Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 57265 times)

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #700 on: July 24, 2017, 10:01:39 AM »
On the day Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort met with the Russian American lawyer in June 2016 Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

DarkandStormy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Columbus
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #701 on: July 24, 2017, 10:04:46 AM »
On the day Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort met with the Russian American lawyer in June 2016 Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

The Chase Trifecta:

Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spending in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #702 on: July 24, 2017, 10:08:42 AM »
On the day Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort met with the Russian American lawyer in June 2016 Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.



Comes from Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig  who stated this on today's OnPoint.

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/07/24/mueller-follow-money-trump-russia

DarkandStormy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Columbus
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #703 on: July 24, 2017, 10:20:52 AM »
^Was referring to this line:

Quote
Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
The Chase Trifecta:

Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spending in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #704 on: July 24, 2017, 10:23:21 AM »
^Was referring to this line:

Quote
Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

That's precisely what came from Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6204
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #705 on: July 24, 2017, 10:50:19 AM »
Regarding Kushner's prepared statements for the Senate's closed door hearing - I'm not certain which is version is more frightening.

According to Kushner, he arrived late, had no idea what the meeting was about, did not read the long email chain and somehow missed that the subject line was "Re: Russia – Clinton – private and confidential".  Furthermore, he did not seem to think that anything was amiss to have several people from Russia (whom he claims not to have known who they were) in Trump tower discussing changing international policy (in this case sanctions on Russian adoptions) during a campaign.

In short, his position is that he was an extremely busy yet clueless rube unaware of campaign laws.  Nothing about the meeting or the email chain aroused his suspicion, and he basically forgot it ever happened during his filings.  It didn't even raise suspicion when Kislyak told him he wanted to convey information from what he called his ‘generals,’ but that they could not come to the United States and “he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation.”  Again, a foreigner asking him to set up a private way to communicate didn't strike him as odd or potentially a legal grey area - so much so he says he plum forgot about it until it resurfaced just recently.

At the same time he claims to have been a senior advisor to DJT's campaign, kept in the loop on email chains from both DJT and Jr. and frequently invited to sit in on each other's meetings. 

He seems to be arguing that he was unaware of what was going on BECAUSE he was too busy and too involved.  He was both clueless and indespensible. He witnessed closed-door meetings with Russians but thought so little of them he begged a staffer to call him on his cell to get him out of the meeting.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

DarkandStormy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Columbus
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #706 on: July 24, 2017, 10:55:32 AM »
^^And he never did it.  I'm not disputing that he tweeted it, I'm disputing that he ever had the "damaging information" to begin with.
The Chase Trifecta:

Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spending in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6709
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #707 on: July 24, 2017, 11:07:23 AM »
Unfortunately, the same series of actions could come from a 100% guilty person who assumes he can get away with anything, or from a 100% innocent person who is sick of the distracting storm of innuendo.

That's being pretty charitable. 

Imagine if Obama had refused to release his birth certificate and then started speaking Swahili in the White House and sending his paycheck to Kenya, and you have some idea of how Trump is responding to the "innuendo".  Despite the fact that those birther criticisms were totally baseless, OF COURSE he responded in a transparent manner by releasing all documents and providing corroborating witnesses and freely discussing the topic with the press.  He did not fire anybody.  He did not threaten anybody.  He did not deliberately encourage the rumors by doing things that made it look like they were all true, and then give speeches claiming that it's probably not true, but even if it was true it would be totally fine and he would just pardon himself.

Trump is trolling the nation again, just like he did with "there's nobody better on women than me" after the pussy grabbing tape, and "I'm the only one who respects the military" after trashing Gold Star families at the convention.  Just like he did with Rosie O'Donnel and the birther conspiracy and "I'll release my taxes the day I win the nomination" and Mexican rapists who "some of them, I assume, are good people."  He's a deliberately inflammatory caricature of himself.  He thrives by pissing other people off, even when he debases and degrades and contradicts himself to do it, so of course he'll deny all contact with the Russians and then the very next day invite the Russian literally into the Oval Office for a secret meeting.  It's like he's constantly trying to see exactly how far he can push things before everyone realizes he's just joking about this whole "being President" thing.
Charity is good, is it not? :)

I have no idea whether Trump is a "master manipulator" (as Scott Adams states) or merely a loose cannon.  The whole Russia thing, at the heart of it, seems pretty much politics as usual and not close to being worth all the discussion about it (whatever "it" is).

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1349
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #708 on: July 24, 2017, 11:19:36 AM »
Unfortunately, the same series of actions could come from a 100% guilty person who assumes he can get away with anything, or from a 100% innocent person who is sick of the distracting storm of innuendo.

That's being pretty charitable. 

Imagine if Obama had refused to release his birth certificate and then started speaking Swahili in the White House and sending his paycheck to Kenya, and you have some idea of how Trump is responding to the "innuendo".  Despite the fact that those birther criticisms were totally baseless, OF COURSE he responded in a transparent manner by releasing all documents and providing corroborating witnesses and freely discussing the topic with the press.  He did not fire anybody.  He did not threaten anybody.  He did not deliberately encourage the rumors by doing things that made it look like they were all true, and then give speeches claiming that it's probably not true, but even if it was true it would be totally fine and he would just pardon himself.

