The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Lagom on December 11, 2016, 03:09:05 PM

Title: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 11, 2016, 03:09:05 PM
Surprised we haven't started a thread on this one yet. Now the intelligence community has a consensus view that Russia conspired to influence our election in favor of Trump. Add this to Trump's pro-Putin rhetoric and appointment of various pro-Russia cabinet members (the SoS, no less) and the conclusions start to draw themselves.

But we don't even have to go there. Straight up, we have the president elect not only refusing to take security briefings because he's "smart," but now flatly denying this bombshell, presumably because it makes him look bad. Post-truth indeed. So far the only "evidence" I've seen why we shouldn't be deeply concerned is that "they also said there were WMDs in Iraq!" Forgive me for not being reassured when the alternative is taking a narcissistic serial liar at his word.

PS - A true leader can still acknowledge the seriousness of the report and the need to investigate without feeling defensive about it, or even acknowledging that it delegitimizes his win. All Trump needs to say is something like "this is an outrage and a threat to American democracy that we will not let stand. I promise my administration will do all within my power to make sure any possible Russian actions are thoroughly investigated and responded to appropriately." That's what a true patriot would do.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 11, 2016, 04:24:40 PM
I thought this was a very good article: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a51430/russia-election/

That said, most people (at least trump supporters) simply don't believe this.  They think it's a lie pushed by Hillary supporters.  I AM a Hillary supporter and was disinclined at first to believe this myself until I saw the sources were the leaders of the intelligence community all consistently reaching the same conclusion.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 11, 2016, 04:27:02 PM
And now the president elect, who has lied throughout his campaign, gets to lie from the White House and the presidential twitter account.  He is not a patriot.  He is in it for himself and his ego.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: redbirdfan on December 11, 2016, 05:56:51 PM
I wish I could say that I'm surprised.  Don't forget that Trump called for Russia to release Hillary's emails in a press conference and denied Russian interference in the election in a presidential debate.  He referred to Putin as a stronger leader than Obama and seems to bend over backwards to avoid criticizing Putin.  Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Manafort and Tillerson all have direct ties to Russia.  The transition team statement condemning the CIA for the WMD issue was the final straw for me.  I don't understand why Trump routinely puts down US intelligence to avoid acknowledging that Russia interfered with our election.  If we're lucky his reluctance to acknowledge Russia's role simply relates to his insecurity with the legitimacy of his win (in the same vein as his tweet about the popular vote).  Trump's refusal to accept the conclusions of US intelligence should be a concern on both sides of the aisle and to the American public in general. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 11, 2016, 06:52:00 PM
Trump's response follows exactly the same pattern that all of his previous responses have followed going back decades: 1) Flatly deny the allegation, 2) attack whomever asked about it, and 3) attack the source/issue through slander and/or disinformation and/or diversion.

Trump gets asked about his misogynistic behavior/statements? Attack Megyn Kelly and talk about Bill Clinton.
Trump gets asked about Russian tampering? Deny it, discuss 13 year old intelligence failures (which were largely the administration cherry picking, rather than the CIA)

This pattern is also referred to as gaslighting. Even goddamn Teen Vogue sees this:
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america

Amongst a long list of other earlier articles on the same topic:
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+gaslighting+america&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I find Trump and his coterie despicable, but am also sad for humanity that it works.

In general, I think the standard operating procedure should be that if Trump follows this gaslighting pattern, the allegation should be considered factually correct until shown to be otherwise.

So... since gaslighting is well documented in abusive relationships, how are people supposed to deal with it? The solution is to get out of the relationship (DTMFA). Unfortunately, it seems that is not likely to be an option any time soon.

Sigh.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on December 12, 2016, 02:14:01 AM
Any chance the electoral college members can be persuaded that they would be committing treason if they voted for Trump?

The damage that could be done to the USA's interests, and by extension to the interests of the free world, if Trump is this pro-Russia for the next 4 years, is incalculable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 12, 2016, 05:03:57 AM
Any chance the electoral college members can be persuaded that they would be committing treason if they voted for Trump?

I'd say somewhere between none and Buckley's.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on December 12, 2016, 08:23:53 AM
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 12, 2016, 08:31:42 AM
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.

This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 12, 2016, 08:56:24 AM
those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?

I'm less upset about the release of emails, though I would have preferred they released emails from BOTH sides of the election. 

I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: trollwithamustache on December 12, 2016, 09:17:54 AM
Its very likely true the Russians hacked both candidates offices. The Chinese probably hacked them both two. Israel runs a pretty tight ship on the intelligence front, so don't be surprised if they probably hacked them both too just to keep tabs on how future policy may affect them. A handful of other countries are smart enough to do this kind of snooping around with a decent cover of plausible deniability. A mess of independent guys probably got into some of both candidates computers too.  I could be totally wrong here, but I suspect the independent guys are more likely to dirty stuff for $$$$ than the state actors.

The problem is we will only see the summary of the report and none of the classified details. None of those details can be verified/checked/commented on by other experts.  All electronic systems that capture a lot of public attention will end up having their security flaws exposed or exploited.

If you want an interesting study in propaganda watch the TV network RT. They've been trying to destabilize America for years and are doing a hilariously amateur job at it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 12, 2016, 09:45:50 AM
Its very likely true the Russians hacked both candidates offices. The Chinese probably hacked them both two. Israel runs a pretty tight ship on the intelligence front, so don't be surprised if they probably hacked them both too just to keep tabs on how future policy may affect them. A handful of other countries are smart enough to do this kind of snooping around with a decent cover of plausible deniability. A mess of independent guys probably got into some of both candidates computers too.  I could be totally wrong here, but I suspect the independent guys are more likely to dirty stuff for $$$$ than the state actors.

The problem is we will only see the summary of the report and none of the classified details. None of those details can be verified/checked/commented on by other experts.  All electronic systems that capture a lot of public attention will end up having their security flaws exposed or exploited.

If you want an interesting study in propaganda watch the TV network RT. They've been trying to destabilize America for years and are doing a hilariously amateur job at it.

This is true. It also seems that Trump won't see them either because he refuses to take the intelligence community seriously unless they are pushing a narrative he likes. This is, independently of the Russia election meddling, also quite terrifying. I have loads of issues with how our intelligence agencies conduct themselves, but for a president to openly doubt them, and by implication position himself to stock them with loyalists (to Trump, not the U.S.)? For a president to make policy based not on actual intelligence briefings but on what someone as "smart" as him thinks is going on? Yikes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on December 12, 2016, 10:07:34 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malaysia41 on December 12, 2016, 10:36:29 AM
Thanks for starting this thread Lagom,

a decent summary of what we know so far ( from reddit u/NeverHadTheLatin  ): 
(and sorry I didn't url link all the urls - you'll need to copy paste yo selves)

Quote
Everything we know to date:

Trump has become 'an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation'

Ex-director of the CIA publicly states that Putin has be successful in manipulating Trump - "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Trump campaign worked to undermine support for Ukraine

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.

Still, Republican delegates at last week’s national security committee platform meeting in Cleveland were surprised when the Trump campaign orchestrated a set of events to make sure that the GOP would not pledge to give Ukraine the weapons it has been asking for from the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.634e44e2df23

Trump states he doesn't believe Putin will invade the Ukraine - after Russia has already annexed Crimea

“He’s not going into Ukraine,” Trump said. “He’s not going to go into Ukraine. You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want.” “He’s already there isn’t he?” Stephanopoulos said. “Well, he’s there in a certain way,” Trump said.

http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/pence-says-trump-knew-that-russia-invaded-crimea-heres-what-trump-actually-said/

Trump has been unclear on his relationship with Putin

In an interview with ABC News in August 2016, Trump said he had "no relationship with Putin." In an interview with MSNBC in 2013, Trump said "I do have a relationship, and he's very interested in what we're doing."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCFgYzf4DV4

Unexplained server connection between Russian bank and Trump Organisation

“I have an outlier here that connects to Russia in a strange way,” he wrote in his notes. He couldn’t quite figure it out at first. But what he saw was a bank in Moscow that kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue. “I’ve never seen a server set up like that,” says Christopher Davis, who runs the cybersecurity firm HYAS InfoSec Inc. and won a FBI Director Award for Excellence for his work tracking down the authors of one of the world’s nastiest botnet attacks. “It looked weird, and it didn’t pass the sniff test.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

Russian diplomats and officials were in touch with Trump's team throughout the campaign

Russian government officials conferred with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday, a disclosure that could reopen scrutiny of the Kremlin’s role in the president-elect’s bitter race against Hillary Clinton. The statement came from Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who said in an interview with the state-run Interfax news agency that “there were contacts” with the Trump team. “Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Ryabkov said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/moscow-had-contacts-with-trump-team-during-campaign-russian-diplomat-says/2016/11/10/28fb82fa-a73d-11e6-9bd6-184ab22d218e_story.html?utm_term=.e5300ac87f7f

Ex-Trump campaign chairman allegedly received undisclosed cash payments from pro-Russian Ukranian party

Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html

Trump advocates Russian hacking

Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen, essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference here in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

Russia was involved in passing along hacked information about the Clinton campaign to Wikileaks

Officials briefed on the matter were told that intelligence agencies had found that individuals linked to the Russian government had provided WikiLeaks with thousands of confidential emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and others.

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there."

In early May, the DNC called in CrowdStrike, a security firm that specializes in countering advanced network threats. After deploying their tools on the DNC’s machines, and after about two hours of work, CrowdStrike found “two sophisticated adversaries” on the Committee’s network.

CrowdStrike linked both groups to “the Russian government’s powerful and highly capable intelligence services.” APT 29, suspected to be the FSB, had been on the DNC’s network since at least summer 2015. APT 28, identified as Russia’s military intelligence agency GRU, had breached the Democrats only in April 2016, and probably tipped off the investigation.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/ http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

Russia was involved in the hacking of the Republican party but chose not release hacked information

The Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html)

And I'm adding these comments on NATO: http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-fires-back-after-donald-trump-questions-value-of-defending-allies-1469120175 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-fires-back-after-donald-trump-questions-value-of-defending-allies-1469120175))
--------------------------------------

What's going on? Where's the outrage?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 12, 2016, 10:39:46 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 12, 2016, 10:43:43 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Honestly. I'm absolutely shocked that people can justify this in any way.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 12, 2016, 10:48:44 AM
Thanks for those links Malaysia. Where is the outrage indeed... I have noticed a substantial drop in the presence of Trump supporters in our various political threads over the past week or two. Perhaps they are finally realizing how crazy the "he's no worse than HRC" narrative was. More likely, they are doing what most do when faced with extreme cognitive dissonance--tune out anything that disrupts the narrative they've created for themselves.

I sometimes feel like I'm becoming a bit numb to it myself, but then I suppose that's gaslighting in a nutshell. This is the most terrifying thing of all. Somehow, the most scandal ridden president in our history (and this is before he's even inaugurated!) is slowly but surely convincing the public (or enough of it, at least), that only he is telling them the truth. "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled..."

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 12, 2016, 10:54:31 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Honestly. I'm absolutely shocked that people can justify this in any way.

Particularly in a way that is patently false.  Trump has been literally convicted of corruption in a court of law.  Clinton has never even stood accused, much less been convicted.

Unless by "accused" you mean by angry people on the internet.  In that case she's been accused of just about everything.

We don't need foreign powers to infiltrate the US government to know that Trump is corrupt.  He's admitted it in court.  He's admitted it on television.  Why do people still buy this narrative that he's fighting corruption, rather than embodying it?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 12, 2016, 10:58:50 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Honestly. I'm absolutely shocked that people can justify this in any way.

Particularly in a way that is patently false.  Trump has been literally convicted of corruption in a court of law.  Clinton has never even stood accused, much less been convicted.

Unless by "accused" you mean by angry people on the internet.  In that case she's been accused of just about everything.

We don't need foreign powers to infiltrate the US government to know that Trump is corrupt.  He's admitted it in court.  He's admitted it on television.  Why do people still buy this narrative that he's fighting corruption, rather than embodying it?

Why bring Clinton into this? She is never going to be President. Trump will stand or fail on his own, to be compared with other presidents.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 12, 2016, 10:59:57 AM
I am absolutely amazed at the almost supernatural extent of deception evident in trump's campaign and now in the run-up to his presidency.  It's surreal.  I cannot fathom how people are falling for this.  He lies every time he opens his mouth.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on December 12, 2016, 11:02:49 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Doesn't make it okay, just makes it laughable.  The outrage from the Hillary supporters of "how dare they expose our dark terrible secrets" is amusing to me.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on December 12, 2016, 11:04:10 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Honestly. I'm absolutely shocked that people can justify this in any way.

Particularly in a way that is patently false.  Trump has been literally convicted of corruption in a court of law.  Clinton has never even stood accused, much less been convicted.

Unless by "accused" you mean by angry people on the internet.  In that case she's been accused of just about everything.

We don't need foreign powers to infiltrate the US government to know that Trump is corrupt.  He's admitted it in court.  He's admitted it on television.  Why do people still buy this narrative that he's fighting corruption, rather than embodying it?

Yeah, you're right, I'm being loose with my words and such.  But hackers bringing to light emails about the DNC colluding with the Hillary campaign to screw over Bernie, that sort of thing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 12, 2016, 11:07:51 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Doesn't make it okay, just makes it laughable.  The outrage from the Hillary supporters of "how dare they expose our dark terrible secrets" is amusing to me.

There were no dark terrible secrets.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 12, 2016, 11:09:45 AM
Beware the danger of false equivalencies. (Potentially) colluding with foreign powers is a far cry from pulling the political levers of a party for a nomination.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: trollwithamustache on December 12, 2016, 11:35:50 AM

Trump is a on a low information diet, even if he didn't read MMM :). What is so magical about daily intelligence briefings?   He's not actually president yet, his only actual job responsibility as president elect is to get all his cabinet and staff people on board so they are ready to go. If Obama makes some decision about Syria and if they tell trump an hour later or two days later what changes?

He is definitely an outsider and a wild card. He likely doesn't believe everything he said while campaigning, and that is both hopefully a good thing if he doesn't build a wall and a bad thing in that we really have no idea what wild $ss thing he's going to try. The China sabre rattling before actually in office seems more dangerous.

My plan is to make my ACLU and EFF donations this year. Next year we will start the first hundred days of useless political news that we as the American public must endure every time we get a new jockey.  By June we might even know what Trump is really up to.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 12, 2016, 11:43:00 AM
He's feuding with members of his own party (Ryan wouldn't speak his name until a few weeks ago.) He's feuding with the intelligence community (all 17 agencies agree -- Russia was involved in the hacking -- but Trump denies it). He's now taking on the defense companies (Lockheed and Boeing).

