Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 62867 times)

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #450 on: June 01, 2017, 12:56:42 PM »
It's so critical the Democrats regain the US House of Representatives or at least get achingly close. Don't think the Democrats can win the Senate back because most of the elections in 2018 are for Democrat Senate seats.

tavore

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #451 on: June 01, 2017, 01:02:36 PM »
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4347
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #452 on: June 01, 2017, 02:51:26 PM »
#Sol2020?

Mueller is methodical and criminal investigations generally take a few years (though there's very little that's typical here). I'm guessing 6-24 months before anything comes of the FBI's investigation. The four congressional hearings will make noise and provoke responses (and DJT has committed multiple unforced errors thusfar). 
Given that Pence is next in line I share your trepidation about what will come should DJT be removed from office. "Do nothing" is preferable than the social construct Pence/Ryan want - particualrly if the AHCA is any indication.

But hold on a second, must we wait until 2020?  Let's assume for a second that all this smoke billowing around indeed comes from a fire. Let's also assume that another 16 months of this crap results in the democrat version of the '94 republican revolution.
what then? do we prefer an antagonistic and increasingly hostile president to what could certainly be a lame-duck Pence? As abhorrent as I find many of Pence's beliefs to be, he's unlikely to launch twitter-attacks at Germany, praise dictators and harbor conspiracy theories.
He'll just electrocute gays and remove bodily autonomy from women.  Oh, maybe even cause an HIV epidemic like he did in the state he was governor of....

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6345
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #453 on: June 01, 2017, 03:40:55 PM »
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.

There's quite a few... 
Tim Kaine (VA), Cory Booker (NJ, but says no), Jerry Brown (gov CA), Julian Castro (mayor - SA-TX) and Andrew Cuomo (gov NY) could all make a run. Huge speculation that Elizabeth Warren (MA) will run this time (though she says no). Ditto for Joe Bidden (Veep/PA) (again he says no, but oddly has a committee)  Bernie Sanders (VT) seems likely (though at some point one age will eventually factor in).  It wouldn't surprise me to see Martin O'Malley or Terry McAuliffe  (Govs of MD & VA, respectively).
..and don't discredit the business/celebs-turned-candidates (since that seems to be the thing now).  Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Johnson ("the rock"), Mark Zukerberg (FB), Howard Schultz (Starbucks) - all seem laughable but then again so did DJT in early 2016.

Then there are about another dozen who 'might' run.  Mostly it will depend on whether their political star waxes or wanes over the next 18 months (e.g. Kamalia Harris (CA), Steve Bollock (gov MT), etc. etc.

Honestly, it's fascinating from a political-spectator standpoint; barring impeachment/resignation/death DJT will almost certainly be the GOP candidate, but there's at least a dozen solid potentials on the Dem's side and they span the spectrum from centrist to socialist and with styles ranging from respected/low-key to firebrand/combative.

The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms.  A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #454 on: June 01, 2017, 03:46:02 PM »
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.

There's quite a few... 
Tim Kaine (VA), Cory Booker (NJ, but says no), Jerry Brown (gov CA), Julian Castro (mayor - SA-TX) and Andrew Cuomo (gov NY) could all make a run. Huge speculation that Elizabeth Warren (MA) will run this time (though she says no). Ditto for Joe Bidden (Veep/PA) (again he says no, but oddly has a committee)  Bernie Sanders (VT) seems likely (though at some point one age will eventually factor in).  It wouldn't surprise me to see Martin O'Malley or Terry McAuliffe  (Govs of MD & VA, respectively).
..and don't discredit the business/celebs-turned-candidates (since that seems to be the thing now).  Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Johnson ("the rock"), Mark Zukerberg (FB), Howard Schultz (Starbucks) - all seem laughable but then again so did DJT in early 2016.

Then there are about another dozen who 'might' run.  Mostly it will depend on whether their political star waxes or wanes over the next 18 months (e.g. Kamalia Harris (CA), Steve Bollock (gov MT), etc. etc.

