• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trump "No Answer" on Russian Associations during 01/11/2017 Press Conference

Cardinal said:
I'm sorry that you're running the election through your head on an infinite loop. But it's 2017, Trump is the president elect, and there are any number of disqualifying acts he's committed, such as bribing a state attorney general to drop the case against him for Trump University in which he stole a quarter billion dollars from regular Americans, refused to show his tax returns, bragged about committing sexual assault, was a Birther, mocked a disabled person, called POW's "losers," and threatened the stability of our North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance because a hostile foreign government manipulated him to the point that he insulted the entirety of our Intelligence community. Normally, any one of these alone would have been enough to tank a candidate.

Yes, yes, you don't care about any of that, which brings me back to my original point: Republicans don't care, ergo those things don't matter. Or rather they matter quite a lot, but Republicans won't be credible partners in those discussions.
Click to expand...

None of those are disqualifying. Trump is still age 35, and has still been a natural born citizen for 14 years.

Donald Trump has not done anything that would jeopardize him having a security clearance like with Hillary, who set up a private e-mail server in order to avoid government transparency and skirt compliance rules.
 
Absentglare said:
You're confusing the leaders motives with the method of manipulating the public to support the war.

Why did the US have so much public support for the invasion of Iraq? Because the public was told to fear its WMDs.

Why did the US have so much public support for the Vietnam or Korean wars? Because the public was told to be scared of communism.
Click to expand...

There actually wasn't great support for Korea or Vietnam.
 
reinoe said:
None of those are disqualifying. Trump is still age 35, and has still been a natural born citizen for 14 years.

Donald Trump has not done anything that would jeopardize him having a security clearance like with Hillary, who set up a private e-mail server in order to avoid government transparency and skirt compliance rules.
Click to expand...

Are you certain of that? No, you aren't. In fact because of, in part, his bizarre behavior and growing concerns about his mental stability the adults in the room are no doubt planning on how to share a little as necessary with Trump as the can. It is becoming obvious that they cannot work with Trump so in the interest of the nation they are likely doing all they can to work around him.

Most people who have served in the military would tell you that people with high clearances would be in deep **** if their behavior was as bizarre as Trump's. Trump is a security risk. There is no doubt in my mind that our allies are most reticent about sharing intel with the US if they believe that they might be compromised because of Trump's inability to act presidential and diplomatic; his inability to keep his mouth shut; because of his murky business experiences; because of his refusal to share his taxes; because of his refusal to put his businesses in a blind trust; because of his closeness to Putin and Russia. In essence Trump is a candidate for blackmail, bigly.
 
Jack Hays said:
There actually wasn't great support for Korea or Vietnam.
Click to expand...

There wasn't great support for Iraq, either. Turns out there are a lot of smart people who tend to be liberal and that can see through lies and fearmongering.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Are you certain of that? No, you aren't. In fact because of, in part, his bizarre behavior and growing concerns about his mental stability the adults in the room are no doubt planning on how to share a little as necessary with Trump as the can. It is becoming obvious that they cannot work with Trump so in the interest of the nation they are likely doing all they can to work around him.

Most people who have served in the military would tell you that people with high clearances would be in deep **** if their behavior was as bizarre as Trump's. Trump is a security risk. There is no doubt in my mind that our allies are most reticent about sharing intel with the US if they believe that they might be compromised because of Trump's inability to act presidential and diplomatic; his inability to keep his mouth shut; because of his murky business experiences; because of his refusal to share his taxes; because of his refusal to put his businesses in a blind trust; because of his closeness to Putin and Russia. In essence Trump is a candidate for blackmail, bigly.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely wrong. Bizarro world levels of wrong.

Other intel agencies are hesitant to share information with us because our CIA gave credibility to a man who was paid to generate stories as opposition researcher. Tony Blair was removed from his position as prime minister because he bought into the lies of "Do you want the smoking gun to be a mushroom could". Other intel agencies would be hesitant to share information with us because we have people like James Clapper flat out lying on national television. Other intel agencies would be hesitant to share information with us because our own agencies are frequently the source of leaks and it's been revealed that we were spying on Angela Merkel. Would you share secrets with someone who is a notorious liar and gossip? That's what our intelligence agencies have devolved into:::liars and gossip queens.

And until Trump fumigates our intelligence agencies and brings credibility to them again I suspect that they will continue to be untrustworthy and unreliable. If other nations don't share information with us then it's because of Obama politicizing our intelligence agencies and corrupting them. Trump needs to clean house.
 
reinoe said:
You are absolutely wrong. Bizarro world levels of wrong.