He'll be done in 2 years. Either he'll be enriching himself at the public trough or he'll be playing footsies too much with Putin.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 12, 2016, 11:45:04 AM

Trump is a on a low information diet, even if he didn't read MMM :). What is so magical about daily intelligence briefings?   He's not actually president yet, his only actual job responsibility as president elect is to get all his cabinet and staff people on board so they are ready to go. If Obama makes some decision about Syria and if they tell trump an hour later or two days later what changes?

He is definitely an outsider and a wild card. He likely doesn't believe everything he said while campaigning, and that is both hopefully a good thing if he doesn't build a wall and a bad thing in that we really have no idea what wild $ss thing he's going to try. The China sabre rattling before actually in office seems more dangerous.

My plan is to make my ACLU and EFF donations this year. Next year we will start the first hundred days of useless political news that we as the American public must endure every time we get a new jockey.  By June we might even know what Trump is really up to.

Because Trump is the poster child for Dunning-Kruger syndrome. The best remedy for D-K is improved subject knowledge. Also, the low-information diet is closely tied to the circle of influence. As president, the circle of influence is pretty frigging big and the low-information diet is a REALLY bad idea.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malaysia41 on December 12, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
He's feuding with members of his own party (Ryan wouldn't speak his name until a few weeks ago.) He's feuding with the intelligence community (all 17 agencies agree -- Russia was involved in the hacking -- but Trump denies it). He's now taking on the defense companies (Lockheed and Boeing).

He'll be done in 2 years. Either he'll be enriching himself at the public trough or he'll be playing footsies too much with Putin.

It's a matter of time before Trump gets the boot (unless this gaslighting actually works on the masses). But all the while Pence is in charge of the day to day. When Trump goes, the appointments and the Pence will remain. By some measures, Pence is slightly better. By others, not so much.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Norioch on December 12, 2016, 03:46:05 PM
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 12, 2016, 03:59:39 PM
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past them.

Plus, you can hardly blame them, honestly. I mean, God, can you imagine the glee with which Putin views having a "useful idiot" in the WH instead of Hillary Clinton? How could he help himself?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 12, 2016, 04:11:11 PM
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past them.

Plus, you can hardly blame them, honestly. I mean, God, can you imagine the glee with which Putin views having a "useful idiot" in the WH instead of Hillary Clinton? How could he help himself?

"Puppet!  Puppet!  You're the puppet!"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on December 12, 2016, 05:57:51 PM
The sad part is at this point publicly nothing will happen. Trump is basically immune to bad press as his supporters appear to believe everything he says.... Maybe this has been true of presidents for awhile now, the Trump is a particularly brazen and disgusting liar.

I think you can both be happy to see DNC corruption revealed and outraged that a major US party would take foreign hacking aid to help prop up their political capital over an opponents.

If you are only outraged by both sides of this you are just being a jackass.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on December 12, 2016, 06:21:14 PM
I will also say that short of straight out hacking votes Russia could not make Hillary lose the election in a vacuum.

There was a lot of cynicism and dislike for her that made a lot of the bad press stick. Unfortunately you can't fight foreign and domestic false propaganda and real leaks by just bitching about them on the news. You have to put up popular candidates and have messaging that is strong enough to outweigh the slew of shit that inevitably gets tossed at a presidential candidate.

With the global flow information, guaranteeing that the internet never produces facts or false stories maybe even at the behest of a foreign power is next to impossible. A well funded and powerful group like the DNC simply has to be more nimble and find more politically effective ways to counter these outside influences.

Trying to correct this stuff as the administration that allegedly befitted from the foul play is taking office is just an absolute shit show. And even if its true it comes off as propaganda and more political maneuvering.

As sad as it is to say the inept Trump campaign with all its worthless members appears to have outmaneuvered the DNC completely. Trump managed to get the whole media outraged over thin claims of potential hacking and not accepting the outcome if he loses. Then the DNC loses and are essentially forced into a corner encouraged to do all the things Trump was railed on for claiming he would do.

The cynical side of me cant wait for this to be over and hopes Trump's idiocy and lack of leadership will end up shafting the majority of his base so they can see how empty all of his promises were.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 12, 2016, 06:29:39 PM
I will also say that short of straight out hacking votes Russia could not make Hillary lose the election in a vacuum.

There was a lot of cynicism and dislike for her that made a lot of the bad press stick. Unfortunately you can't fight foreign and domestic false propaganda and real leaks by just bitching about them on the news. You have to put up popular candidates and have messaging that is strong enough to outweigh the slew of shit that inevitably gets tossed at a presidential candidate.

With the global flow information, guaranteeing that the internet never produces facts or false stories maybe even at the behest of a foreign power is next to impossible. A well funded and powerful group like the DNC simply has to be more nimble and find more politically effective ways to counter these outside influences.

Trying to correct this stuff as the administration that allegedly befitted from the foul play is taking office is just an absolute shit show. And even if its true it comes off as propaganda and more political maneuvering.

As sad as it is to say the inept Trump campaign with all its worthless members appears to have outmaneuvered the DNC completely. Trump managed to get the whole media outraged over thin claims of potential hacking and not accepting the outcome if he loses. Then the DNC loses and are essentially forced into a corner encouraged to do all the things Trump was railed on for claiming he would do.

The cynical side of me cant wait for this to be over and hopes Trump's idiocy and lack of leadership will end up shafting the majority of his base so they can see how empty all of his promises were.

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."

Among other things.

Is HRC the best candidate the DNC ever put forward? No.

But don't give me this bullshit that she "lost" the election all by herself. She had plenty of shit working against her. And I'm not even going to bring up the fact that she's a woman who made the colossal error of marrying a man that was a philandering piece of shit -- and committed the unspeakable political folly of actually staying in the marriage.

Even though if she had divorced him, that would have just been another strike against her.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 12, 2016, 06:52:05 PM
Guess what?  Trump (and trump supporters) no longer get to blame Hillary for everything.  This is now about Trump.  Good luck trying to defend him.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: iris lily on December 12, 2016, 07:10:28 PM

Trump is a on a low information diet, even if he didn't read MMM :). What is so magical about daily intelligence briefings?   He's not actually president yet, his only actual job responsibility as president elect is to get all his cabinet and staff people on board so they are ready to go. If Obama makes some decision about Syria and if they tell trump an hour later or two days later what changes?

He is definitely an outsider and a wild card. He likely doesn't believe everything he said while campaigning, and that is both hopefully a good thing if he doesn't build a wall and a bad thing in that we really have no idea what wild $ss thing he's going to try. The China sabre rattling before actually in office seems more dangerous.

My plan is to make my ACLU and EFF donations this year. Next year we will start the first hundred days of useless political news that we as the American public must endure every time we get a new jockey.  By June we might even know what Trump is really up to.

This is pretty good, and other than your donations,I'm on board with what you said. Are ye in D.C. then?
Haha
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: iris lily on December 12, 2016, 07:17:38 PM
Guess what?  Trump (and trump supporters) no longer get to blame Hillary for everything.  This is now about Trump.  Good luck trying to defend him.
But we can blame Obama for wuite some time, just as I still hear occasional Bush blames even 8 years later.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: ender on December 12, 2016, 07:21:44 PM
Guess what?  Trump (and trump supporters) no longer get to blame Hillary for everything.  This is now about Trump.  Good luck trying to defend him.
But we can blame Obama for wuite some time, just as I still hear occasional Bush blames even 8 years later.

Precedent has definitely been set.

Everything is the fault of whichever previous president you liked least.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on December 12, 2016, 07:22:24 PM
I hold no view on the role of Russia in this particular election.

But I do find it hilarious to see the United States be on the receiving end of international meddling, after using every trick in the book to install their guys in various countries for the last 50 years.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: waltworks on December 12, 2016, 08:19:17 PM
I can't imagine anything Trump said in an email is much worse than the stuff he said in public, and the folks who voted for him would just say "oh, he's not serious about soliciting a bribe/killing a prostitute/doing meth with the leaders of ISIS, that's how everyone talks, blah blah blah" to justify it, so it sort of doesn't matter that the Trump campaign's dirty laundry didn't get aired by Russian hackers. They aired plenty on their own, and the mouth-breathing voters didn't care.

But sadly I have to agree with those knuckle-draggers a little: the emails made me less likely to vote for Clinton (I wasn't planning to anyway, though). The fact that the Russians interfered in the election and probably tipped it to Trump makes me very nervous about the future of democracy. If twitter bots and a few stolen passwords is all it takes to change the politics of the world - then we are all screwed, because some 13 year old on 4chan thinks chaos would be funny and your 80 year old granny believes every click-bait ad on Breitbart about Clinton killing children at pizza parlors.

If I were Trump, I would *at the least* call for a thorough investigation and levy massive sanctions/inflict serious retaliation on Russia. This kind of crap can't happen, IMO it's bordering on an act of war. I might consider resigning my office, too.

We know he will do neither of those things because he has no honor, but I can dream.

While I'm daydreaming, maybe the EC will decide to elect Kasich or Rubio... or Paul Ryan's dog. I'd go for anyone/thing that isn't obviously insane.

What a cluster.

-W
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 12, 2016, 08:39:17 PM
The fact that the Russians interfered in the election and probably tipped it to Trump makes me very nervous about the future of democracy. If twitter bots and a few stolen passwords is all it takes to change the politics of the world - then we are all screwed, because some 13 year old on 4chan thinks chaos would be funny and your 80 year old granny believes every click-bait ad on Breitbart about Clinton killing children at pizza parlors.

Don't you think you're exaggerating the stability of global political institutions?  I think the world is, and has always been, far more fragile than is generally recognized.

Let's make a list of the ingredients required to enact some of the most influential events in modern history.

1.  some student visas, flight lessons, box cutters, and boarding passes = 9/11.

2.  one Browning model 1910 pistol and two bullets = WW1, and then WW2.

3.  a note, a hammer, and a bad attitude = the Protestant Reformation.

4.  a lightly defended ship full of tea = the American Revolution.

I could go on, but you get my point.  History is always at a flashpoint, and all it takes is the right nudge at the right time to dramatically alter the course of world events.  Don't be fooled into thinking this dance is choreographed in any particular direction, it's more like a mosh pit than can go south on you at any moment.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cathy on December 12, 2016, 09:11:51 PM
Particularly in a way that is patently false.  Trump has been literally convicted of corruption in a court of law.

Is this claim true? I don't read the news regularly so I may have missed it, but I don't recall hearing about this.

As far as I know, Trump has settled a variety of lawsuits, but civil settlements typically do not include an admission of wrongdoing. (Certainly, the parties to a settlement can negotiate over whether any wrongdoing will be admitted, but as far as I know this is not a common term in civil settlements.) The fact that somebody has settled a lawsuit by agreeing to pay money does not necessarily mean that they did anything wrong; it could mean, for example, that they decided the case isn't worth litigating for a variety of reasons (such as it being time consuming, and the amount of money not being significant to the person), so the settlement could be an instrument of convenience, rather than an admission of guilty.

It's not my intent to defend Trump, and indeed I express no view on him, but misconstruing settlements has ramifications far beyond Trump. Good people settle lawsuits all the time, and it doesn't necessarily mean they did anything wrong. You simply can't infer that from a settlement, unless an admission of wrongdoing is actually a term of the settlement.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 12, 2016, 09:58:39 PM
I wasn't talking about the lawsuits he has settled, but the ones that went to court and that he then lost.

Look him up, he's done some dirty dirty stuff in his life.  Like the time he illegally bought 19 cars for the mob boss who helped him build a casino.  Or the time his father "bought" 3.5 millIon dollars worth of casino chips without gambling, to avoid having it show up as a loan.  Or, you know, that time he coordinated with a hostile foreign power to infiltrate United states government computer systems in order to subvert American democracy.

Okay that last one hasn't been proven in a court of law yet.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gimp on December 12, 2016, 10:05:52 PM
Anything the FBI says about Hillary is true and patriotic and brave, but anything the CIA says about trump is a liberal lie, right?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 04:02:23 AM
Precedent has definitely been set.

Everything is the fault of whichever previous president you liked least.

Fuckin' Andrew Johnson....

I hold no view on the role of Russia in this particular election.

But I do find it hilarious to see the United States be on the receiving end of international meddling, after using every trick in the book to install their guys in various countries for the last 50 years.

Right? And typical of Americans, when things don't go our way, or the world dares to reach out and touch US... we completely lose our shit. Absolutely flat chat meltdown...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 04:11:50 AM
I can't imagine anything Trump said in an email is much worse than the stuff he said in public, and the folks who voted for him would just say "oh, he's not serious about soliciting a bribe/killing a prostitute/doing meth with the leaders of ISIS, that's how everyone talks, blah blah blah" to justify it, so it sort of doesn't matter that the Trump campaign's dirty laundry didn't get aired by Russian hackers. They aired plenty on their own, and the mouth-breathing voters didn't care.

But sadly I have to agree with those knuckle-draggers a little: the emails made me less likely to vote for Clinton (I wasn't planning to anyway, though). 
-W

I think that what this election shows is that if the electorate is given more information, voting patterns change dramatically. What scares me is the display of how little we as voters know about the candidates and their activities - even from candidates that have been intensely scrutinized by the public eye and all levels of the government, for decades.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 13, 2016, 06:53:07 AM
Precedent has definitely been set.

Everything is the fault of whichever previous president you liked least.

Fuckin' Andrew Johnson....

Nah, it's all because of that fat bastard Taft.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 13, 2016, 03:53:47 PM
A very long, very detailed account of the hacks:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=http://m.facebook.com
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Freedom2016 on December 13, 2016, 09:21:00 PM
I quite enjoyed this:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/putin-agrees-to-receive-intelligence-briefings-in-trumps-place (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/putin-agrees-to-receive-intelligence-briefings-in-trumps-place)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 15, 2016, 08:55:01 PM
I am amused by this thread, but moreso in light of this particular revelation...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/


So either the Russians hacked the DNC to throw Hillary under the Trump Train, or a jilted Bernie supporter inside the DNC did.  One of these is fake news.  Whom to believe?  The director of the CIA or a former ambassador from Britain who is a major player inside Wikileaks itself.  Should I believe the professional liar, or the foreign diplomat?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 16, 2016, 05:40:57 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/12/15/we-need-an-independent-public-investigation-of-the-trump-russia-scandal-now/?utm_term=.45e83a38e4d2
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: LadyStache in Baja on December 16, 2016, 07:09:56 AM
p2f
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Enigma on December 16, 2016, 08:06:32 AM
The true horror story here is the American media...  Every time I turn around they have sensationalized something and spun it as "Breaking News".  They were biased and pushed that Trump had absolutely no chance of winning the election, after all Hillary was going to win by a landslide.  In my opinion Russia may have slightly swayed the vote with false propaganda articles.  Yet fake news was coming from everywhere against both candidates just so bloggers could get their day in the spotlight.  As a Cyber Security expert, there are too many safeguards to the voting systems and most is still done by hand.  Yes, computers count the vote but the safeguards and paper trails are there for a reason...

