Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 220749 times)

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1600 on: June 13, 2018, 04:37:00 PM »
Just checking to make sure everybody here is aware that North Korea shares a border with Russia.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1601 on: June 14, 2018, 05:53:47 PM »
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!

This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)

You read that and go "Man, that is shady."

Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.

Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)

"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8781
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1602 on: June 14, 2018, 07:16:55 PM »
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!

This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)

You read that and go "Man, that is shady."

Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.

Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)

"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

neither of those articles are refuting the 75 criminal charges that have already been handed down.
Again, they are arguing over whether or not there has been "collusion*" between Trump and the Russians, while ignoring that criminal wrongdoing has already been proven by multiple guilty pleas.

Regardless of whether Trump was involved or just surrounded by criminals through happenstance, the investigation has already produced fruit.

*even though its been discussed at legnth its worth repeating that collusion as a legal term is not a crime, whereas conspiracy and obstruction are. In that sense proclaiming "no collusion" is rather meaningless.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1603 on: June 14, 2018, 07:20:11 PM »
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!

This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)

You read that and go "Man, that is shady."

Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.

Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)

"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

neither of those articles are refuting the 75 criminal charges that have already been handed down.
Again, they are arguing over whether or not there has been "collusion*" between Trump and the Russians, while ignoring that criminal wrongdoing has already been proven by multiple guilty pleas.

Regardless of whether Trump was involved or just surrounded by criminals through happenstance, the investigation has already produced fruit.

*even though its been discussed at legnth its worth repeating that collusion as a legal term is not a crime, whereas conspiracy and obstruction are. In that sense proclaiming "no collusion" is rather meaningless.

In area's not directly linked to the 2016 election.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8781
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1604 on: June 14, 2018, 07:39:53 PM »
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!

This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)

You read that and go "Man, that is shady."

Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.

Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)

"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

neither of those articles are refuting the 75 criminal charges that have already been handed down.
Again, they are arguing over whether or not there has been "collusion*" between Trump and the Russians, while ignoring that criminal wrongdoing has already been proven by multiple guilty pleas.

Regardless of whether Trump was involved or just surrounded by criminals through happenstance, the investigation has already produced fruit.

*even though its been discussed at legnth its worth repeating that collusion as a legal term is not a crime, whereas conspiracy and obstruction are. In that sense proclaiming "no collusion" is rather meaningless.

In area's not directly linked to the 2016 election.
First off - that's not correct.  Papadopoulos pleaded guilty about lying to the FBI about a obtaining "dirt" on Clinton during the campaign. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador during the campaign. 13 Russian nationals and three companies were charged for election meddling.
So yes, some of the indictments and guilty pleas are directly linked to the 2016 election. Others (e.g. most of the charges against Manafort) are from before the campaign started.

Second - it shouldn't matter whether federal crimes committed are directly related to the election or not. Crimes are crimes, regardless of whether they happened in 2014 or 2016/17. 

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1605 on: June 14, 2018, 08:12:40 PM »
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!

This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)

You read that and go "Man, that is shady."

Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.

Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)

"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

neither of those articles are refuting the 75 criminal charges that have already been handed down.
Again, they are arguing over whether or not there has been "collusion*" between Trump and the Russians, while ignoring that criminal wrongdoing has already been proven by multiple guilty pleas.

Regardless of whether Trump was involved or just surrounded by criminals through happenstance, the investigation has already produced fruit.

*even though its been discussed at legnth its worth repeating that collusion as a legal term is not a crime, whereas conspiracy and obstruction are. In that sense proclaiming "no collusion" is rather meaningless.

In area's not directly linked to the 2016 election.
First off - that's not correct.  Papadopoulos pleaded guilty about lying to the FBI about a obtaining "dirt" on Clinton during the campaign. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador during the campaign. 13 Russian nationals and three companies were charged for election meddling.
So yes, some of the indictments and guilty pleas are directly linked to the 2016 election. Others (e.g. most of the charges against Manafort) are from before the campaign started.

Second - it shouldn't matter whether federal crimes committed are directly related to the election or not. Crimes are crimes, regardless of whether they happened in 2014 or 2016/17.

That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.

Regarding the 13 companies

"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"

From the Aaron Mate article.

Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8781
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1606 on: June 15, 2018, 06:17:59 AM »

That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.

