[Update] CIA & FBI Report: Russia did things to help get Trump elected

[Zanten]

UnderstatedCornHole said:

 

Right well, from the get go here I'll say I agree with every single one of your points of grey areas on Trump. The important factor is that there have been so many grey areas that to argue one of them may be reasonable but to argue every single one under the guise of plausible denyiability would be disingeous, much like Russia denying involvment in Ukraine completely a couple of years ago on RT. It's plausible 50% of it is not true, it's plausible 75% of it is untrue. But it's implausible all of it is a stitch up.

I'm absolutely pro-Trump, but not to a fault; I'm not going to stand back and twist an event to suit my bias. But I would like to provide a bit of a back story, one that the Trump phenomenon has struck a cord with. (just checked your profile and you're from the UK like me so you may well be on the same page to some degree, or certainly be able to empaphise with the following).

This isn't politically correct and I'm guilty of the same thing I call the liberals out on for this, in terms of not quantifying my annoyance or concern. In essence I am sick to death of

Political correctness, dishonest politians (not liars, I mean weasils), the pussy footing around Islamic "issues" let's call them, the mainstream allegedly impartial BBC that is a beacon of hope (I need to vomit), SJWs, Youtube bloggers, liberal academic institutions, "scientiest" that have a job because of public and EU funding, neo-cons dressed as humanitarian saviours.

The fact I cannot even DISCUSS most of these topics in a public forum without the feeling that I will be made into a villain was a strong force and still is in Trump.

Back during the Ukraine situation with Crimea I watched all the news on all networks. Al Jazeeria at the time seemed the most impartial, and rightly so it had no direct vested interest, RT looked like some 2-bit recreation of the soviet era broadcasting. The BBC was fairly straight down the line in it's usual style over substance ye olde english way of not actually giving much background. CNN was a joke. Obviously all these outlets were just pouring out the government view of who was funding them.

I was so angry watching Petere Lavelle talk utter crap about Ukraine on RT, Oksana Boyko having alleged frank interviews with genuinely impartial UN representatives, and I don't mean the biased human rights wing that the BBC quotes as being the same thing as the core UN, it was a charade of epic proportions. (Just to add I'm not denying the US had some interfering there in the Ukraine).

My gripe though here is that there are no good guys, there are no bad guys, it's just one big power struggle. It just so happens when events don't impinge on a nations politics that nation's news outlets are able to be basically - honest, like Al Jazeera was.

Fast forward to the US election and we saw that same thing play out.

Trump said this, Trump said that, none of it was important or mattered to my core values of who I am or how I see the world. The introduction of feigned outrage amongst SJWs over "words" making a mainstream impact on reporting on CNN especially. Hell, Fox News had become the voice of the centre and was my go to for "fair and balanced" news!

This is one hell of a ramble to get across where I want to go and just realised it's going to take a few posts, need to have a coffee so hope can carry on shortly and actually address you directly, because I don't disagree at all in my heart or your overarching sentiment on an emotional or moral level.

I disagree with the level of value and what that means for the disputed points, how the world is really run, and it's something that has developed since that stuff in Ukraine. Back then, wrong was wrong and right was right.

Trump is not someone I would want to be my father, he is not someone I would want as a friend. He comes across quite obviously sociopathic, is he? I don't know, he needs to adopt a persona and a sociopathic one is exactly the type you need in positions where there are other power players, but from his natural ability to wade through in a subliminal way, I would strongly say I believe he is.

That sounds like strong condemnation, and if I ascribed to the liberal mantra it would be. But I don't.

Being someone of personal moral integrity is something liberals always look for, it's something liberals in power prey on. It's EASY to pull of, it's called virtue signalling and it's something even a 14 year old SJW who is so unaware of their own insignificance can do in the most honest yet ignorant way.

Politicans can do that, any politican, and well. They don't need to be good people to do it and quite the contrary. It's exploiting the concept of virtue. Obama does it as good as anyone, but Hillary mixed race and gender into that - to me that is something I don't have the word to use. The only way I can think of it is as a kind of social genocide of ones own country, treason.

 

 

Oh dear, I'm not sure if I should continue. Not really just typed from mind before and still nowhere near where want to go, well if you want to cut this apart as I'm sure it's not hard to then go for it. But again, really appreciate reading your thoughts, all good points. Maybe I need to focus a bit here :p

Just to cut to the chase, I think all politicans are evil, they all have agendas, they all have interests and I want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt because he is my only hope in the short-medium term. At this point because he is my only hope I will only prosecute him if I see guilty beyond reasonable doubt of being like all the rest. Though having said that, I'd prefer him to a liberal who exploit the human nature of desiring to be good and use it against the population. :D

 

Okay, so basically 'I'd rather do a deal with the devil than with someone dressed like an angel.' It's a sentiment I've seen crop up, from people who figure, 'eh, politicians are all totally self-interested, power-hungry liars anyway, so why not just go for the guy who is OPENLY all those things?! Least we know what we're getting!' So if we agree that Trump exhibits all those qualities I mentioned, then fair enough, I won't try to convince you he's 'a bad guy' since you already agree.

So let me instead point out two other aspects of Trump's personality; his open-for-everyone-to-gawk-at ego, and his temperament.

Now, first, the ego, which one could argue is the crux of a lot of Trump's other issues, especially his dishonesty. Trump's entire identity hinges around being a winner, but not just a winner, 'A Big Winner.' Everything he touches turns to gold, he's the smartest, has the best words, most charming, etc, etc. Even when he won the election, but lost the popular vote, he wasted little time assuring everyone that he only lost the popular vote because of voter tampering, cause The Donald NEVER loses, and The Donald NEVER settles! ;D Knock out, homerun, touchdown! *cue fireworks*

So how might this ego kick in? Well, take his approach to Taiwan.

China's in a tiff over their whole One China policy not being respected by Trump, which is likely going to be a point of contention when Trump actually makes it into office. Now, it turns out Trump isn't really doing this to make any sort of serious stand against the One China policy as a whole, i.e. 'We're not going to bow and kowtow to China, etc, etc.' Rather, statements made by his representatives indicate that he intends to use the One China policy as a bargaining chip, i.e. 'You give me trade concessions, I'll stop talking about Taiwan as if they exist. Eh? Eh? ;D '

Basically he seems determined to go all 'Art Of The Deal' on their asses, and use whatever means necessary to score 'That Big Win.' The plan being that he makes his ultimatum, China gives in, Trump comes back waving a 'Mission Accomplished' banner and making some veiled insult about Obama.

Except the government of China's OWN stubbornness and obsession with self-image match, if not dwarf, Trump's own. This is a government that has spent decades determinately trying to quash any discussion, mention or memorial to the Tiananmen Square massacre despite the fact that is is perhaps LITERALLY the worst kept secret on the face of the planet. It's why so many world leaders adhere to what is a fairly odious policy; because there's no indication China will be fucked with on this matter, and will happily shoot their own economy (and everyone else's) in the foot over the issue.

Even beyond that, it isn't hard to see that anyone who stands against or disagrees with Trump is declared all manner of terrible things, but anyone who stands WITH him or especially compliments him is a wonderful, stand-up guy, regardless of ANY other mitigating factors. If you want Trump to be 'on your side,' all you really have to do is appeal to that ego, and everything else will fall into place, which has the potential to make him pretty malleable. =P Even if there's no current link between Trump and Putin, you have to admit Putin's flattery is certainly paying off.

It's creating a climate where 'kiss the ring' isn't simply encouraged, it's almost mandatory. Trump's general dislike of protestors or any media that write something negative- even if true- about him comes from the fact that his ego demands constant stroking.

*****

And then there's his temperament. I believe, in between the whole CIA thing, he had time to get miffed at Vanity Fair because they posted a scathing review of the Trump Grill (or Grille depending on which sign you read,) which of course took him to Twitter. saturday Night Live, the president of Carrier's union, some random teenage girl that spoke against Trump, that beauty queen Hillary mentioned in one of her debates, the cast of Hamilton, Trump's rather consistently veered off course to blast anyone who adopts even a moderately critical tone of him or his coming administration.

I'm trying to picture Obama doing that about Trump during the birther incidents. 'Stupid Donald Dump, learn to read a birth certificate! Go back to your third bankruptcy. #presidenthasspoken #winning'

The President-Elect is a guy who, even with the election won, can't seem to let shit slide, even small stuff. The term 'triggered' comes to mind, and in some cases his target isn't even the person that triggered him, but is just tangentially related.

What happens when another world leader criticizes some policy Trump has made or, GOD FORBID, said they didn't like eating at Trump Grill(e)? 'Boy, UK, they used to have an Empire, now they can barely keep Scotland. #failnation #trumpwins '  'Gosh, Canada is noisy, maybe we should just make them our 51st state! #ManifestDestiny #ReadyTheTroops' 'European Union who? Unions are so completely worthless and they're run only by dumb crooks! #ExceptSoviet #BreakUpTheParty'

Those examples are obviously more an attempt at humor, but Trump hasn't actually shown enough restraint to suggest he WOULDN'T casually joke or hint at acts of war, nuclear weapons, etc, or respond to criticism aggressively. Screwing with the Geneva conventions and going after the non-combatant families of terrorists as a matter of policy were freaking CAMPAIGN statements when he was running in the primary, and he didn't even need someone to poke at him for those!

One angry tweet from him could set an entire military on alert, which is why if nothing else I REALLY hope someone takes Twitter away from him when he takes office. The idea of a 'direct line to the president's thoughts' is an interesting one, but Trump seems to lack the filter that would keep it from turning into a disaster. =P