History has shown conspiracy theories are created during every major event.  Recounts are showing that the votes were accurate and costing tax payers thousands of dollars to complete.  Wisconsin recount shows Trump gained votes costing the voters $50k in recounts.  Trump didn't need 306 electoral votes, nor did he need 3 democrat states to flip in his favor, nor did he need the popular vote which he didn't get (lost by 0.1%).  His votes came from the outlying counties (not the cities).  If it was up to the popular vote, Trump stated he would have ran his campaign that way and would have won.  I am inclined to believe that, after all he would have only had to focus on the major cities; whereas, Hillary would have had to sway votes from the outlying counties.

The American media also tried to sway the vote with sensationalized “Breaking News” timed almost too perfectly with negativity about Trump.  I myself could see where Trump's mistakes in the past were under a spotlight and where he was strongly lacking as a politician.  Hillary seemed more and more like a political puppet every time she would stray over giving a definitive yes or no to a negative subject.

If anything I trust the American media much less today than prior to the election.  They have been lying to me almost daily all to ruffle my feathers.  Telling me the next major thing just happened and I need to get emotional, defensive, upset, happy, or scared.  The media is really the unbiased agenda pushing scumbags here.

This would have been a better election if the media just let the candidates focus on their republican or democratic ideals, agendas, and plans for the future of America.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on December 16, 2016, 08:11:54 AM
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.

This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?

Well, there are most certainly odious things being bandied about in the Republican Party but we have not gotten to see those emails yet, have we?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 16, 2016, 10:34:41 PM
Interesting responses. Post-truth is an increasingly accurate description for these times, it seems. "Someone said the opposite of the thing I don't like!" Who to believe, indeed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 17, 2016, 04:07:50 AM
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.

This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?

Well, there are most certainly odious things being bandied about in the Republican Party but we have not gotten to see those emails yet, have we?

How different would voting patterns be if the electorate knew the truth?  I don't think anyone is saying what Russia did was not a big deal. But to suggest that it would have been better to elect a candidate from a party that has been shown to be corrupt is hardly a convincing argument.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on December 17, 2016, 07:23:12 AM
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.

This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?

Well, there are most certainly odious things being bandied about in the Republican Party but we have not gotten to see those emails yet, have we?

How different would voting patterns be if the electorate knew the truth?  I don't think anyone is saying what Russia did was not a big deal. But to suggest that it would have been better to elect a candidate from a party that has been shown to be corrupt is hardly a convincing argument.

Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: kayvent on December 18, 2016, 08:10:19 AM
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this. Also, whether Russia hacked or not is irrelevant. Say they did. Doesn't change the several other e-mail scandals that were not related to hacks. Doesn't change how corrupt the Democratic nominee was. And doesn't change that the Democratic nominee said they wanted to start a war with Russia.

I was sad when Trump won but at least he never advocated to start a war with Russia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 18, 2016, 08:46:17 AM
Fake news like this??  Did you watch Obama's press conference last Friday?  Was that faked, too?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 18, 2016, 10:16:07 AM
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.

Good point. Except for the WaPo, Reuters, ABC, CNN, USA Today, NYT, Fox News, LA Times, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there's been only fake news about this.

Christ on a stick.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 18, 2016, 10:29:51 AM
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.

Good point. Except for the WaPo, Reuters, ABC, CNN, USA Today, NYT, Fox News, LA Times, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there's been only fake news about this.

Christ on a stick.

Indeed.  Clearly, we got the president we deserve. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 18, 2016, 11:32:58 AM
Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.

Of course they do. But they claim they don't. Proof of the opposite probably affects votes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: kayvent on December 18, 2016, 11:49:37 AM
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.

Good point. Except for the WaPo, Reuters, ABC, CNN, USA Today, NYT, Fox News, LA Times, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there's been only fake news about this.

Christ on a stick.

My statement was "As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this." If you can point me to where they've made a statement otherwise, please inform me.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RosieTR on December 19, 2016, 09:17:48 PM
I was sad when Trump won but at least he never advocated to start a war with Russia.

Nah, he seems to prefer having one with China. Or "Djina" as he says. That ought to be fun.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on December 20, 2016, 04:01:10 PM
Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.

Of course they do. But they claim they don't. Proof of the opposite probably affects votes.

DNC scandles didn't help but I think they are giving to much credit for their loss to leaked emails. Lets be honest the emails didn't show much we didn't assume wasn't happening already. We knew the Clinton's were to pay to play. We also knew that they were flipping positions because popular opinion was forcing them to.

The reality is that we had a left wing and right wing populist movement in both major parties. One nearly succeeded and the other one went all the way.

I think the bigger thing that swung votes in the states that mattered was simply disillusion with 8 years of Obama. The DNC was counting on people who voted for him to vote for her. But the reality is likely that their situation has only gotten worse economically overall and to add insult to injury the DNC really didn't even campaign in some of the major rust belt states.

Do you think Bernie wouldn't have spent time appealing to the rust belt states? The thing that burns my ass about this election isn't that Hillary lost. Its that we had a left wing alternative to Trump, but the DNC drowned him in the bath tub before he could ruin they coronation. Most states kept to party lines, but Bernie had the same winning message that Trump had without the petty bullshit and lies.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 21, 2016, 06:10:48 AM

I think the bigger thing that swung votes in the states that mattered was simply disillusion with 8 years of Obama. The DNC was counting on people who voted for him to vote for her. But the reality is likely that their situation has only gotten worse economically overall and to add insult to injury the DNC really didn't even campaign in some of the major rust belt states.


This is my interpretation of the loss as well. Of course there were many underlying factors, but this to me seems to be the driving force between Hillary's loss.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 21, 2016, 06:14:46 AM
Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.

Of course they do. But they claim they don't. Proof of the opposite probably affects votes.

DNC scandles didn't help but I think they are giving to much credit for their loss to leaked emails. Lets be honest the emails didn't show much we didn't assume wasn't happening already. We knew the Clinton's were to pay to play. We also knew that they were flipping positions because popular opinion was forcing them to.

The reality is that we had a left wing and right wing populist movement in both major parties. One nearly succeeded and the other one went all the way.

I think the bigger thing that swung votes in the states that mattered was simply disillusion with 8 years of Obama. The DNC was counting on people who voted for him to vote for her. But the reality is likely that their situation has only gotten worse economically overall and to add insult to injury the DNC really didn't even campaign in some of the major rust belt states.

Do you think Bernie wouldn't have spent time appealing to the rust belt states? The thing that burns my ass about this election isn't that Hillary lost. Its that we had a left wing alternative to Trump, but the DNC drowned him in the bath tub before he could ruin they coronation. Most states kept to party lines, but Bernie had the same winning message that Trump had without the petty bullshit and lies.
I don't understand people saying this.  Our representatives are their to represent US, not their views.  Why is it a bad thing that a politician will say, my constituents want this therefore I am going to be THEIR rep and fight for it? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 21, 2016, 06:28:33 AM
I don't understand people saying this.  Our representatives are their to represent US, not their views.  Why is it a bad thing that a politician will say, my constituents want this therefore I am going to be THEIR rep and fight for it?

How long until they 'flip' again? If they don't really believe in the position, how hard are they going to fight for it? Or will they say "Well, I introduced the bill, it won't pass, whatever, my obligations are met." Or will they fight hard for something like the ACA, and when public perception turns against it they fight just as hard to dismantle it? Maybe these actions would be ok, but they don't strike me as the actions of someone who is going to stand up for my views.

My impression of Clinton, specifically, is that she is so unwilling to state her opinion on controversial subjects until the public perception has been carefully weighed and measured. TPP and Keystone XL pipeline were two topics that I feel perfectly displayed her tendency to only say what people want to hear. It just paints, (for me) any emotional reaction she has about anything as false and calculated.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: davisgang90 on December 21, 2016, 06:30:14 AM
After the first time DNC got hacked they sent out new passwords via email.  That is all.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Pooplips on December 21, 2016, 06:33:04 AM
Following.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 21, 2016, 08:09:51 AM
Who was in power when the Russians meddled in the U.S. election?  Holding Trump accountable for this is not an intelligent response.  If you are not outraged that the Democrats were so cavalier about security, particularly with regards to email, particularly while under investigation for email security related misdeeds, you're so deep into leftist bias you are literally unable to recognize facts and form cogent opinions.

Does anyone here think the emails going back and forth within the Trump camp weren't horribly offensive, inappropriate, and damning?  Were they hacked?

Also, "Trump did Russia email hack" is on par with "Bush did 9/11" as far as conspiracy theory peddling goes.

Erosion of civil liberties?  Are you nuts?  I agree that's a real thing but a foreign power spying on you has zero to do with your civil liberties.  That's an entirely separate issue.

Trump's response to this was inappropriate, but as someone who is not in office yet and has very little he can do about it, also irrelevant.  There is a current POTUS and he did jack shit to prevent this, and has done jack shit about it since he found out about it.

Your anger is entirely misplaced, your damnations and aspersions are being cast in entirely the wrong direction.  It is unlikely that Trump will do a better job, but these things actually happened while someone else was POTUS, and they happened to someone else's campaign security infrastructure.  Desperately latching on to anything and everything you can to blame Trump is unnecessary, he's doing enough really stupid stuff, and rest assured, he will do more.

Save your cries of wolf for when he does something really bad.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 21, 2016, 08:21:23 AM
4 years after his election, Obama was still blaming Bush for everything.  Now it seems, in the last year of his presidency, he gets to blame Trump.  This isn't OK when Republicans do it (see Bill Clinton's reaction when asked about 9/11 and what he did about AQ after the Cole bombing, he was (rightly) outraged at the suggestion that he could've/should've done more, as though it was somehow his fault), it isn't OK when Democrats do it.

As far as I know, blaming the incoming candidate for this shit prior to them taking office is unprecedented.  We are once again being asked to believe by the left in two mutually exclusive things:

1.  Trump is a masterful operator who knows all and sees all, and can perfectly coordinate with a global spy network to rig the election in his favor (and still manage to almost lose/certain secure no mandate at all).

2.  Trump is a hopeless lunatic gas-bag egotist, incompetent in all things, incapable of anything, and an idiot.

I will let you have one and one only!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 21, 2016, 08:22:04 AM
Does anyone here think the emails going back and forth within the Trump camp weren't horribly offensive, inappropriate, and damning?  Were they hacked?

I'd be very surprised if they weren't.  It was in the interests of the people doing the hacking not to release them though.  That's where the outrage comes from, the influence on the election that this illegal activity had.

Trump isn't responsible for the email hacking.  That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 21, 2016, 08:42:23 AM
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.

Absolutely.  But it doesn't make sense to blame Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 21, 2016, 08:48:43 AM
4 years after his election, Obama was still blaming Bush for everything.  Now it seems, in the last year of his presidency, he gets to blame Trump.  This isn't OK when Republicans do it (see Bill Clinton's reaction when asked about 9/11 and what he did about AQ after the Cole bombing, he was (rightly) outraged at the suggestion that he could've/should've done more, as though it was somehow his fault), it isn't OK when Democrats do it.

As far as I know, blaming the incoming candidate for this shit prior to them taking office is unprecedented.  We are once again being asked to believe by the left in two mutually exclusive things:

1.  Trump is a masterful operator who knows all and sees all, and can perfectly coordinate with a global spy network to rig the election in his favor (and still manage to almost lose/certain secure no mandate at all).

2.  Trump is a hopeless lunatic gas-bag egotist, incompetent in all things, incapable of anything, and an idiot.

I will let you have one and one only!


I think most of us would say that it's clearly #2, with the amendment that "an idiot" be changed to "a useful idiot for Putin."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 21, 2016, 09:53:03 AM
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.

Absolutely.  But it doesn't make sense to blame Trump.
But we can blame him for his response, and wonder what Putin has on Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 21, 2016, 10:17:57 AM
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.

Absolutely.  But it doesn't make sense to blame Trump.
But we can blame him for his response, and wonder what Putin has on Trump.

Oooh... I like these kinds of conspiracy theories!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 21, 2016, 10:28:47 AM
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...

Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:

*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.

**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.

Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 21, 2016, 11:33:18 AM
seems appropriate to post here

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/745069/Calexit-campaign-US-referendum-California-embassy-in-Russia

seems like all the news i like reading lately come from British sources.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 21, 2016, 12:05:21 PM
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...

Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
  • There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
  • Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
  • Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
  • Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
  • This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
  • Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.

*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.

**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.

Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.


To myself, this clearly looks like a point-of-view that is many ways contrary to reality, but is an honestly held belief.  I also know that I'm biased in the other direction, and wonder if my own point-of-view is as distorted from reality. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 21, 2016, 12:09:30 PM
Well argued.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 21, 2016, 12:27:13 PM
Well argued.

Obviously, not arguing with you. That would be a exercise in futility.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on December 21, 2016, 12:47:13 PM
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...

Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
  • There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
  • Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
  • Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
  • Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
  • This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
  • Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.

*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.

**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.

Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.


To myself, this clearly looks like a point-of-view that is many ways contrary to reality, but is an honestly held belief.  I also know that I'm biased in the other direction, and wonder if my own point-of-view is as distorted from reality.

I appreciate in discussion when people can admit, especially in the realm of politics, that their view probably contains at least some distortions. Even if they do pretty extensive research. There is no pure source of completely biased free information in the political realm.

I am biased towards believing the Obama administration over Trump, but Democrats have been heavily politicizing Russian influence in this cycle which makes it hard to take all of their statements at face value. I don't think ratcheting up fear of the Russians is good policy even if they are dealing with hacking and adversarial behavior by Putin.

Currently overplaying the influence of Russia in this election after the fact is destabilizing. If all they can prove is that Russia funded and encourage the propagation of fake news to influence voters I think they need to drop this shit now. We shouldn't fight propaganda with fear and undermine our own government leaders to do it. We all know Putin is a ruthless propaganda machine we don't have to go down the same road. Foreign governments trying to spread propaganda and misinformation is nothing new and we all do it. You fight that with better news coverage and winning the trust of your people through good policy, not fear mongering of foreign powers.

If they truly wanted to be effective in creating anti Russian sentiment, they need to be smarter about finding a way to get conservative news outlets and Trump on their side.

If they can prove that votes where straight out hacked then they need to get off their ass right now and do a full information dump to 3rd parties for review of the evidence. I suspect they can't, even though I would personally be happy to see Trump get tossed out on his ass.

Trump has many conflicts of interest, there is no doubt of that. But in fairness economically almost every leader and businessman has entanglements with super powers like Russia if they have any kind of significant wealth. The Clinton's and Bush's had plenty of dealings with people we'd rather they didn't. I don't think that's an excuse but it needs to be said to put fears in perspective.