Regarding the 13 companies

"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"

From the Aaron Mate article.

Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

I believe this is an example where concentrating on small details and refuting their importance causes some to lose sight of the larger picture - missing the forest for all the trees, as the saying goes.
People who less familiar with white collar crimes find the the number of charges filed first remarkable (75+) and then disappointing.  It's important to keep the larger context in mind.
We know from statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was a coordinated and extensive effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election with the aim of damaging HRC and supporting DJT.  Full stop.  We've also seen from the various indictments issued by Mueller's investigation that there were individuals who also interfered in the election, but may have done so simply for financial gain.  These two findings are not mutually exclusive.

In addition, we have multiple US citizens who were in close proximity with the current POTUS who have been charged with crimes against the United States.  Manafort and Gates leads that list, with charges that include conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, failure to register as a foreign agent, among others.  Each of these charges have sentences of several years in prison, with the cumulative total of around 80 years. 
Flynn, a US General and the National Security Advisor plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian Contacts, which to be clear is an obstruction charge. Papadopoulos did the same.

So - "Big Picture" here - multiple people who helped run DJT's election campaign have been charged with crimes which i) carry substantial prison time and ii) involve dealing with and/or lying about their contacts with Russia. Nothing can wash that away.  Guilty pleas are evidence of guilt, and both Flynn and Papadopoulos have plead guilty to lies made to the FBI during the campaign. The charges against Manafort & Gates are the ones which came largely from before teh campaign, but that doesn't make them any less newsworthy, particularly since Manafort, the man now accused of conspiracy against the US - was selected by Trump to lead his campaign.  It's possible that Trump knew nothing about this, which points to some extraordinarily poor vetting on his campaign. Or its possible that he knew and either didn't beleive it or didn't care. Regardless, finding ex post facto that the person who very recently led your operation is facing 8 decades in prison for crimes agains the US would be considered a major problem for any large organization.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1607 on: June 15, 2018, 06:38:05 AM »
Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

No one can help you if you believe there's nothing directly involving the election.  The indicments, the guilty pleas...the FACTS say otherwise.

Penn42

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 253
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1608 on: June 16, 2018, 06:42:21 AM »
"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

I cannot believe I'm actually about to participate in this thread.... But here goes nothing!

The great thing about liars is you always get to hold them to their word.  In any semi normal situation their lies or hypocrisies will at the least discredit them.  I'm no lawyer, but I would guess whether or not he is a trustworthy individual has little to do with the legal standing of any of his statements of intent.  I don't think there's any such thing as the "I was just lying" defense.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1764
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1609 on: June 16, 2018, 07:12:07 AM »
"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

I cannot believe I'm actually about to participate in this thread.... But here goes nothing!

The great thing about liars is you always get to hold them to their word.  In any semi normal situation their lies or hypocrisies will at the least discredit them.  I'm no lawyer, but I would guess whether or not he is a trustworthy individual has little to do with the legal standing of any of his statements of intent.  I don't think there's any such thing as the "I was just lying" defense.

It's also important to remember that Trump lies for personal gain. He gains nothing by admitting to obstruction. But to be fair, Trump can say and do anything and his loyal followers will still support him. 

I can't imagine the inevitable shit storm conservatives would be bringing down on the WH if this were a Dem behaving this way.   

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1610 on: June 16, 2018, 07:55:29 AM »

That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.

Regarding the 13 companies

"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"

From the Aaron Mate article.

Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

I believe this is an example where concentrating on small details and refuting their importance causes some to lose sight of the larger picture - missing the forest for all the trees, as the saying goes.
People who less familiar with white collar crimes find the the number of charges filed first remarkable (75+) and then disappointing.  It's important to keep the larger context in mind.
We know from statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was a coordinated and extensive effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election with the aim of damaging HRC and supporting DJT.  Full stop.  We've also seen from the various indictments issued by Mueller's investigation that there were individuals who also interfered in the election, but may have done so simply for financial gain.  These two findings are not mutually exclusive.

In addition, we have multiple US citizens who were in close proximity with the current POTUS who have been charged with crimes against the United States.  Manafort and Gates leads that list, with charges that include conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, failure to register as a foreign agent, among others.  Each of these charges have sentences of several years in prison, with the cumulative total of around 80 years. 
Flynn, a US General and the National Security Advisor plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian Contacts, which to be clear is an obstruction charge. Papadopoulos did the same.

