Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 82861 times)

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7137
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #950 on: October 31, 2017, 06:45:54 PM »
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Are you serious?  Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using.   Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #951 on: October 31, 2017, 06:56:05 PM »
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Are you serious?  Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using.   Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?

Lord. Again:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #952 on: October 31, 2017, 06:58:53 PM »
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Are you serious?  Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using.   Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?

Also, from the source Acroy himself cited:

"Who paid for it?

During the Republican primaries, a donor opposed to Mr. Trump becoming the party’s presidential candidate retained a research firm called Fusion GPS to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The donor has never been identified, but several possible suspects have denied responsibility, including officials from the so-called super PACs that supported the rival campaigns of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida."

But you'd have to, you know, actually READ the article to know that.

And yeah, the NYT sucks in that they have succumbed to the urge to write click-bait headlines, like everyone else. That's part of the reason Hillary lost -- because even they seem to care more about clicks than they do about the truth.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7137
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #953 on: October 31, 2017, 07:11:44 PM »
Also, from the source Acroy himself cited:

"Who paid for it?

During the Republican primaries, a donor opposed to Mr. Trump becoming the party’s presidential candidate retained a research firm called Fusion GPS to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The donor has never been identified, but several possible suspects have denied responsibility, including officials from the so-called super PACs that supported the rival campaigns of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida."

But you'd have to, you know, actually READ the article to know that.

And yeah, the NYT sucks in that they have succumbed to the urge to write click-bait headlines, like everyone else. That's part of the reason Hillary lost -- because even they seem to care more about clicks than they do about the truth.
Kris, I'm cut to the quick that you would think I hadn't read the article. ;)

I did read it, and learned something (maybe?), because what I'd gleaned from other superficial headlines was that it was known that Rubio or Bush or some other Republican candidate had funded the initial research.  Come to find out, if the NYT can be believed, "[t]he donor has never been identified."

I will admit to enjoying how it goes against type when the NYT/WaPo publishes something anti-Dem/pro-Rep, and when Fox News, etc., publishes something anti-Rep/pro-Dem.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #954 on: October 31, 2017, 07:29:09 PM »
Also, from the source Acroy himself cited:

"Who paid for it?

During the Republican primaries, a donor opposed to Mr. Trump becoming the party’s presidential candidate retained a research firm called Fusion GPS to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The donor has never been identified, but several possible suspects have denied responsibility, including officials from the so-called super PACs that supported the rival campaigns of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida."

But you'd have to, you know, actually READ the article to know that.

And yeah, the NYT sucks in that they have succumbed to the urge to write click-bait headlines, like everyone else. That's part of the reason Hillary lost -- because even they seem to care more about clicks than they do about the truth.
Kris, I'm cut to the quick that you would think I hadn't read the article. ;)

I did read it, and learned something (maybe?), because what I'd gleaned from other superficial headlines was that it was known that Rubio or Bush or some other Republican candidate had funded the initial research.  Come to find out, if the NYT can be believed, "[t]he donor has never been identified."

I will admit to enjoying how it goes against type when the NYT/WaPo publishes something anti-Dem/pro-Rep, and when Fox News, etc., publishes something anti-Rep/pro-Dem.

So, you’re saying that...the donor to the conservative group was not identified, and therefore... a liberal?

That seems...

A bit of a stretch.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 07:32:01 PM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7137
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #955 on: October 31, 2017, 07:42:39 PM »
So, you’re saying that...the donor to the conservative group was not identified, and therefore... a liberal?

That seems...

A bit of a stretch.
Of course it's a stretch, and of course I didn't say it.

Merely that the donor remains unidentified.  One can reasonably guess that, at that time, the DNC would have been thrilled to see Trump as the candidate and thus be an unlikely donor.  But whether it was the RNC, one of the other primary candidates, a rich donor who just didn't like Trump, etc. - it seems we don't know that answer at this point.

redbirdfan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 84
  • Location: Seattle
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #956 on: October 31, 2017, 07:48:55 PM »
Serious question...what definition of collusion are we using?  I am more than willing to let Mueller's investigation go where it may, however, at some point we just need to acknowledge that none of this is normal.  We have a REPUBLICAN president who has publicly attacked John McCain for being captured, several Republican senators, Gold Star parents, a Gold Star widow and the various leaders of other countries (including those armed with nukes).  This same president has had received overwhelming evidence that Russia hacked the DNC and that Russia was behind the Podesta email hack and yet he has never publicly said anything to definitively acknowledge that Russia was responsible for anything.  He has gone out of his way to convey the Russian hacks and attempted interference as a hoax. 