Other intel agencies are hesitant to share information with us because our CIA gave credibility to a man who was paid to generate stories as opposition researcher. Tony Blair was removed from his position as prime minister because he bought into the lies of "Do you want the smoking gun to be a mushroom could". Other intel agencies would be hesitant to share information with us because we have people like James Clapper flat out lying on national television. Other intel agencies would be hesitant to share information with us because our own agencies are frequently the source of leaks and it's been revealed that we were spying on Angela Merkel. Would you share secrets with someone who is a notorious liar and gossip? That's what our intelligence agencies have devolved into:::liars and gossip queens.

And until Trump fumigates our intelligence agencies and brings credibility to them again I suspect that they will continue to be untrustworthy and unreliable. If other nations don't share information with us then it's because of Obama politicizing our intelligence agencies and corrupting them. Trump needs to clean house.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm not wrong. I've personally known men who had their clearances blown for much less than what is going on with Trump.
 
Jack Hays said:
The US did not invade Iraq in response to 9/11.
Click to expand...

No, they invaded because Saddam was a thorn in the side that became infected when he started accepting Euros for oil. But the principle that Goering described was used to justify that and a bunch of other stuff at the time.
 
Absentglare said:
There wasn't great support for Iraq, either. Turns out there are a lot of smart people who tend to be liberal and that can see through lies and fearmongering.
Click to expand...

The wars in Korea and Vietnam were pursuant to the policy of containment, which ultimately resulted in Cold War victory without a major military confrontation with the Soviet Union. The decision to invade Iraq was made at the outset of the GWB administration; it had nothing to do with fear.
 
Grand Mal said:
No, they invaded because Saddam was a thorn in the side that became infected when he started accepting Euros for oil. But the principle that Goering described was used to justify that and a bunch of other stuff at the time.
Click to expand...

If you are going to broaden Goering's "principle" to include all efforts to drum up public support that's fine, but you thereby drain it of most meaning. The decision to invade Iraq was made at the outset of the GWB administration.
 
Jack Hays said:
The wars in Korea and Vietnam were pursuant to the policy of containment, which ultimately resulted in Cold War victory without a major military confrontation with the Soviet Union. The decision to invade Iraq was made at the outset of the GWB administration; it had nothing to do with fear.
Click to expand...

And the policy of containment was motivated by fear. Thank you for proving my point and making your previous argument look so very foolish.
 
Absentglare said:
And the policy of containment was motivated by fear. Thank you for proving my point and making your previous argument look so very foolish.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are way off base. Containment was a rational foreign policy strategy crafted by one of the great foreign policy professionals in American history, George F. Kennan. It was actually based on confidence, the confidence that if Soviet expansion were contained over time the internal contradictions in the Soviet system would bring it down.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you are way off base. Containment was a rational foreign policy strategy crafted by one of the great foreign policy professionals in American history, George F. Kennan. It was actually based on confidence, the confidence that if Soviet expansion were contained over time the internal contradictions in the Soviet system would bring it down.
Click to expand...

Again, you are confusing the motives of the leaders with the means by which the public is manipulated into supporting armed conflict.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm sorry that you're running the election through your head on an infinite loop. But it's 2017, Trump is the president elect, and there are any number of disqualifying acts he's committed, such as bribing a state attorney general to drop the case against him for Trump University in which he stole a quarter billion dollars from regular Americans, refused to show his tax returns, bragged about committing sexual assault, was a Birther, mocked a disabled person, called POW's "losers," and threatened the stability of our North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance because a hostile foreign government manipulated him to the point that he insulted the entirety of our Intelligence community. Normally, any one of these alone would have been enough to tank a candidate.

Yes, yes, you don't care about any of that, which brings me back to my original point: Republicans don't care, ergo those things don't matter. Or rather they matter quite a lot, but Republicans won't be credible partners in those discussions.
Click to expand...


reinoe said:
None of those are disqualifying.
Click to expand...

As I said, Republicans aren't credible partners in those discussions.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm sorry that you're running the election through your head on an infinite loop. But it's 2017, Trump is the president elect, and there are any number of disqualifying acts he's committed, such as bribing a state attorney general to drop the case against him for Trump University in which he stole a quarter billion dollars from regular Americans, refused to show his tax returns, bragged about committing sexual assault, was a Birther, mocked a disabled person, called POW's "losers," and threatened the stability of our North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance because a hostile foreign government manipulated him to the point that he insulted the entirety of our Intelligence community. Normally, any one of these alone would have been enough to tank a candidate.