So - "Big Picture" here - multiple people who helped run DJT's election campaign have been charged with crimes which i) carry substantial prison time and ii) involve dealing with and/or lying about their contacts with Russia. Nothing can wash that away.  Guilty pleas are evidence of guilt, and both Flynn and Papadopoulos have plead guilty to lies made to the FBI during the campaign. The charges against Manafort & Gates are the ones which came largely from before teh campaign, but that doesn't make them any less newsworthy, particularly since Manafort, the man now accused of conspiracy against the US - was selected by Trump to lead his campaign.  It's possible that Trump knew nothing about this, which points to some extraordinarily poor vetting on his campaign. Or its possible that he knew and either didn't beleive it or didn't care. Regardless, finding ex post facto that the person who very recently led your operation is facing 8 decades in prison for crimes agains the US would be considered a major problem for any large organization.

Zooming out even more you find some strange political moves. If Trump is half as dangerous as everyone implies, Congress should be throwing up roadblocks to stop him, right?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/congress-just-passed-terrible-surveillance-law-now

The FBI searches the information gathered in FISA as regularly as common people use Google. An amendment was proposed to require the FBI to get warrants. That amendment was voted down by Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.)

One bill doesn't mean anything. How about two?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-have-new-plan-expand-indefinite-detention-and-endless-global-war

Tim Kaine helped cook this one up. Allows the president to bypass Congress when starting wars.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-30/russia-probes-wouldn-t-expand-if-the-democrats-win-warner-says

"The top Democrat working on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe doesn’t see his party ramping up investigations into Moscow’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election should they win control of Congress in November elections.

Americans “will be tired of it if this is not wound down in this calendar year,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said Wednesday at the Recode Code Conference in California"

-Big Picture- You have criminal indictments. Lots and lots of them. Each one proving that Trump and crew owes *something* to the Russians.  Yet niether group in Congress seems to be bothered by that. They keep trying to give him power. Also the *many* successes you point to does not inspire confidence in Mark Warner, who has access to more information than you do.

Is Congress inept? Trump is a dangerous authoritarian. These moves are dangerously negligent in that case.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12280
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1611 on: June 18, 2018, 06:47:57 PM »

That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.

Regarding the 13 companies

"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"

From the Aaron Mate article.

Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

I believe this is an example where concentrating on small details and refuting their importance causes some to lose sight of the larger picture - missing the forest for all the trees, as the saying goes.
People who less familiar with white collar crimes find the the number of charges filed first remarkable (75+) and then disappointing.  It's important to keep the larger context in mind.
We know from statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was a coordinated and extensive effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election with the aim of damaging HRC and supporting DJT.  Full stop.  We've also seen from the various indictments issued by Mueller's investigation that there were individuals who also interfered in the election, but may have done so simply for financial gain.  These two findings are not mutually exclusive.

In addition, we have multiple US citizens who were in close proximity with the current POTUS who have been charged with crimes against the United States.  Manafort and Gates leads that list, with charges that include conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, failure to register as a foreign agent, among others.  Each of these charges have sentences of several years in prison, with the cumulative total of around 80 years. 
Flynn, a US General and the National Security Advisor plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian Contacts, which to be clear is an obstruction charge. Papadopoulos did the same.

So - "Big Picture" here - multiple people who helped run DJT's election campaign have been charged with crimes which i) carry substantial prison time and ii) involve dealing with and/or lying about their contacts with Russia. Nothing can wash that away.  Guilty pleas are evidence of guilt, and both Flynn and Papadopoulos have plead guilty to lies made to the FBI during the campaign. The charges against Manafort & Gates are the ones which came largely from before teh campaign, but that doesn't make them any less newsworthy, particularly since Manafort, the man now accused of conspiracy against the US - was selected by Trump to lead his campaign.  It's possible that Trump knew nothing about this, which points to some extraordinarily poor vetting on his campaign. Or its possible that he knew and either didn't beleive it or didn't care. Regardless, finding ex post facto that the person who very recently led your operation is facing 8 decades in prison for crimes agains the US would be considered a major problem for any large organization.