Trump is trolling the nation again, just like he did with "there's nobody better on women than me" after the pussy grabbing tape, and "I'm the only one who respects the military" after trashing Gold Star families at the convention.  Just like he did with Rosie O'Donnel and the birther conspiracy and "I'll release my taxes the day I win the nomination" and Mexican rapists who "some of them, I assume, are good people."  He's a deliberately inflammatory caricature of himself.  He thrives by pissing other people off, even when he debases and degrades and contradicts himself to do it, so of course he'll deny all contact with the Russians and then the very next day invite the Russian literally into the Oval Office for a secret meeting.  It's like he's constantly trying to see exactly how far he can push things before everyone realizes he's just joking about this whole "being President" thing.
Charity is good, is it not? :)

I have no idea whether Trump is a "master manipulator" (as Scott Adams states) or merely a loose cannon. The whole Russia thing, at the heart of it, seems pretty much politics as usual and not close to being worth all the discussion about it (whatever "it" is).
I don't think the bolded part is an either/or situation. Charity is fine, as long as it includes a reasoned look at the situation. There is a heck of a lot more than just innuendo here. And even if there were no issue with the Russians, his response to it is very problematic because it shows a disregard for the judicial processes. This is hardly politics as usual. I'm not going to normalize Trump's behavior by implicitly accepting that statement.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1793
    • Be Less Crazy
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #709 on: July 24, 2017, 11:29:41 AM »
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine.

Really, a gold mine? Podesta's risotto recipe? People in an office talking shit about someone who's talking shit about them publicly?

Talk about a nothingburger that the media couldn't stop harping on ...

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6709
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #710 on: July 24, 2017, 11:41:43 AM »
There is a heck of a lot more than just innuendo here.
There is a lot of smoke.  Agreed that determining whether it is coming from a Trump fire or Democratic smoke machine is the core issue.
Quote
And even if there were no issue with the Russians...
That would pretty much end this thread.
Quote
...his response to it is very problematic because it shows a disregard for the judicial processes. This is hardly politics as usual. I'm not going to normalize Trump's behavior by implicitly accepting that statement.
Not saying Trump is normal ;) so in that sense it may be unusual.  But making mountains out of molehills is something the far right and left do on a regular basis.
 

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #711 on: July 24, 2017, 01:55:53 PM »
It's vital to maintain vigilance against the abuse of the presidential office, whether that be collusion with Russia to use stolen emails to damage the opposition candidate, or whether it's changing foreign policy of the US for personal financial gain, not to mention the possibly illegal effort to block investigation of that collusion.

I can be critical of Trump and also be critical of Obama, one doesn't have to be on the extreme right or left to do so.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6709
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #712 on: July 24, 2017, 04:05:01 PM »
I can be critical of Trump and also be critical of Obama, one doesn't have to be on the extreme right or left to do so.
Yes, indeed!

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #713 on: July 24, 2017, 04:56:48 PM »
I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other  politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight?  You lost me with that anaolgy...

Clinton could have run an honest campaign. The DNC could have done its job and been unbiased. Yet both failed to do their jobs. They had chosen Clinton long before Sanders appeared on the scene. Yet Democrats are saying "Russia harmed our electoral system." It was already damaged by the DNC actions. All the hacking did was reveal it.

And for a supposedly experienced group of politicians, why did they leave evidence of their manipulations online? Basic criminals know not to leave fingerprints. 30 year political veterans should know not to leave a paper trail. So out of idiocy or incompetence they screwed up.

Clinton ran the largest, most powerful political machine the world had ever seen. (The Titanic.) But the Clinton name is cursed. The icebergs are the problems she had on the campaign trail. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html)

Thank you for responding.  I will say I disagree with many of your interpretations and assumptions.  For starters I've never believed that either the DNC or the RNC are 'neutral, unbiased' entities.  They are private political parties and have always sought out and supported candidates who exemplified their message.  To me it was common sense that they would support HRC - a high profile democrat for over three decades - over Sanders, who has never been a democrat. Or, to use your parlance, the DNC's "job" is to support candidates who fit the party line and have the best chance of pushing their agenda.  It can be argued that the DNC made a grave miscalculation here, but we'll never know how it could have turned out.  I'd also say that the RNC tried and failed to support candidates who supported the GOP platform.  As a result, under DJT the GOP's platform is splintered and largely non-compatible with what it was under the Bushes and Reagan.

Were they idiots for leaving an electronic trail?  possibly, but that doesn't denote that their strategies were either unexpected or illegal. To my knowledge all the emails really showed was a concerted effort to defeat and discredit other political challengers.  What did we expect they were saying behind closed doors - "gee, Bernie is great and i secretly hope he wins but how can we run for president and not ever make him look bad"?  common...The major mistake the HRC campaign made was to use a private server, then lie about how it was used and botch several opportunities to come clean about it.  I chalk that up to arrogance (another thing politics has plenty of). It also makes no sense to me why people are so willing to condemn HRC for saying unflattering things about her opponents in private email conversations when DJT said similar things in the national press.  What's the message?  You be nasty in public but not in private?