Honestly, it's fascinating from a political-spectator standpoint; barring impeachment/resignation/death DJT will almost certainly be the GOP candidate, but there's at least a dozen solid potentials on the Dem's side and they span the spectrum from centrist to socialist and with styles ranging from respected/low-key to firebrand/combative.

The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms.  A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.

I have this dream of Dwayne Johnson beating Trump in the GOP primary. My god would that be top notch schadenfreude.

tavore

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #455 on: June 01, 2017, 04:21:41 PM »
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.

There's quite a few... 
Tim Kaine (VA), Cory Booker (NJ, but says no), Jerry Brown (gov CA), Julian Castro (mayor - SA-TX) and Andrew Cuomo (gov NY) could all make a run. Huge speculation that Elizabeth Warren (MA) will run this time (though she says no). Ditto for Joe Bidden (Veep/PA) (again he says no, but oddly has a committee)  Bernie Sanders (VT) seems likely (though at some point one age will eventually factor in).  It wouldn't surprise me to see Martin O'Malley or Terry McAuliffe  (Govs of MD & VA, respectively).
..and don't discredit the business/celebs-turned-candidates (since that seems to be the thing now).  Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Johnson ("the rock"), Mark Zukerberg (FB), Howard Schultz (Starbucks) - all seem laughable but then again so did DJT in early 2016.

Then there are about another dozen who 'might' run.  Mostly it will depend on whether their political star waxes or wanes over the next 18 months (e.g. Kamalia Harris (CA), Steve Bollock (gov MT), etc. etc.

Honestly, it's fascinating from a political-spectator standpoint; barring impeachment/resignation/death DJT will almost certainly be the GOP candidate, but there's at least a dozen solid potentials on the Dem's side and they span the spectrum from centrist to socialist and with styles ranging from respected/low-key to firebrand/combative.

The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms.  A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.

Tim Kaine was a non-entity in 2016. I put Cory Booker and Martin O'Malley in the same category - hard-core ambition chasers without enough intellectual heft or ethics. Elizabeth Warren is already getting the Hillary/Pelosi treatment - relentlessly mysogynistic demonization. However ludicrous the characterization, some of that mud will stick and a kernel of doubt planted. See how easily all the the Bernie Bros believe the Russian propaganda! She should have challenged for 2016. Kamala Harris will get the same treatment, though she should take advantage of the fact that she isn't in their crosshairs yet. I'm still waiting for her to prove herself.

I'll reserve my judgement on Zuck. He sounds more libertarian than a Democrat. I'm inherently suspicious of the Noblesse Oblige/Tech Knows Best Silicon Valley attitude. And after DJT, are we still stupid enough to think the country should be run like a business?

I'd love for Jerry Brown to run, but again, this is not calling someone from the bench. This is the old guard rising again. The Democrats have not done a good job of nurturing talent.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6844
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #456 on: June 01, 2017, 04:31:40 PM »
I have this dream of Dwayne Johnson beating Trump in the GOP primary. My god would that be top notch schadenfreude.

And Jesse Ventura running as an independent.  Need to find an analogous Democrat candidate.  Or just vote for Jesse: "a plague on both their (Dem and Rep) houses."

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6345
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #457 on: June 01, 2017, 06:00:22 PM »
I have this dream of Dwayne Johnson beating Trump in the GOP primary. My god would that be top notch schadenfreude.

And Jesse Ventura running as an independent.  Need to find an analogous Democrat candidate.  Or just vote for Jesse: "a plague on both their (Dem and Rep) houses."
Too bad Arnie's not eligible to run against DJT in the primaries.  I'd just love to see him troll Trump again.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Mac_MacGyver

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #458 on: June 01, 2017, 06:21:56 PM »
Has the FBI investigated the DNC servers yet? No?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761

Mac_MacGyver

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #460 on: June 01, 2017, 06:55:55 PM »
Has the FBI investigated the DNC servers yet? No?

Red herring?

And yes, they did.

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

John Podesta and his Password being Password and his own cyber security people mistakenly telling him that his inquiry about a questionable email it was a legit email? Come on!!!

