ADVERTISEMENT

Trump called Putin today to congratulate him on his election

995w3.jpg
 
I gotta be honest. I don't see the scandal here. Russia isn't a super power anymore, but they are still a global adversary and a country we have diplomatic relationships. Congratulating a leader on winning an election is basically pro forma. Means nothing.
Really? I would say that when Trump's advisors wrote in capital letters on his briefing book "DO NOT CONGRATULATE" and Trump does any way then it is a big deal. It was not pro forma according to any form that any previous President might have followed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
Really? I would say that when Trump's advisors wrote in capital letters on his briefing book "DO NOT CONGRATULATE" and Trump does any way then it is a big deal. It was not pro forma according to any form that any previous President might have followed.
I don't give three shits what Trump's advisors write on anything. I'm not saying this is a "nothingburger," because I'm not an idiot or a hack, but I just don't think this is a huge deal. At the very least, it will be forgotten after Trump's first tweet tomorrow.
 
I don't give three shits what Trump's advisors write on anything. I'm not saying this is a "nothingburger," because I'm not an idiot or a hack, but I just don't think this is a huge deal. At the very least, it will be forgotten after Trump's first tweet tomorrow.
With all due respect, I don't think you are updating properly. This is politically costly to Trump...that he spends his political capital on Putin even in the context of everything that has happened reveals important information about Trump. It is not a huge deal because of all the other accumulated evidence that shows Trump is in Putin's pocket. I would say that Putin should read this as greenlighting more assassinations, interventions in our election etc.
 
With all due respect, I don't think you are updating properly. This is politically costly to Trump...that he spends his political capital on Putin even in the context of everything that has happened reveals important information about Trump. It is not a huge deal because of all the other accumulated evidence that shows Trump is in Putin's pocket. I would say that Putin should read this as greenlighting more assassinations, interventions in our election etc.
With all due respect, I think you are ignoring context. This kind of story only matters with people who are already opposed to Trump. Supporters dismiss it, and the few straddlers who are still left probably few it as a big pile of "Meh."
 
With all due respect, I think you are ignoring context. This kind of story only matters with people who are already opposed to Trump. Supporters dismiss it, and the few straddlers who are still left probably few it as a big pile of "Meh."
The degree to which the President of the United States is an agent not of the American people or of the Republic rather than of Putin is an open and serious question. This event is important because it gives us relevant information--that is simply a fact, in my view--whether or not Trump opponents, supporters or straddlers know it or not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...bc50284fce8_story.html?utm_term=.23118b2ca2b6
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/ralph-peters?utm_term=.wuAmGoVam#.jrdAYvx2A
As a Russia analyst for many years, it also has appalled me that hosts who made their reputations as super-patriots and who, justifiably, savaged President Obama for his duplicitous folly with Putin, now advance Putin's agenda by making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign. Despite increasingly pathetic denials, it turns out that the "nothing-burger" has been covered with Russian dressing all along. And by the way: As an intelligence professional, I can tell you that the Steele dossier rings true--that's how the Russians do things.. The result is that we have an American president who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow.​
 
I think it’s even more telling that his advisors told him to publicly condemn the agents being poisoned and Trump refused to do that either.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s even more telling that his advisors told him to publicly condemn the agents poisoning and Trump revised to do that either.
The UK being our closest ally after all. Well, by our ally, I mean the United States and its people. Trump's closest ally is Putin.
 
Nah, if you go by most theologians I have ever heard, the A.C. will actually come across as a pretty great guy at first. He will not hit the scene with 50ish percent of the world populace hating his guts.

Trying not to go down into a big theology discussion but the old saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, well that would kind of apply to whomever that guy will be. He is supposed to start off as a peacemaker who will transform into a monster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaxCoke
Nah, if you go by most theologians I have ever heard, the A.C. will actually come across as a pretty great guy at first. He will not hit the scene with 50ish percent of the world populace hating his guts.