I can't say if Obama had these kinds of fiscal entanglements but he definitely bought into the EU, Globalization western vision of the world that simply economically doesn't work out well for a large number of people. And clearly Russia is contrary to that vision because the death of NATO and fracture of the EU will open up new alliances and the possibility of expansion to acquire more land and resources.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 21, 2016, 01:45:21 PM
Incidentally, I pretty much agree with RangerOne. The Dems are definitely overplaying the Russia boogeyman card, which is not the right move at all, but that is very clearly not what I'm doing despite Quidnon's (and others) non-engagement of the facts that concern me and others.

Let me yet again (no doubt futilely) repeat these points:

1. Russia committed a hostile act towards this country with the hopes of effecting a certain result. I am not saying they are the sole reason for that result, only that it was the one they hoped for. I am also not saying this event was unprecedented or that we don't do the same. Nevertheless...

2. A proper nonpartisan response to such a blatant attempt to subvert the sovereignty of this great nation is to decry, investigate, and respond appropriately to the foreign aggressor. Note that I am not saying this response should be overly extreme, only that I would expect our president to respond strongly. I surely hope all Americans would agree that we shouldn't just bend over when another country tries to mess with us.

3. Trump has not only refused to rebuke Russia, but has even openly refused to believe the universal consensus of the intelligence community.

4. This is curious because he could easily smack down Russia and simultaneously look like a stronger leader. It begs the question why he has not.

Perhaps the above doesn't bother you (post fact world and all). But that doesn't change these details. You seem unwilling to question the president elect in literally any situation. Strange that you would make condescending comments on other people's supposed partisanship.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: kayvent on December 21, 2016, 02:29:01 PM
1. Russia committed a hostile act towards this country with the hopes of effecting a certain result. I am not saying they are the sole reason for that result, only that it was the one they hoped for. I am also not saying this event was unprecedented or that we don't do the same. Nevertheless...

What evidence has any intelligence agency released to support this? Seriously if there is any share it with me. To the best of my search skills, the only 'evidence' I've found is usually along the lines of either (A) a news entity reporting "some guy, whom won't be disclosed, with an undisclosed role in some undisclosed department told us they have evidence the Russians did it but they didn't disclose the evidence" or (B) "We're sourcing an (A) story."

To the best of my knowledge, the only leaks with public evidence are the DNC hacks; Julian Assange claims it was an inside leak.

Quote
3. Trump has not only refused to rebuke Russia, but has even openly refused to believe the universal consensus of the intelligence community.

Which public statement has any intelligence agency made in regards to this? Again, if you have links please provide. I desperately want them because I am trying to knowledgeable on this issue. The fact you are saying it is a universal consensus but I can't find one, even one, department saying "The Russians did it" (let alone provide evidence) worries me deeply. One of use is gravely wrong.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 21, 2016, 02:31:35 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: madgeylou on December 21, 2016, 02:31:47 PM
Have you guys seen this article from noted journalist and futurist Alex Steffen?

https://medium.com/@AlexSteffen/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd#.sycvyzjtd

I don't think there's anything coincidental about the fact that Putin worked to get Trump in, and I don't think anyone is overplaying the danger.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: kayvent on December 21, 2016, 02:37:41 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 21, 2016, 02:45:46 PM
1. Russia committed a hostile act towards this country with the hopes of effecting a certain result. I am not saying they are the sole reason for that result, only that it was the one they hoped for. I am also not saying this event was unprecedented or that we don't do the same. Nevertheless...

What evidence has any intelligence agency released to support this? Seriously if there is any share it with me. To the best of my search skills, the only 'evidence' I've found is usually along the lines of either (A) a news entity reporting "some guy, whom won't be disclosed, with an undisclosed role in some undisclosed department told us they have evidence the Russians did it but they didn't disclose the evidence" or (B) "We're sourcing an (A) story."

To the best of my knowledge, the only leaks with public evidence are the DNC hacks; Julian Assange claims it was an inside leak.

Quote
3. Trump has not only refused to rebuke Russia, but has even openly refused to believe the universal consensus of the intelligence community.

Which public statement has any intelligence agency made in regards to this? Again, if you have links please provide. I desperately want them because I am trying to knowledgeable on this issue. The fact you are saying it is a universal consensus but I can't find one, even one, department saying "The Russians did it" (let alone provide evidence) worries me deeply. One of use is gravely wrong.
How many intelligence agencies do you want to say this.  A quick google shows multiple links, here is one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.9d750f948cc5
You also have the President here speaking about it: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/11/14/barack-obama-entire-news-conference-post-election-nov-14-sot.cnn
And if you want to ignore all of the news agencies how about a report direct from the office of Director of National Intelligence? : https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 21, 2016, 02:50:04 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.  Such as why he was removed from being the ambassador. From your article "Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony.
His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump."
Also if you read your article some more, we have GOP members agreeing that the information is credible: 'Now whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that's the subject of investigation,' said Sen. John McCain on CBS Face the Nation. 'But facts are stubborn things, they did hack into this campaign.'

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 21, 2016, 02:51:05 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)

I’m not going down that road. This is starting to sound like you want to make the fallacious “but they said there were WMDs in Iraq!” argument.

Is your position, then, that the president elect should just rely on his gut to make all of his decisions, regardless of the facts he is presented? That the media lies more often than not? That it’s more likely than not that the USIC has made a politically motivated, intentionally false statement? That it’s more likely than not that Trump is the sole voice of reason and truth in American politics right now? If your answers are yes, then there is no point in pretending that any subsequent discourse between us will be productive.

Edit - and ditto what Gin1984 said.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 21, 2016, 03:08:44 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.

There is no evidence that it was a hack either, at least not available to the general public.  And that one person is a high ranking person inside Wikileaks, that has stated that he personally received the data from a DNC insider.  Either he is telling the truth, or he is not.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 21, 2016, 03:15:06 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.

There is no evidence that it was a hack either, at least not available to the general public.  And that one person is a high ranking person inside Wikileaks, that has stated that he personally received the data from a DNC insider.  Either he is telling the truth, or he is not.
Which is why the REST of my post (which you deleted) is important.  Given his was removed from his posted because of misconduct, his honesty is very much in question.  And, funny enough he actually says he did not get the data from a DNC insider BUT from a middleman.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 21, 2016, 04:55:07 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.

There is no evidence that it was a hack either, at least not available to the general public.  And that one person is a high ranking person inside Wikileaks, that has stated that he personally received the data from a DNC insider.  Either he is telling the truth, or he is not.
Which is why the REST of my post (which you deleted) is important.  Given his was removed from his posted because of misconduct, his honest is very much in question.  And, funny enough he actually says he did not get the data from a DNC insider BUT from a middleman.

Everyone involved in this is in question.  He is no less trustworthy than the director of the CIA, which is an institution that is based upon deceit & manipulation.  Nor the mouthpeices for the FBI, which has openly contradicted the statements by the CIA.  No one has provided a stitch of evidence, so who do you believe?  I choose to believe no one, and wait till the details come out on their own, if they ever do, which is doubtful.  My point is that there are several narratives being floated around, any of which are plausible from our, less-than-secret-clearance, perspectives.  Anything teh media has been able to provide is full of conjecture.  I do find it reasonable to expect that Russia would try to hack the DNC and/or the RNC.  Maybe they succeeded, maybe they didn't.  What I find difficult to believe is that they leaked this data to Wikileaks, rather than keep it to threaten a President Hillary over public disclosures.  Think about what is more advantageous to a foreign intelligence service; secrets with bad public optics when dealing with a malicious foreign head of state, or the gamble of revealing those documents during an election cycle in the hopes of what? Swinging the election?  They couldn't have known that would have been the result, mind you.  Almost no one thought Trump would win more than 2 weeks out, some no more than 2 hours before midnight.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Pooplips on December 22, 2016, 05:27:27 AM
I have a general question.

How far can world leaders go before we would consider them to have influenced an election?

World leaders have said negative things about both candidates over the coarse of the campagn. How much can they do/say before they are considered to be influencing?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 22, 2016, 06:14:53 AM
I have a general question.

How far can world leaders go before we would consider them to have influenced an election?

World leaders have said negative things about both candidates over the coarse of the campagn. How much can they do/say before they are considered to be influencing?

Good question.  I'd have to think on this.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: cliffhanger on December 22, 2016, 06:26:14 AM
I have a general question.

How far can world leaders go before we would consider them to have influenced an election?

World leaders have said negative things about both candidates over the coarse of the campagn. How much can they do/say before they are considered to be influencing?

I think it heavily depends on how much we like the person or country influencing the election and what the results are.

When President Obama explicitly says that the U.K. is going to go to the back of the queue in trade deals if they vote to leave, that's not influencing the election because we like the President and it's not happening to us.

Because we didn't like the results of this presidential election, we're finding any excuse we can. Even over-blowing the effects of Russian hacking and insinuating that the U.S. will become a puppet of Russia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on December 22, 2016, 06:36:01 AM
1.  We do this type of shit all the time to other countries just like Russia and China and other world powers.   Remember a few years back when it came out that we were tapping the phones of world leaders?  Obama didn't bring attention to this partially for that reason is my guess.  Intelligence is a dirty business. 

2.  Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign, but they did see him and his supporters and the easiest targets for their operations, probably due to their known history of susceptibility to propaganda via Fox News et al. 

3.  Do we really want to antagonize Russia right now?  I am not saying they should get a free pass, but they do have a lot of nukes, plus they are flying our asses into space at regular intervals since we ditched our manned space program. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 22, 2016, 07:55:27 AM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)

I’m not going down that road. This is starting to sound like you want to make the fallacious “but they said there were WMDs in Iraq!” argument.

Is your position, then, that the president elect should just rely on his gut to make all of his decisions, regardless of the facts he is presented? That the media lies more often than not? That it’s more likely than not that the USIC has made a politically motivated, intentionally false statement? That it’s more likely than not that Trump is the sole voice of reason and truth in American politics right now? If your answers are yes, then there is no point in pretending that any subsequent discourse between us will be productive.

Edit - and ditto what Gin1984 said.

Right now, today, Trump has no power to do anything about this, other than make a public statement, which he did, and it was retarded.  Where is your outrage at the perpetrators of the lack of security in the first place?  You are seeking to indict someone who has yet to actually do anything, and have no issue with the current governmental representatives not doing anything about this.  Trump not denouncing it is because he's dumb, he sees it as an attempt to cast doubt on the outcome of the election, which it very clearly is.  It also very clearly is a serious thing that ought to be dealt with accordingly (because things can be two things at the same thing, these two can be true of the russian hack without it needing to be one or the other).

I understand condemnation of Trump's response.  It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.

Trump is not competent or smart enough to be anyone's puppet.  You need to be able to read and follow directions to be a puppet.  Trump accidentally got himself elected president, foreign governments are hostile to us (*gasp*) and way to let a foreign intelligence operation affect you maximally.

Keep calm and carry on folks.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 22, 2016, 08:13:05 AM

I understand condemnation of Trump's response.  It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.

I blame the firewall. (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/http://dilbert.com/strip/2013-04-07)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 22, 2016, 08:27:17 AM
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,

Well that's certainly giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't it?  Because it sure looks like collaboration to me.  There has been a LOT of contact between those parties before and during the hacking.  Trump publicly declared that Russia was going to release hacked information before it happened.  Trumps campaign staff was being paid by Russia.  What else does it take to make it more obvious?

Plus, you know who the only other party to hack the DNC is?  The only organization we know to have preceded the Russians in this endeavor?  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.   Remember that little news story from like two years ago?

I swear the Democrats keep bringing knives to their gun fights.  Politics is dirty business, and they keep getting burned by acting in good faith, by assuming common decency on the party of their political opponents.  OF COURSE the republicans coordinated the hack.  Of course they violated the constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Merick Garland.  Of course they suppressed voting rights.  Of course they edited fake video about planned parenthood.  Of course north Carolina is stripping the powers of the incoming democratic governor.

Get a clue, Democrats.  You've been outmaneuvered at every turn because you refuse to play dirty enough.  The only two democratic candidates to lose a presidential election in a quarter century both lost the exact same way, by blatantly false character assassination.  America supports your policies, but you have to stop playing by the rules if you want to give them the policies that they want, because the republicans have mastered the dark arts and they know every dirty trick in the book.  It's time to start playing on their level.

I can just picture Steve Bannon laughing greedily on the day Michelle Obama said "when they go low, we go high."  Damn you Michelle, for believing in the dignity of American politics! 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 22, 2016, 08:34:03 AM
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,

Well that's certainly giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't it?  Because it sure looks like collaboration to me.  There has been a LOT of contact between those parties before and during the hacking.  Trump publicly declared that Russia was going to release hacked information before it happened.  Trumps campaign staff was being paid by Russia.  What else does it take to make it more obvious?

Plus, you know who the only other party to hack the DNC is?  The only organization we know to have preceded the Russians in this endeavor?  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.   Remember that little news story from like two years ago?

I swear the Democrats keep bringing knives to their gun fights.  Politics is dirty business, and they keep getting burned by acting in good faith, by assuming common decency on the party of their political opponents.  OF COURSE the republicans coordinated the hack.  Of course they violated the constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Merick Garland.  Of course they suppressed voting rights.  Of course they edited fake video about planned parenthood.  Of course north Carolina is stripping the powers of the incoming democratic governor.

I think the DNC emails quite clearly reveal the opposite line of thinking within the DNC...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 22, 2016, 10:03:18 AM
Right now, today, Trump has no power to do anything about this, other than make a public statement, which he did, and it was retarded.  Where is your outrage at the perpetrators of the lack of security in the first place?  You are seeking to indict someone who has yet to actually do anything, and have no issue with the current governmental representatives not doing anything about this.  Trump not denouncing it is because he's dumb, he sees it as an attempt to cast doubt on the outcome of the election, which it very clearly is.  It also very clearly is a serious thing that ought to be dealt with accordingly (because things can be two things at the same thing, these two can be true of the russian hack without it needing to be one or the other).

I understand condemnation of Trump's response.  It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.

Trump is not competent or smart enough to be anyone's puppet.  You need to be able to read and follow directions to be a puppet.  Trump accidentally got himself elected president, foreign governments are hostile to us (*gasp*) and way to let a foreign intelligence operation affect you maximally.

Keep calm and carry on folks.

I posses lots of outrage to go around across all levels of our government, don't worry :)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 22, 2016, 10:18:34 AM
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,

Well that's certainly giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't it?  Because it sure looks like collaboration to me.  There has been a LOT of contact between those parties before and during the hacking.  Trump publicly declared that Russia was going to release hacked information before it happened.  Trumps campaign staff was being paid by Russia.  What else does it take to make it more obvious?

Plus, you know who the only other party to hack the DNC is?  The only organization we know to have preceded the Russians in this endeavor?  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.   Remember that little news story from like two years ago?