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4347
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #461 on: June 02, 2017, 11:55:58 AM »
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.

There's quite a few... 
Tim Kaine (VA), Cory Booker (NJ, but says no), Jerry Brown (gov CA), Julian Castro (mayor - SA-TX) and Andrew Cuomo (gov NY) could all make a run. Huge speculation that Elizabeth Warren (MA) will run this time (though she says no). Ditto for Joe Bidden (Veep/PA) (again he says no, but oddly has a committee)  Bernie Sanders (VT) seems likely (though at some point one age will eventually factor in).  It wouldn't surprise me to see Martin O'Malley or Terry McAuliffe  (Govs of MD & VA, respectively).
..and don't discredit the business/celebs-turned-candidates (since that seems to be the thing now).  Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Johnson ("the rock"), Mark Zukerberg (FB), Howard Schultz (Starbucks) - all seem laughable but then again so did DJT in early 2016.

Then there are about another dozen who 'might' run.  Mostly it will depend on whether their political star waxes or wanes over the next 18 months (e.g. Kamalia Harris (CA), Steve Bollock (gov MT), etc. etc.

Honestly, it's fascinating from a political-spectator standpoint; barring impeachment/resignation/death DJT will almost certainly be the GOP candidate, but there's at least a dozen solid potentials on the Dem's side and they span the spectrum from centrist to socialist and with styles ranging from respected/low-key to firebrand/combative.

The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms.  A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.

Tim Kaine was a non-entity in 2016. I put Cory Booker and Martin O'Malley in the same category - hard-core ambition chasers without enough intellectual heft or ethics. Elizabeth Warren is already getting the Hillary/Pelosi treatment - relentlessly mysogynistic demonization. However ludicrous the characterization, some of that mud will stick and a kernel of doubt planted. See how easily all the the Bernie Bros believe the Russian propaganda! She should have challenged for 2016. Kamala Harris will get the same treatment, though she should take advantage of the fact that she isn't in their crosshairs yet. I'm still waiting for her to prove herself.

I'll reserve my judgement on Zuck. He sounds more libertarian than a Democrat. I'm inherently suspicious of the Noblesse Oblige/Tech Knows Best Silicon Valley attitude. And after DJT, are we still stupid enough to think the country should be run like a business?

I'd love for Jerry Brown to run, but again, this is not calling someone from the bench. This is the old guard rising again. The Democrats have not done a good job of nurturing talent.
I'd love to see Gavin Newsom run, personally.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #462 on: June 02, 2017, 12:16:49 PM »
More smoke. A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-house-secret-efforts-lift-russia-sanctions-putin-619508

Trump lifts sanctions (and immediately after becoming President) because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/

Wasn't there a contingent who wanted a businessperson in the WH to make things more efficient? I think we now see the potential downfalls of that.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6844
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #463 on: June 02, 2017, 12:50:51 PM »
A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....
...
because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
Admitting the need to invoke Poe's law here....

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 147
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #464 on: June 02, 2017, 01:14:39 PM »
A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....
...
because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
Admitting the need to invoke Poe's law here....

I only wish that the same people who were SO SHOCKED about the Clinton Foundation (n.b. with it's A charity navigator rating and open books) and PAY TO PLAY and SPEECHES TO BANKERS were capable of considering how someone with hundreds of millions in investments from foreign nationals and a compelling history of no guiding principles other than his own self-interest and a tendency to grub for every last dollar might be compromised by such obligations.   So, I hereby invoke my own law of Trump apology: there is no depth to which a Trump voter will not sink to defend him. 

 

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6844
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #465 on: June 02, 2017, 01:20:34 PM »
...might be compromised....
Ok, I'll play.

What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?

E.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't?  Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos?  Or...?

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #466 on: June 02, 2017, 01:33:12 PM »
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #467 on: June 02, 2017, 01:33:42 PM »
...might be compromised....
Ok, I'll play.

What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?

E.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't?  Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos?  Or...?