Trying not to go down into a big theology discussion but the old saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, well that would kind of apply to whomever that guy will be. He is supposed to start off as a peacemaker who will transform into a monster.
Meanwhile back in the real world Russia is preparing worse attacks on us
On March 15, the Department of Homeland Security together with the FBI announced that Russian government hackers infiltrated critical infrastructures in the U.S.—including “energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors.” According to the DHS-FBI report, malicious Russian activities have been ongoing since at least March 2016. The Russian malware, which has been sitting in the control systems of various U.S. utilities, allows the Russians to shut off power or sabotage the energy grids. And they have done it before: The same malware that took down Ukraine’s electrical grid in 2015 and 2016 has been detected in U.S. utilities. The potential damage of a nationwide black out—let’s say on Election Day—would be significant, to say the least. And while Russian trolls and bots have captured public attention, they are already yesterday’s game. As I write in a recent Brookings paper, the future of political warfare is in the cyber domain.
The disinformation tools used by Moscow against the West are still fairly basic: They rely on exploiting human gullibility, vulnerabilities in the social media ecosystem, and lack of awareness among the public, the media, and policymakers. In the very near term, however, technological advancements in artificial intelligence and cyber capabilities will open opportunities for malicious actors to undermine democracies more covertly and effectively than what we have seen so far. Increasingly sophisticated cybertools, tested primarily in Ukraine, have already infected Western systems, as evidenced by the DHS-FBI report. An all-out attack on Western critical infrastructure seems inevitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUPaterade724
The UK being our closest ally after all. Well, by our ally, I mean the United States and its people. Trump's closest ally is Putin.
I agree they are our closest ally. No doubt in my book.... but where was the condemnation when Obama tried to strong arm them on Brexit? You know, the interference in other countries politics? He went over there and told them they would have to get “in back of the line “ for trade deals.

You are really stretching on this.....
 
White House won't say if Russian election was 'free and fair'
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ont-say-if-russian-election-was-free-and-fair

We’re focused on our elections. We don’t get to dictate how other countries operate,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters.
“What we do know is that Putin has been elected in their country, and that's not something that we can dictate to them — how they operate," she added.

What do you guys think of this new approach?
 
I think it’s even more telling that his advisors told him to publicly condemn the agents being poisoned and Trump refused to do that either.


Leak about the leak being leaked? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Can't wait for the leak about Kelly being furious about the leak about Kelly being furious over the Trump fury over the leak of him congratulating Putin despite being briefed not to congratulate him.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PatKline
The degree to which the President of the United States is an agent not of the American people or of the Republic rather than of Putin is an open and serious question. This event is important because it gives us relevant information--that is simply a fact, in my view--whether or not Trump opponents, supporters or straddlers know it or not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...bc50284fce8_story.html?utm_term=.23118b2ca2b6
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/ralph-peters?utm_term=.wuAmGoVam#.jrdAYvx2A
As a Russia analyst for many years, it also has appalled me that hosts who made their reputations as super-patriots and who, justifiably, savaged President Obama for his duplicitous folly with Putin, now advance Putin's agenda by making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign. Despite increasingly pathetic denials, it turns out that the "nothing-burger" has been covered with Russian dressing all along. And by the way: As an intelligence professional, I can tell you that the Steele dossier rings true--that's how the Russians do things.. The result is that we have an American president who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow.​
The degree to which our President is beholden to Russian interests for any reason is a huge f***ing deal. I just don't think the fact that one President congratulates another for winning an election tells us much about the answer to that important question.
 
Meanwhile back in the real world Russia is preparing worse attacks on us
On March 15, the Department of Homeland Security together with the FBI announced that Russian government hackers infiltrated critical infrastructures in the U.S.—including “energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors.” According to the DHS-FBI report, malicious Russian activities have been ongoing since at least March 2016. The Russian malware, which has been sitting in the control systems of various U.S. utilities, allows the Russians to shut off power or sabotage the energy grids. And they have done it before: The same malware that took down Ukraine’s electrical grid in 2015 and 2016 has been detected in U.S. utilities. The potential damage of a nationwide black out—let’s say on Election Day—would be significant, to say the least. And while Russian trolls and bots have captured public attention, they are already yesterday’s game. As I write in a recent Brookings paper, the future of political warfare is in the cyber domain.
The disinformation tools used by Moscow against the West are still fairly basic: They rely on exploiting human gullibility, vulnerabilities in the social media ecosystem, and lack of awareness among the public, the media, and policymakers. In the very near term, however, technological advancements in artificial intelligence and cyber capabilities will open opportunities for malicious actors to undermine democracies more covertly and effectively than what we have seen so far. Increasingly sophisticated cybertools, tested primarily in Ukraine, have already infected Western systems, as evidenced by the DHS-FBI report. An all-out attack on Western critical infrastructure seems inevitable.

Ermagerd. Maybe all of that glad handing Bush and Obama did with Putin and Medvedev was a bad idea.

Take note that the same posters freaking out about Russia right now were the same ones who cheered and joined in when Obama mocked Romney for saying the Russians were our enemy. They said it was great statesmanship to talk with our enemies and said it was a good idea not to poke the bear too much with NATO expansion and missile defense.

What is going on now did not happen in a vacuum. All of this was developing under previous leadership and the same glad handing was done then as has been now. You want to lay blame for Putin on someone, look at Bush with his soul gazing and Obama with his flexibility. It starts there.

And yes, the Russians have been found to be meddling. They are doing it on both sides to agitate differences in this country. It is all laid out in a 20 year old manifesto.
 