Zooming out even more you find some strange political moves. If Trump is half as dangerous as everyone implies, Congress should be throwing up roadblocks to stop him, right?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/congress-just-passed-terrible-surveillance-law-now

The FBI searches the information gathered in FISA as regularly as common people use Google. An amendment was proposed to require the FBI to get warrants. That amendment was voted down by Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.)

One bill doesn't mean anything. How about two?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-have-new-plan-expand-indefinite-detention-and-endless-global-war

Tim Kaine helped cook this one up. Allows the president to bypass Congress when starting wars.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-30/russia-probes-wouldn-t-expand-if-the-democrats-win-warner-says

"The top Democrat working on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe doesn’t see his party ramping up investigations into Moscow’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election should they win control of Congress in November elections.

Americans “will be tired of it if this is not wound down in this calendar year,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said Wednesday at the Recode Code Conference in California"

-Big Picture- You have criminal indictments. Lots and lots of them. Each one proving that Trump and crew owes *something* to the Russians.  Yet niether group in Congress seems to be bothered by that. They keep trying to give him power. Also the *many* successes you point to does not inspire confidence in Mark Warner, who has access to more information than you do.

Is Congress inept? Trump is a dangerous authoritarian. These moves are dangerously negligent in that case.


Congress is not inept.  It's filled with some of the brightest minds in the United States.  Your pondering all presupposes that the Republican president isn't doing exactly what the Republican congress wants though.  Not a safe assumption IMHO.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1612 on: June 20, 2018, 02:56:29 PM »

That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.

Regarding the 13 companies

"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"

From the Aaron Mate article.

Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

I believe this is an example where concentrating on small details and refuting their importance causes some to lose sight of the larger picture - missing the forest for all the trees, as the saying goes.
People who less familiar with white collar crimes find the the number of charges filed first remarkable (75+) and then disappointing.  It's important to keep the larger context in mind.
We know from statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was a coordinated and extensive effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election with the aim of damaging HRC and supporting DJT.  Full stop.  We've also seen from the various indictments issued by Mueller's investigation that there were individuals who also interfered in the election, but may have done so simply for financial gain.  These two findings are not mutually exclusive.

In addition, we have multiple US citizens who were in close proximity with the current POTUS who have been charged with crimes against the United States.  Manafort and Gates leads that list, with charges that include conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, failure to register as a foreign agent, among others.  Each of these charges have sentences of several years in prison, with the cumulative total of around 80 years. 
Flynn, a US General and the National Security Advisor plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian Contacts, which to be clear is an obstruction charge. Papadopoulos did the same.

So - "Big Picture" here - multiple people who helped run DJT's election campaign have been charged with crimes which i) carry substantial prison time and ii) involve dealing with and/or lying about their contacts with Russia. Nothing can wash that away.  Guilty pleas are evidence of guilt, and both Flynn and Papadopoulos have plead guilty to lies made to the FBI during the campaign. The charges against Manafort & Gates are the ones which came largely from before teh campaign, but that doesn't make them any less newsworthy, particularly since Manafort, the man now accused of conspiracy against the US - was selected by Trump to lead his campaign.  It's possible that Trump knew nothing about this, which points to some extraordinarily poor vetting on his campaign. Or its possible that he knew and either didn't beleive it or didn't care. Regardless, finding ex post facto that the person who very recently led your operation is facing 8 decades in prison for crimes agains the US would be considered a major problem for any large organization.

Zooming out even more you find some strange political moves. If Trump is half as dangerous as everyone implies, Congress should be throwing up roadblocks to stop him, right?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/congress-just-passed-terrible-surveillance-law-now

The FBI searches the information gathered in FISA as regularly as common people use Google. An amendment was proposed to require the FBI to get warrants. That amendment was voted down by Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.)

One bill doesn't mean anything. How about two?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-have-new-plan-expand-indefinite-detention-and-endless-global-war

Tim Kaine helped cook this one up. Allows the president to bypass Congress when starting wars.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-30/russia-probes-wouldn-t-expand-if-the-democrats-win-warner-says

"The top Democrat working on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe doesn’t see his party ramping up investigations into Moscow’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election should they win control of Congress in November elections.

Americans “will be tired of it if this is not wound down in this calendar year,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said Wednesday at the Recode Code Conference in California"

-Big Picture- You have criminal indictments. Lots and lots of them. Each one proving that Trump and crew owes *something* to the Russians.  Yet niether group in Congress seems to be bothered by that. They keep trying to give him power. Also the *many* successes you point to does not inspire confidence in Mark Warner, who has access to more information than you do.

