andythinkpad
Member
Putitin must showed a peepee gif preview.
THE HORROR!
THE HORROR!
The entirety of Washington journalism is built on anonymous sources.Well I guess you are right, when I read something attributed to an unnamed source my eyes just glaze over.
Well I guess you are right, when I read something attributed to an unnamed source my eyes just glaze over.
Well I guess you are right, when I read something attributed to an unnamed source my eyes just glaze over.
You're falling for the spin. Don't fall for the spin.Well I guess you are right, when I read something attributed to an unnamed source my eyes just glaze over.
You're right. You do it by firing the guy heading the investigation, then meeting in private with Russians the very next day and disclosing sensitive intelligence.Donald, this is not how you pretend you didn't collude with the Russia.
Well I guess you are right, when I read something attributed to an unnamed source my eyes just glaze over.
Being skeptical of anonymous sources is fine. Completely ignoring reports based off them is willful blindness, considering how many stories based off anonymous reporting has been validated through named congressional testimony these last few months.
You're falling for the spin. Don't fall for the spin.
Unless it fits your narrative, I'm sure.
I'm not, I even said i'm not saying it isn't happening, I just don't see any "there" there in the story.
I'm not, I even said i'm not saying it isn't happening, I just don't see any "there" there in the story.
What would that be?
You don't see a problem with an administration that is suspected of colluding with Russia to attack an election attempting to water-down a bill sanctioning Russia for attacking an American election?
Yeah, OK.
So, here's the thing. It's not illegal to leak stuff like this. This is not classified information. The reason the source remains unnamed is so that the source can keep their job, but they're not at a huge amount of risk here. So, my point is, I don't see why it's hard to understand that places like the washington post and nyt have access to people that know these things. In fact, it's relatively simple to get access to sources who would be in the know for this type of thing. And Wapo and the NYT do not make stories off of only one source.
You guys are all conflating what I've actually said and are spoiling for a fight where there is none.
You guys are all conflating what I've actually said and are spoiling for a fight where there is none.
You said your eyes glaze over when you hear unnamed sources. How am I supposed to interpret that as anything other than a misunderstanding of how journalism works?
Unless there is a third interpretation of your statement I don't see, neither ways are a reasoned and informed position to take.
If your statement is that you're ignoring the report based off anonymous sourcing, then as we've explained that is not reasonable.
If your statement is that you see no 'there' there about the Trump Admin trying to kill a bill sanctioning the Russian attack on the election that brought Trump to power, that is also not a reasonable position.
You're welcome to restate your position more clearly.
I was being sarcastic there. Sorry that my opinion on this article ruffled so many feathers.
What would that be?
I think Tillerson is probably right that the bill is TOO stringent and would tie the executive branch's hands in terms of dealings with Russia (Tillerson has been an unexpectedly professional and competent surprise, tbh), but, like, it's your fault for tying yourself to the "Russia guy" in the first place, dude.
I think Tillerson is probably right that the bill is TOO stringent and would tie the executive branch's hands in terms of dealings with Russia (Tillerson has been an unexpectedly professional and competent surprise, tbh), but, like, it's your fault for tying yourself to the "Russia guy" in the first place, dude.
Why bother hiding it when they've faced no repercussions outside of losing Flynn?they're not even hiding it anymore are they?
This kind of news plays up or brings to discussion a rift in House ans senate GOP I haven't paid enough attention to.
They tried so hard to get the AHCA through the house but knew it wouldn't fly in the senate.
The Senate GOP goes nearly lockstep on this regulation and the WH just says fuck, the REAL GOP is all in the house.
weird.
The fuck? They attacked us! Nothing is too stringent.
I think Tillerson is probably right that the bill is TOO stringent and would tie the executive branch's hands in terms of dealings with Russia (Tillerson has been an unexpectedly professional and competent surprise, tbh), but, like, it's your fault for tying yourself to the "Russia guy" in the first place, dude.
I'm gonna make a pair of assumptions here: 1) the Trump team was colluding with Russia, and 2) part of the collusion is to soften the United States official stance on Russian sanctions. I know a lot of people are looking at the situation from a US centric position of how will Trump misstep this or how will the GOP react, but what I want to know is how will Putin react. We know he attempted (and possibly succeeded somewhere) in altering voter registration. We have evidence that Russian spies were mapping the US power grid and that the Kremlin is supposedly developing a cyber weapon that can disrupt the power grid. What is Putin going to do if Trump fails to soften the US stance?
The reason for that is because the Senate can't rely on gerrymandering to win elections, so they have to be careful not to do anything that will piss off most of America.
I think Tillerson is probably right that the bill is TOO stringent and would tie the executive branch's hands in terms of dealings with Russia (Tillerson has been an unexpectedly professional and competent surprise, tbh), but, like, it's your fault for tying yourself to the "Russia guy" in the first place, dude.