White House Discord: Bob Woodward Book, NYT Op-Ed

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You sound kind of proud of him. And really impressed

Not sure where you're getting the proud part. As for impressed, I think amazed is a better word. I'm amazed that he can accomplish anything, let alone a lot, in the chaotic environment he is facing (partly of his own making, but also very much fueled by those who hate him). I certainly don't admire him.

I have said this for a long time on this site and feel like I've been consistently misunderstood. Trump is not the sort of guy I want to be president of this country, but he is nowhere near as bad as his haters are truing to make him out to be. They take every quote and action and then interpret it in the worst possible way. Watching CNN and MSNBC it often feels like the pundits are in an unspoken competition to see who can come up with the most nefarious possible explanation. This overreaction by the haters is playing to Trump's advantage with some people. It is clear that a lot of these people hate everything Trump does or says purely for political reasons. They are okay with breaking virtually any rule in order to take him down. They are okay with any breach of ethics so long as it's committed by a liberal player. The situation is really quite laughable.

Here is an example: It has become absolutely clear that Peter Strozk was utilizing his position in the FBI to protect Hillary and harm Trump. There is indisputable proof that he was purposely leaking information to the press in order to accomplish both those objectives. If you are unaware of this truth it is entirely because you are only watching press that wants to protect the liberal agenda.

Now, please see if you can find a single liberal commentator who cares? You can easily find examples of liberals calling Strozk a hero. You can't find anyone calling him out for utilizing the FBI for his own purposes. Just imagine the outrage if we ever discover that a prominent member of the intelligence community is leaking to the media in order to harm a liberal politician. Saying that they would go bonkers is an understatement.

 

[LogGrad98]

The ends justify the means

 

[One Brow]

Here is an example: It has become absolutely clear that Peter Strozk was utilizing his position in the FBI to protect Hillary and harm Trump. There is indisputable proof that he was purposely leaking information to the press in order to accomplish both those objectives. If you are unaware of this truth it is entirely because you are only watching press that wants to protect the liberal agenda.

For those of us not following whatever media you follow, please lay out the indisputable proof (naturally, that means there is a specific action you can point to). I'm aware of text messages (which got plenty of play in the liberal media), but nothing else.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

For those of us not following whatever media you follow, please lay out the indisputable proof (naturally, that means there is a specific action you can point to). I'm aware of text messages (which got plenty of play in the liberal media), but nothing else.

There are messages where Page is telling Strozk about stories to be leaked and identifying the media being leaked to, and then Strozk is congratulating her when those stories actually come out. It's pretty clear what was going on. The "media leak strategy" that they were discussing in previously released texts was clearly not a strategy to prevent leaks as Strozk's attorney has laughably claimed, but a strategy to create leaks. If whatever media you follow isn't informing you about this stuff then it might be time to broaden your sources.

 

[One Brow]

There are messages where Page is telling Strozk about stories to be leaked and identifying the media being leaked to, and then Strozk is congratulating her when those stories actually come out. It's pretty clear what was going on. The "media leak strategy" that they were discussing in previously released texts was clearly not a strategy to prevent leaks as Strozk's attorney has laughably claimed, but a strategy to create leaks. If whatever media you follow isn't informing you about this stuff then it might be time to broaden your sources.

Please lay out how any leak protected Hillary; that is, what was the threat, and how did that leak prevent the threat from occurring?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Please lay out how any leak protected Hillary; that is, what was the threat, and how did that leak prevent the threat from occurring?

I didn't say the leak strategy was to protect Hillary. It was to harm Trump.

 

[Gameface]

I didn't say the garbage man is trying to Make the world better. It is just to remove garbage.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Well said. This has been my stance for a long time. I think countries with multiple viable political parties have better representation as a whole because it can shift in multiple directions and allow multiple different viewpoints. In our country you largely get 2, and those are becoming worse and worse.

