To use the old bullshit that everyone trots out whenever secrecy or privacy is mentioned.
It may be that there is nothing there but we won't know unless it is investigated properly.
You could claim that this, like the tax release and Trump's overall buffoonery, are diversionary tactics to dilute opposition to policies like tax cuts for the rich, healthcare, environmental cuts but he does not seem that devious. Or he is that smart and excellent at playing an arrogant and naive liar.
All evidence says that Trump is doing what he believes is best for the country, and has no malicious or criminal motives. If anyone disagrees, I don't care.
I always try to think about this. I felt the same way about Obama, and I think it's fair to say the majority of politicians align with this. For better or for worse, what they are doing is what they feel is the right thing. We argue over things we can't know for sure, sometimes you just have to have faith.
I am very happy he got elected. I don't support him, or his politics, but he was the most harmless candidate.
This is basically what I was saying when talking about it before the election. Best case scenario he gets next to nothing done--and that was honestly the best thing to hope for between the two candidates. The best case scenario in the sense of Clinton was that we'd not have called North Korea's bluff, or some such.
There was a time where publishing a story that cited anonymous sources and had nothing else to corroborate it was considers tabloid level at best. I can't believe that not only does that pass for journalism today, ...
We don't get news anymore, we don't get facts, but we get opinions. Every story is an opinion, every story has a purpose, and nobody is innocent in this matter. It's all editorials, we just don't use that term anymore.
I'm all for investigating when accusations are made. But accusations without evidence should not be taken seriously by the media.
The diversion is being pushed by his opponents, and not his allies. So I don't think that theory has merit.
I think people believe that if you can paint an image vivid enough, many will believe it to be true. And I do think it works on some.
At my work there is a pro-Trump guy and an anti-Trump one. They always argue one point or another, and I always question both about why they believe that statement to be true. It almost always comes down to "Because some guy said so".
When I manipulate them into saying that, they usually become much less sure about it. But until then they did believe it, despite having no evidence.
Other people choose what to believe based on what will support their existing ideas.
And then there are some that use evidence. I consider myself among these, but I get the feeling everyone thinks that.
Both sides have failed to convince me of anything except that everyone is full of shit and can not be trusted.
All evidence says that Trump is doing what he believes is best for the country, and has no malicious or criminal motives. If anyone disagrees, I don't care. But if anyone has any evidence for or against that statement, I would love to have it pointed out.
My personal take on it all is that I am very happy he got elected. I don't support him, or his politics, but he was the most harmless candidate. I knew he would be under incredible scrutiny. By both sides. And any crazy actions he wanted to take would be curtailed. And that has been the case.
Hillary scared the fuck out of me. She was far more capable, knows how to play the game, knows and has greased all the right people, was hungry for wars and has a history of ruthlessness and dealing with evil.
So since Bernie wasn't an option, I'm glad the orange guy got it. And I'm not going to regret that until someone can show some credible sign that I was wrong.
There was a time where publishing a story that cited anonymous sources and had nothing else to corroborate it was considers tabloid level at best. I can't believe that not only does that pass for journalism today, but in places like Eddit users will say I'm the ignorant one for not believing "credible anonymous" sources. I have actually seen that contradictory phrase used. It's painful for me to read, so I mostly stay away from politics these days. Though, looks like I ranted a bit here.