Yes, yes, you don't care about any of that, which brings me back to my original point: Republicans don't care, ergo those things don't matter. Or rather they matter quite a lot, but Republicans won't be credible partners in those discussions.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call all of those "disqualifying" but certainly none is anything to be proud of. This is a good time to remember Trump's core supporters (both Repub anT Dem) are attitudinal, not ideological or position-driven. Their point is that "attention must be paid."
 
reinoe said:
You are absolutely wrong. Bizarro world levels of wrong.

Other intel agencies are hesitant to share information with us because our CIA gave credibility to a man who was paid to generate stories as opposition researcher. Tony Blair was removed from his position as prime minister because he bought into the lies of "Do you want the smoking gun to be a mushroom could". Other intel agencies would be hesitant to share information with us because we have people like James Clapper flat out lying on national television. Other intel agencies would be hesitant to share information with us because our own agencies are frequently the source of leaks and it's been revealed that we were spying on Angela Merkel. Would you share secrets with someone who is a notorious liar and gossip? That's what our intelligence agencies have devolved into:::liars and gossip queens.

And until Trump fumigates our intelligence agencies and brings credibility to them again I suspect that they will continue to be untrustworthy and unreliable. If other nations don't share information with us then it's because of Obama politicizing our intelligence agencies and corrupting them. Trump needs to clean house.
Click to expand...

This is false from front to back.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
I wouldn't call all of those "disqualifying" but certainly none is anything to be proud of. This is a good time to remember Trump's core supporters (both Repub anT Dem) are attitudinal, not ideological or position-driven. Their point is that "attention must be paid."
Click to expand...

For the record, I'm not using "disqualifying" in the technical sense, but in the informal "Yeah, it's technically not disqualifying for the office of the Presidency, but holy Jesus, that person needs to be as far from the Oval Office as humanly possible" sense.
 
Cardinal said:
For the record, I'm not using "disqualifying" in the technical sense, but in the informal "Yeah, it's technically not disqualifying for the office of the Presidency, but holy Jesus, that person needs to be as far from the Oval Office as humanly possible" sense.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I suspect we've had Presidents who have checked most of those boxes or something similar.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is false from front to back.
Click to expand...

Wait, so you're saying that there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? You're saying that when James Clapper said that we do not gather information on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans he was telling the truth? Whoo boy. Wow, it's you vs reality on that front. Good luck!
 
Cardinal said:
For the record, I'm not using "disqualifying" in the technical sense
Click to expand...
I accept your retraction. You're constantly wrong on these sorts of issues so I'm used to it. Donald Trump is among the most qualified people to ever hold office.
 
reinoe said:
Wait, so you're saying that there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? You're saying that when James Clapper said that we do not gather information on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans he was telling the truth? Whoo boy. Wow, it's you vs reality on that front. Good luck!
Click to expand...

CIA gave no credibility to the Trump dossier. Blair was quite well aware that "the intelligence was being fixed around the policy" on Iraq, and he signed on for reasons of his own. Iraq WMD was certainly not CIA's finest hour, but the decision to invade preceded the intel; it did not follow it. Clapper was surprised by a question in public that could not be answered truthfully in public because it referred to a classified program. His mistake was to mislead rather than simply deferring the discussion to closed session. Even that, however, would have revealed the existence of a classified program. For me the real irresponsibility was in the question. In almost all cases it is the agencies' intel customers rather than the agencies themselves who leak. Merkel? Why do you think countries spy on allies? Because allies lie. There is no problem with intel sharing.
 
Jack Hays said:
CIA gave no credibility to the Trump dossier. Blair was quite well aware that "the intelligence was being fixed around the policy" on Iraq, and he signed on for reasons of his own. Iraq WMD was certainly not CIA's finest hour, but the decision to invade preceded the intel; it did not follow it. Clapper was surprised by a question in public that could not be answered truthfully in public because it referred to a classified program. His mistake was to mislead rather than simply deferring the discussion to closed session. Even that, however, would have revealed the existence of a classified program. For me the real irresponsibility was in the question. In almost all cases it is the agencies' intel customers rather than the agencies themselves who leak. Merkel? Why do you think countries spy on allies? Because allies lie. There is no problem with intel sharing.
Click to expand...

For Clapper and others in the intelligence community, lying and deception is a way of life. That's what they do.

How can it possibly be intelligent or rational to believe a man whose professional art form is deception?
 
Thoreau72 said:
For Clapper and others in the intelligence community, lying and deception is a way of life. That's what they do.

How can it possibly be intelligent or rational to believe a man whose professional art form is deception?
Click to expand...

Actually, quite the reverse is true. In the intelligence profession truth is prized above all else.
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, quite the reverse is true. In the intelligence profession truth is prized above all else.
Click to expand...

It may be prized, but it sure isn't practiced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom