Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

[Joe Bagadonuts]

lol, this is about how you interpret the statement by Obama. In that case you do, in fact, interpret it in the worst possible light.

Obama was absolutely hammered for that statement. It looked extremely bad. It was terrible for his campaign. No one thought it was a positive thing or a meh thing. It was a slimy statement that looked bad. So stop trying to act like we gave that one a pass but had it been Trump it would have been different. Trump has already said far worse and despite the never-Trumpers going ape-**** 100 times already over Trumps disgustingness , he's still the President. People going ape-**** over someone they don't like is not the barometer by which we measure how good or bad a thing is. In the end Obama's comment was cryptic. We can't say what it meant. It isn't proof of anything.

You may be right. The fact is that I don't recall Obama being hit hard for this statement. I heard some right wingers freak out about it, but my recollection is that the mainstream media said essentially what you are saying about it from the very first.

And maybe you have more info about the Russian investigation than I do, but it appears to me that most of the Trump haters do not need any actual evidence to convict him. All they seem to need is accusation. An accusation comes out and they soil themselves over the shock and awe.

 

[Gameface]

You may be right. The fact is that I don't recall Obama being hit hard for this statement. I heard some right wingers freak out about it, but my recollection is that the mainstream media said essentially what you are saying about it from the very first.

And maybe you have more info about the Russian investigation than I do, but it appears to me that most of the Trump haters do not need any actual evidence to convict him. All they seem to need is accusation. An accusation comes out and they soil themselves over the shock and awe.

I don't know if anything from the Russia investigation is going to pan out. And I mean, as in convictions relating to Russia and the Trump campaign. So far it seems it has just snagged a couple crooked people who were involved in the campaign but not based directly on the things they did for the campaign. I have no idea if any of it will lead directly to Trump. But I do think there is justification for the investigation based on the info out there.

There are three levels here:

1 -- Justification to investigate further
2 -- Indictments, meaning there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial.
3 -- Criminal convictions, people are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

No where on that list is how much the media is talking about this or what public opinion is. Those don't count for anything.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't know if anything from the Russia investigation is going to pan out. And I mean, as in convictions relating to Russia and the Trump campaign. So far it seems it has just snagged a couple crooked people who were involved in the campaign but not based directly on the things they did for the campaign. I have no idea if any of it will lead directly to Trump. But I do think there is justification for the investigation based on the info out there.

There are three levels here:

1 -- Justification to investigate further
2 -- Indictments, meaning there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial.
3 -- Criminal convictions, people are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

No where on that list is how much the media is talking about this or what public opinion is. Those don't count for anything.

I don't disagree with your three numbered statements at all but I strongly disagree with your conclusion. Public opinion and the media are major drivers.

And regarding your earlier statement claiming that I was interpreting Obama's statement in the worst possible light, how do you even know my interpretation of Obama's statement? All I said is that it would be the biggest piece of evidence against Trump had he said it. The bottom line is that, to date, this investigation has not shown anywhere near the results that the never Trump camp is proclaiming it has. The possibility exists that most people will eventually look back upon it as a wild goose chase and an epic waste of time and resources. I sincerely hope that Muller knows something big that the people who are praising his work so far do not. Otherwise he's simply taking everyone on a massive fishing expedition.

 

[Red]

So, the latest leaks have Mueller investigating Flynn's dealings with Turkey, including a plan to kidnap a Turkish cleric and return him to Turkey in exchange for $15 million.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-flynn-during-presidential-transition-n819616

"Four people familiar with the investigation said Mueller is looking into whether Flynn discussed in the late December meeting orchestrating the return to Turkey of a chief rival of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who lives in the U.S. Additionally, three people familiar with the probe said investigators are examining whether Flynn and other participants discussed a way to free a Turkish-Iranian gold trader, Reza Zarrab, who is jailed in the U.S. Zarrab is facing federal charges that he helped Iran skirt U.S. sanctions.

Mueller is specifically examining whether the deal, if successful, would have led to millions of dollars in secret payments to Flynn, according to three sources familiar with the investigation."

 

[LogGrad98]

lol, this is about how you interpret the statement by Obama. In that case you do, in fact, interpret it in the worst possible light.

Obama was absolutely hammered for that statement. It looked extremely bad. It was terrible for his campaign. No one thought it was a positive thing or a meh thing. It was a slimy statement that looked bad. So stop trying to act like we gave that one a pass but had it been Trump it would have been different. Trump has already said far worse and despite the never-Trumpers going ape-**** 100 times already over Trumps disgustingness , he's still the President. People going ape-**** over someone they don't like is not the barometer by which we measure how good or bad a thing is. In the end Obama's comment was cryptic. We can't say what it meant. It isn't proof of anything.

This.

Trump would be hit hard for it. But so was Obama. Are people really this blind?

Affirming this "this".


Also yes people are this blind. It is mob mentality at its finest.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't disagree with your three numbered statements at all but I strongly disagree with your conclusion. Public opinion and the media are major drivers.

And regarding your earlier statement claiming that I was interpreting Obama's statement in the worst possible light, how do you even know my interpretation of Obama's statement? All I said is that it would be the biggest piece of evidence against Trump had he said it. The bottom line is that, to date, this investigation has not shown anywhere near the results that the never Trump camp is proclaiming it has. The possibility exists that most people will eventually look back upon it as a wild goose chase and an epic waste of time and resources. I sincerely hope that Muller knows something big that the people who are praising his work so far do not. Otherwise he's simply taking everyone on a massive fishing expedition.

Public opinion and the media are major drivers of what exactly? They are decidedly NOT the drivers of "rightness".

 

[infection]

You may be right. The fact is that I don't recall Obama being hit hard for this statement. I heard some right wingers freak out about it, but my recollection is that the mainstream media said essentially what you are saying about it from the very first.

And maybe you have more info about the Russian investigation than I do, but it appears to me that most of the Trump haters do not need any actual evidence to convict him. All they seem to need is accusation. An accusation comes out and they soil themselves over the shock and awe.

Obama’s comment to Medvedev was hardly covered by mainstream media. Right wing sources were the only places that covered it and “hit him hard.” I watched NBC cover it for 30 seconds, mentioning it matter of factly in the context of other people being upset by it, then moving on. Now whether or not it was newsworthy and how big of a deal should be made out of it is beside the point that I’d argue, but to say he was hit hard for it by anything other than right-leaning outlets is inaccurate. Trump was hit more hard by mainstream outlets for accepting a phone call from the president of Taiwan.

If people believe that Obama is a decent guy who’s trying his best, it makes sense that if he made comments to Medvedev that are superficially scary, that really there’s probably not much to them. If people fundamentally believe Trump is nothing more than a narcissistic, xenophobic dickhead, then it makes sense to respond accordingly when he accepts a call from the president of Taiwan.

 

[Stoked]

If you do a google search of the Obama/Putin open mic there are tons are articles. NY Times, LA Times, Reuters, Washington Post, Politico, RealClear, Politifact, Guardian, Telegraph, ABC, Washington times.

Strangely I don't see a single CNN or MSNBC article...huh

 

[Red]

If you do a google search of the Obama/Putin open mic there are tons are articles. NY Times, LA Times, Reuters, Washington Post, Politico, RealClear, Politifact, Guardian, Telegraph, ABC, Washington times.

Strangely I don't see a single CNN or MSNBC article...huh

I just ran Obama/Putin open mic on google search and a CNN article was in 8th position....

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Public opinion and the media are major drivers of what exactly? They are decidedly NOT the drivers of "rightness".

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I just ran Obama/Putin open mic on google search and a CNN article was in 8th position....

Did you know that CNS and CNN are not the same thing... at all.

 

[Gameface]

Wow, the only thing I can find with a search from CNN is an article with the 10 biggest hot mic gaffes... and the Obama/Putin one is not on their top 10 list.

 

[infection]

If you do a google search of the Obama/Putin open mic there are tons are articles. NY Times, LA Times, Reuters, Washington Post, Politico, RealClear, Politifact, Guardian, Telegraph, ABC, Washington times.

Strangely I don't see a single CNN or MSNBC article...huh

There’s no doubt it was covered, the argument is that Obama “took heat” over it. The fact that everyone keeps saying it was an Obama/Putin hot mic is interesting, if not telling.

I just ran Obama/Putin open mic on google search and a CNN article was in 8th position....

Here’s that article. Would be curious where the heat is. I think Joe hits it on the head. As you read through, ask yourself if this article would read the same if it were Trump:

https://www.google.com/amp/politica...n-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/amp/

Seoul, South Korea (CNN) — In a private conversation about the planned U.S.-led NATO missile defense system in Europe, President Barack Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for space on the issue.

“This is my last election,” Obama told Medvedev. “After my election I have more flexibility.”

— Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

“I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev said, referring to incoming President Vladimir Putin.

The two leaders talked Monday during a formal one-on-one meeting ahead of the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea. In video they are seen seated, almost huddled, facing each other, each man with his elbows on his knees, leaning in closely over a small table, as they speak intently. Part of the exchange was caught on camera at the end of the 90-minute meeting as reporters and cameras entered the room for a quick photo opportunity of Obama and Medvedev.