I swear the Democrats keep bringing knives to their gun fights.  Politics is dirty business, and they keep getting burned by acting in good faith, by assuming common decency on the party of their political opponents.  OF COURSE the republicans coordinated the hack.  Of course they violated the constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Merick Garland.  Of course they suppressed voting rights.  Of course they edited fake video about planned parenthood.  Of course north Carolina is stripping the powers of the incoming democratic governor.

I think the DNC emails quite clearly reveal the opposite line of thinking within the DNC...

I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

edit, that was kinda mean.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 22, 2016, 10:31:50 AM
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

Every presidential candidate for the next century will be studying the election campaigns of Clinton and Kerry for blueprints on how to destroy popular public servants in favor of unqualified idiots who can be puppeteered from behind the scenes.  This is our future.  Pizzagate is the vanguard of the new generation of American politics.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: shenlong55 on December 22, 2016, 10:41:33 AM
It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.

Out of curiosity, when do you think that President Obama made the information public and why do you think that he's not doing anything about it?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cassie on December 22, 2016, 11:57:33 AM
SOL, I totally understand and agree with your points.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 22, 2016, 12:42:05 PM
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

Well, hopefully these suggestions would be more effective than firebombing republican campaign offices, rioting in the street and staging sit-ins on the floor of the senate when they don't get their way.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: cliffhanger on December 22, 2016, 01:06:15 PM
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

Well, hopefully these suggestions would be more effective than firebombing republican campaign offices, rioting in the street and staging sit-ins on the floor of the senate when they don't get their way.

Add burning your own church after spraypainting 'Vote Trump' on it (https://apnews.com/4e14f73be8df4caf90643cd2d757054c/Arrest-in-'Vote-Trump'-burning-of-Mississippi-black-church) to that list.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 22, 2016, 07:18:02 PM
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

This is, incidentally, what Bill Clinton did in 1992. James Carville reinvented campaigning for the Democrats. No more "Jimmy Carter/Mr. Nice Guy" tactics.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on December 23, 2016, 08:02:07 AM
Quote
I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

I don't think the dems were playing as squeaky clean as you think - I mean look at the primary process.  I think they did underestimate the extent that a certain swath of voters could be manipulated by negative nationalist rhetoric and the culture wars, and I think a lot of people missed that.  The dems played their own dirty cards, but it didn't matter because 80000 midwest voters who really hated Hillary and thought their problems were due to other people who happened to be brown were enough to tip the election.  Everyone else just basically voted down party lines.

Quote
Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

What does rolling in the mud actually get us in the end?  A less functional, crippled government, which is really the goal of the ideological republicans.  If we try the same tactics, the Repubs will just smile and say, "See, Government doesn't work, like we said."  and push to privatize more. 

That isn't the right answer.  I get your anger and rage, but it won't be effective and it plays right into the hands of the enemy. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: ender on December 23, 2016, 08:04:36 AM
I don't think the dems were playing as squeaky clean as you think - I mean look at the primary process.  I think they did underestimate the extent that a certain swath of voters could be manipulated by negative nationalist rhetoric and the culture wars, and I think a lot of people missed that.  The dems played their own dirty cards, but it didn't matter because 80000 midwest voters who really hated Hillary and thought their problems were due to other people who happened to be brown were enough to tip the election.  Everyone else just basically voted down party lines.

Keep in mind Trump actually got fewer votes than Romney in most of the midwest states he won.

Democratic turnout being much lower than in 2012 was the primary driver here - if Clinton had got even close to what Obama got, she would have handily won.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: madgeylou on December 23, 2016, 08:43:24 AM
Quote from: golden1 link=topic=65449.msg1350892#msg1350892

What does rolling in the mud actually get us in the end?  A less functional, crippled government, which is really the goal of the ideological republicans.  If we try the same tactics, the Repubs will just smile and say, "See, Government doesn't work, like we said."  and push to privatize more. 

I dunno, what did we get from the last 8 years of "going high"? A kleptocratic coup, that's what.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 23, 2016, 10:41:27 AM
What does rolling in the mud actually get us in the end?  A less functional, crippled government, which is really the goal of the ideological republicans.  If we try the same tactics, the Repubs will just smile and say, "See, Government doesn't work, like we said."  and push to privatize more. 

That isn't the right answer.  I get your anger and rage, but it won't be effective and it plays right into the hands of the enemy.

I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on December 23, 2016, 11:19:30 AM
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I agree about 98% with your sentiments, but like I said in another thread, I think the Democrats could easily win without completely sinking to the morally bankrupt actions Republicans and Trump have sunk to. Here's an easy list that comes to mind:

1. Nominate a candidate with some charisma and without a bunch of negative baggage (whether or not that baggage is "deserved" does NOT matter at all). Clinton was a poor choice, even though she was eminently qualified. Obama had lots of charisma, Hillary Clinton almost none or maybe even negative charisma (such as her laugh that has been repeatedly used as a basis for insult and ridicule by her opponents).

2. Ditch the intellectual (and fair) arguments. Start with a simple (even stupid) slogan like Trump used that resonates with lots and lots of voters or potential voters. Make America Great Again -- Yay!! Just keep mentioning all the stuff voters care about, and for the love of God quit pandering to your "base."

3. Close to #2 above: Appeal to voters' basic wants and ditch all the complicated policy shit. Get in the dirt on the wedge issues, culture wars, etc. Tell voters you'll protect their Medicaid and social security and go after all those welfare cheats.  You can honestly say those things knowing that there are very few actual welfare cheats, and meat-eating Red Staters eat that shit up. Tell voters you'll kick the Islamic State's ass, you'll be tough on North Korea and China and Russia and Iran. Who doesn't agree with that? Details hardly matter, so don't even bring them up.

4. Level lots of effective and even personal zingers at your opponent, particularly in the debates. They don't have to be disgusting insults like Trump used ("look at her face!"), just targeted attacks like the kind Reagan, Obama, and Lloyd "You're no Jack Kennedy" Bentsen have effectively delivered.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 27, 2016, 07:28:37 AM
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I agree about 98% with your sentiments, but like I said in another thread, I think the Democrats could easily win without completely sinking to the morally bankrupt actions Republicans and Trump have sunk to. Here's an easy list that comes to mind:

1. Nominate a candidate with some charisma and without a bunch of negative baggage (whether or not that baggage is "deserved" does NOT matter at all). Clinton was a poor choice, even though she was eminently qualified. Obama had lots of charisma, Hillary Clinton almost none or maybe even negative charisma (such as her laugh that has been repeatedly used as a basis for insult and ridicule by her opponents).

2. Ditch the intellectual (and fair) arguments. Start with a simple (even stupid) slogan like Trump used that resonates with lots and lots of voters or potential voters. Make America Great Again -- Yay!! Just keep mentioning all the stuff voters care about, and for the love of God quit pandering to your "base."

3. Close to #2 above: Appeal to voters' basic wants and ditch all the complicated policy shit. Get in the dirt on the wedge issues, culture wars, etc. Tell voters you'll protect their Medicaid and social security and go after all those welfare cheats.  You can honestly say those things knowing that there are very few actual welfare cheats, and meat-eating Red Staters eat that shit up. Tell voters you'll kick the Islamic State's ass, you'll be tough on North Korea and China and Russia and Iran. Who doesn't agree with that? Details hardly matter, so don't even bring them up.

4. Level lots of effective and even personal zingers at your opponent, particularly in the debates. They don't have to be disgusting insults like Trump used ("look at her face!"), just targeted attacks like the kind Reagan, Obama, and Lloyd "You're no Jack Kennedy" Bentsen have effectively delivered.

Fair points. All the democrats really have to do to win is motivate their supporters. If they can't even manage to do that, they don't really deserve to win.

As far as Zingers, the "Do you know what else I prepared for? Being President." Should go down as a classic, imo.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: scottish on December 27, 2016, 09:07:14 AM
This too will pass.

I'd argue that we went through something similar in Canada for 10 years with the 'Harper' conservative government.   He had a number of annoying programs - the war on science, banning hijabs, the war on the environment, the Muslim behavioural hotline and the never ending deficit spending.    And don't forget the plans for the giant 'Mother Canada' statue on Cape Breton - similar to the statue of liberty, yet without any cultural significance whatsoever.

(https://i.cbc.ca/1.3111793.1434140624!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/mother-canada-statue.jpg)

The previous government was liberal (i.e. on the left), yet oddly they were the most fiscally responsible government we've had in decades.   At the end, we were all getting disgusted with their apparent corruption, the PM retired and they were booted out of office.

It took them 10 years to find a credible party leader (Justin Trudeau) who is nonetheless mocked for his youth and inexperience.   In a most annoying fashion, the liberal government is already showing signs of the same old corruption problems they had 12 years ago.

In time, the democrats will develop new leadership and supplant the republicans.    Hopefully they will raise the standard of political discourse above the playground insults of M. Trump.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on December 27, 2016, 09:14:21 AM
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi". 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on December 27, 2016, 10:15:38 AM
Quote
This too will pass.

I have been trying to cultivate this view while still being wary.  Trump is not like "normal" candidates, and his appeal is not based in reason and logic as far as I can tell.   It is entirely possible that people will get disgusted and this will blow over in 4-8 years.  Or it could be worse than that. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 27, 2016, 01:29:11 PM
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 27, 2016, 01:40:32 PM
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?

If Bernie is Obiwan, and Donald is The Emperor, and Carrie Fischer is dead, does that make Hillary Yoda? Now if we just had a spunky fighter pilot to save us all...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 27, 2016, 01:47:08 PM
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?

If Bernie is Obiwan, and Donald is The Emperor, and Carrie Fischer is dead, does that make Hillary Yoda? Now if we just had a spunky fighter pilot to save us all...

The emperor was the quiet power behind everything.  Ain't Trump.  Donald is more of a Jabba figure . . . Likes slave girls, kinda gross, seems to be wealthy but nobody really knows if that's true . . . But somehow he got elected to Vader's position.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 27, 2016, 01:52:29 PM
The emperor was the quiet power behind everything.  Ain't Trump.  Donald is more of a Jabba figure . . . Likes slave girls, kinda gross, seems to be wealthy but nobody really knows if that's true . . . But somehow he got elected to Vader's position.

Ha - good point.  And probably the one most likely to employ bounty hunters and keep frozen people for decorations. :D
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: scottish on December 27, 2016, 03:09:43 PM
At least Trump is seventy years old.   Four years of presidency may be the end of him, it's not exactly a low-stress job.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 27, 2016, 05:02:52 PM
At least Trump is seventy years old.   Four years of presidency may be the end of him, it's not exactly a low-stress job.

It's only a high-stress job if you give a shit, try to do a good job, and care what happens as a result of your actions or lack thereof.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 27, 2016, 06:12:39 PM
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?

If Bernie is Obiwan, and Donald is The Emperor, and Carrie Fischer is dead, does that make Hillary Yoda?

No.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 30, 2016, 06:50:52 AM
At least Trump is seventy years old.   Four years of presidency may be the end of him, it's not exactly a low-stress job.

It's only a high-stress job if you give a shit, try to do a good job, and care what happens as a result of your actions or lack thereof.

Shit...  he'll probably live forever.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 30, 2016, 07:19:22 AM
seems appropriate to ask here.

Why is the (current) president pursuing sanctions/retirbution against Russia? I am not really up to date on what is going on but my understanding is some have the perception there was an outsider 'hack' of the election when there was in fact only an insider 'leak' of the DNC's emails. So it would seem, by diplomatic standards, this is unwarranted.

So is this just political pandering to; undermine the next president, or take a swipe at Russia for its recent jerking veer to the socially conservative direction, or of course just self denial of the fact that democrats lost lots of elections this year.

Not really sure, someone splain why please.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on December 30, 2016, 07:33:26 AM
seems appropriate to ask here.

Why is the (current) president pursuing sanctions/retirbution against Russia? I am not really up to date on what is going on but my understanding is some have the perception there was an outsider 'hack' of the election when there was in fact only an insider 'leak' of the DNC's emails. So it would seem, by diplomatic standards, this is unwarranted.

So it seems this is just political pandering to; undermine the next president, or take a swipe at Russia for its recent jerking veer to the socially conservative direction, or of course just self denial of the fact that democrats lost lots of elections this year.

Not really sure, some splain why please.

Here's what the BBC had to say about it.

"CrowdStrike identified two actors inside the DNC network that it had seen before - one that it calls Cozy Bear (linked to Russia's FSB [formerly known as the KGB]) and the other Fancy Bear (linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence).  Cozy Bear breached the network and stole data. Fancy Bear was linked to the release of the data from the DNC and other political figures."  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38370630

and

"US intelligence agencies, including the FBI and CIA, concluded that the aim of the hack was to cause damage to Mrs Clinton and the Democrats and favour Mr Trump."   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38464612
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on December 30, 2016, 08:30:39 PM
There were attempts to hack the GOP network as well, though we don't know if the hacks were successful.  They could have been, but the information found might not have been useful to release at this time.

I think the concern is that Putin, an old KGB man, has been successfully trying to destabilize Western democracies by using hackers and a well-funded propaganda organization (his "troll army").

Last year I read this very fascinating description of his agency in St. Petersburg.  He  employs shifts of workers to make fake social media accounts, which are used to spread fake news and influence opinion at home and in other countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0

Here's a discussion from the RAND think-tank about his strategy:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE198/RAND_PE198.pdf

Putin has targeted other countries, not just the U.S.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/german-spy-chief-russian-hackers-could-disrupt-elections-bruno-kahl-cyber-attacks
http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2016/12/01/les-elections-en-europe-dans-la-cyberguerre_5041350_3214.html

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 30, 2016, 10:01:25 PM
seems appropriate to ask here.

Why is the (current) president pursuing sanctions/retirbution against Russia?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/joint-dhs-odni-fbi-statement-on-russian-malicious-cyber-activity

Quote from: FBI
Today, DHS and FBI released a Joint Analysis Report (JAR) which further expands on that statement by providing details of the tools and infrastructure used by Russian intelligence services to compromise and exploit networks and infrastructure associated with the recent U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. government, political and private sector entities.


Quote from: hoping2retire35
So is this just political pandering to; undermine the next president, or take a swipe at Russia for its recent jerking veer to the socially conservative direction, or of course just self denial of the fact that democrats lost lots of elections this year.

No. Unless, of course, you don't trust FBI.gov.

The joint report is at https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf. It, and the related files, have the technical details.


Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 31, 2016, 03:34:09 AM
And Russia is not just hacking political infrastructure: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/30/us/grizzly-steppe-malware-burlington-electric/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/30/us/grizzly-steppe-malware-burlington-electric/index.html)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: scottish on December 31, 2016, 03:25:34 PM
I was surprised at the mild response from Obama, even though he seems to avoid escalation.   And the blasé acceptance from Trump is astounding to me.    I would have thought the American government would view interference in their presidential election as an act of war or something equally serious.    But expelling a few diplomats?   That's it?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: LaineyAZ on December 31, 2016, 03:46:52 PM
If our oligarchy is happy - meaning the stock market is doing well - that's all that matters.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: davisgang90 on December 31, 2016, 09:49:19 PM
This was an interesting article from the tech community on the Joint Analysis Report released by DHS and FBI.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 01, 2017, 04:54:49 AM
I was surprised at the mild response from Obama, even though he seems to avoid escalation.   And the blasé acceptance from Trump is astounding to me.    I would have thought the American government would view interference in their presidential election as an act of war or something equally serious.    But expelling a few diplomats?   That's it?

Well, Obama did also claim that he has talked to Putin in person, and on the phone (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-obama-said-putin-red-phone-about-election-hack-n697116) and told him sternly that the meddling was unacceptable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 01, 2017, 10:17:30 AM
I was surprised at the mild response from Obama, even though he seems to avoid escalation.   And the blasé acceptance from Trump is astounding to me.    I would have thought the American government would view interference in their presidential election as an act of war or something equally serious.    But expelling a few diplomats?   That's it?
There is nothing Obama can do that cannot be undone by Trump, unless he has the support of Congress, and the congress is majority GOP, who have chosen party over country.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 01, 2017, 10:50:15 AM
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of actual war.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 01, 2017, 12:44:06 PM
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of actual war.

I would like to think we've learned our lessons about going to wars based only upon relatively unsubstantiated (http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/) claims made by the intelligence communities.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on January 01, 2017, 01:01:24 PM
Nobody is foolish enough to go to actual war (as opposed to proxy wars) when both sides have enough nuclear warheads to obliterate every major city on the planet before breakfast.

Or at least that's what I am banking on this year.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 01, 2017, 01:11:43 PM
Nobody is foolish enough to go to actual war (as opposed to proxy wars) when both sides have enough nuclear warheads to obliterate every major city on the planet before breakfast.

Or at least that's what I am banking on this year.

Meh.

Nuclear annihilation renders anything you do pointless, so there's no reason to waste time contemplating it.  If it happens, it happens.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 01, 2017, 03:25:45 PM
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of actual war.

I would like to think we've learned our lessons about going to wars based only upon relatively unsubstantiated (http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/) claims made by the intelligence communities.

Potentially "relatively unsubstantiated," since even the arstechnica op-ed stated:

Quote from: arstechnica
In fairness, the reticence in both cases is likely justified by the interest in protecting sources and methods used to detect such attacks. And as Lee was quick to note, strong technical evidence is likely to be included in reports to Congress that later may be declassified.

In other words, computer forensics methods by secretive government agencies probably isn't in the unclassified realm. Considering that many Congressional Republicans (even excluding his detractors like McCain and Graham) are calling for stronger measures should indicate that there is fire to the smoke and not just "sour grapes," as Trump suggests.

Of course, Trump has special knowledge of the hacking that no one has. We'll find out tomorrow and it'll be Great!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 04, 2017, 05:05:38 AM
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of I would like to think we've learned our lessons about going to wars based only upon relatively unsubstantiated (http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/) claims made by the intelligence communities.

Potentially "relatively unsubstantiated," since even the arstechnica op-ed stated:

Quote from: arstechnica
actual war.


In fairness, the reticence in both cases is likely justified by the interest in protecting sources and methods used to detect such attacks. And as Lee was quick to note, strong technical evidence is likely to be included in reports to Congress that later may be declassified.

In other words, computer forensics methods by secretive government agencies probably isn't in the unclassified realm. Considering that many Congressional Republicans (even excluding his detractors like McCain and Graham) are calling for stronger measures should indicate that there is fire to the smoke and not just "sour grapes," as Trump suggests.

Of course, Trump has special knowledge of the hacking that no one has. We'll find out tomorrow and it'll be Great!

I wasn't saying that the intelligence community doesn't wholeheartedly believe that the Russian government was the main perpetrator. I was merely drawing parallels to similar situations in which mistakes have been made based on intelligence community assurances, even when there is enough evidence to convince the majority of congress.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on January 04, 2017, 05:39:31 AM
I wasn't saying that the intelligence community doesn't wholeheartedly believe that the Russian government was the main perpetrator. I was merely drawing parallels to similar situations in which mistakes have been made based on intelligence community assurances, even when there is enough evidence to convince the majority of congress.

One big difference with Russian hacking seems to be that the intelligence community in this case is not under political pressure to come up with a result that the politicians in charge like, but is coming up with a result that they don't.  So no conformation bias.  (Extraordinary to think that the USA and UK ever had elected politicians who were looking for an excuse to go to war, but that seems to have been how it was.)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on January 04, 2017, 06:42:02 AM
CIA director John Brennan was on PBS last night doing an interview. He talked about the report that Obama requested on Russian election interference.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: minimalistgamer on January 08, 2017, 08:11:12 PM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 09, 2017, 07:28:23 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

Except that given that the electoral college did not follow its mandate (choosing not being told how to vote via popular vote elections), it is just a bunch of small popular votes and then given certain states more power.  That is not acceptable either.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2017, 07:44:05 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: minimalistgamer on January 09, 2017, 07:58:30 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2017, 08:18:39 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

I recognize that tone is hard to read online. So I am going to not assume that you are trying to be condescending by telling me things as though I do not know them. Though I will admit it's quite difficult, given your first parenthetical remark.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on January 09, 2017, 05:06:25 PM
those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?

I'm less upset about the release of emails, though I would have preferred they released emails from BOTH sides of the election. 

I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

I thought Russia also got emails from the Republicans, and there was concern that Republicans could be blackmailed. I wish I could recall where I read that. I assume it was conjecture, because how would someone know for certain until such emails are released.

The point is that it seems easy enough for the Russians to hack large organizations and it seems like they would hack the RNC, too.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 09, 2017, 10:09:48 PM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

Great points. There are many examples of rights of the minorities that should be protected against the will of the majority.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 10, 2017, 06:52:59 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

Slavery was abolished under the 13 Amendment. In order to ratify this amendment, it would require a proposal by Congress and approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Three-fourths technically is a majority.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jamesvt on January 10, 2017, 11:56:36 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

Slavery was abolished under the 13 Amendment. In order to ratify this amendment, it would require a proposal by Congress and approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Three-fourths technically is a majority.
Majority of the legislatures but not the majority of the population. 99% of the population could be for or against something. It doesn't matter when it comes to ratifying an amendment or even electing a president, especially if one candidate fails to get 270 electoral votes. A candidate could technically become president with under 200k popular votes and with only 3 electoral votes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 10, 2017, 03:49:42 PM
those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?

I'm less upset about the release of emails, though I would have preferred they released emails from BOTH sides of the election. 

I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

I thought Russia also got emails from the Republicans, and there was concern that Republicans could be blackmailed. I wish I could recall where I read that. I assume it was conjecture, because how would someone know for certain until such emails are released.

The point is that it seems easy enough for the Russians to hack large organizations and it seems like they would hack the RNC, too.

Comey stated that the Russians also hacked RNC computers. The FBI would learn this from computer forensics.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/

Quote from: CNN
Top intelligence officials indicated on Tuesday that the GOP was also a Russian hacking target but that none of the information obtained was leaked.

To further what Sol wrote, there is suspicion that Trump was indeed collaborating with Russians.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

Quote from: CNN
The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Freedom2016 on January 10, 2017, 10:18:12 PM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):


https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 10, 2017, 11:02:20 PM
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 10, 2017, 11:03:40 PM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):


https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg)

Because the rest of us checked it, probably.  It's fake news...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 10, 2017, 11:10:04 PM
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?

That's not the kind of relationship that the Buzzfeed article alleges, Sol.  Yes, we know that Trump has ties with Russian billionaires, and that he adores Putin.  But this article publishes a "dossier" supposedly compiled by a retired British spy on rather deep political ties, Watergate style, including claiming that Trump has some bizarre sexual preferences that Russia supposedly indulges him with.  If it were at all verifiable, some of these things would have prevented me from voting at all, but they aren't verifiable, and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this even though they admit that they can't support it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 10, 2017, 11:11:59 PM
Because the rest of us checked it, probably.  It's fake news...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/

Well, Trump tweeted that it was fake news but CNN disagrees with you.  http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html 

And most of this stuff has been circulating in the intelligence network for months now.  The FBI has them.  A bunch of senators with security posts have known about it.  Obama and Trump both have copies.

The part that is most upsetting isn't that Trump paid some hookers to pee on each other.  Whatever man, pee away.  The upsetting part is the detailed history of how Russian intelligence has been cultivating Trump as an unwitting asset for the past five years.  His personality analysis, pressure points, successful past motivators of desired behavior, that sort of thing.  It's the standard way the KGB (and the US, for that matter) goes about controlling a person who may turn out to be useful to them.

edit:  Wait a second, did you seriously just RETWEET trump's tweet of that link, like to the forum?  You're not making yourself look like a credible analyst of this issue if your deep-dive perspective is to literally retweet the Trumpster.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 10, 2017, 11:26:55 PM
Because the rest of us checked it, probably.  It's fake news...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/

Well, Trump tweeted that it was fake news but CNN disagrees with you.  http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html 

And most of this stuff has been circulating in the intelligence network for months now.  The FBI has them.  A bunch of senators with security posts have known about it.  Obama and Trump both have copies.

The part that is most upsetting isn't that Trump paid some hookers to pee on each other.  Whatever man, pee away.  The upsetting part is the detailed history of how Russian intelligence has been cultivating Trump as an unwitting asset for the past five years.  His personality analysis, pressure points, successful past motivators of desired behavior, that sort of thing.  It's the standard way the KGB (and the US, for that matter) goes about controlling a person who may turn out to be useful to them.

Umm... CNN reports that nothing is verified and that one of the driving reasons this report was given out to certain people was not that these rumors were true (which they may or may not be) but merely that this information was floating around, and the affected parties should know this.  Even buzzfeed points out that there are errors in basic facts in some of these reports.

Reminds me of the Hillary scandals - when Trump is charged with Treason for colluding with a foreign power against America, then I'll support him being impeached and removed from office. Until then, he's just a slimeball tv personality who got elected President.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 11, 2017, 12:29:36 AM
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?

I don't think Republicans have much of a leg to stand on, if "this is a breach of journalistic vetting responsibilities" is going to be their defense on this one.  They just spend the last year crying about how "the American people have a right to know" anything and everything, regardless of source or credibility.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 01:05:07 AM
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?


Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?  Wikileaks themselves, or the CIA?  If you believe either, why?  Has Wikileaks ever given you cause to distrust them?  Has the CIA?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 01:08:36 AM
Because the rest of us checked it, probably.  It's fake news...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/

edit:  Wait a second, did you seriously just RETWEET trump's tweet of that link, like to the forum?  You're not making yourself look like a credible analyst of this issue if your deep-dive perspective is to literally retweet the Trumpster.

No, I wasn't even aware that Trump tweeted anything about it.  I don't make his regular rants part of my day, but I find it interesting that you knew that.

And no, CNN didn't dispute that it was unverified.  So, fake news.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 11, 2017, 01:09:27 AM
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?

I don't think Republicans have much of a leg to stand on, if "this is a breach of journalistic vetting responsibilities" is going to be their defense on this one.  They just spend the last year crying about how "the American people have a right to know" anything and everything, regardless of source or credibility.

And so begins the race to the bottom... supported by all parties.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 11, 2017, 05:28:32 AM
I don't know what's fact or what's fiction. Part of me is truly concerned how Trump's supporters still continue to support him and thus the actions surrounding him. They still truly see him as a demi-god (heck Trump said so himself). And part of me is admittedly laughing at how quickly I think Trump is going to be impeached. Is there a an entry in the Guinness World Records for this?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: cliffhanger on January 11, 2017, 05:49:21 AM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):


https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg)

When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news? Unlikely. I bet some troll wrote this dossier as it feeds into the worst of what liberals already believe about Trump.

Guys.. this is just feeding into the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. When the same news organizations that publish this crap then turn around and blab about fake news, it gives Trump legitimate ammo to use against them. They're already starting to campaign for reelection...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 11, 2017, 06:02:25 AM
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?


Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?  Wikileaks themselves, or the CIA?  If you believe either, why? Has Wikileaks ever given you cause to distrust them?  Has the CIA?
Yes
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 11, 2017, 07:17:44 AM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):


https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg)

When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?Unlikely. I bet some troll wrote this dossier as it feeds into the worst of what liberals already believe about Trump.

Guys.. this is just feeding into the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. When the same news organizations that publish this crap then turn around and blab about fake news, it gives Trump legitimate ammo to use against them. They're already starting to campaign for reelection...

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on January 11, 2017, 08:00:18 AM
The story here is that Comey chose to speak publically 10 days before an election about emails on a computer of which he did not know the contents of or if they had any bearing on anything related to HRC.  At the same time, he knew that this information about Trump being compromised, even if not verified, existed.  He chose to release the email information, which turned out to be nothing, but not the Russia stuff, which may or may not turn out to be nothing.  The FBI is playing favorites with unsubstantiated information, and that sucks. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 11, 2017, 08:01:44 AM
The story here is that Comey chose to speak publically 10 days before an election about emails on a computer of which he did not know the contents of or if they had any bearing on anything related to HRC.  At the same time, he knew that this information about Trump being compromised, even if not verified, existed.  He chose to release the email information, which turned out to be nothing, but not the Russia stuff, which may or may not turn out to be nothing.  The FBI is playing favorites with unsubstantiated information, and that sucks.
Which I think does mean the president can fire him..... But then is the person who Trump would appoint worse?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 11, 2017, 08:27:31 AM
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?

Did Trump ever apologize for all of the times he said "Some people are saying..." and then repeated some horrible horrible lie?  This has been (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-many-people-are-saying/) his MO (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.9aa06f464835) all year (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/twitter-mocks-trump-scientist-claim-many-people-are-saying), to use vague internet rumors to smear his opponents.  I think it's only fair to play on his level.

Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?

Have you even been reading the news?  I believe the 16 US intelligence agencies who have already identified the go-between that Russia used to leak information to Wikileaks.  Russia uncovered the information and then passed it on.  Wikileaks didn't (at the time) know for sure that the information came from Russia, because they themselves didn't get it from the Kremlin.  But it's disingenuous to say that the use of an intermediary absolves Russia of responsibility for the leak, isn't it?

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

This isn't fake news.  Fake news is a story that is based on something that didn't happen.  This is a story about an actual intelligence report, of questionable credibility.  It's still a real document.  It really exists, and is really under investigation, and has really been presented to Congress and to the Presidents, was really concealed during the election while other information of questionable credibility was really released, and that's what the story is about.  Heck, the (not fake) story even discusses the possibility that the intelligence report could be fake, in part or in whole. 

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: llorona on January 11, 2017, 08:28:10 AM
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

Unverified does not necessarily mean untrue.