Well he could have whispered to Putin not knowing the mic was still on that he would be more flexible after the election. Seeing DJT live in your heads 24/7 and making you crawl into a fetal position crying daily is priceless.
 
Ermagerd. Maybe all of that glad handing Bush and Obama did with Putin and Medvedev was a bad idea.

Take note that the same posters freaking out about Russia right now were the same ones who cheered and joined in when Obama mocked Romney for saying the Russians were our enemy. They said it was great statesmanship to talk with our enemies and said it was a good idea not to poke the bear too much with NATO expansion and missile defense.

What is going on now did not happen in a vacuum. All of this was developing under previous leadership and the same glad handing was done then as has been now. You want to lay blame for Putin on someone, look at Bush with his soul gazing and Obama with his flexibility. It starts there.

And yes, the Russians have been found to be meddling. They are doing it on both sides to agitate differences in this country. It is all laid out in a 20 year old manifesto.

I think Romney said Russia was our "number one geopolitical foe". That is the dispute. Russia is the toy poodle that barks and snarls continuously as you walk buy. China is the Rottweiler that simply looks at you with the "if ever I slip this leash, I will eat you". Take a look at the size of their economies. Take a look at the size of their military. China has long hacked into our systems and stolen IP from our corporations (and government). I would consider the rottweiler our top foe, but if others worry more about the poodle I guess I can't argue the point.
 
Ermagerd. Maybe all of that glad handing Bush and Obama did with Putin and Medvedev was a bad idea.

Take note that the same posters freaking out about Russia right now were the same ones who cheered and joined in when Obama mocked Romney for saying the Russians were our enemy. They said it was great statesmanship to talk with our enemies and said it was a good idea not to poke the bear too much with NATO expansion and missile defense.

What is going on now did not happen in a vacuum. All of this was developing under previous leadership and the same glad handing was done then as has been now. You want to lay blame for Putin on someone, look at Bush with his soul gazing and Obama with his flexibility. It starts there.

And yes, the Russians have been found to be meddling. They are doing it on both sides to agitate differences in this country. It is all laid out in a 20 year old manifesto.
Take note, diplomats and traitors both talk to the enemy but they are entirely different. One is trying to advance our interests (as was clearly true with all our previous presidents of both parties) while the other is not trying to advance our interests (as is increasingly clear with this President). This both-sidesism is false...both sides don't do what Trump is doing vis Russia.
 
The degree to which our President is beholden to Russian interests for any reason is a huge f***ing deal. I just don't think the fact that one President congratulates another for winning an election tells us much about the answer to that important question.
Bayes Rule is hard...maybe one of us is f***ing it up. I am happy to be enlightened and I could be wrong...but the model I am using is similar to the one we discussed in the previous thread with testing...except here we need to account for strategic incentives.

The basic idea is that the way for Trump to avoid revealing any bad information about himself would be to follow the diplomatic instructions given to him in capital letters. That is what everyone would do who wanted to avoid sending the politically costly signal that one is in bed with the Russians. If you are mostly not in the pocket of the Russians this is what you would do--dominant strategy as the game-theorists might say. The fact that Trump does not send this signal reveals exactly what Trump's advisors wanted him not to reveal: it reveals important and bad information about Trump's type.

You fundamentally misunderstand the strategic situation to say this reduces to "one President congratulates another for winning and election". You think that this isn't a big deal because it doesn't impose big costs on the public. But those aren't the costs that are relevant. The relevant costs are the ones imposed on the President. What is necessary is that the President incurs costs (political) that would easily dissuade regular (even mildly disloyal) types. That they don't dissuade this President implies he is something other than regular or mildly disloyal.
 
Well he could have whispered to Putin not knowing the mic was still on that he would be more flexible after the election. Seeing DJT live in your heads 24/7 and making you crawl into a fetal position crying daily is priceless.
You seem to regard your fellow citizens as your enemies. They aren't. They aren't crawling into a fetal position and crying, they are talking directly to you about stuff that is important for you and them. Join the conversation.
 
I agree they are our closest ally. No doubt in my book.... but where was the condemnation when Obama tried to strong arm them on Brexit? You know, the interference in other countries politics? He went over there and told them they would have to get “in back of the line “ for trade deals.

You are really stretching on this.....
Brexit was not in the interests of the British people. Obama was trying to explain to the Brits that it was an error. But Obama did not interfere in that election...unlike the Russians.

And this is somehow equivalent (or worse) to congratulating Putin for stealing an election after using chemical weapons to attempt an assassination in the UK?
 
With all due respect, I think you are ignoring context. This kind of story only matters with people who are already opposed to Trump. Supporters dismiss it, and the few straddlers who are still left probably few it as a big pile of "Meh."
Trump supporters are not a monolithic group. They've been peeling off since Day One, little by little. Each has their own reason for dumping him. I see no reason to think this won't add to the cumulative effect.
 