Meanwhile we have:

1. A president who has attacked everyone except Putin;
2. the Republican platform being altered to be more pro-Russia;
3. meetings between everyone associated with the campaign and Russians that were initially denied and only admitted to after each person was outed by the press;
4. Kushner contacting Russian bankers for money and failing to disclose the contacts;
5. Kushner attempting to establish a back channel with Russians behind the back of US intelligence;
6. Manafort literally being paid by pro-Russia oligarchs with undisclosed, offshore money (so much so that he was not paid by the campaign to be the campaign manager);
7. An email to set up a meeting that was couched as being part of the Russian government's desire to help get Trump elected - and said meeting was attended by a lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, the son of the president, the president's son-in-law and the same campaign manager indebted to and working as an agent for pro-Russianoligarchs (and no one seemed to be surprised by the notion that Russia wanted to help Trump get elected)
SPOILER ALERT - the meeting took place and everyone involved lied about it...then the president personally dictated a misleading statement about the meeting...then Don Jr. published the email regarding the meeting minutes before WaPo was going to do so...
8.   the President refusing to acknowledge Russia's interference with the election in general or with the respective hacks in particular;
9. the Trump campaign asking wikileaks (generally known to be working with information supplied by Russia) for the emails of HRC;
10. Nigel Farage, a campaign surrogate, having various meetings with Assange and the Ecuadorean embassy;
11.  Roger Stone hinting that he knew of the wikileaks haul of emails before it was public knowledge;
12. the President publicly asking Russia to obtain HRC's emails;
13. the President reading from the hacked emails on the campaign trail and stating that he loves wikileaks;
14. the President appointing a Sec. of State known to be on good terms with Putin;
15.  Flynn purportedly informing the Russians that sanctions would be lifted, and then lying about it, which caused him to  be fired;
16. the President meeting with Putin without anyone else from the U.S. being present;
17.  both of the people named as the President's foreign policy advisors (George Papadopolous and Carter Page) having extremely shady relationships with Russia with George P. pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about Russia;
18. the President being  reluctant to sign off on a bill imposing sanctions on Russia;
19. the President has yet to impose the sanctions set forth in the bill;

...and those are just the things that I can think of off the top of my head.  Again, serious question, at what point do we have evidence of collusion?

TL;DR: If this isn't evidence of collusion, what is?

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #957 on: November 01, 2017, 08:40:05 AM »
A lot of your list is entirely unrelated to actual collusion, especially this:

Quote
We have a REPUBLICAN president who has publicly attacked John McCain for being captured, several Republican senators, Gold Star parents, a Gold Star widow and the various leaders of other countries (including those armed with nukes)

None of this has any relations at all to the charges of collusion. These are all "I don't like Trump," which isn't evidence of collusion.

Anyways, I'd say some of the above is evidence that some collusion may have happened, but some evidence something happened doesn't justify punishment or other action. Obviously in the case of impeachment it's up the House and Senate, and they can impeach for whatever they hell they want despite whatever evidence does or does not exist. To be fined by the FEC or sentenced to prison requires substantially different standards of evidence, which is probably why Paul Manafort is under arrest for fraud and money laundering charges, and making false statements to the FBI.


It's obvious Mueller has more info than he's letting on, but I doubt he has any concrete information that would lead to impeachment.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #958 on: November 01, 2017, 08:47:02 AM »
Serious question...what definition of collusion are we using?  I am more than willing to let Mueller's investigation go where it may, however, at some point we just need to acknowledge that none of this is normal.  We have a REPUBLICAN president who has publicly attacked John McCain for being captured, several Republican senators, Gold Star parents, a Gold Star widow and the various leaders of other countries (including those armed with nukes).  This same president has had received overwhelming evidence that Russia hacked the DNC and that Russia was behind the Podesta email hack and yet he has never publicly said anything to definitively acknowledge that Russia was responsible for anything.  He has gone out of his way to convey the Russian hacks and attempted interference as a hoax. 

