Donald Trump makes detailed, subtle argument on Twitter

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jpietrzak8, Jun 26, 2017.

  1. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #1
    Trump's twitter screed this morning is complex, subtle, and somewhat intriguing; it seems as though he's trying to thread a needle on the Russia issue:

    Screenshot from 2017-06-26 08-59-17.png Screenshot from 2017-06-26 08-59-30.png Screenshot from 2017-06-26 09-00-21.png Screenshot from 2017-06-26 09-05-38.png

    It's a fascinating argument: (1) Russia did meddle, (2) Obama "colluded" or "obstructed" by "doing nothing", (3) Trump himself is as pure as the driven snow (because, ahem, he also did nothing), and (4) Trump should be given an apology (but by whom?).

    Ignoring the obvious strawman (Obama did nothing? Really???), there's a rather interesting dillema here: Trump says that Obama colluded with the Russians in the election. The Russians were, obviously, trying to help Trump win the election. Therefore, by indicating that the Russians had an effect on the election, Trump is implicitly admitting that the Russians helped him win.

    Trump is trying to have it both ways. For Obama, doing "nothing" implies collusion. For Trump, doing "nothing" implies a lack of collusion. He's twisted his own argument into a pretzel to argue for both of these conditions at the very same time. It's really an interesting exercise in generating flim-flam, and shows that Trump still has the knack to do it well.
     
  2. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #2
    he's not wrong in that Obama didn't seem to give a crap, in fact no one cried foul anywhere except after the whiplash effect of Hil liar y losing. it will be interesting to see how long the burn of them losing lasts.
     
  3. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #3
    Jen Psaki, former White House communications director, said this in a Hill article this morning:

    "It's simply not born out by the facts ... Last summer when the president was made aware of these attacks by Russia, he asked the intelligence community — to double down and put every resource toward figuring out what happened," she said.

    "And they put out an unprecedented statement in the early October of last year. That was before President Trump was elected. Now we were treating it as a cyberattack at the time."​

    http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...aide-we-followed-the-book-on-russian-meddling
     
  4. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #4
    Trump needs to keep his little fingers off Twitter.
     
  5. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #5

    He's out flim-flamming the flim-flammers. Are you just now waking up to this? The level of BS coming out of the MSM is too damn high.
     
  6. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #6
    Well first it's a lie. Saying Obama did nothing is a lie. And Trump denying for months that there was hacking makes him just as -if not more "guilty" for not doing anything given he had access to the intelligence. Obama did what he did because he didn't want to look like he was interfering with the election. Trump won - and his denial of the hacking was likely because because his ego and fear would not allow anything to take his "win" away. He's projecting so strongly now. And I clearly it's a distraction to keep the news cycle on this stupidity vs the Healthcare bill. Trump is also about to "lose" on the travel ban because today is the last day of the Supreme Court before vacation.
     
  7. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #7
    Could someone jog my memory as to which statement this is?
     
  8. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #8
    Separate and apart from Trump lying (Obama did many things about it, but that neither here nor there), Trump is defining words and concepts in these tweets that might come back and bite him later.

    Trump is essentially saying, that in his mind, the definition of "collusion or obstruction" is knowing about a violation and choosing not to do something about that violation. To the extent a crime requires an element of intent, which is usually shown using circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence as its so hard to get inside someone's head, Trump is basically laying out the map for how to prove it with direct evidence against himself.

    How many violations do you reckon Trump knows about and is choosing to not do anything about? In other words, how many crimes is Trump "colluding or obstructing"?
     
  9. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #9
    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national

    Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security
    Release Date:
    October 7, 2016


    [​IMG]

    For Immediate Release
    DHS Press Office
    Contact: 202-282-8010

    The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

    Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.

    Nevertheless, DHS continues to urge state and local election officials to be vigilant and seek cybersecurity assistance from DHS. A number of states have already done so. DHS is providing several services to state and local election officials to assist in their cybersecurity. These services include cyber “hygiene” scans of Internet-facing systems, risk and vulnerability assessments, information sharing about cyber incidents, and best practices for securing voter registration databases and addressing potential cyber threats. DHS has convened an Election Infrastructure Cybersecurity Working Group with experts across all levels of government to raise awareness of cybersecurity risks potentially affecting election infrastructure and the elections process. Secretary Johnson and DHS officials are working directly with the National Association of Secretaries of State to offer assistance, share information, and provide additional resources to state and local officials.

    # # #
     
  10. noekozz macrumors 6502a

    noekozz

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Location:
    212/201
    #10

    It'll be over when the tables turn at some point in the future and Dems end up controling everything. Thanks to the passing of the 51 vote rule in the senate, they'll reap what they sow on both ends, while Russia sits back and enjoys they're meddling in our elections.
     