Finally there's this assertion that Russian interference is somehow not something to be concerned about because of the way HRC ran her campaign. Let's dispatch with that notion - regardless of what you believe HRC is or is not guilty of, it does not justify or negate a foreign entity attempting to influence our democratic elections. The "HRC is a corrupt politician so anything Russia may ahve done doesn't matter" doesn't add up. We cannot ignore severe crimes simply because we don't like who they were perpetrated against.

Internet ate my response.

The concept you speak of is called Realpolitick. I cannot fault a person for being pragmatic. However, impartiality is a tenant of the DNC's charter. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2989759-Impartiality-Clause-DNC-Charter-Bylaws-Art-5-Sec-4.html )  The DNC is now being sued over their partiality because Bernie supporters donated expecting impartiality. Why list your Ideals if you only support them when they are convenient? Or were those people fools?

You are right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Problem is, a team of burglars show up at your house, only to find a 2nd team already there. Are they all in the wrong? Yes.

My problem is every liberal saying "We would have had a fair election if Russia wasn't involved." Did you have a fair election? Was the will of the people expressed or oppressed? Are people just angry because the hacking exposed that they were as rotten to the core as Republicans?
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6204
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #714 on: July 24, 2017, 05:25:25 PM »
ok - I can see from the document you linked that the DNC chairperson is charged with impartiality according to their bylaws

Quote
In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness
as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns.

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment extensively on the legality of a private entity not following its own bylaws.
I do know that a person can excercize impartiality and evenhandedness even when they have an opinion about the person(s) they are dealing with. Judges do this on a daily basis.
Let me ask this:  what actions did the DNC chair take that showed impartiality or were unevenhanded?  I'm asking because I really don't know of any, but wouldn't be surprised if some exist.

Quote
You are right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Problem is, a team of burglars show up at your house, only to find a 2nd team already there. Are they all in the wrong? Yes.

My problem is every liberal saying "We would have had a fair election if Russia wasn't involved." Did you have a fair election? Was the will of the people expressed or oppressed? Are people just angry because the hacking exposed that they were as rotten to the core as Republicans?

Yes - both burglar teams are in the wrong, and both actions should be examined.  But if we find that one was your cousin there to steal beer from your fridge, and the other were convected murderers armed to the teeth and carrying equipment to break into your safe... my point is just as we must be skeptical of some claims that the election was stolen by the Russians, we also must not not ignore other transgressions by saying things like "... but Hillary and her emails! Benghazi! Paid speeches!"
Both extremes seem to be willing to overlook various transgressions by focusing on something completely unrelated. I think that's a grave mistake.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #715 on: July 24, 2017, 05:40:07 PM »
ok - I can see from the document you linked that the DNC chairperson is charged with impartiality according to their bylaws

Quote
In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness
as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns.

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment extensively on the legality of a private entity not following its own bylaws.
I do know that a person can excercize impartiality and evenhandedness even when they have an opinion about the person(s) they are dealing with. Judges do this on a daily basis.
Let me ask this:  what actions did the DNC chair take that showed impartiality or were unevenhanded?  I'm asking because I really don't know of any, but wouldn't be surprised if some exist.

Quote
You are right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Problem is, a team of burglars show up at your house, only to find a 2nd team already there. Are they all in the wrong? Yes.

My problem is every liberal saying "We would have had a fair election if Russia wasn't involved." Did you have a fair election? Was the will of the people expressed or oppressed? Are people just angry because the hacking exposed that they were as rotten to the core as Republicans?

Yes - both burglar teams are in the wrong, and both actions should be examined.  But if we find that one was your cousin there to steal beer from your fridge, and the other were convected murderers armed to the teeth and carrying equipment to break into your safe... my point is just as we must be skeptical of some claims that the election was stolen by the Russians, we also must not not ignore other transgressions by saying things like "... but Hillary and her emails! Benghazi! Paid speeches!"
Both extremes seem to be willing to overlook various transgressions by focusing on something completely unrelated. I think that's a grave mistake.

Indeed, it's all just the tu quoque fallacy over and over. HRC is 100% irrelevant to questions about DJT. Also, at this point, she is a completely insignificant person in the scope of the world compared to DJT. The reasoning that we should still care about her as much/more than the POTUS is so bad it's laughable. You want to talk about Hillary? Go start a thread about her. But if you want to make a coherent point about any actions Trump and his team did or did not take, then stop talking about Hillary.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #716 on: July 24, 2017, 05:42:47 PM »
And everyone will say "Russia shouldn't have meddled in our election." I figure Democrats shouldn't have run a terrible candidate, who ran a disastrous campaign, that didn't appeal to a disillusioned base and then maybe the hack would not have been so effective.

I assume I poked a beehive but I honestly believe that Democrats tried to float the Titanic and proceeded to ram every damn iceberg in a 10 mile radius.

In the last presidential elections I voted for HR Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Gore, WJ Clinton, and Dukakis. And I agree with this part you wrote above. Hillary Clinton was a pretty horrible candidate. I mean, we could argue about whether the perception of her was legitimate or unfairly painted on her, but perception is reality when it comes to voting and politics. I actually think she's super smart, super-informed on the issues, and I agree with many of her policy stances. But she was wildly unpopular. The DNC chose as their candidate one of the most unpopular people they could. I just saw an article the other day that says HRC is actually still more unpopular than Trump, who I view as just about the most pathetic excuse for a human being anyone could dream up.
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #717 on: July 24, 2017, 06:04:55 PM »
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine.