Since I don't have access to the NSA tapes of the conversations Kisylak and other Putinites had with Kushner, Flynn and other Trump campaign officials and administration officials I really don't know.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6345
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #468 on: June 02, 2017, 01:34:54 PM »
Well... Russia remains in the Paris Climate Accord, while the US doesn't.
Maybe we're not the United States of Russia afterall.

United States of Syria?  (would explain why all our Navy's ships are already designated USS ___)
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6345
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #469 on: June 02, 2017, 01:36:48 PM »
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.
Ha!
The FBI and NSA never opened investigations on Obama's birth certificate, nor were there four congressional committees formed to examine it.

...but good troll Acroy!
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

OneCoolCat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
  • Age: 30
  • Location: SoFla
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #470 on: June 02, 2017, 02:03:08 PM »
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.

Is this another one of those Poe's Law things?  As a lifelong (and current) Republican and someone who voted against Obama twice I think Acroy misplaced his :wink. 

In case he's serious, there is genuinely no analogy.  Obama's birth certificate & Muslim thing was embedded in racism and ignorance from the very moment it began and is a black-mark on American politics imo.  There is a concerning amount of smoke regarding the possibility of coordinate Russian meddling in OUR elections and the administrations response to it has been disturbing.

*I voted for Johnson.
I refinanced my student loans with Sofi from 6.8% to 3.805%.  Use my referral URL for a $100 welcome bonus if you refinance with Sofi:  https://www.sofi.com/refer/234/11233

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6345
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #471 on: June 02, 2017, 02:43:29 PM »
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.

Is this another one of those Poe's Law things?  As a lifelong (and current) Republican and someone who voted against Obama twice I think Acroy misplaced his :wink. 

In case he's serious, there is genuinely no analogy.  Obama's birth certificate & Muslim thing was embedded in racism and ignorance from the very moment it began and is a black-mark on American politics imo.  There is a concerning amount of smoke regarding the possibility of coordinate Russian meddling in OUR elections and the administrations response to it has been disturbing.
Based on his previous posts, this is no Poe's Law thing and Acroy is either trolling or (more likely) genuinely supporting these ideas.
Acroy is a staunch defender of Trump and frequent critic (to put it politely) of Clinton and Obama.

From some of his earlier posts:
Quote from: Acroy
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere
Quote from: Acroy
(on the Hollywood Access tape) Did anyone watch the tape, and think it was anything but Trump buffooning around, blowing smoke up the young guy's ass? C'mon.
Quote from: Acroy on April 19th
So far I think [Trump's] doing fine. ... By the way, the Russian thing:
https://spectator.org/confirmed-john-brennan-colluded-with-foreign-spies-to-defeat-trump/
"One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s."
Quote from: Acroy on April 5th
the 'Russian Hacker' fiasco fizzles...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/31/the-russia-hacking-fiasco-no-evidence-required/
Quote from: Acroy on Climate Change, March 15th
The science is not settled. If it was, there would be one model, not many. It would be 100% accurate, instead of 100% inaccurate. Like gravity. Gravity we know very well (except at the edges of space and velocity, where it gets weird). There is one model. It works. Climate science is textbook unsettled. It can barely be called science, so much of it appears to be 'goalseeking' which is the opposite of science
Quote from: Acroy on Feb 6th
Bannon: That guy is badass. ...
Enemy: The Establishment, in the forms of Nato, EU, UN, etc. Particularly Merkel

"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #472 on: June 02, 2017, 02:52:39 PM »
Ok, I'll play.

What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?

Was that a return volley of Poe's Law?

Quote
E.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't?  Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos?  Or...?

That is why we have a special prosecutor, n'est-ce pas?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6844
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #473 on: June 02, 2017, 03:25:36 PM »
What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?
Was that a return volley of Poe's Law?
The absence of a smiley was intentional.  Back to the question...?

Quote
Quote
E.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't?  Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos?  Or...?
That is why we have a special prosecutor, n'est-ce pas?
To find out if there is anything there, correct? 

When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing.  After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one. 

Of course, It ain't over till [Robert Mueller] sings.  Or will that depend on what Mueller sings?

