Bach wrote:Did you bother to do any research on your own to at least determine a minimal standard of credibility to what you believed you heard? Or do you find the fully employed, 24/7 brain trust of this board the best source for informative answers?
Now I'm convinced this is a multi-user account. God, you trumptards have to do this? Ridiculous.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
honorentheos wrote:It seems the source for the reports is an upcoming article on Steele to be published in The New Yorker. Relevant quote from that article
It is actually already out, I linked it up thread. It is a bit longish but an interesting read.
:) I was referring to it's publishing date of 3/12 but yeah, it was interesting reading.
What I thought was a relevant point of discussion in the article was the standard used by intelligence gatherers compared to journalists. The comment being that intelligence gathering does not have the same standard for reasons that should seem obvious as a single source with critical intel could justify action to prevent or take advantage of something of importance that may turn out to be bad intel. Journalism standards being much higher (or should be anyway), there is something misleading in the way Steele's information is being fed to the public both with the dossier and the attack on Steele that followed as well as how this particular item is being reported on in the press. From what I understand in reading the article, the memo refers to a source describing chatter among Russian officials. What it means that there was "talk circulating in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs...that the Kremlin had intervened to block Trump's initial choice for Secretary of State Mitt Romney" could be any number of things. Steele passing this on as intel is much different than it being reported on in the media in the manner that it is being presented and discussed.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I'd believe that, too. The projection of soft power, even if it's not true, is hugely important for media management and population control.
- Doc
It's a tough call until we have further evidence. Steele has been vindicated on several counts but some of his research remains unconfirmed, I'm also reluctant to buy any document that I can't read for myself.
Given that Trump has plenty of reason to turn down Romney on his own, I'm inclined to think horsie and not zebra, at least until we can see the source of the hoofbeats.
It wouldn't be surprising that Russia wouldn't want Romney as Sec of State. He was about as hawkish as Clinton on Russia. It also wouldn't be surprising if this was communicated from Russia to team Trump through their channels given what we already know about their communications. None of this means that was a decisive factor in Romney not becoming Sec of State, though. That would be surprising, as Trump had plenty of other reasons not to select Romney.
honorentheos wrote::) I was referring to it's publishing date of 3/12 but yeah, it was interesting reading.
Ah, my mistake then, carry on.
honorentheos wrote:What I thought was a relevant point of discussion in the article was the standard used by intelligence gatherers compared to journalists. The comment being that intelligence gathering does not have the same standard for reasons that should seem obvious as a single source with critical intel could justify action to prevent or take advantage of something of importance that may turn out to be bad intel. Journalism standards being much higher (or should be anyway), there is something misleading in the way Steele's information is being fed to the public both with the dossier and the attack on Steele that followed as well as how this particular item is being reported on in the press. From what I understand in reading the article, the memo refers to a source describing chatter among Russian officials. What it means that there was "talk circulating in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs...that the Kremlin had intervened to block Trump's initial choice for Secretary of State Mitt Romney" could be any number of things. Steele passing this on as intel is much different than it being reported on in the media in the manner that it is being presented and discussed.
Excellent point. I think you nailed why I'm so hesitant to declare that it must be Russian interference given the source. It is just absolutely mind-blowing that we live in a world where this is even a possible discussion to be had...
Also, good point EA that the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive to each other. Romney not getting the green light from Trump and Russia saying "no" could both possibly happen.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
I don't think Trump needed a big push from the outside to say no to Romney. I always felt he dangled the job just because he's a sadistic s.o.b. I think Mitt Romney brings up feeling of insecurity with Trump.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land