Mother Jones covered Russia back in October: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

Politico dug into some of this back in September: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Timodeus on January 11, 2017, 08:48:28 AM
Reading through the dossier now. Very entertaining, though of course we don't know if its true. The wording and style of the author appear British to me (latin phrases, British spelling). At this point everything is speculation, but what I find interesting is Trump's response (Russia told me it's not true!). It's almost like he's trying to make the speculation stick (the dossier mentions drawing attention away from other scandals) to cover up even larger scandals. My own speculation: if this attention persists and doesn't let up, we could be looking, thankfully, at a very short presidency. Watergate dragged on for years, but Nixon didn't finish his second term. Presidents have been impeached for less.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 11, 2017, 09:30:28 AM
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

Unverified does not necessarily mean untrue.

Mother Jones covered Russia back in October: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

Politico dug into some of this back in September: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283

Absolutely and I never claimed as such. I think the news outlet was just reporting what it has while saying "hey we can't verify this." Honestly would it be surprising if it were true? And would it really change the minds of any Trump supporter? I mean they have made it this far ignoring his plethora of lies and deceit, I don't think it would change their minds. Might kick start the impeachment proceedings. Fingers crossed. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 11, 2017, 09:33:20 AM
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?

Did Trump ever apologize for all of the times he said "Some people are saying..." and then repeated some horrible horrible lie?  This has been (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-many-people-are-saying/) his MO (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.9aa06f464835) all year (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/twitter-mocks-trump-scientist-claim-many-people-are-saying), to use vague internet rumors to smear his opponents.  I think it's only fair to play on his level.

Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?

Have you even been reading the news?  I believe the 16 US intelligence agencies who have already identified the go-between that Russia used to leak information to Wikileaks.  Russia uncovered the information and then passed it on.  Wikileaks didn't (at the time) know for sure that the information came from Russia, because they themselves didn't get it from the Kremlin.  But it's disingenuous to say that the use of an intermediary absolves Russia of responsibility for the leak, isn't it?

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

This isn't fake news.  Fake news is a story that is based on something that didn't happen.  This is a story about an actual intelligence report, of questionable credibility.  It's still a real document.  It really exists, and is really under investigation, and has really been presented to Congress and to the Presidents, was really concealed during the election while other information of questionable credibility was really released, and that's what the story is about.  Heck, the (not fake) story even discusses the possibility that the intelligence report could be fake, in part or in whole. 

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

Absolutely I agree Sol. I think folks are going to start labeling everything as fake news now even if it boils down to them just simply not agreeing with it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 11, 2017, 09:39:23 AM
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

Unverified does not necessarily mean untrue.

Mother Jones covered Russia back in October: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

Politico dug into some of this back in September: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283

Absolutely and I never claimed as such. I think the news outlet was just reporting what it has while saying "hey we can't verify this." Honestly would it be surprising if it were true? And would it really change the minds of any Trump supporter? I mean they have made it this far ignoring his plethora of lies and deceit, I don't think it would change their minds. Might kick start the impeachment proceedings. Fingers crossed.
Congressional GOP members already knew about this.  They don't care.  They are willing to put party in front of country.  So I doubt he will ever be impeached unless people get out and vote in 2018.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Wexler on January 11, 2017, 12:39:53 PM
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?

Did Trump ever apologize for all of the times he said "Some people are saying..." and then repeated some horrible horrible lie?  This has been (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-many-people-are-saying/) his MO (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.9aa06f464835) all year (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/twitter-mocks-trump-scientist-claim-many-people-are-saying), to use vague internet rumors to smear his opponents.  I think it's only fair to play on his level.

Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?

Have you even been reading the news?  I believe the 16 US intelligence agencies who have already identified the go-between that Russia used to leak information to Wikileaks.  Russia uncovered the information and then passed it on.  Wikileaks didn't (at the time) know for sure that the information came from Russia, because they themselves didn't get it from the Kremlin.  But it's disingenuous to say that the use of an intermediary absolves Russia of responsibility for the leak, isn't it?

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

This isn't fake news.  Fake news is a story that is based on something that didn't happen.  This is a story about an actual intelligence report, of questionable credibility.  It's still a real document.  It really exists, and is really under investigation, and has really been presented to Congress and to the Presidents, was really concealed during the election while other information of questionable credibility was really released, and that's what the story is about.  Heck, the (not fake) story even discusses the possibility that the intelligence report could be fake, in part or in whole. 

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

Absolutely I agree Sol. I think folks are going to start labeling everything as fake news now even if it boils down to them just simply not agreeing with it.

I find it particularly galling that the man who rode to power on birther conspiracies is now complaining about unsubstantiated attacks on him.  Birther conspiracies.  I...just can't believe that people actually voted for the birther-in-chief. 

His voting base has an authoritarian fetish.  It's more important to be strong and dominant, even if obviously lying.  In fact, lying and getting away with brazen lies only cements his dominance.  We can't  rely on his base coming to their senses.  They won't-this is a feature and not a bug for them.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on January 11, 2017, 12:54:17 PM
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on January 11, 2017, 02:02:56 PM
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 02:03:29 PM

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

EDIT: Just found out that even the NYT has thrown Buzzfeed and CNN under the bus for publishing this dossier without any kind of support.  That's so much like the pot calling the kettle black, that I don't even have a better metaphor.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 11, 2017, 02:08:20 PM

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

4chan, jumping in and trying to take credit? Wow, I'm shocked -- shocked!

It's possible, I suppose.

Then again, the BBC is saying there's a second source that backs the veracity of the existence of the compromising dossier on Trump.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/672669/bbc-claims-second-source-backs-trump-dossier


Generally speaking, I try not to use cheap, tasteless jokes to mock political figures, because I think doing so is lazy and takes the place of legitimate critique.
This policy is REALLY, REALLY hard to adhere to right now.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on January 11, 2017, 02:13:31 PM
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.

Honestly, that's one of my gut reactions to the whole email hacking thing.  What did they/could they uncover from Trump that's more offensive than what we already know?  Probably not much.  He used a racial slur?  Have the country is already convinced he's David Duke.  He is sexist towards women?  Uh, more than the "grab them by the..." thing?  He's got shady business deals?  I wouldn't even read that news story, I already just assume it.  I mean, basically he's like the opposite of Hillary, his public image is so incredibly unfiltered he's about immune to blackmail and tarnish.  Versus Hillary, who went through so much effort to put on a polished front that any chink it in appears scandalous. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 11, 2017, 03:26:13 PM
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.
Given the accusation of his raping a 13 year old girl and his support for a proven pedophile, that would honestly not surprise me.  I honestly want to know what it would take for the GOP to impeach him, and I don't think there is anything.  The only blackmail I think that would work on Trump is proof that he is not rich.  He has put so much effort into that lie, it does not matter that many people would not care, he'd care.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on January 11, 2017, 03:28:50 PM

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

4chan, jumping in and trying to take credit? Wow, I'm shocked -- shocked!

It's possible, I suppose.

Then again, the BBC is saying there's a second source that backs the veracity of the existence of the compromising dossier on Trump.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/672669/bbc-claims-second-source-backs-trump-dossier


Generally speaking, I try not to use cheap, tasteless jokes to mock political figures, because I think doing so is lazy and takes the place of legitimate critique.
This policy is REALLY, REALLY hard to adhere to right now.

I, for one, am perfectly happy to rechristen the birther in chief as the peeOTUS. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 11, 2017, 04:07:30 PM
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.
Given the accusation of his raping a 13 year old girl and his support for a proven pedophile, that would honestly not surprise me. I honestly want to know what it would take for the GOP to impeach him, and I don't think there is anything.  The only blackmail I think that would work on Trump is proof that he is not rich.  He has put so much effort into that lie, it does not matter that many people would not care, he'd care.

They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on January 11, 2017, 05:14:54 PM
Generally to get impeached you would have to do something illegal while in office and get caught. There would probably be reviews and investigation before impeachment.

On top of that for an impeachment to result in a removal from office is apparently unprecedented. Nixon resigned.

Embarrassing material probably isn't nearly enough. I doubt an old sex scandal with whores in a foreign country would be enough to get him to resign and I don't believe what has been talked about is a crime. It seems like it would be a first to see someone so high level to be forced into resignation over character defamation of this sort. It certainly seems like there has been plenty of low level politicians that have disappeared from public life over entanglements with paid sex. Most I believe did this stuff with public funding and while holding office.

What would be a crime is if he capitulated to demands by a foreign nation to avoid black mail. Seems like it would be pretty hard to prove though.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on January 11, 2017, 05:17:06 PM
On the plus side I hope people hold this asshole(Trump) under a microscope for his full tenure.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 07:17:52 PM

Embarrassing material probably isn't nearly enough. I doubt an old sex scandal with whores in a foreign country would be enough to get him to resign and I don't believe what has been talked about is a crime.

Well, hiring hookers actually is a crime inside most of the US, but I honestly don't think that Trump would be impeached for a fetish even if he did it in the oval office, on top of the Resolute desk, on national television during a live episode of The Apprentice: Presidential Aid Edition.

That said, this is still fake news, and getting faker by the minute...

Quote
The salacious innuendoes in the periodic reports about Trump’s personal life dominated social media headlines. The mention of Webzilla and Gubarev was among the more specific allegations: that XBT and affiliates “had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic Party leadership.”

Gubarev said he operated 75,000 servers across the globe and got real-time information if there had been hacking or illicit activity tied to his businesses. There is no evidence of that, he said, adding that no one has contacted him.

“I have a physical office in Dallas. Nobody contacted me,” said Gubarev, adding that 40 percent of his business is handled over the servers it runs in Dallas and the United States accounts for about 27 percent of his global business.[/quote

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article125910774.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: minimalistgamer on January 11, 2017, 09:17:56 PM
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on January 11, 2017, 10:15:12 PM
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?

That's not the kind of relationship that the Buzzfeed article alleges, Sol.  Yes, we know that Trump has ties with Russian billionaires, and that he adores Putin.  But this article publishes a "dossier" supposedly compiled by a retired British spy on rather deep political ties, Watergate style, including claiming that Trump has some bizarre sexual preferences that Russia supposedly indulges him with.  If it were at all verifiable, some of these things would have prevented me from voting at all, but they aren't verifiable, and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this even though they admit that they can't support it.

The same orgs giving Buzzfeed heat had no problem posting unverified info about HRC. Funny how they clutch their pearls now...

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: minimalistgamer on January 11, 2017, 10:40:31 PM
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?

That's not the kind of relationship that the Buzzfeed article alleges, Sol.  Yes, we know that Trump has ties with Russian billionaires, and that he adores Putin.  But this article publishes a "dossier" supposedly compiled by a retired British spy on rather deep political ties, Watergate style, including claiming that Trump has some bizarre sexual preferences that Russia supposedly indulges him with.  If it were at all verifiable, some of these things would have prevented me from voting at all, but they aren't verifiable, and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this even though they admit that they can't support it.

The same orgs giving Buzzfeed heat had no problem posting unverified info about HRC. Funny how they clutch their pearls now...

Yep. Its call hypocrisy and both sides are extremely guilty of this. There are no saints. This is why loyalty to a party or a candidate is pointless.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 11, 2017, 10:54:44 PM
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

I mean I sort of agree with you (though would quibble with much of this post), but if you really think CNN is equivalent to Breitbart, you have been gaslighted, friend. At least go with something like Daily Kos, or even Huffington Post if you want to point out examples of extreme liberal bias.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 10:57:21 PM


(http://www.strike-the-root.com/sites/default/files/russians_pooped.jpg)

http://www.strike-the-root.com/did-russians-poop-in-hallway
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: minimalistgamer on January 12, 2017, 05:22:12 AM
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

I mean I sort of agree with you (though would quibble with much of this post), but if you really think CNN is equivalent to Breitbart, you have been gaslighted, friend. At least go with something like Daily Kos, or even Huffington Post if you want to point out examples of extreme liberal bias.

CNN and MSNBC were terrible leading up to the election. Do you remember Van Jones saying this election result was a whitelash? To me that is an incredibly racist thing to say. Keep in mind, a lot of people that voted Democrat in previous elections, voted Republican this time around. Feel free to disagree with me about how good or bad CNN  is. Bottomline is, I lost respect for it. Just like I lost respect for Fox during the Bush era.

And who could forget the smug Rachel Maddow...my god she is the definition of partisan reporting. How they think they are different or better than Fox, I do not know.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 12, 2017, 05:50:24 AM
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

I mean I sort of agree with you (though would quibble with much of this post), but if you really think CNN is equivalent to Breitbart, you have been gaslighted, friend. At least go with something like Daily Kos, or even Huffington Post if you want to point out examples of extreme liberal bias.

CNN and MSNBC were terrible leading up to the election. Do you remember Van Jones saying this election result was a whitelash? To me that is an incredibly racist thing to say. Keep in mind, a lot of people that voted Democrat in previous elections, voted Republican this time around. Feel free to disagree with me about how good or bad CNN  is. Bottomline is, I lost respect for it. Just like I lost respect for Fox during the Bush era.

And who could forget the smug Rachel Maddow...my god she is the definition of partisan reporting. How they think they are different or better than Fox, I do not know.

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment on Jones. Heck he has publicly chided liberal elitist and says both parties have major faults. And he has a bit of a history of saying things "off the cuff." So I have no argument there. But someone voicing an opinion about an election result isn't fake news.  Bretibart publishes actual fake news stories. Like a story a few days ago claiming President Obama awarded himself the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service. Umm no the DOD nominated him and the SecDef approved it. Heck Snopes has a page dedicated to dispelling Breitbart's stories. Sometimes they do get parts of them correct.

To CNN's credit they refused to publish the "Pissgate" story because it could not be verified.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 12, 2017, 06:00:33 AM

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

EDIT: Just found out that even the NYT has thrown Buzzfeed and CNN under the bus for publishing this dossier without any kind of support.  That's so much like the pot calling the kettle black, that I don't even have a better metaphor.

This seems interesting. You're attempting to scold someone for allegedly believing "fake news" while using a source with zero credibility who's attempting to convince you they created the story and fed it to some guy named Rick Wilson which was easily disprovable. So you're in essence using actual fake news to try and discredit unverifiable fake news. That's an odd twist, to put I mildly.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on January 12, 2017, 06:48:49 AM

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

EDIT: Just found out that even the NYT has thrown Buzzfeed and CNN under the bus for publishing this dossier without any kind of support.  That's so much like the pot calling the kettle black, that I don't even have a better metaphor.

This seems interesting. You're attempting to scold someone for allegedly believing "fake news" while using a source with zero credibility who's attempting to convince you they created the story and fed it to some guy named Rick Wilson which was easily disprovable. So you're in essence using actual fake news to try and discredit unverifiable fake news. That's an odd twist, to put I mildly.
The BBC are reporting that the author of the dossier is a respected former MI6 man, named as Christopher Steele, who had postings in Moscow and has sources in the FSB.  He is now a director of Orbis Business Intelligence - https://orbisbi.com/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 12, 2017, 07:29:23 AM
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

Huh. That's funny. Someone must have deleted the part of my post where I said that.