Meanwhile we have:

1. A president who has attacked everyone except Putin;
2. the Republican platform being altered to be more pro-Russia;
3. meetings between everyone associated with the campaign and Russians that were initially denied and only admitted to after each person was outed by the press;
4. Kushner contacting Russian bankers for money and failing to disclose the contacts;
5. Kushner attempting to establish a back channel with Russians behind the back of US intelligence;
6. Manafort literally being paid by pro-Russia oligarchs with undisclosed, offshore money (so much so that he was not paid by the campaign to be the campaign manager);
7. An email to set up a meeting that was couched as being part of the Russian government's desire to help get Trump elected - and said meeting was attended by a lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, the son of the president, the president's son-in-law and the same campaign manager indebted to and working as an agent for pro-Russianoligarchs (and no one seemed to be surprised by the notion that Russia wanted to help Trump get elected)
SPOILER ALERT - the meeting took place and everyone involved lied about it...then the president personally dictated a misleading statement about the meeting...then Don Jr. published the email regarding the meeting minutes before WaPo was going to do so...
8.   the President refusing to acknowledge Russia's interference with the election in general or with the respective hacks in particular;
9. the Trump campaign asking wikileaks (generally known to be working with information supplied by Russia) for the emails of HRC;
10. Nigel Farage, a campaign surrogate, having various meetings with Assange and the Ecuadorean embassy;
11.  Roger Stone hinting that he knew of the wikileaks haul of emails before it was public knowledge;
12. the President publicly asking Russia to obtain HRC's emails;
13. the President reading from the hacked emails on the campaign trail and stating that he loves wikileaks;
14. the President appointing a Sec. of State known to be on good terms with Putin;
15.  Flynn purportedly informing the Russians that sanctions would be lifted, and then lying about it, which caused him to  be fired;
16. the President meeting with Putin without anyone else from the U.S. being present;
17.  both of the people named as the President's foreign policy advisors (George Papadopolous and Carter Page) having extremely shady relationships with Russia with George P. pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about Russia;
18. the President being  reluctant to sign off on a bill imposing sanctions on Russia;
19. the President has yet to impose the sanctions set forth in the bill;

...and those are just the things that I can think of off the top of my head.  Again, serious question, at what point do we have evidence of collusion?

TL;DR: If this isn't evidence of collusion, what is?

People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.

The Trump campaign meetings are shady. Which is a behavior we have come to expect from politicians.

Also depends on how hawkish you are. Is compromise collusion? Maybe.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5575
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #959 on: November 01, 2017, 09:03:32 AM »
It's obvious Mueller has more info than he's letting on, but I doubt he has any concrete information that would lead to impeachment.

I don't think impeachment is his goal, or even in his purview.  He's looking for criminal behavior.  Things that break specific laws.  He's found a bunch, and I expect he'll find a bunch more.  None of that necessarily leads to impeachment.

But it does sway public opinion.  Donald Trump hired a criminal to run his campaign, and then acted surprised when that criminal committed treason, sorry "conspiracy against the United States" as if he thought Manafort was a really swell guy who just made some mistakes.  No, he's a lifelong criminal and a foreign agent, and he has no place in US government much less literally running the campaign of one of our national party candidates. 

This is Manchurian Candidate stuff of the highest order.  Russian operatives have infiltrated all levels of the Trump campaign and the Trump white house.  I guess Trump could argue he was oblivious to the fact that half of the people working for him are Russian operatives, but I think a simpler explanation is that he knows full well what's up because he's the mastermind of the whole operation.  His own son admitted to colluding with the Russians and then lied about it.  The whole family looks dirty, to me.

But we live in bizarro backwards world now, where admitting to pussy grabbing isn't really sexual assault, and asking Russia to hack your opponent's emails isn't really colluding, and refusing entry to people from Muslim countries isn't really a Muslim ban, and making your health insurance more expensive is actually lowering costs, and Mexico is apparently going to pay for the wall, and tax breaks for the wealthy will give your $4000 if you're poor.  Nothing this administration does seems to make any sort of logical sense.


PathtoFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Dallas
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #960 on: November 01, 2017, 09:21:03 AM »
Don't forget that taking freedoms and protections away from people = more liberty. I'm beginning to think liberty means something different to some people in this country, and that they really believe that investing more power back into groups that have long held privilege and control in this country really is promoting liberty.

Just Joe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #961 on: November 01, 2017, 09:39:41 AM »
This isn't new - The conservatives have used dog whistle politics for ages.

They say liberty and they mean liberty for white, hetero males.
They say tax cuts and they really mean tax cuts for certain people.
The tax cuts end up amounting to $1.50 a week for the little guy and X millions of dollars of tax cuts for the guys at the top.
Democracy for everyone when conservatives actually mean gerrymandering.
Smaller government which really means smaller benefits or fewer safety nets for the poor and more government spending on everything else.
And on and on and on.

Its gotten to a point where I hear their leadership speak I expect the opposite of what the words mean.

I get that most (some?) conservative voters want what their party SAYS (heck, I want some of what the GOP says) but I think fewer of them understand what is really being done. I wish the media was reporting more on a politician's long game than what they said yesterday.

Backwards land indeed. Even more obvious than before.

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #962 on: November 01, 2017, 09:42:10 AM »
Quote
Trump campaign meetings are shady. Which is a behavior we have come to expect from politicians.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? This attitude, that "shady" politicians are "what we expect" and thus, by inference, there's no point to asserting the rule of law or holding people accountable is so brazenly defeatist that it beggars belief.

Sure, there are corrupt politicians (especially at the state level). They are routinely investigated, prosecuted, forced to resign, and imprisoned. It's deplorable that 5 out of the last 7 Illinois governors have spent time in jail. But, it's waaaaay better than the alternative.
"There cannot be two skies"

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #963 on: November 01, 2017, 09:46:31 AM »
But it does sway public opinion.  Donald Trump hired a criminal to run his campaign, and then acted surprised when that criminal committed treason, sorry "conspiracy against the United States" as if he thought Manafort was a really swell guy who just made some mistakes.  No, he's a lifelong criminal and a foreign agent, and he has no place in US government much less literally running the campaign of one of our national party candidates. 

I only hire the BEST people - DJT
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #964 on: November 01, 2017, 09:51:51 AM »
But it does sway public opinion.  Donald Trump hired a criminal to run his campaign, and then acted surprised when that criminal committed treason, sorry "conspiracy against the United States" as if he thought Manafort was a really swell guy who just made some mistakes.  No, he's a lifelong criminal and a foreign agent, and he has no place in US government much less literally running the campaign of one of our national party candidates. 

I only hire the BEST people - DJT

Well, both of the references on on his resume gave him great reviews: Viktor Yanukovych and Vladimir Putin. They said almost the same things even!

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2618
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #965 on: November 01, 2017, 09:59:41 AM »
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.
What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts?  And what are their sources of information?

I mean, come ON.  There are numerous sources detailing Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear as the DNC hackers, then linking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to the Russians and the WikiLeaks dump of the emails within hours of the "pussy grabbing" video being made public.

Without evidence, your statement is straight out of the Trump playbook and a sign that you are swallowing Russian propaganda whole.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #966 on: November 01, 2017, 10:17:27 AM »
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.
What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts?  And what are their sources of information?

I mean, come ON.  There are numerous sources detailing Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear as the DNC hackers, then linking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to the Russians and the WikiLeaks dump of the emails within hours of the "pussy grabbing" video being made public.

Without evidence, your statement is straight out of the Trump playbook and a sign that you are swallowing Russian propaganda whole.

People have doubts that human-influenced climate change is real, too. And that the earth is round(ish). And that we've been to the moon.

That doesn't mean those doubts are legitimate.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #967 on: November 01, 2017, 11:23:45 AM »
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.
What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts?  And what are their sources of information?

I mean, come ON.  There are numerous sources detailing Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear as the DNC hackers, then linking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to the Russians and the WikiLeaks dump of the emails within hours of the "pussy grabbing" video being made public.