One can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google   Trump Russia evidence.
E.g.,
There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion
Evidence Mounts for Trump's Meddling in Russia Probe. But Is It Obstruction? - NBC News

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #474 on: June 02, 2017, 03:48:07 PM »
@MDM - So your stance is that any criminal investigation that takes longer than a few months to lead to a conviction is probably smoke and mirrors?

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #475 on: June 02, 2017, 03:59:29 PM »
When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing.  After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one. 

Given that more is leaked on an almost weekly basis, your argument has little, well, credence. Given that Mueller was appointed only a few weeks ago, your claim has even less weight.

Quote
One can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google   Trump Russia evidence.

Yeah...?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6844
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #476 on: June 02, 2017, 03:59:58 PM »
@MDM - So your stance is that any criminal investigation that takes longer than a few months to lead to a conviction is probably smoke and mirrors?
Nope, just this one. ;)

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6844
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #477 on: June 02, 2017, 04:00:49 PM »
When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing.  After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one. 

Given that more is leaked on an almost weekly basis, your argument has little, well, credence. Given that Mueller was appointed only a few weeks ago, your claim has even less weight.

Quote
One can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google   Trump Russia evidence.

Yeah...?
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.  Any speculation at this point is...speculation.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6345
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #478 on: June 02, 2017, 04:24:50 PM »
When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing.  After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one. 

Given that more is leaked on an almost weekly basis, your argument has little, well, credence. Given that Mueller was appointed only a few weeks ago, your claim has even less weight.

Quote
One can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google   Trump Russia evidence.

Yeah...?
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.  Any speculation at this point is...speculation.
My speculation on your speculation is... speculative.
But seriously - most investigations, be they congressional or criminal, take several months to a few years to complete.  Sometimes they conclude intentional wrong-doing, sometimes stupidity, other times they fail to find anything conclusive.
We'll just have to wait and see - I wouldn't expect any of the investigations to conclude before this fall, though there will be significant pressure from all sides to hurry this up - WH wants it gone entirely, GOP doesn't want it bleeding into the midterms, Dems want to impeach, and almost everyone else wants the whole thing over so we can go back to watching videos of cats riding Roombas in silly costumes.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6844
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #479 on: June 02, 2017, 04:55:02 PM »
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

More smoke. A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-house-secret-efforts-lift-russia-sanctions-putin-619508
Trump lifts sanctions (and immediately after becoming President) because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #480 on: June 02, 2017, 05:30:57 PM »
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 05:53:35 PM by Lagom »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1024
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #481 on: June 02, 2017, 07:00:24 PM »
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.

His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #482 on: June 02, 2017, 08:27:40 PM »
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.

His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?

It's good he used a golf cart when he met with the European leaders for a short stroll.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1024
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #483 on: June 03, 2017, 05:53:28 AM »
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.

His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?

It's good he used a golf cart when he met with the European leaders for a short stroll.

Absolutely! He's conserving "battery" life.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #484 on: June 03, 2017, 02:08:57 PM »
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.

His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?

It's good he used a golf cart when he met with the European leaders for a short stroll.

Absolutely! He's conserving "battery" life.

Trump is doing what other pro-Trumpers on here would scream at you for doing if you have to buy your own health insurance through the federal exchange.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #485 on: June 05, 2017, 02:27:30 PM »
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #486 on: June 05, 2017, 03:35:26 PM »
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
The two reasons I've seen that this is an issue (rather than simply a hilarious gaffe) are:
  • It may point toward dementia, which some camps think is the cause of much of his behavior.
  • The fact that it stayed posted, uncorrected, for (I think) 6 hours indicates something is deeply amiss with his media team (and with him--see 1).
My Cleverly Titled Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/cleverly-titled-journal/
My Cat's Facebook Page (yes, really): www.facebook.com/chicagotau
Tau now has an Instagram: www.instagram.com/chicagotau or #chicagotau
Ting referral ($25 credit!): https://zds8505smfe.ting.com/
Discover Card referral ($50 now and $50 after your first year! and free credit monitoring): https://refer.discover.com/s/gv3ma

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1024
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #487 on: June 05, 2017, 05:16:40 PM »

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 496
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #488 on: June 05, 2017, 11:39:48 PM »
I don't think covfefe taught us anything we didn't already know about Trump but it did elevate his typical brand of unbelievable incoherence to a new level of hilarity.