  11. darksithpro macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #11

    Not necessarily: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

    "Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape."

    http://www.redstate.com/brandon_mor...how-trump-tool-used-hillary-campaign-day-one/

    "The hacked emails released by Wikileaks shows an interesting tidbit about how the Democrats looked at the idea of a Trump candidacy, and you can safely see that of all the candidates Hillary actively wanted to face, Trump was on the list.

    Calling them the “pied piper” candidates, team Hillary describes Trump, Cruz, and Carson as nominees that could – if handled properly – make the extreme the mainstream.

    “We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously,” it said in the email."

    This tells me they thought Trump was going to be the ultimate TV clown candidate, a surefire way for her path to victory. But the unexpected happened. He actually won. The whole thing backfired.
     
  12. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #12
    Um, ok. So you are saying that the Russians didn't want Trump to win? That they didn't help him in the general election? What exactly are you trying to say here?
     
  13. darksithpro macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #13
    I'm not the Russian Government, so I don't know what they wanted. But if we look at the facts in those emails and conversations, the Democrats wanted to elevate Trump to the top, because they wanted insane, extremist candidates to run against Hillary, so she would have an easy path to victory. It's all out there man. This is why so many people call the MSM fake news. The liberal MSM was taking marching orders from HRC camp to elevate the pied piper candidates.
     
  14. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #14
    Two different conversations though. Whatever/if the D's did anything - it is a separate conversation on whether Russia hacked or influenced the election, right?
     
  15. darksithpro macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #15
    The two are linked. Can you honestly explain why the Democrats wanted Trump to run against Hillary, only to cry Russian collusion after she lost? Why would Buba call up Trump before the election and encourage him to be more active? Why would they elevate him through the MSM and later say the Russians wanted him to win? Does that make any sense to you?
     
  16. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #16
    It sounds like a lot of cloak and dagger vs occam's razor. And again - two separate conversations. Conflating the two is what Trump is doing and many of his base are eating it up.
     
  17. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #17
    Well, obviously, Trump was such a flawed candidate that the Dems would love to run against him. It would take an enormous effort to sway enough voters to give him the presidency. Where in the world would they be able to find such support? Hmmmm...
     
  18. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #18
    The Democrats elevated Trump because they expected it would be easy to win against him. Then the Russians showed up and helped Trump, surprising the Democrats and upending their plans. Therefore, the Democrats are now crying Russian collusion

    Makes sense to me. Which part of the above doesn't make sense to you?
     
  19. darksithpro macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #19

    It's pretty simple to understand man. The Democrats during the election wanted Trump at the top of the Republican ticket, they used the MSM to elevate him past the primaries. Then after he defeated her, the Democrats came out and said the Russians wanted and tried to help Trump win. This whole collusion thing is a big which hunt for butthurt Democrats, who thought they had the election in the bag. karma bit them in the arse, and all they got now is a sea of liberal tears.
     
  20. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #20
    Try and understand the issues

    Collusion - may or may not be true
    Hacking - true
    Obstruction into the investigation - somewhat true, difficult to prove
    Democrats elevating Trump as an opponent - probably true

    Again - stop conflating things. One does not negate or confirm the others.
     
  21. darksithpro macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #21

    So, do you admit the DNC and the HRC campaign was in collusion with the MSM as a propaganda outlet to influence the election in her favor?
     
  22. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #22
    Good to see Trump is digging a deeper hole.

    There is a saying: Those who argue their innocence are the ones most guilty.

    (whatever, just tired of Drump)
     
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    I think it's crazy to believe that Obama didn't give a crap. He was probably doing what he could behind the scenes, not wanting to appear to unduly influence the process. You already had trump claiming the process was rigged. If Obama had tried to insert himself in the process, trump would have seen that as proof of rigging.

    Though I will agree on one thing. My major complaint about Obama is that he never fought hard enough for the Left. I always got the feeling that he was bending over backward to not give conservatives the chance to paint him (and others of his race) as being angry or unfit for office. Obama wanted to ensure that the legacy of our first black president was one of professionalism and stability, even if that meant not engaging in political battles as strongly as he could (and should) have. And I think this is another example of Obama seeking to keep an already tense campaign from exploding into chaos.
     
  24. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #25
    Obviously the DNC wanted to support a Democrat to represent the Democratic Party, not someone who wasn't a member of the party. That should be intuitively obvious.

    But the MSM? They loved Bernie. They gave him an insane amount of free press. Enormous quantities of favorable opinion pieces. Consider how much press the other candidate got. You remember his name, right? Right???

    If you don't, it was Martin O'Malley. I wonder why the MSM turned all their attention on Bernie and practically ignored him...
     

Share This Page