Is Congress inept? Trump is a dangerous authoritarian. These moves are dangerously negligent in that case.


Congress is not inept.  It's filled with some of the brightest minds in the United States.  Your pondering all presupposes that the Republican president isn't doing exactly what the Republican congress wants though.  Not a safe assumption IMHO.

"The bill was passed by a split vote of 256 to 164: 191 Republicans and 65 Democrats voted for the measure and 119 Democrats and 45 Republicans voted against it"

https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/vbyp59/house-vote-702-fisa

Enough Democrats crossed party lines to get bill 702 passed.

Glenn Greenwald makes the arguement:

"But the most important point here is what this says about how Democrats really view Donald Trump. How can anyone rational possibly take seriously all the righteous denunciations from people like Pelosi, Schiff, and Swalwell about how Trump is a lawless, authoritarian tyrant existentially threatening American democracy when those very same people just yesterday voted in favor of vesting him the virtually limitless power to spy on Americans with no warrants or safeguards? If someone really believed those accusations about Trump — as opposed to just pretending to believe them for cynical political manipulation of their followers — how could they possibly have done what they did yesterday?"

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/the-same-democrats-who-denounce-trump-as-a-lawless-treasonous-authoritarian-just-voted-to-give-him-vast-warrantless-spying-powers/

Nereo made the claim that the investigations were "bearing fruit" about how dangerous the Trump administration is.

Yet this appears to be "business as usual."

Explain to me how giving the "Russian Puppet"/"Dictator-in-the-making," the Patriot Act is a good idea.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12280
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1613 on: June 20, 2018, 05:57:31 PM »
Well, that's disturbing.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1614 on: June 20, 2018, 08:23:35 PM »

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1217
  • Location: England
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1615 on: July 09, 2018, 12:48:25 PM »

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1617 on: October 21, 2018, 08:52:03 PM »
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1618 on: October 22, 2018, 01:12:56 AM »
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.

Shhh... You're making too much sense.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3740
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1619 on: October 22, 2018, 02:05:15 AM »
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.

Shhh... You're making too much sense.

Yes, but also grossly understating the power of propaganda.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1620 on: October 22, 2018, 03:33:49 AM »
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.

Shhh... You're making too much sense.

Yes, but also grossly understating the power of propaganda.

We propaganda. They propaganda. Everybody propagandas. It balances out.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8781
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1621 on: October 22, 2018, 06:10:10 AM »
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.

Perhaps (in reference to the bolded section) you were using hyperbole, but if not I do not think you are appreciating the role that identity politics has on our federal elections. A lead of 30MM votes is a victory so staggeringly beyond what any president has accomplished. Total votes is not directly comparable without correcting for changes in the total population and the number who cast ballots.
 Trump got just 46.1% of the popular vote, which puts him 3rd to last in the last 100 years.  As a percentage of votes cast, Bill Clinton got fewer votes with a fairly sizable showing from independent R Perot (he got 19% of the popular vote) and Nixon ('68) got fewer votes with G. Wallace taking 13.5% of the vote and carrying 5 states.  If we accept conventional wisdom that both Wallace and Perot siphoned even a moderate (25%) of votes away from the winning candidate, than Trump had the fewest votes by percentage in the last 100 years.

Bottom line is that a candidate from either party appears to be able to count on a floor of somewhere around 35%-40% regardless of who they nominate. Trump got only 46% of the vote despite running against a candiddate with historically high unfavorable numbers and without a sizable drag from the 3rd party candidates (only 5% of the total vote).

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1622 on: October 22, 2018, 10:15:43 AM »
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia

Even Gorbachev thinks this is dumb.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45931231 


Trump wants to pull out of the INF supposedly because Russia has been breaking it and China is not a party to the treaty. Clearly there is no other solution to this than scrapping the one restraint we have on intermediate range missiles. Clearly this isn't the easiest way for Russia to just put missiles along its western border and threaten our allies even more. /s

FFS.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1623 on: October 23, 2018, 11:48:29 AM »
Looks like Rudy is headlining a pro-Russia conference in Armenia.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-lawyer-rudy-giuliani-headlines-pro-russian-conference-in-armenia

Should be a good networking opportunity, eh?