Also, never forget: Ed Balls

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #489 on: June 06, 2017, 05:31:02 AM »
FYI: There's a lot of chatter this morning about a leak to the Intercept by a 25 year old named "Reality Winner".  Being pushed hard by fake-news outlets such as Infowars and Palmer Report. Very suspect; I would take this info with a grain of salt until every bit of it is confirmed.

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #490 on: June 06, 2017, 03:00:32 PM »
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
First, this was more than a typo, it was an unfinished message that went up and wasn't caught by his staff as Anaya mentioned. Even if he had typed out 'coverage' that would be "Despite all the negative press coverage"... and that's it.

Second, rather than saying whoops, and making fun of himself for his mistake, he acts like it was intentional because he of course, never makes mistakes. And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #491 on: June 06, 2017, 07:06:25 PM »
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
First, this was more than a typo, it was an unfinished message that went up and wasn't caught by his staff as Anaya mentioned. Even if he had typed out 'coverage' that would be "Despite all the negative press coverage"... and that's it.

Second, rather than saying whoops, and making fun of himself for his mistake, he acts like it was intentional because he of course, never makes mistakes. And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".

It appears I was to diverted with the constant trolling of the mistake when that is not what people are upset about. I haven't listened to or read much of any white house press briefings because they have become nothing but a sad confusing steady stream of lies to protect a child from a harsh unforgiving world.

I agree the assumed necessity on the part of his staff to protect our leaders fragile ego from even the stupidest most obvious mistake is extremely disturbing...

If this man manages to serve more than 1 term then our political system is a complete an utter failure.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #492 on: June 06, 2017, 10:32:37 PM »
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
First, this was more than a typo, it was an unfinished message that went up and wasn't caught by his staff as Anaya mentioned. Even if he had typed out 'coverage' that would be "Despite all the negative press coverage"... and that's it.

Second, rather than saying whoops, and making fun of himself for his mistake, he acts like it was intentional because he of course, never makes mistakes. And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".

It appears I was to diverted with the constant trolling of the mistake when that is not what people are upset about. I haven't listened to or read much of any white house press briefings because they have become nothing but a sad confusing steady stream of lies to protect a child from a harsh unforgiving world.

I agree the assumed necessity on the part of his staff to protect our leaders fragile ego from even the stupidest most obvious mistake is extremely disturbing...

If this man manages to serve more than 1 term then our political system is a complete an utter failure.

If he manages to finish an entire term, our political system is a complete and utter failure...

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3454
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #493 on: June 06, 2017, 10:52:12 PM »
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #494 on: June 06, 2017, 11:17:41 PM »
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?

I'm working Thursday night, so that'd probably be a bad plan...

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #495 on: June 07, 2017, 01:25:48 AM »
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?
Perk of FIRE.

Also, it will stop me buying a lovely but unnecessary antique mahogany chest at auction that day.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2413
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #496 on: June 07, 2017, 04:59:20 AM »
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?

I was just talking about that with the husband. I work from home, so I'm leaving the possibility open.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6345
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #497 on: June 07, 2017, 06:40:10 AM »
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?

what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

PathtoFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Dallas
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #498 on: June 07, 2017, 09:19:36 AM »
...And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".
Small Group = ?
Team of psychiatrists?
Russian handlers?
Alien overlords?
Small group of people who tweet from the toilet at all hours of the day/night?

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3454
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #499 on: June 07, 2017, 09:29:45 AM »
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?

what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
Drink on:
- the American People
- Putin
- imminent threat

Finish your glass on:
- Maralago
- Comrade
- Alec Baldwin

Riot, burn down the bar and the next 4 city blocks:
- golden shower