Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:29 am

https://futurism.com/grok-trump-russian-asset

Elon’s Grok Chatbot Calculates Probability That Trump Is a Russian Asset

Sucks for you that you are SO **** EASY TO MANIPULATE, DIKSUKM!! ASKING the same question gives a TOTALLY different result on Grok!!

https://x.com/i/grok/share/c1H3EycRXwDYuhCqW1nLOua23

Based on public information and the claim that Donald Trump has "failed to ever say anything negative" about Vladimir Putin, I’d approach this rating by weighing available evidence and context. The idea of Trump being a "Putin-compromised asset" stems largely from speculation, political rhetoric, and certain documented interactions, but it lacks definitive, public proof of direct compromise (e.g., explicit financial control or blackmail). Let’s break it down:

Trump has indeed made numerous positive or neutral statements about Putin over the years. For example, during the 2016 campaign, he praised Putin’s leadership style, calling him a "strong leader," and has often avoided direct criticism, even when pressed on issues like Russia’s annexation of Crimea or election interference. In 2018, at the Helsinki summit, Trump appeared to side with Putin’s denial of election meddling over U.S. intelligence findings, which fueled speculation. His reluctance to consistently condemn Putin stands out compared to other U.S. leaders.

However, "never saying anything negative" isn’t entirely accurate. Trump did approve actions against Russia—like sanctions in 2017 (albeit reluctantly, under congressional pressure) and the expulsion of Russian diplomats after the Skripal poisoning in 2018. He also authorized lethal aid to Ukraine, something Obama avoided. These moves contradict the behavior of a fully "compromised asset," though critics argue they were half-hearted or forced by circumstance.

The "compromised asset" theory often ties to unverified claims, like the Steele Dossier’s allegations of Russian leverage, or Trump’s business ties to Russian oligarchs (e.g., past real estate deals). No public evidence—court documents, financial records, or firsthand testimony—conclusively proves Putin controls Trump. Mueller’s 2019 report found no direct evidence of a conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia, though it documented Russian outreach and Trump associates’ receptiveness.

Public perception amplifies this narrative due to Trump’s demeanor and Russia’s apparent preference for his presidency (e.g., 2016 interference). Yet correlation isn’t causation. His silence on Putin could reflect strategic flattery, personal admiration, or political calculation—not necessarily compromise.

On a 1-100 scale, where 1 is "no evidence of compromise" and 100 is "definitive proof," I’d rate this a 35. There’s enough smoke—unusual praise, odd deference, and historical ties—to warrant suspicion, but not enough fire (hard evidence) to push it higher. The "never negative" claim is exaggerated, and policy actions muddy the narrative. Without classified data or new revelations, it’s an educated guess, not a slam dunk.