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1624 on: October 23, 2018, 08:45:48 PM »
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.

Perhaps (in reference to the bolded section) you were using hyperbole, but if not I do not think you are appreciating the role that identity politics has on our federal elections. A lead of 30MM votes is a victory so staggeringly beyond what any president has accomplished. Total votes is not directly comparable without correcting for changes in the total population and the number who cast ballots.
 Trump got just 46.1% of the popular vote, which puts him 3rd to last in the last 100 years.  As a percentage of votes cast, Bill Clinton got fewer votes with a fairly sizable showing from independent R Perot (he got 19% of the popular vote) and Nixon ('68) got fewer votes with G. Wallace taking 13.5% of the vote and carrying 5 states.  If we accept conventional wisdom that both Wallace and Perot siphoned even a moderate (25%) of votes away from the winning candidate, than Trump had the fewest votes by percentage in the last 100 years.

Bottom line is that a candidate from either party appears to be able to count on a floor of somewhere around 35%-40% regardless of who they nominate. Trump got only 46% of the vote despite running against a candiddate with historically high unfavorable numbers and without a sizable drag from the 3rd party candidates (only 5% of the total vote).
That is a fair point, but in that case, it's still a much better explanation that Trump won due to partisanship rather than Russian interference. However, note the following:
Quote
...it’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump. Over all, almost one in four of President Obama’s 2012 white working-class supporters defected from the Democrats in 2016, either supporting Mr. Trump or voting for a third-party candidate.
If any ads swung the election, I think it's more likely to be the $330M spent by the Trump campaign (plus all of the free wall-to-wall coverage of his various rallies kindly brought to us by CNN & Fox News...) rather than $100K in Facebook ads.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7488
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1625 on: October 23, 2018, 09:18:20 PM »
...it’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump.

Why would you think that is clear? 

As we have previously highlighted in this very thread, Trump did not convince anyone at all to switch, he only convinced democrats to stay home rather than vote for Clinton.  He got approximately the same number and percentage of votes that McCain and Romney both got, those regular die-hard republican voters who vote for every old white guy republican that runs.  The reason why Trump won the electoral college and those guys lost it is just because there were fewer democrats showing up, probably due to all of the Pizzagate and Benghazi style bullshit conspiracy stories that Trump and the Russians both perpetuated.

So don't pretend that Trump convinced a bunch of liberal working class whites to jump on his bandwagon.  He only convinced them to jump off of hers, and part of that convincing was the barrage of ridiculous facebook ads that convinced my father that Clinton was an Illuminati lizard-person.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2018, 10:18:50 PM by sol »

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1626 on: October 23, 2018, 09:46:37 PM »
^^I was quoting NYTimes/Upshot and it is presumably clear to them for reasons given in the linked article

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7488
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1627 on: October 23, 2018, 10:19:23 PM »
^^I was quoting NYTimes/Upshot and it is presumably clear to them for reasons given in the linked article

Great, would you like to reiterate any of that evidence here?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8781
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1628 on: October 24, 2018, 06:07:16 AM »

That is a fair point, but in that case, it's still a much better explanation that Trump won due to partisanship rather than Russian interference.
As we've been discussing, the Russians exploited this partisan divide to influence the election. Our own intelligence agencies have said so, repeatedly. Separating out the degree of their influence is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, but we know that i) it was illegal and ii) DJT won the election on the narrowest of margins

FWIW I'm less concerned with the Russian's actions (after all they've been our antagonists for the last century) than I am with the degree to which DJT and his team have worked with Russia and for their national interests, often for personal greed.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1629 on: October 24, 2018, 07:38:56 PM »

That is a fair point, but in that case, it's still a much better explanation that Trump won due to partisanship rather than Russian interference.
As we've been discussing, the Russians exploited this partisan divide to influence the election. Our own intelligence agencies have said so, repeatedly. Separating out the degree of their influence is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, but we know that i) it was illegal and ii) DJT won the election on the narrowest of margins

FWIW I'm less concerned with the Russian's actions (after all they've been our antagonists for the last century) than I am with the degree to which DJT and his team have worked with Russia and for their national interests, often for personal greed.
Sure, I agree there are two separate questions involved here: 1) did the Russians interfere? 2) did the interference make a material difference. I think it's crazy to deny (1) in the affirmative; what I'm suggesting is the tendency to assume (2) was significant in the outcome rather than facing up to the signal buried with the noise of the Trump campaign. Come to the Midwest and tell the yokels here--as the New Yorker would like to--that they were merely fooled by Russians and see how many hearts and minds you win.