Without evidence, your statement is straight out of the Trump playbook and a sign that you are swallowing Russian propaganda whole.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

https://nef4rhc.wordpress.com Collects all the current doubts into one single report.

As for politicians having shady meetings, I figure the reason we heard about this one was because they bungled it. Experienced politicians would have two or three layers between them and the actual meeting.

For better or worse, the show has begun. We can only let it run its course.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #968 on: November 01, 2017, 11:49:50 AM »
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions.  Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement.   There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #969 on: November 01, 2017, 01:16:42 PM »
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.
What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts?  And what are their sources of information?

I mean, come ON.  There are numerous sources detailing Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear as the DNC hackers, then linking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to the Russians and the WikiLeaks dump of the emails within hours of the "pussy grabbing" video being made public.

Without evidence, your statement is straight out of the Trump playbook and a sign that you are swallowing Russian propaganda whole.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

https://nef4rhc.wordpress.com Collects all the current doubts into one single report.

As for politicians having shady meetings, I figure the reason we heard about this one was because they bungled it. Experienced politicians would have two or three layers between them and the actual meeting.

For better or worse, the show has begun. We can only let it run its course.

Just thought the follow-up to that first article deserved a link as well...

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#vips-dissent

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #970 on: November 01, 2017, 01:47:13 PM »

Just thought the follow-up to that first article deserved a link as well...
[snip]

This was already discussed up-thread.  Please read the previous comments to avoid rehashing.

ETA: see here.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2017, 01:51:55 PM by nereo »
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #971 on: November 01, 2017, 03:42:59 PM »

Just thought the follow-up to that first article deserved a link as well...
[snip]

This was already discussed up-thread.  Please read the previous comments to avoid rehashing.

ETA: see here.

I've been following this thread since it started and do not recall reading that article.  Granted I haven't read every article linked in the thread, so maybe I just missed it, but I also looked over the page that you linked and did not see any links to it.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #972 on: November 01, 2017, 06:12:54 PM »
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions.  Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement.   There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".

I posted all the reasons I have doubts. I may be in the middle of cognitive dissonance but "Liberals losing their shit" still makes more sense than "Russian Puppet."

1st scenario: I have seen Trump be called an idiot. A fool. A buffoon. Senile. Arrogant. Childish. Impulsive. Pissing all over himself in this interview. If this were the middle ages, we would dress him in motley and have him be court jester.

Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.

2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.

Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?

3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.

I'll be figuring "Liberal Meltdown" until whatever the intelligence community evidence is  is revealed. "Trust me. We got evidence." Doesn't quite cut it.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3988
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #973 on: November 01, 2017, 06:24:45 PM »
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions.  Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement.   There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".

I posted all the reasons I have doubts. I may be in the middle of cognitive dissonance but "Liberals losing their shit" still makes more sense than "Russian Puppet."

1st scenario: I have seen Trump be called an idiot. A fool. A buffoon. Senile. Arrogant. Childish. Impulsive. Pissing all over himself in this interview. If this were the middle ages, we would dress him in motley and have him be court jester.

Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.

2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.

Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?

3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.

I'll be figuring "Liberal Meltdown" until whatever the intelligence community evidence is  is revealed. "Trust me. We got evidence." Doesn't quite cut it.

Yeah, those FBI indictments are silly liberal meltdowns...

crazyworld

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 95
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #974 on: November 01, 2017, 06:31:15 PM »
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions.  Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement.   There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".



I posted all the reasons I have doubts. I may be in the middle of cognitive dissonance but "Liberals losing their shit" still makes more sense than "Russian Puppet."

1st scenario: I have seen Trump be called an idiot. A fool. A buffoon. Senile. Arrogant. Childish. Impulsive. Pissing all over himself in this interview. If this were the middle ages, we would dress him in motley and have him be court jester.

Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.

2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.

Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?

3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.

I'll be figuring "Liberal Meltdown" until whatever the intelligence community evidence is  is revealed. "Trust me. We got evidence." Doesn't quite cut it.

you must mean some "fine people"

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #975 on: November 01, 2017, 06:46:42 PM »
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions.  Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement.   There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".