Take note, diplomats and traitors both talk to the enemy but they are entirely different. One is trying to advance our interests (as was clearly true with all our previous presidents of both parties) while the other is not trying to advance our interests (as is increasingly clear with this President). This both-sidesism is false...both sides don't do what Trump is doing vis Russia.

How did Obama advance our interests with Russia? How did his flexibility comment advance our interests? Did it stop an invasion of Ukraine? The uranium deal the Hillary was wrapped in while SoS, how did that advance our interests? You can go back further than that to Bush. He got caught up in 9/11 and wanted to treat Putin like some kind of friend because he got the googly eyes with him.

Is Trump misstepping w.r.t. Russia? I think so. However, that would make him the third administration in a row to do so. I just think this collusion stuff is conspiracy theory when much simpler reasons are probably more valid.
 
Brexit was not in the interests of the British people. Obama was trying to explain to the Brits that it was an error. But Obama did not interfere in that election...unlike the Russians.

And this is somehow equivalent (or worse) to congratulating Putin for stealing an election after using chemical weapons to attempt an assassination in the UK?
Just to get it out of the way - Trump is an idiot for congratulating Putin, but he’s an actual idiot.

Have to comment on your matter of fact statement that Brexit wasn’t in the interest of the British people because that is in no way a fact and is entirely opinion. You’re not British either, and if I was British I think I’d find it insulting. I didn’t care one way or the other about Brexit. It was entirely up to the Brits and the majority decided. Who are you to tell them it wasn’t in their best interest?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Hack
Just to get it out of the way - Trump is an idiot for congratulating Putin, but he’s an actual idiot.

Have to comment on your matter of fact statement that Brexit wasn’t in the interest of the British people because that is in no way a fact and is entirely opinion. You’re not British either, and if I was British I think I’d find it insulting. I didn’t care one way or the other about Brexit. It was entirely up to the Brits and the majority decided. Who are you to tell them it wasn’t in their best interest?
If you were my closed friend and I thought you were about to make a mistake...perhaps goaded on by a Russian disinformation campaign...I would tell you what I thought and then I would respect your decision. Seems exactly like what Obama did.
Whether Brexit is in the interests of the British people is entirely a matter of what you care about (opinion) and what the actual consequences will be (not opinion).

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-economic-cost-of-brexit-in-gdp-2017-11
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/world/europe/brexit-divorce-demands.html
https://www.ft.com/content/e3b29230-db5f-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...raling-costs-britain-vote-leave-eu/930816001/
 
I don't have an issue with the exchange of banal pleasantries. The optics are bad for Trump due to obvious reasons, but every president works on an assumption "if I treat dictator X kindly I can reset relations". The problem for me comes from what followed the banal pleasantries, no mention of telling the toy poodle to keep its yap shut (worded ever so slightly nicer).
 
I just think this collusion stuff is conspiracy theory when much simpler reasons are probably more valid.
Trump does stuff that everyone this side of the Kremlin tells him is stupid and counterproductive. I know that your recommendation to me is to take my partisan glasses off and try to see it clearly. For example, try to see it through your eyes. It is a worthwhile exercise. I am pretty much the last person to believe in conspiracy theories...they are hard to coordinate and nearly impossible to keep secret. But this conspiracy is less and less secret all the time. So take try taking your partisan lens off...imagine that Hillary was the repub and Trump the dem..,imagine what it would like to you.
 
Bayes Rule is hard...maybe one of us is f***ing it up. I am happy to be enlightened and I could be wrong...but the model I am using is similar to the one we discussed in the previous thread with testing...except here we need to account for strategic incentives.

The basic idea is that the way for Trump to avoid revealing any bad information about himself would be to follow the diplomatic instructions given to him in capital letters. That is what everyone would do who wanted to avoid sending the politically costly signal that one is in bed with the Russians. If you are mostly not in the pocket of the Russians this is what you would do--dominant strategy as the game-theorists might say. The fact that Trump does not send this signal reveals exactly what Trump's advisors wanted him not to reveal: it reveals important and bad information about Trump's type.

You fundamentally misunderstand the strategic situation to say this reduces to "one President congratulates another for winning and election". You think that this isn't a big deal because it doesn't impose big costs on the public. But those aren't the costs that are relevant. The relevant costs are the ones imposed on the President. What is necessary is that the President incurs costs (political) that would easily dissuade regular (even mildly disloyal) types. That they don't dissuade this President implies he is something other than regular or mildly disloyal.
You're messing it up. Since P(congratulatory phone call)=1.0, it doesn't add any information to P(Trump is a Russian plant).
 
ADVERTISEMENT