Abortion for all / No abortion for anyone
Guns for everyone / no guns for anyone
Tax the rich / Feed the rich

We do end up with policy that reflects some middle ground, but largely we miss out on the best solutions because everyone is so caught up in their end of the dichotomy. IMO we have become more and more extreme in political views among our politicians, while the populace generally have remained largely in the middle ground on the issues that really affect them. I also think the rise of social media has had a huge influence on the political spectrum, allowing mob mentality to enlist people in their homes instead of trying to reach people through traditional news media. It allows hysteria to reign instead of some semblance of reason and balance.

And we have never been more divided as a nation politically.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rowing-partisan-divide-over-political-values/

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507#pone-0123507-g002

Here is a plot of congressional voting along party lines over time:

But to me this is a chicken and egg scenario. Is the middle really shrinking, and the populace in generally moving toward the extremes, so they are voting in more extreme candidates? Or is the political machine only putting forward extreme candidates, so people adopt their views to justify their votes, or vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" since that is all that is presented? Do the politicians affect the political atmosphere in American more, or does the populace?

Here is another interesting article:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-politics-poll-democrats-republicans/1965431/



I hope he is right and that this will work itself out, and I also hope we can somehow minimize the damage done in the meantime. Frankly I find it frightening that a person like Donald Trump would even ever be taken seriously as a candidate, let alone elected, and I wish it would function as a wake-up call that we have slipped over the edge and are hanging on by our fingertips. But I am afraid we have become lemmings to the political demagogues and so we will rush headlong over the cliff, blissfully ignoring the dangers while we smugly "win" arguments in nebulous internet forums and 45 character tweets.

The slow death of the Blue Dogs is evidence enough. Trump has given them opportunity to regain prominence (regaining D seats in areas he surprised in) and moderate the process once again - "big tent" democrats hate them for it - but even they aren't expecting a lasting resurgence. They are out best hope for any semblance of a third party, or a home for someone like me. Oh well.

 

[gandalfe]

There are messages where Page is telling Strozk about stories to be leaked and identifying the media being leaked to, and then Strozk is congratulating her when those stories actually come out. It's pretty clear what was going on. The "media leak strategy" that they were discussing in previously released texts was clearly not a strategy to prevent leaks as Strozk's attorney has laughably claimed, but a strategy to create leaks. If whatever media you follow isn't informing you about this stuff then it might be time to broaden your sources.

Are you going to actually provide links to this?

 

[fishonjazz]

I didn't say the leak strategy was to protect Hillary. It was to harm Trump.

Harm trump by making him potus?

 

[Stoked]

Harm trump by making him potus?

Intent does not always guarantee outcome.

But even if it was to help trump the principle is the same. Do we really want the FBI coordinating leaks to the press for political reasons?

 

[Red]

Intent does not always guarantee outcome.

But even if it was to help trump the principle is the same. Do we really want the FBI coordinating leaks to the press for political reasons?

Really, I doubt you'll love this answer, but it's History that will judge all this. It depends in part at what Mueller delivers to Rosenstein, whether Rosenstein decides to release what Mueller brings to the public, whether he then turns it over to Congress and what happens at that point. Everything that is happening,and happened, is part of a story that we don't really know the full outline as yet. I mean, if Trump turned out to be an actual asset of Putin and Russia, the judgement on these FBI agents will not be the same as if the whole thing was truly a nothingburger.

There were plenty of loyalists during our War of Independence. They may have thought, have judged, that the colonists forming Committees of Correspondence to coordinate responses to actions by the Crown, (in that instance, forming the Committees was one reaction to the Crown demanding that the colonists who burned the HMS Gaspee in 1772 be turned over to the Crown) were acting as traitors. Yet, as we know History judged quite differently, as a new nation was born.

Until we know how this plays out, we really don't know how History will judge all the players, large and small. Sure, on the surface, you can say well, we don't want FBI agents acting politically, but until we know what actually happened in the 2016 election, we citizens are still largely in the dark, and History's judgement is only clearest in hindsight. Time will tell, but I understand if these arguments fall on deaf ears or if they are rejected as disingenuous somehow.