Really, a gold mine? Podesta's risotto recipe? People in an office talking shit about someone who's talking shit about them publicly?

Talk about a nothingburger that the media couldn't stop harping on ...
Risotto is exactly the point! Only a limousine liberal coastal elite would cook that; here in the heartland we eat Hamburger Helper!

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #718 on: July 24, 2017, 07:02:33 PM »
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine.

Really, a gold mine? Podesta's risotto recipe? People in an office talking shit about someone who's talking shit about them publicly?

Talk about a nothingburger that the media couldn't stop harping on ...

Again, if you are perceived as corrupt, doing things that could be interpreted as corrupt will not help you.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #719 on: July 24, 2017, 07:25:44 PM »
ok - I can see from the document you linked that the DNC chairperson is charged with impartiality according to their bylaws

Quote
In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness
as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns.

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment extensively on the legality of a private entity not following its own bylaws.
I do know that a person can excercize impartiality and evenhandedness even when they have an opinion about the person(s) they are dealing with. Judges do this on a daily basis.
Let me ask this:  what actions did the DNC chair take that showed impartiality or were unevenhanded?  I'm asking because I really don't know of any, but wouldn't be surprised if some exist.

Quote
You are right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Problem is, a team of burglars show up at your house, only to find a 2nd team already there. Are they all in the wrong? Yes.

My problem is every liberal saying "We would have had a fair election if Russia wasn't involved." Did you have a fair election? Was the will of the people expressed or oppressed? Are people just angry because the hacking exposed that they were as rotten to the core as Republicans?

Yes - both burglar teams are in the wrong, and both actions should be examined.  But if we find that one was your cousin there to steal beer from your fridge, and the other were convected murderers armed to the teeth and carrying equipment to break into your safe... my point is just as we must be skeptical of some claims that the election was stolen by the Russians, we also must not not ignore other transgressions by saying things like "... but Hillary and her emails! Benghazi! Paid speeches!"
Both extremes seem to be willing to overlook various transgressions by focusing on something completely unrelated. I think that's a grave mistake.

Indeed, it's all just the tu quoque fallacy over and over. HRC is 100% irrelevant to questions about DJT. Also, at this point, she is a completely insignificant person in the scope of the world compared to DJT. The reasoning that we should still care about her as much/more than the POTUS is so bad it's laughable. You want to talk about Hillary? Go start a thread about her. But if you want to make a coherent point about any actions Trump and his team did or did not take, then stop talking about Hillary.

I figure Trump is the White House leaker. The timing and the fact that no solid evidence comes with it makes me think he is trolling you. He coopted the liberal "Russia-gate" narrative for his own ends.

Why would he do that? The Intelligentsia demanded a special prosecutor that will keep digging until he finds something. You created an Inquisition over politics. And it is starting to drive a wedge between the Intelligentsia and the middle class. You appear small, distracted and petty while their dinner table sits empty.

Yet, what are you doing to reform your party? To make sure that your party will do what it says? That is the heart of the DNC email problem and the nomination. They read like Cersei Lannister talking about her "small folk." The "small folk" have been forgotten by both parties.

And until you figure out how to get back in touch with them, you better get used to Trump being president.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #720 on: July 24, 2017, 07:40:06 PM »
^Trump is not clever or deft enough to be Frank Underwood

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #721 on: July 24, 2017, 09:32:17 PM »

I figure Trump is the White House leaker. The timing and the fact that no solid evidence comes with it makes me think he is trolling you. He coopted the liberal "Russia-gate" narrative for his own ends.

Why would he do that? The Intelligentsia demanded a special prosecutor that will keep digging until he finds something. You created an Inquisition over politics. And it is starting to drive a wedge between the Intelligentsia and the middle class. You appear small, distracted and petty while their dinner table sits empty.

Yet, what are you doing to reform your party? To make sure that your party will do what it says? That is the heart of the DNC email problem and the nomination. They read like Cersei Lannister talking about her "small folk." The "small folk" have been forgotten by both parties.

And until you figure out how to get back in touch with them, you better get used to Trump being president.

First, I am not a Democrat. I think at best the DNC is only somewhat less terrible than the RNC at the moment, but I would throw them both out in an instant if I could. My views mostly align with more Americans than not, tbh, based on issue polling. Too bad the parties don't actually represent the will of the people.
 
Second, LOL at your apparent buy-in to the "Trump is playing 12 dimensional chess" narrative. I couldn't care less about his "trolling." Third, you are still completely deflecting because, apparently, you have nothing constructive to say about the actual topic of discussion other than a bunch of hand-wavy BS about some sort of "intelligentsia" machinations.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #722 on: July 24, 2017, 09:50:41 PM »
Why would he do that? The Intelligentsia demanded a special prosecutor that will keep digging until he finds something. You created an Inquisition over politics. And it is starting to drive a wedge between the Intelligentsia and the middle class. You appear small, distracted and petty while their dinner table sits empty.


Meanwhile Trump and the Republicans have done nothing to improve the lot of the  middle class, in fact they may cause millions to lose access to healthcare. And the middle class aren't getting the factory and coal jobs that were promised.

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #723 on: July 25, 2017, 04:03:13 AM »

I figure Trump is the White House leaker. The timing and the fact that no solid evidence comes with it makes me think he is trolling you. He coopted the liberal "Russia-gate" narrative for his own ends.

Why would he do that? The Intelligentsia demanded a special prosecutor that will keep digging until he finds something. You created an Inquisition over politics. And it is starting to drive a wedge between the Intelligentsia and the middle class. You appear small, distracted and petty while their dinner table sits empty.

Yet, what are you doing to reform your party? To make sure that your party will do what it says? That is the heart of the DNC email problem and the nomination. They read like Cersei Lannister talking about her "small folk." The "small folk" have been forgotten by both parties.

And until you figure out how to get back in touch with them, you better get used to Trump being president.

First, I am not a Democrat. I think at best the DNC is only somewhat less terrible than the RNC at the moment, but I would throw them both out in an instant if I could. My views mostly align with more Americans than not, tbh, based on issue polling. Too bad the parties don't actually represent the will of the people.
 
Second, LOL at your apparent buy-in to the "Trump is playing 12 dimensional chess" narrative. I couldn't care less about his "trolling." Third, you are still completely deflecting because, apparently, you have nothing constructive to say about the actual topic of discussion other than a bunch of hand-wavy BS about some sort of "intelligentsia" machinations.

Meh. You wanted me to talk about Trump. I talked about Trump. I got the usual "Trump is an childish, arrogant buffoon" routine. Yet some how he managed to live a year and a half in the media spotlight and national intelligence microscope without leaking a video of him in a Russian hat yelling "Nos Vadania Comrade!"

I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.

Thanks for your time.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

MasterStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #724 on: July 25, 2017, 06:00:44 AM »
I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.

Thanks for your time.

None of what you "allegedly" came here for has any relation to the topic. You are attempting to conflate super delegates with Russia meddling and the possibility of collusion. It's an obvious attempt to deflect and/or downplay the seriousness of the current situation. As someone already suggested feel free to start your own thread about Clinton.

DarkandStormy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Columbus
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #725 on: July 25, 2017, 07:08:51 AM »
Ol' Donnie is tweeting up a storm again today...this morning's tidbits include classified info, throwing Sessions under the bus (even more), and now throwing McCabe (acting director of FBI) under the bus as well.

He's certainly acting like a guilty man.
The Chase Trifecta:

Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spending in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #726 on: July 25, 2017, 07:31:46 AM »
Quote
I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack.

Umm... Because those superdelegates were US citizens duly empowered by a legitimate political party and Russian intelligence officers are not? This is one of the most pathetic attempts at a false equivalency I've seen in a while.
"There cannot be two skies"

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #727 on: July 25, 2017, 07:37:35 AM »
Also, this is your daily reminder that while reasonable people can disagree about what each campaign knew when and if any hacking was significant, it is known by the entire IC that Russia attempted hacks against 21 state electoral systems and were running propaganda campaigns at the precinct level during the campaign.

These are acts of war and, while Trump may claim not to care, you can be damn sure that *Mattis* cares an awful lot.
"There cannot be two skies"

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #728 on: July 25, 2017, 11:22:41 AM »
I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.

Thanks for your time.

None of what you "allegedly" came here for has any relation to the topic. You are attempting to conflate super delegates with Russia meddling and the possibility of collusion. It's an obvious attempt to deflect and/or downplay the seriousness of the current situation. As someone already suggested feel free to start your own thread about Clinton.

I was looking for consistency. I shrug my shoulders because I figure it was an attack on a corrupt system. I admit that I was wrong and the system is clean.

You guys have fun.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

Samuel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #729 on: July 25, 2017, 11:55:38 AM »
Umm... Because those superdelegates were US citizens duly empowered by a legitimate political party and Russian intelligence officers are not? This is one of the most pathetic attempts at a false equivalency I've seen in a while.

Seriously. One of the very, very few silver linings in this absurd fiasco is the amusement of watching the Gumby level contortions people are forced to use to try and defend this President.

I'm sure there is a sensible right wing argument that could be made but I have yet to see it. Probably because at this point it would have to include the words "it's time to see the tax returns".
 

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 969
  • Age: 35
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #730 on: July 25, 2017, 12:20:23 PM »
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.

Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright.  Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet.  With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.

August recess coming up. Maybe he will fire Sessions and Rosenstein and whomever else before the August recess, and then make a recess appointment of Kushner or maybe Trump Jr. as the AG.

Apparently the minority party can block recess appointments via a filibuster, which the democrats are doing to Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/trump-recess-appointments/index.html

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #731 on: July 25, 2017, 12:26:01 PM »
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.

Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright.  Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet.  With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.

August recess coming up. Maybe he will fire Sessions and Rosenstein and whomever else before the August recess, and then make a recess appointment of Kushner or maybe Trump Jr. as the AG.

Apparently the minority party can block recess appointments via a filibuster, which the democrats are doing to Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/trump-recess-appointments/index.html

Thank goodness

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #732 on: July 25, 2017, 06:06:03 PM »
I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.

Thanks for your time.

None of what you "allegedly" came here for has any relation to the topic. You are attempting to conflate super delegates with Russia meddling and the possibility of collusion. It's an obvious attempt to deflect and/or downplay the seriousness of the current situation. As someone already suggested feel free to start your own thread about Clinton.

I was looking for consistency. I shrug my shoulders because I figure it was an attack on a corrupt system. I admit that I was wrong and the system is clean.

You guys have fun.
Do you know why the Democrats instituted a primary system with superdelegates? It's because they were smart (stupid?) enough to want to avoid what happened this cycle on the Republican side where one of the weakest candidates emerged from the primaries. Some argue Bernie would have won (I'm skeptical about the prospects of everyone's manic socialist uncle winning, though Biden almost certainly would have) but (IIRC) even without the superdelegates, Hillary was ahead in ordinary delegates and even more ahead in primary votes, since a fair amount of Bernie's success came from caucus primary states with much smaller turnouts. Superdelegates are indeed a thumb on the scale but it's massively more transparent and democratic than the white smoke of a papal conclave.

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #733 on: July 25, 2017, 06:36:18 PM »
I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.

Thanks for your time.

None of what you "allegedly" came here for has any relation to the topic. You are attempting to conflate super delegates with Russia meddling and the possibility of collusion. It's an obvious attempt to deflect and/or downplay the seriousness of the current situation. As someone already suggested feel free to start your own thread about Clinton.

I was looking for consistency. I shrug my shoulders because I figure it was an attack on a corrupt system. I admit that I was wrong and the system is clean.

You guys have fun.
Do you know why the Democrats instituted a primary system with superdelegates? It's because they were smart (stupid?) enough to want to avoid what happened this cycle on the Republican side where one of the weakest candidates emerged from the primaries. Some argue Bernie would have won (I'm skeptical about the prospects of everyone's manic socialist uncle winning, though Biden almost certainly would have) but (IIRC) even without the superdelegates, Hillary was ahead in ordinary delegates and even more ahead in primary votes, since a fair amount of Bernie's success came from caucus primary states with much smaller turnouts. Superdelegates are indeed a thumb on the scale but it's massively more transparent and democratic than the white smoke of a papal conclave.

I believe it was in response to McGovern? In the 80's?

I would argue that super delegates make them less adaptable. But you folks are not here to argue Democrat policies. So I surrender. Enjoy your Russia-gate.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #734 on: July 25, 2017, 07:03:31 PM »
I think the DNC is in the shitter with no clear political narrative and a paucity of serious and talented (undamaged) candidates to put forward. The Republicans control the Executive and the Legislative branches, and have an ideological edge in SCOTUS at the federal level. Republicans control 32 state legislatures and have 33 state governors. Some of the discrepancy can be attributed to gerrymandering but much of it cannot. The Democrats should be thinking hard about what they are doing wrong, when on paper, their identity politics-based demographic coalition should be thriving. But this thread isn't about any of that (though I'd welcome one that got into such issues); this is specific thread is about Russian meddling in the US election, which is why I presume your tangents are not being warmly embraced as relevant counterpoints.

MasterStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #735 on: July 25, 2017, 08:49:12 PM »
this is specific thread is about Russian meddling in the US election, which is why I presume your tangents are not being warmly embraced as relevant counterpoints.

Yep. Super delegates being part of a democratic system is not even in the same universe as foreign meddling in an election.  Trying to conflate the two is, well to put it nicely, disingenuous. There is no logical counter point to Russia meddling.  Only deflection.

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #736 on: July 25, 2017, 08:55:10 PM »
I think the DNC is in the shitter with no clear political narrative and a paucity of serious and talented (undamaged) candidates to put forward. The Republicans control the Executive and the Legislative branches, and have an ideological edge in SCOTUS at the federal level. Republicans control 32 state legislatures and have 33 state governors. Some of the discrepancy can be attributed to gerrymandering but much of it cannot. The Democrats should be thinking hard about what they are doing wrong, when on paper, their identity politics-based demographic coalition should be thriving. But this thread isn't about any of that (though I'd welcome one that got into such issues); this is specific thread is about Russian meddling in the US election, which is why I presume your tangents are not being warmly embraced as relevant counterpoints.

Yes. You hit everyone of my points on the head actually. Except go one step further. I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time? Was it that we expected the worst out of our candidates? (Fake news requires doubtful minds to germinate in.) Was the election simply a series of amateur mistakes that we are trying to fit a narrative to now because it was so damn insane? We have five investigations going, four "smoking guns" and what seems to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Did Russia actually do this damage, or was the damage actually there for a while and this election was going to expose it one way or the other?

There are lots of questions. But I don't think we can have an honest discussion between the two camps.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #737 on: July 26, 2017, 06:03:28 AM »
I think the DNC is in the shitter with no clear political narrative and a paucity of serious and talented (undamaged) candidates to put forward. The Republicans control the Executive and the Legislative branches, and have an ideological edge in SCOTUS at the federal level. Republicans control 32 state legislatures and have 33 state governors. Some of the discrepancy can be attributed to gerrymandering but much of it cannot. The Democrats should be thinking hard about what they are doing wrong, when on paper, their identity politics-based demographic coalition should be thriving. But this thread isn't about any of that (though I'd welcome one that got into such issues); this is specific thread is about Russian meddling in the US election, which is why I presume your tangents are not being warmly embraced as relevant counterpoints.

Yes. You hit everyone of my points on the head actually. Except go one step further. I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time? Was it that we expected the worst out of our candidates? (Fake news requires doubtful minds to germinate in.) Was the election simply a series of amateur mistakes that we are trying to fit a narrative to now because it was so damn insane? We have five investigations going, four "smoking guns" and what seems to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Did Russia actually do this damage, or was the damage actually there for a while and this election was going to expose it one way or the other?

There are lots of questions. But I don't think we can have an honest discussion between the two camps.

I will take a stab at your questions with my opinion.  I am going to level a significant amount of blame on one side of the spectrum, but believe me there are problems with the left as well.  I just don't think they are as easy to articulate accurately and are more complex.  The country has been shifting into disparate ideological camps for almost 20+ years now.  It had mostly been beneath the surface until recently.  Twenty years of Fox News and other right wing entertainment that masquerades as news as exacerbated the problem of fake news.  They have primed the pump by getting their viewers angry and upset with Washington based on misleading or flat out wrong information.  This earns them a lot of money, which is their reason for existing.

When you are conditioned to always believe the worst about someone, or a party, or a race etc....it is very easy to exploit that with additional fake information.  That's why the electorate was so willing to believe the fake news this time around and help swing the election.  That is far from the only factor, there is also the unnatural hatred of Clinton, genuine economic concerns, and a unfailing faith in believe that the leopards will only other peoples faces (love that meme).

As far as Russia, I think very few people actually believe that Putin masterminded Trumps rise and they get together and hash out plans together.  There is a significant amount of evidence that the Trump organization was used extensively for laundering Russian money.  It was just business to them.  Putin and the leadership probably didn't care at all about the trumps at all except for as a way to launder their money for a small cut.  When Trump started really getting political a few years ago is when the Russian leadership probably took notice and realized they had financial leverage over someone.  It is going to be hard to prove an explicit quid pro quo, but Russian interfered likely to screw with America (because that is what they like to do).  They know Trump is friendly to Russia based on the previous decades of financial interactions, and if they can swing it for him, it can only benefit them. 

Do I think Trump and Putin sat in a room 2 years ago and hashed out a plan....no.  Do I think Russia made some asks of the Trump organization through his children/aides.....almost certainly.  There are far too many inexplicable events that fit that narrative exactly.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1504
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #738 on: July 26, 2017, 06:43:09 AM »
I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time?

You are asking to be persuaded of something that no one with any credibility (that I'm aware of) is even claiming. The issue is that Trump encouraged, applauded, and possibly even participated in Russia's interference with our elections. And now that he's under investigation for possible collusion, he's using every interference technique in the goddamn books to try to stop and/or undermine the investigation. It doesn't matter one iota to me whether or not Russia's meddling swayed the electoral results; I just want to know whether or not Trump and his associates acted illegally or unethically to further his own interests by colluding with a hostile nation.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 07:12:05 AM by Mississippi Mudstache »
Never. Give up.

My Woodworking Blog

MasterStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #739 on: July 26, 2017, 06:55:33 AM »
I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time?

You are asking to be persuaded of something that no one with any credibility (that I'm aware of) is even claiming. The issue is that Trump encouraged, applauded, and possibly even participated in Russia's interference with our elections. And now that he's under investigation for possible collusion, he's putting using every interference technique in the goddamn books to try to stop and/or undermine the investigation. It doesn't matter one iota to me whether or not Russia's meddling swayed the electoral results; I just want to know whether or not Trump and his associated acted illegally or unethically to further his own interests by colluding with a hostile nation.

+1.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #740 on: July 26, 2017, 07:10:53 AM »
I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time?

You are asking to be persuaded of something that no one with any credibility (that I'm aware of) is even claiming. The issue is that Trump encouraged, applauded, and possibly even participated in Russia's interference with our elections. And now that he's under investigation for possible collusion, he's putting using every interference technique in the goddamn books to try to stop and/or undermine the investigation. It doesn't matter one iota to me whether or not Russia's meddling swayed the electoral results; I just want to know whether or not Trump and his associated acted illegally or unethically to further his own interests by colluding with a hostile nation.

Exactly.  Personally, I suspect Trump would have squeaked out his electoral win regardless of Russia.  And at any rate, we probably won't ever know that one way or the other, so it doesn't matter at this point.

Whether or not Trump is a legitimate president isn't in question to me.  He is appalling, incompetent, and potentially mentally ill IMO, but he got elected. 

The issue of Trump's Camp colluding with Russia is a different one (though related) to Russia going around the world (in other nations as well as ours) and trying to fuck around with their elections.  We would need to be investigating the Russia angle even if Dems controlled all three branches of government!  Tangential to the important issue (Russian interference) is the secondary issue: potential that 1) Trump or members of  his camp colluded in electoral meddling in any way that was illegal; 2) or Trump or members of his camp are subject to undue leverage or blackmail by a foreign government.