I posted all the reasons I have doubts. I may be in the middle of cognitive dissonance but "Liberals losing their shit" still makes more sense than "Russian Puppet."

1st scenario: I have seen Trump be called an idiot. A fool. A buffoon. Senile. Arrogant. Childish. Impulsive. Pissing all over himself in this interview. If this were the middle ages, we would dress him in motley and have him be court jester.

Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.

2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.

Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?

3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.

I'll be figuring "Liberal Meltdown" until whatever the intelligence community evidence is  is revealed. "Trust me. We got evidence." Doesn't quite cut it.

Yeah, those FBI indictments are silly liberal meltdowns...

Yeah. Led by a man who’s a lifelong Republican.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

phil22

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 67
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #976 on: November 01, 2017, 06:55:54 PM »
Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.

russia didn't suddenly decide to use trump as a puppet.  this has been developing for decades.  trump has decades of history with the russians (https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate).  he'll reflexively attack and insult anyone at the drop of a hat and yet will not speak ill of the russians -- the only logical explanation is that he's under their thumb in some way.  he's compromised and surrounded both by russian influence and shady handlers like stone and manafort.

Quote
2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.

Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?

it's been reported that manafort has been under FISA surveillance for years.  we are just starting to see the beginnings of what the surveillance and investigation have found.  we still don't know who involved in the campaign was caught red handed but it'll be more than just manafort.  yep, we'll have to just wait and see.

if trump's term is cut short it'll be the first time foreign influence caused a removal of the president from office.  the government is slow but it seems to be on the right track.

Quote
3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.

the first amendment gives you the right to speak without being arrested -- it doesn't mean you get to speak at any venue of your choosing.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #977 on: November 03, 2017, 11:56:11 AM »
anytime someone says drain the swamp, it usually means, in that context, someone working for the Federal Gov. in DC; possibly including FBI agents. Not saying the indictments are not warranted (ha!) but just that they are what they are, for tax evasion not presidential election conspiracy.

*Most Republican politicians do not like trump any more than nearly all Democrats.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #978 on: November 03, 2017, 11:58:17 AM »
anytime someone says drain the swamp, it usually means, in that context, someone working for the Federal Gov. in DC; possibly including FBI agents. Not saying the indictments are not warranted (ha!) but just that they are what they are, for tax evasion not presidential election conspiracy.

*Most Republican politicians do not like trump any more than nearly all Democrats.

They're sure willing to hang around in the same trough and eat the same slop, though.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #979 on: November 03, 2017, 12:29:56 PM »
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
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
Discover Card referral ($50 now and $50 after your first year! and free credit monitoring): https://refer.discover.com/s/gv3ma

OurTown

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #980 on: November 03, 2017, 12:39:49 PM »
I'm more interested in the next round of indictments from Mueller.  I assume Flynn is on deck, although I would take Jared Kushner or Don Jr. 

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #981 on: November 03, 2017, 12:50:53 PM »
I'm more interested in the next round of indictments from Mueller.  I assume Flynn is on deck, although I would take Jared Kushner or Don Jr.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/jared-kushner-robert-mueller-documents-russia-investigation/index.html

Quote
Jared Kushner has turned over documents in recent weeks to special counsel Robert Mueller as investigators have begun asking in witness interviews about Kushner's role in the firing of FBI Director James Comey, CNN has learned.

Mueller's investigators have expressed interest in Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and a White House senior adviser, as part of its probe into Russian meddling, including potential obstruction of justice in Comey's firing, sources familiar with the matter said.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

OurTown

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #982 on: November 03, 2017, 01:04:33 PM »
Hey thanks, I get great customer service here. 

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #983 on: November 03, 2017, 01:13:45 PM »
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Are you serious?  Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using.   Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?

Also, from the source Acroy himself cited:

"Who paid for it?

The NYT article was published on the 25th and the original funder of the dossier was unknown at that time.