It’s a prickly issue between the two countries. NATO and U.S. leaders insist the project is designed to protect against a potential Iranian strike and would not be used against Russia. But Russia bristles at having a missile defense system so close to its border, arguing it violates Russian sovereignty.

“The United States is committed to implementing our missile defense system, which we’ve repeatedly said is not aimed at Russia,” said Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, in a statement. “However, given the longstanding difference between the U.S. and Russia on this issue, it will take time and technical work before we can try to reach an agreement.”

Rhodes acknowledged the difficulty of finding a solution when politics are at play. “Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough. Therefore, President Obama and President Medvedev agreed that it was best to instruct our technical experts to do the work of better understanding our respective positions, providing space for continued discussions on missile defense cooperation going forward.”

I think we really miss the mark about how we understand bias. I think people believe that if something is ok or justified then that removes bias. For instance, all of us here have hated the Lakers in the past. We have good reason and are justified but that doesn’t mean we’re not biased.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Wow, the only thing I can find with a search from CNN is an article with the 10 biggest hot mic gaffes... and the Obama/Putin one is not on their top 10 list.

Prob got bumped by “grab her by the *****” eh?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stoked]

I find the description of Obama/Putin Open Mic not to be “telling” (as you mean it) at all. It is a very accurate description of the situation.

It is interesting the apparent silence from CNN. I’ve long thought very poorly of MSNBC so I’m not surprised there.

 

[infection]

I find the description of Obama/Putin Open Mic not to be “telling” (as you mean it) at all. It is a very accurate description of the situation.

It is interesting the apparent silence from CNN. I’ve long thought very poorly of MSNBC so I’m not surprised there.

It’s the fact that it was Medvedev, not Putin, which just speaks more to the general unfamiliarity with it. Sessions meeting with the Russian ambassador garnered more attention/“heat.”

 

[Stoked]

It’s the fact that it was Medvedev, not Putin, which just speaks more to the general unfamiliarity with it. Sessions meeting with the Russian ambassador garnered more attention/“heat.”

You are correct that it was Medvedev. Completely missed that.

 

[Red]

Did you know that CNS and CNN are not the same thing... at all.

Using my iPad, I believe I ran the search query exactly as Stoked phrased it: "Obama/Putin open mic". A CNN piece was in 8th place, a CNS piece was in 9th place.

This is the CNN piece that came up:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ssian-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/

Now, it's possible my iPad suffered from confirmation bias. Not trying to be sarcastic. I run searches for political news a lot, always use Google, and CNN comes up a lot. Whatever the cause, I guess I don't really know why my search would be the only one that returned a CNN result, and nobody else got that result. You did have me going, though. If I had mistaken CNS for CNN, I was prepared to apologize, but I just ran it again, and the above CNN article was in the 8th position.

I used google, not google news, since it happened a few years ago.

I could take a screen shot of my search results if needed, or folks could take my word for it that it was 8th in the returned results....

 

[infection]

Using my iPad, I believe I ran the search query exactly as Stoked phrased it: "Obama/Putin open mic". A CNN piece was in 8th place, a CNS piece was in 9th piece.

This is the CNN piece that came up:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ssian-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/

Now, it's possible my iPad suffered from confirmation bias. Not trying to be sarcastic. I run searches for political news a lot, always use Google, and CNN comes up a lot. Whatever the cause, I guess I don't really know why my search would be the only one that returned a CNN result, and nobody else got that result. You did have me going, though. If I had mistaken CNS for CNN, I was prepared to apologize, but I just ran it again, and the above CNN article was in the 8th position.

I used google, not google news, since it happened a few years ago.

That’s exactly the article I posted. I think it’s important to keep focused on what we’re debating — whether or not Obama took heat for that. I’d urge you to read the article. It quotes what happened, then the entire body of the article side-steps the actual issue. The title of the article doesn’t even contain the actual heat of the issue — that Obama was asking for space outside the public arena for political reasons and he had more latitude after his election because it’s “[his] last election.”

 

[Red]

There’s no doubt it was covered, the argument is that Obama “took heat” over it. The fact that everyone keeps saying it was an Obama/Putin hot mic is interesting, if not telling.



Here’s that article. Would be curious where the heat is. I think Joe hits it on the head. As you read through, ask yourself if this article would read the same if it were Trump:

https://www.google.com/amp/politica...n-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/amp/



I think we really miss the mark about how we understand bias. I think people believe that if something is ok or justified then that removes bias. For instance, all of us here have hated the Lakers in the past. We have good reason and are justified but that doesn’t mean we’re not biased.

Sorry, did not realize you had come up with the same article before I replied to Joe's observation that I had confused CNS for CNN....