hi BYTEMITE. If you watched Trumps press conference 2-16-17, you may have thought shit, I've seen sore losers before, but this is the first time I've seen a sore winner.

He was caught in real time, lying. "Creating fake news", and his beliefs were out of touch with reality. He was spiteful, disrespectful and vengeful towards most everyone there, and not there.

It was as if he needed a fix. To stand in front of the TV camera and play to his base. He said he was enjoying himself. He was rude and treated everyone poorly. He scared a lot of people. Republicans and Democrats. On and off the record.

And yes the Russian thing is real. We need to get to the bottom of what's going on. It isn't just what we know about the contacts with Russia during the campaign. Or long before by some of his aids. It's also about the way he speaks about them. It's way out of character for him. He has been critical of all our allies ( that's beginning to change ) but with Russia and Putin it's always good. He says they are the moral equivalent to the United States. When he was confronted with Putin being a murderer, he said we murder to. He pointed to Iraq. I recognize the tone of speak he displays for Russia. I see it here everyday with SIG THE TROLL and 1kiki.
---------------------

SIGNYM

Friday, February 17, 2017 10:33 PM

I don't think it's useful to imagine the "intelligence community" as an undifferentiated mass. I think the CIA-NSA-StateDepartment form their own nexus, as a group of rogue lawbreakers who do whatever they want, If the CIA doesn't get the money it wants, they fund themselves through illegal activities, and the State Department just goes sucking up to those quasi-government NGOs to do their dirty work for them.

and the DIA and FBI form another. I have no idea where the remaining 13 intelligence groups stand.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

BYTEMITE

Friday, February 17, 2017 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

If I had to pick one of your 3 options in your first post, I would probably go with 3.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I respect that Jack. You and I have had a hard time seeing eye to eye lately, but perhaps some of that has been that you've felt like you had to keep defending yourself from other people.

That response indicates to me that you're listening to both sides and you're weighing them carefully.

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE