Or the truth is so bad that his lawyers think that was the right play? Why admit he knew of the meeting? Why maximize his guilty look by questioning the one single move of integrity: Sessions' recusal? Seriously cannot follow the legal logic and feel Two Scoops went off script as his lawyers face palmed quietly.
Wasting Russia's time and money in Syria may not be a bad outcome. The USA may be letting Russia win a lose-lose situation. Thus, Trump might be doing the right thing for all of the wrong reasons.
Which, the nation needs to admit, automatically makes him, let's say, agile w reality and flexible w truth. "Trump steaks are the best steaks!" No offense to marketers, but it comes w the territory.
My outsider take... that Trump and his people have determined that they can't possibly follow the old rule of "if you tell the truth you don't need a good memory", so instead they will tell so many different versions of their stories to make it tougher to attack any single version and hopefully one is close enough to the facts so they can slightly lie and say "see, we told the truth!"
Don't be surprised if Trump sees the tidal wave of a reaction to the interview and claims, "Fake news!" because they took his words out of context.
It would make sense because that tactic is right out of the Russian playbook for their tactic of utilizing propaganda along with the tactic of lowering everyone else to a lower level of credibility. Such tactics of planting false stories for the likes of CNN to report on that later become revealed as false makes the playing field much more on their terms to provide narratives that can be used as a pro-Trump stance that seems more likely for the people to choose. If everyone lies, and you can't believe anyone, you might as well just "go with your gut"... as Trump loves to remind everyone that feeling is more important than anything.
I disagree respectfully to a certain extent. It works really well if everyone consumed FoxNews type of media. However where really works is for those that only skim the high level of the news, and don't really know what to think and just say its all a bunch of crap... They all suck... I'm not voting. How many times in the past decade have you heard someone say something like "They all suck, or they are ALL a bunch of liars"?... more than likely that person that said that isn't a policy wonk, and doesn't watch the news. They literally think Hillary Clinton is as evil as Donald Trump and Putin because its all white noise to them. When you bring everyone down on your level to muddy the water, its harder for the general public that doesn't care to just see muddy waters, and not realize one reptile in the water is a turtle and the other is a crocodile. The passerby just sees muddy waters and decides to stay out of it... which is a win for Donald Trump and the crocodiles of the swamp.
This is spot on. It's one big reason that GOP media / Fox is currently running a lot of HIllary and anti-Demo stories. In 2018 and 2020, one of the best voter suppression programs will be to make the electorate sick of "both sides" and keep them sitting at home. Much easier and more effective than all this nonsense that Kobach will try to push through (even though that will sadly happen also).
lol uhhh they are all a bunch of liars and bought. I have said this in one way or another several times on here. but... I liked Clinton more than Trump (simply because of some social issues like gay rights that repubs finally started accepting, drug laws, net neutrality, etc.) but she was awful and the wife of a past president. the two party system is what resulted in those two awful choices. what other choice do people have? None they either vote for one of the other or do what you said in your comment. Like I said not really a choice at all. So yes "They all suck... I'm not voting" and I do not blame them one bit, expecting people to be excited and engaged because she was less awful than Trump is fools gold. Furthermore as I said Clinton was awful. But supporting someone Trump and continuing to support him is shameful. Not supporting him does not make you a democrat, it makes you a good person.
You are right too though about his base in a big way, but it has less to do with FoxNews and more to do with the scripted way he portrays himself to his base. Its important to note that its no random thing that Trump went the hardest after the nomination when he beat Ted Cruz after the most ideological voters like evangelical Christians for a reason. You are talking about people who actually give money to people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson just because they are apparently Christian and fighting the fight on their behalf while they are up to their necks in lawsuits for running scams to pay for their mansions. That's why he creates a messiah figure narrative where he plays the martyr to the enemy, and its just natural for that base to see the framework for them to sympathize with his disposition. Everyone thinks that "Trump voters" that are his base are just dumb rednecks. Not anymore, and that should scare us. Yes he won the electoral college by appealing to that one group of suckers in the rust belt that thought he was going to save coal jobs, and healthcare for everyone. But he will sustain power for some time because of his real base.. which you and I just have to look down the street to see. Its the Texas, OK, GA, AL, FL southern white Christians that will keep his arse in power. The same Christians that were wanting to vote for Ted Cruz who never in a million years thought that Trump was the better candidate for them, but are pleasantly surprised.
Clinton would have been like most main stream politicians, she is not going to go out of her way to try to destroy the white house and other government institutions as we know it.
Legal expert reviews Trump NYT interview, including how he could have hurt himself and what his possible legal defense may become... Considering Trump’s Legal Position (and Problems) After the New York Times Interview https://www.lawfareblog.com/conside...n-and-problems-after-new-york-times-interview
I have always been skeptical of the Obama policy of arming rebels, not because they aren't moderates or whatever, but because half-measures like that only get more people killed. If any other president said we weren't doing that anymore, I'd celebrate it. With Trump, I have to wonder if he's doing it for us or for Russia.
...you know what I would have REALLY liked to see happen this past election? Especially considering some of this "buyers remorse" or convenient distancing from President Trump by a lot of voters now? I would have loved for all of these people who couldn't make a choice between two "horrible" candidates...convinced that they were damned if they did or damned if they didn't...or voted simply out of infantile spite or pique... ...to have just gone ahead and voted for a third party candidate...ANY third party candidate....what real difference would it have made now, in retrospect? If the system is so broken (and to a large extent, it is), why not have that third-party number of votes be recognized, even if they are largely disorganized...like what Ross Perot did in 1992 with something like 20% of the popular vote (which, if gauging public sentiment now is any sort of indication), would have at least produced upwards of 30%... ...so what if that potential result throws the election decision into the House of Representatives? Woulda been a lot of fun seeing the Republicans choose their own President...and further expose where the problems with our government these days lay and how to fix them...the state legislatures... ...God I miss high school civics...
I'd recommend checking out this 538 article that came out about "Earth 2". https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/if-clinton-had-won/ There was alot NOT to be excited about with a Hillary presidency as the article points out. We'd still have a ton of issues, and we'd still have scandal. Nobody is denying that the "They all suck" people aren't right to a certain extent. And honesty, politics is such a drag that for my own sanity I have to tune it out for extended periods of time myself. But... I can tell that you, and I probably know enough to know that there is a big difference between Hillary and Trump even though "they all suck" is a general thought that is true. The tactic of muddying the waters doesn't work for you and I, but I do have to believe that there is a large part of the population that doesn't have the basic understanding of how things work in government to know the difference when they only see things on the surface like they do. Yes you do make a good point about being a good person.... yes a good person wouldn't hear "grab them by the p#$$y" and still cast their vote in that direction. But there is enough out there on the surface that catches these folks ears about Hillary, and Obama where "grab them by the p#$$y" is echoes with "she murdered our troops by letting them get ambushed at Benghazi" if you are only hearing the surface of the details. Not too many Americans are probably aware that 11 embassies where attacked during the Bush administration, but they sure as hell were pounded over the head that one of them was attacked during the Obama/Clinton years. That's how the GOP propaganda and now the Trump propaganda machine works. And I do strongly believe that many Americans are not as informed as you and I and that constant muddying of the waters about both sides blurs the line of what is good and evil. That's the whole point of propaganda.