On the 27th the Washington Free Becon announced they were the original funder for the anti-Trump opposition research project with Fusion GPS.
http://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/fusion-gps-washington-free-beacon/

They pulled the plug in the spring and it was picked up by the DNC/HRC campaign (which we just found out were actually one and the same)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-free-beacon-funded-original-fusion-gps-anti-trump-opposition-effort/article/2638850

And what does Mueller want with Podesta, hmmmm?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/tony-podesta-stepping-down-from-lobbying-giant-amid-mueller-probe-244314

So many swamp rats getting so uncomfortable. I LOVE it.
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #984 on: November 03, 2017, 01:18:47 PM »
So many swamp rats getting so uncomfortable. I LOVE it.

You mean like the entirety of Trump's inner circle?  Me too.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7137
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #985 on: November 03, 2017, 01:34:22 PM »
So many swamp rats getting so uncomfortable. I LOVE it.

You mean like the entirety of Trump's inner circle?  Me too.

Rumor has it that Nostradamus told Shakespeare to have Mercutio say A plague on both your houses, referring not to the Montagues and Capulets but to the Republicans and Democrats.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #986 on: November 03, 2017, 01:37:01 PM »
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

If Trump moves on Mueller, it'd be a serious shit show. The term "Saturday Night Massacre" comes to mind.

How long could the Republican-led Senate refuse impeachment proceedings in this case?


Eta: The Republicans really need to get over Hillary. She lost. Their obsession is both sad and comical.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2017, 01:39:41 PM by bacchi »

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #987 on: November 03, 2017, 03:50:02 PM »
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

surfhb

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 286
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #988 on: November 03, 2017, 04:22:35 PM »
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play
« Last Edit: November 03, 2017, 04:25:57 PM by surfhb »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #989 on: November 03, 2017, 04:39:21 PM »
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

Hmmm...what lost votes? Maybe independents? My understanding (unless recent polls have been conducted) is that it is mainly Dems who care about the Russia investigation, and they are't voting GOP anyway.  I find this sad, but I'm not at all sure voter pressure will come down on the GOP side to remove Trump from office. The GOP vote is far more in tune with Trump than with Congress.  I think it's even money that Trump will move against Mueller, and further even money that the GOP will support him.

surfhb

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 286
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #990 on: November 03, 2017, 05:43:36 PM »
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

Hmmm...what lost votes? Maybe independents? My understanding (unless recent polls have been conducted) is that it is mainly Dems who care about the Russia investigation, and they are't voting GOP anyway.  I find this sad, but I'm not at all sure voter pressure will come down on the GOP side to remove Trump from office. The GOP vote is far more in tune with Trump than with Congress.  I think it's even money that Trump will move against Mueller, and further even money that the GOP will support him.

Its the Indy voters who elected this guy.   

Either way,  for the GOP establishment to back the President in firing Mueller would pretty much seal their fate.    Were talking about 3 extreme right congressmen here.   

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #991 on: November 03, 2017, 10:04:05 PM »
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

Hmmm...what lost votes? Maybe independents? My understanding (unless recent polls have been conducted) is that it is mainly Dems who care about the Russia investigation, and they are't voting GOP anyway.  I find this sad, but I'm not at all sure voter pressure will come down on the GOP side to remove Trump from office. The GOP vote is far more in tune with Trump than with Congress.  I think it's even money that Trump will move against Mueller, and further even money that the GOP will support him.

Its the Indy voters who elected this guy.   

Either way,  for the GOP establishment to back the President in firing Mueller would pretty much seal their fate.    Were talking about 3 extreme right congressmen here.   

Yep. Trump's approval rating is 37%. Worse, his disapproval rating is 57%. If Trump fires Mueller, the numbers will shift and not in his favor. Even staunch Republican Congresslings won't want to face down a 60%+ disapproval.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #992 on: November 04, 2017, 09:09:21 AM »
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

Hmmm...what lost votes? Maybe independents? My understanding (unless recent polls have been conducted) is that it is mainly Dems who care about the Russia investigation, and they are't voting GOP anyway.  I find this sad, but I'm not at all sure voter pressure will come down on the GOP side to remove Trump from office. The GOP vote is far more in tune with Trump than with Congress.  I think it's even money that Trump will move against Mueller, and further even money that the GOP will support him.

Its the Indy voters who elected this guy.   

Either way,  for the GOP establishment to back the President in firing Mueller would pretty much seal their fate.    Were talking about 3 extreme right congressmen here.   