Regarding the comment about Trump & Russia in particular, well, of course. Trump is an amoral maximizing narcissist who (at best) will escape the worst of the allegations through a defense predicated on plausible deniability.

^^I was quoting NYTimes/Upshot and it is presumably clear to them for reasons given in the linked article

Great, would you like to reiterate any of that evidence here?

I'm not going to reinvent the wheel so take this, for instance:
Quote
The postelection survey data tells a similar story: Mrs. Clinton won Mr. Obama’s white-working class supporters by a margin of only 78 percent to 18 percent against Mr. Trump, according to the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

In the Midwestern battleground states and Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton had an advantage of 76 percent to 20 percent among white working-class Obama voters.

The survey data isn’t perfect. It relies on voters’ accurate recall of their 2012 vote, and that type of recall is often biased toward the winner. Indeed, the C.C.E.S. found that Mr. Obama had 54 percent of support among 2012 voters, compared with his actual 51 percent finish.

But the data all points in the same direction: Shifts in turnout were not the dominant factor in Mr. Trump’s success among white working-class voters.

One specific impact in terms of turnout was that among black voters, down significantly from Obama's elections (though that is more the case of mean-reversion than something new in the 2016 election). Where Trump tipped the scales was (in particular) with white Midwestern voters, which included the key battleground Electoral College states.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8781
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1630 on: October 24, 2018, 08:28:54 PM »
why is there zo much anamosity towards new york fromm the midwest?  particularly with a new yorker in the wh...?

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1631 on: October 24, 2018, 11:11:35 PM »
why is there zo much anamosity towards new york fromm the midwest?  particularly with a new yorker in the wh...?
That's a good question. It's less about origin location and more about attitude. Since attitude is correlated with geographic location in the US, it's easy to conflate the two (I seem to recall WhiteTrashCash had some insight on this distinction maybe in his journal). I'm from California but lived in Trumpland long enough that (after a long period of adjustment, especially around the 2016 election) I was able to re-calibrate my thinking to incorporate the meaningful components of Trump's electoral success. It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7488
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1632 on: October 24, 2018, 11:22:39 PM »
It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test.

Trump can't even pass an ideological Turing test for Trump voters. 

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1633 on: October 24, 2018, 11:47:42 PM »
It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test.

Trump can't even pass an ideological Turing test for Trump voters.
Haha, yup!

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5017
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1634 on: October 25, 2018, 09:00:03 AM »
why is there zo much anamosity towards new york fromm the midwest?  particularly with a new yorker in the wh...?
That's a good question. It's less about origin location and more about attitude. Since attitude is correlated with geographic location in the US, it's easy to conflate the two (I seem to recall WhiteTrashCash had some insight on this distinction maybe in his journal). I'm from California but lived in Trumpland long enough that (after a long period of adjustment, especially around the 2016 election) I was able to re-calibrate my thinking to incorporate the meaningful components of Trump's electoral success. It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test.

That was an interesting link - thanks for sharing!

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8781
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1635 on: November 07, 2018, 01:35:21 PM »
well it's happened - AG sessions has been shown the door by Trump.  Matthew Whitaker will be the interim AG, a man who has publicly mused on CNN that an interim appointment could allow the acting AG to defund Mueller to the point where the "investigation grinds to almost a halt"

It's like saying - We are determined NOT to get to the bottom of this!

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1636 on: November 07, 2018, 06:24:32 PM »
That's terrifying. Let's hope that Mueller has enough now to bring the investigation to the House.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12280
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1637 on: November 08, 2018, 07:34:42 AM »
It's like saying - We are determined NOT to get to the bottom of this!

Well, it worked for Republicans with Kavenaugh.  Why not with Trump as well?

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1638 on: November 11, 2018, 11:34:02 AM »
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day. They clearly love each other.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7488
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1639 on: November 11, 2018, 11:37:41 AM »
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.

Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency?  Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies.  Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute.  What has become of the republican party?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8781
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1640 on: November 12, 2018, 03:54:06 PM »
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.

Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency?  Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies.  Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute.  What has become of the republican party?
To be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI.  And II.
But yeah, fucked up that he dissed Macron because 'it was raining'.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1641 on: November 12, 2018, 04:01:29 PM »
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.

Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency?  Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies.  Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute.  What has become of the republican party?
To be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI.  And II.
But yeah, fucked up that he dissed Macron because 'it was raining'.
Apparently rainy weather fronts make his bone spurs hurt. /s

Add skipping visiting Arlington to the list of disrespects.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12280
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1642 on: November 12, 2018, 06:19:35 PM »
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.

Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency?  Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies.  Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute.  What has become of the republican party?
To be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI.  And II.
But yeah, fucked up that he dissed Macron because 'it was raining'.
Apparently rainy weather fronts make his bone spurs hurt. /s

Add skipping visiting Arlington to the list of disrespects.

Trump has worked so hard at subverting the rights that people fought and died for, wouldn't it have been more disrespectful for him to show up?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3740
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1643 on: November 13, 2018, 01:33:02 AM »
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.

Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency?  Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies.  Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute.  What has become of the republican party?
To be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI.  And II.
But yeah, fucked up that he dissed Macron because 'it was raining'.
Apparently rainy weather fronts make his bone spurs hurt. /s

Add skipping visiting Arlington to the list of disrespects.

Trump has worked so hard at subverting the rights that people fought and died for, wouldn't it have been more disrespectful for him to show up?

The weather would have messed with his hair, how could he stand possibly stand hatless in the rain?

Personally, I suspect that those constant campaign rallies have messed with his head: he now can't cope with any public event that isn't several thousand people screaming and chanting because of him.

Cassie

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4564
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1644 on: November 13, 2018, 09:47:49 AM »
Really hope that people open their eyes before the next presidential election.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8781
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1645 on: November 13, 2018, 09:54:43 AM »
Really hope that people open their eyes before the next presidential election.
Which people are you referring to?

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1646 on: November 13, 2018, 10:07:50 AM »
well it's happened - AG sessions has been shown the door by Trump.  Matthew Whitaker will be the interim AG, a man who has publicly mused on CNN that an interim appointment could allow the acting AG to defund Mueller to the point where the "investigation grinds to almost a halt"

It's like saying - We are determined NOT to get to the bottom of this!

Interesting twist... The state of Maryland, who is suing about Sessions's directive to stop enforcing parts of the ACA, has added a challenge to Whitaker's appointment to the lawsuit.

The state contends that under the Attorney General Succession Act, the deputy attorney general, or other confirmed Justice Department officers in a designated order of succession, must serve as acting attorney general until a new person is confirmed for that position by the U.S. Senate.

Maryland also argues that Whitaker's appointment violates the Constitution, which requires that principal officers of the United States be appointed "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Whitaker was not serving in a Senate-confirmed position when he was appointed.

Two former attorneys general from the George W. Bush administration — Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey — have criticized the appointment of Whitaker.


https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/667180873/maryland-says-matthew-whitaker-appointment-as-acting-attorney-general-is-unlawfu


Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1647 on: November 13, 2018, 10:25:01 AM »
The weather would have messed with his hair, how could he stand possibly stand hatless in the rain?

I've blown multiple well coiffed people's minds by pointing out this is the reason the dumb MAGA hats exist at all. As a formerly insecure balding man I know the special dread of facing inclement weather in a situation where a hat is not acceptable. But at least I got over it after a year or two. To be that insecure at 72 years old is pretty pathetic.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3400
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1648 on: November 13, 2018, 10:31:45 AM »
The weather would have messed with his hair, how could he stand possibly stand hatless in the rain?

I've blown multiple well coiffed people's minds by pointing out this is the reason the dumb MAGA hats exist at all. As a formerly insecure balding man I know the special dread of facing inclement weather in a situation where a hat is not acceptable. But at least I got over it after a year or two. To be that insecure at 72 years old is pretty pathetic.

Well, yeah. As is the level of insecurity that allegedly moved him to get scalp reduction surgery.

Insecurity seems to drive a large percentage of his actions.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1764
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1649 on: November 15, 2018, 02:18:06 PM »
Trump is back to punching out some batshit crazy Tweets about the Russia meddling probe.