The real irony is that in the 2012 elections, the Romney and the GOP were all, OBAMA IS TOO SOFT ON PUTIN! RUSSIA IS OUR NUMBER ONE GEOPOLITICAL FOE OMG!  And (apart from Russian interference in elections, which was not being discussed then) I mostly thought the GOP was acting hysterical.  But now the GOP (and esp its voters) views Russia as 'no big deal', while the nuttiest elements of the left seem to think that Trump could never have won without Russian help. 

In reality, Russian is not our friend, but isn't America's One-Eyebrowed Baby either.  However, Russian attempts to undermine democratic elections is a very real concern to ALL WESTERN NATIONS. This would still be true if Clinton had won!  Our PRIMARY concern is maintaining free, fair, and democratic elections to the extent we are capable.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #741 on: July 26, 2017, 08:04:41 AM »
Moreover members of the Trump team lied before the Senate about whether they met with Russians like the ambassador Kisylak.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not disclose meetings he had last year with Russian officials when he applied for his security clearance"
"Sessions did not disclose the same contacts with Kislyak during his Senate confirmation hearings"
"Sessions' met with Russian officials while he played a prominent role in the Trump campaign"
"Kushner prematurely submitted his SF-86 form without listing foreign contacts "
"Flynn is under investigation for not properly disclosing payments linked to Russia for his foreign trips."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politics/jeff-sessions-russian-officials-meetings/index.html

DarkandStormy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Columbus
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #742 on: July 26, 2017, 08:19:15 AM »
So Trump has decided to alienate ~1.5 million Americans, barring them from serving in the military.  Glad he Made America...DISCRIMINATE Again.

Now he's throwing Sessions, the man he appointed as AG, under the bus for being TOO NICE with HRC.  This, after he supposedly fired Comey for being too mean to her (jk it's because he was investing his Russia ties).

Nixon just cut ties with his AG over much less.  Trump is just publicly admonishing him daily.  Dude...you can fire him any time you want!  What a petulant ****ing child.
The Chase Trifecta:

Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spending in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6709
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #743 on: July 26, 2017, 09:20:31 AM »
The real irony is that in the 2012 elections, the Romney and the GOP were all, OBAMA IS TOO SOFT ON PUTIN! RUSSIA IS OUR NUMBER ONE GEOPOLITICAL FOE OMG!  And (apart from Russian interference in elections, which was not being discussed then) I mostly thought the GOP was acting hysterical.  But now the GOP (and esp its voters) views Russia as 'no big deal', while the nuttiest elements of the left seem to think that Trump could never have won without Russian help. 
Good point.  The narratives have changed somewhat since then, haven't they?

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 969
  • Age: 35
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #744 on: July 26, 2017, 09:26:25 AM »
The real irony is that in the 2012 elections, the Romney and the GOP were all, OBAMA IS TOO SOFT ON PUTIN! RUSSIA IS OUR NUMBER ONE GEOPOLITICAL FOE OMG!  And (apart from Russian interference in elections, which was not being discussed then) I mostly thought the GOP was acting hysterical.  But now the GOP (and esp its voters) views Russia as 'no big deal', while the nuttiest elements of the left seem to think that Trump could never have won without Russian help. 
Good point.  The narratives have changed somewhat since then, haven't they?

To be fair, the republican congress is going to pass a veto-proof sanctions package against russia that also eliminates the presidents ability to remove the sanctions without congressional approval.

I think republicans still don't like russia (at least republican politicians), but they hate giving the democrats a win even more so that's why they want to downplay the russian collusion story until it's 100% obvious it occurred.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6709
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #745 on: July 26, 2017, 09:38:01 AM »
...downplay the russian collusion story until it's 100% obvious it occurred.
That's assuming it did occur.  If there were solid evidence Feinstein et al. would be trumpeting it, not saying such evidence hasn't been found (e.g., There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion).

Yes, there's lots of smoke, but the source of the smoke is debatable.

DarkandStormy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Columbus
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #746 on: July 26, 2017, 09:49:49 AM »
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2017/07/01/mattis-delays-new-transgender-policy-for-us-military/

26 days ago the Secretary of Defense said 6 months was necessary to make a decision on transgenders in the military.

Today, Trump cowardly made the announcement on Twitter that all transgenders would be banned from serving.  The Pentagon was caught off guard.
The Chase Trifecta:

Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spending in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66

Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spending needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #747 on: July 26, 2017, 09:58:09 AM »

I think republicans still don't like russia (at least republican politicians), but they hate giving the democrats a win even more so that's why they want to will downplay the russian collusion story until even after it's 100% obvious it occurred.

FTFY.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

MasterStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #748 on: July 26, 2017, 10:23:48 AM »

Yes, there's lots of smoke, but the source of the smoke is debatable.

LMAO, what? The source of the smoke is Trump's own family and his campaign. Oh we forgot we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!! They already admitted to collusion. The question isn't where the smoke is coming from. It's how much gasoline is this administration going to continue pouring on the fire? 

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6709
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #749 on: July 26, 2017, 10:35:15 AM »
...we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!!
In all seriousness - so what?

People met and meet with Russians all the time.  Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time.  As wenchsenior noted, in 2012 it was Obama criticizing Romney for being obsessed with Russia.  Now the Republicans say the Democrats are obsessed with Russia.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.