Yep. Trump's approval rating is 37%. Worse, his disapproval rating is 57%. If Trump fires Mueller, the numbers will shift and not in his favor. Even staunch Republican Congresslings won't want to face down a 60%+ disapproval.

Well, I sincerely hope you guys are correct.  But currently 8 in 10 GOP voters actively approve of the job Trump is doing. And those are the people that elect the Republican congresspeople.  Generally speaking, the GOP base approves of Trump more than they approve of the GOP congress, and many of them agree with Trump that the Russia investigation is bogus.  I see no reason to think that they won't stick by Trump no matter what, and turn on any congressperson that distances themselves from Trump.  So I am not at all optimistic that the GOP will move against Trump, no matter what is discovered about him.

ETA: I have almost bottomless pessimism about humanity, so admittedly that might be tamping down my hope.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 09:12:27 AM by wenchsenior »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #994 on: November 07, 2017, 08:40:16 AM »
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

What makes you think the House GOP caucus will tolerate what they think is a witch-hunt?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #995 on: November 07, 2017, 09:31:23 AM »
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

What makes you think the House GOP caucus will tolerate what they think is a witch-hunt?

They (most of them) don't think it's a witch hunt.

They just want tax reform for rich people more than they want a functioning government.

And they're more afraid of being primaried by a crazy pro-Trump person than they are of being beaten by a Democrat in the generals.

Most of them know Trump is awful. But they care more about themselves than they do about the country.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #996 on: November 07, 2017, 09:44:51 AM »
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

What makes you think the House GOP caucus will tolerate what they think is a witch-hunt?

They (most of them) don't think it's a witch hunt.

They just want tax reform for rich people more than they want a functioning government.

And they're more afraid of being primaried by a crazy pro-Trump person than they are of being beaten by a Democrat in the generals.

Most of them know Trump is awful. But they care more about themselves than they do about the country.

There is a large contingent of the Republican Party (the Tea Partiers) who entered public office because they actively want to destroy government.  I wonder how different things would be without them in the mix (and suspect that things would be much more reasonable overall).

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5575
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #997 on: November 07, 2017, 10:34:42 AM »
There is a large contingent of the Republican Party (the Tea Partiers) who entered public office because they actively want to destroy government.  I wonder how different things would be without them in the mix (and suspect that things would be much more reasonable overall).

It's only a matter of time until we start learning about how the original tea party movement was funded by Russian oligarchs with ties to Putiin.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #998 on: November 07, 2017, 10:41:22 AM »
There is a large contingent of the Republican Party (the Tea Partiers) who entered public office because they actively want to destroy government.  I wonder how different things would be without them in the mix (and suspect that things would be much more reasonable overall).

It's only a matter of time until we start learning about how the original tea party movement was funded by Russian oligarchs with ties to Putiin.

Nah.  The Koch brothers are an American problem, don't try to blame everything on Russia.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #999 on: November 07, 2017, 01:01:32 PM »

Well, I sincerely hope you guys are correct.  But currently 8 in 10 GOP voters actively approve of the job Trump is doing. And those are the people that elect the Republican congresspeople.  Generally speaking, the GOP base approves of Trump more than they approve of the GOP congress, and many of them agree with Trump that the Russia investigation is bogus.  I see no reason to think that they won't stick by Trump no matter what, and turn on any congressperson that distances themselves from Trump.  So I am not at all optimistic that the GOP will move against Trump, no matter what is discovered about him.


There's an interesting subtext regarding the current public support/disapproval of DJT.  Almost all polls use whats called a 'self-selection' question where they ask the respondent whether they consider themselves a part of the GOP, Democratic party or independent. While its true that he still holds a strong majority of self-selected GOP individuals, there's increasing indications that fewer people in total are describing themselves as a likely GOP voter.  He's literally shrinking the GOP party as many traditional conservatives and right-of-center individuals find themselves unable to support his positions.
These people aren't likely to get behind progressive candidates that the Dems keep tossing out (Sanders, Warren, etc) but they could support a more moderate Dem (if any exist at the national level anymore), or more likely just stay home/place a symbolic vote for a 3rd-party 'also-ran'.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"