/sarcasm

You do know that Trump supporters disproportionately consumed "news" that is actually fake, don't you? As in written with the knowledge that it is not true? And that leading up to the election, the consumption of such news rose significantly?

"Biased" news sources are one thing. Literal lies published with full knowledge that they are not true is quite another. And Trump himself knows how powerful and important inventing news out of whole cloth is to controlling the opinion of his supporters. We know this because he has chosen Steve Bannon, former head of Breitbart (one of the original purveyors of modern fake news) as his chief strategist.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 12, 2017, 03:57:36 PM
During an anti-Russia House speech on Thursday by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), C-SPAN was knocked off the air by Russia Today, an English-language network run by the Russian government.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/c-span-broadcast-of-anti-russia-speech-by-dem-congresswoman-knocked-off-the-air-and-replaced-by-russian-state-tv/

United States of Russia, indeed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on January 12, 2017, 04:09:39 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on January 12, 2017, 04:11:25 PM
Sounds like more hacktavists... that pretty bad. I can only really interpret that kind of behavior as chaotic. Its seems those kind of hacks could only serve to turn American's more against Russia. Or maybe someone is hoping it will further polarize the right and left.

Another few years of stuff like this and I would imagine most Americans would be ready to completely shit on Russia at every turn and shun their government and any form of cooperation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on January 12, 2017, 04:22:16 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

Good questions. I get the feeling from many anti Clinton people that they felt her behavior  was a illegal and smoking gun for her being 100% corrupt.

I personally like you found the emails to be mostly benign insider deals, back scratching and basically all the stuff we assume the DNC and RNC were doing anyway.

I also think the to me saying an election was hacked means "they hacked votes". That would clearly be a terrible circumstance demanding a remedy.

A foreign country running a smear campaign  based on real document leaks and disinformation on the internet is a far less tangible crime. I don't like it and I think we should fight that behavior by foreign states. But I don't think it is necessarily wise to inflame anger and destabilize our own government as part of the process to combat this behavior. At least part of the motivation for spending so much time talking about this "hacking" is certainly to either destabilize or box in the Trump administration with regards to his policies on Russia.

The way this is being handled is certainly in part political but I am not sure entirely what consequence the intelligence community and the DNC are hoping for.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: kayvent on January 12, 2017, 04:25:56 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

There were some democrats that alleged the possibility of electronic voter fraud, those have died down.

For your third point, I have to disagree. Hillary Clinton was killing Bernie Sanders in he primary. During that time there were allegations of the establishment rigging the system but it was widely dismissed. The DNC leaks revealed there was rampant manipulation occurring. This dissuaded some Bernie Sanders voters and others in the centre. Later leaks or hacks like the Podesta emails further eroded trust in Clinton.

At one point in time I could enumerate and describe each e-mail scandal and give a detailed timeline on when they occurred and how they were or were not inter-related. I literally threw up my hands and gave up after the seventh incident. Vox recently released a video that suggested that the constant barrage of "email scandal" headlines were an aggravating factor in the determination of the election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on January 12, 2017, 04:27:44 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

Good questions. I get the feeling from many anti Clinton people that they felt her behavior  was a illegal and smoking gun for her being 100% corrupt.

I personally like you found the emails to be mostly benign insider deals, back scratching and basically all the stuff we assume the DNC and RNC were doing anyway.

I also think the to me saying an election was hacked means "they hacked votes". That would clearly be a terrible circumstance demanding a remedy.

A foreign country running a smear campaign  based on real document leaks and disinformation on the internet is a far less tangible crime. I don't like it and I think we should fight that behavior by foreign states. But I don't think it is necessarily wise to inflame anger and destabilize our own government as part of the process to combat this behavior. At least part of the motivation for spending so much time talking about this "hacking" is certainly to either destabilize or box in the Trump administration with regards to his policies on Russia.

The way this is being handled is certainly in part political but I am not sure entirely what consequence the intelligence community and the DNC are hoping for.

Hacking the actual voting machines would be very difficult. They would have to individually targeted, and the hackers would leave many foot prints.

Russia may have well run had an information operation to help Trump. But proving that got Trump elected would be difficult to do, which is why it's more plausible.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on January 12, 2017, 04:30:27 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

There were some democrats that alleged the possibility of electronic voter fraud, those have died down.

For your third point, I have to disagree. Hillary Clinton was killing Bernie Sanders in he primary. During that time there were allegations of the establishment rigging the system but it was widely dismissed. The DNC leaks revealed there was rampant manipulation occurring. This dissuaded some Bernie Sanders voters and others in the centre. Later leaks or hacks like the Podesta emails further eroded trust in Clinton.

At one point in time I could enumerate and describe each e-mail scandal and give a detailed timeline on when they occurred and how they were or were not inter-related. I literally threw up my hands and gave up after the seventh incident. Vox recently released a video that suggested that the constant barrage of "email scandal" headlines were an aggravating factor in the determination of the election.

Possibly. Russia may have run had an information warfare operation going on. But that's a lot different from "hacking."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on January 12, 2017, 05:09:31 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

There were some democrats that alleged the possibility of electronic voter fraud, those have died down.

For your third point, I have to disagree. Hillary Clinton was killing Bernie Sanders in he primary. During that time there were allegations of the establishment rigging the system but it was widely dismissed. The DNC leaks revealed there was rampant manipulation occurring. This dissuaded some Bernie Sanders voters and others in the centre. Later leaks or hacks like the Podesta emails further eroded trust in Clinton.

At one point in time I could enumerate and describe each e-mail scandal and give a detailed timeline on when they occurred and how they were or were not inter-related. I literally threw up my hands and gave up after the seventh incident. Vox recently released a video that suggested that the constant barrage of "email scandal" headlines were an aggravating factor in the determination of the election.
And I have a tough time getting mad at Russia for exposing the bad behavior of the Democrats. "They tilted the election by exposing our efforts to tilt the election" is pretty sad and laughable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 12, 2017, 05:31:50 PM
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on January 12, 2017, 05:37:55 PM
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J

That's a very vague statement though. There's a world between Russia cleverly disseminating information or disinformation to help Trump and Russia "hacking" the election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 12, 2017, 05:38:44 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

There were some democrats that alleged the possibility of electronic voter fraud, those have died down.

For your third point, I have to disagree. Hillary Clinton was killing Bernie Sanders in he primary. During that time there were allegations of the establishment rigging the system but it was widely dismissed. The DNC leaks revealed there was rampant manipulation occurring. This dissuaded some Bernie Sanders voters and others in the centre. Later leaks or hacks like the Podesta emails further eroded trust in Clinton.

At one point in time I could enumerate and describe each e-mail scandal and give a detailed timeline on when they occurred and how they were or were not inter-related. I literally threw up my hands and gave up after the seventh incident. Vox recently released a video that suggested that the constant barrage of "email scandal" headlines were an aggravating factor in the determination of the election.
And I have a tough time getting mad at Russia for exposing the bad behavior of the Democrats. "They tilted the election by exposing our efforts to tilt the election" is pretty sad and laughable.

It's also a straw man conservatives are already clinging to as they miss what is actually troubling about all of this, which has been discussed in some detail.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 12, 2017, 05:40:21 PM
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J

That's a very vague statement though. There's a world between Russia cleverly disseminating information or disinformation to help Trump and Russia "hacking" the election.

To repeat myself two posts in a row, no one here is claiming Russia "hacked" the election in the way you seem to mean it. There are plenty of other things to be disturbed about.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 12, 2017, 05:45:36 PM
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J

That's a very vague statement though. There's a world between Russia cleverly disseminating information or disinformation to help Trump and Russia "hacking" the election.

To repeat myself two posts in a row, no one here is claiming Russia "hacked" the election in the way you seem to mean it. There are plenty of other things to be disturbed about.

I'm pretty disturbed by how many conservatives are very untroubled by this Russian involvement precisely because they're happy it hurt HRC. It's depressing as hell that as long as the involvement helped tilt things their way, it's not a problem for them. As though it's not possible for them to see the larger picture, somehow. It really makes me shake my head.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on January 12, 2017, 05:55:35 PM
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J

That's a very vague statement though. There's a world between Russia cleverly disseminating information or disinformation to help Trump and Russia "hacking" the election.

To repeat myself two posts in a row, no one here is claiming Russia "hacked" the election in the way you seem to mean it. There are plenty of other things to be disturbed about.

I'm pretty disturbed by how many conservatives are very untroubled by this Russian involvement precisely because they're happy it hurt HRC. It's depressing as hell that as long as the involvement helped tilt things their way, it's not a problem for them. As though it's not possible for them to see the larger picture, somehow. It really makes me shake my head.

Conservatives may not be troubled because there have been nothing but allegations so far. No evidence, just conjecture on the part of intelligence agencies.

Part of the problem is that anything the Russian did appears to ephemeral and unquantifiable. We can't really measure how much a possible information/disinformation campaign helped Trump or hurt Hillary, or point to anything really. There isn't a legal basis for doing much about it either.

If Russia had attacked one of our carrier groups, or massively hacked our voting machines, we could clearly point to something and respond, but not so much with this.

It wouldn't be the first time Russia used information warfare against us. The USSR's propaganda strategy abroad took advantage of our open society to further their agenda all the time.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 12, 2017, 06:05:15 PM
Conservatives may not be troubled because there have been nothing but allegations so far. No evidence, just conjecture on the part of intelligence agencies.

Part of the problem is that anything the Russian did appears to ephemeral and unquantifiable. We can't really measure how much a possible information/disinformation campaign helped Trump or hurt Hillary, or point to anything really. There isn't a legal basis for doing much about it either.

If Russia had attacked one of our carrier groups, or massively hacked our voting machines, we could clearly point to something and respond, but not so much with this.

It wouldn't be the first time Russia used information warfare against us. The USSR's propaganda strategy abroad took advantage of our open society to further their agenda all the time.

I mean, we addressed all of these points already, and raised a number of others that are seriously concerning, including some that have effectively nothing to do with Russia and entirely to do with Trump's handling of the situation. It doesn't matter that we can't quantify whether this actually influenced the election. If you don't understand why, there are 5 pages of discussion that can help clarify.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 12, 2017, 06:16:12 PM


I'm pretty disturbed by how many conservatives are very untroubled by this Russian involvement precisely because they're happy it hurt HRC. It's depressing as hell that as long as the involvement helped tilt things their way, it's not a problem for them. As though it's not possible for them to see the larger picture, somehow. It really makes me shake my head.

I wouldn't agree with "untroubled", more like "tempered".  Still, the truth comes out little by little, eventually.  You might find that even you have changed your position on this matter in a year or so.  Personally, I'd be shocked to find out that there are actual intelligence agencies in this world that have not attempted to influence elections in other countries in a similar manner.  It says more to me about the quality of online security for our government and sort-of government institutions than it says about the motives or moral codes of the Russian government.  And I'm still not convinced that the Russians actually did the release, even if it was in their interest to do so.  There really wasn't any way for them to know that releasing the info would swing the election, and keeping the info under wraps makes it more useful to undermine a Clinton presidency later on.  Can you imagine what would have happened, if Wikileaks had released this data dump after the election?  Not only would there have been a crap load of upset conservatives, there would also have been a crap-load of upset Bernie Sanders supporters.  That might have resulted in the first impeachment of a president-elect.  Or worse.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on January 12, 2017, 06:21:05 PM
Conservatives may not be troubled because there have been nothing but allegations so far. No evidence, just conjecture on the part of intelligence agencies.

Part of the problem is that anything the Russian did appears to ephemeral and unquantifiable. We can't really measure how much a possible information/disinformation campaign helped Trump or hurt Hillary, or point to anything really. There isn't a legal basis for doing much about it either.

If Russia had attacked one of our carrier groups, or massively hacked our voting machines, we could clearly point to something and respond, but not so much with this.

It wouldn't be the first time Russia used information warfare against us. The USSR's propaganda strategy abroad took advantage of our open society to further their agenda all the time.

I mean, we addressed all of these points already, and raised a number of others that are seriously concerning, including some that have effectively nothing to do with Russia and entirely to do with Trump's handling of the situation. It doesn't matter that we can't quantify whether this actually influenced the election. If you don't understand why, there are 5 pages of discussion that can help clarify.

I read through the 5 pages.

What I don't see is that 5 pages is the "so what"? of this all. In an open society like ours with freedom of speech and press, how do you prevent a foreign power from disseminating information/disinformation especially if they do it from with in their own borders?

So assuming the allegations are true, what do you want? Another election? More sanctions against Russia? War? Trump to step down?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 12, 2017, 06:35:43 PM
I read through the 5 pages.

What I don't see is that 5 pages is the "so what"? of this all. In an open society like ours with freedom of speech and press, how do you prevent a foreign power from disseminating information/disinformation especially if they do it from with in their own borders?

So assuming the allegations are true, what do you want? Another election? More sanctions against Russia? War? Trump to step down?

I mean, if you really read all 5 pages, you skimmed a lot if you don't think those were also addressed. The point of this is not about figuring out ways to stop them from doing this (although we should try our best, obviously). Also, the "allegations" (regarding election meddling) are true--that's pretty indisputable at this point barring an amazingly coordinated conspiracy between over a dozen agencies that any government worker can tell you typically do not collaborate well. And frankly if they were going to bother, I think they would manufacture a much better bombshell than this. Whether the Trump camp colluded with Russia remains less substantiated although there is troubling circumstantial evidence that I truly hope doesn't pan out. I would prefer not to be alive to witness the fallout from the first outright traitorous president in US history. For now I'm going to presume that particular angle is overblown.

Regardless, that is largely beside the point. As for your question of what I want, Obama's response seemed reasonably good. We want to discourage nations from going too far in this inevitable meddling, just as with the China hacking thing a while back. When other countries mess with us, the response is not to call their president smart and/or deny that they actually messed with us. The response I expect of my leader is to stand up to them and enact carefully considered consequences (never war, which is always the worst option). Do you really want the leader of the free world to be a spineless bootlicker? I thought you conservatives valued strength in your leadership.

ETA - Finally, as I've said what must have been a dozen times by now, none of this would require Trump to step down. This is why I question whether you read the thread.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 12, 2017, 07:11:52 PM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 12, 2017, 08:37:43 PM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.

Huh? If he had done it before the election that would have had every Republican crying to high heaven about how he was trying to influence it himself. I am struggling to see your logic here that his approach was somehow more political.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 13, 2017, 06:12:27 AM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.

This is pretty far from the mark.  He addressed the issue privately with Putin before the election.  If he had done anything else prior (like most of his advisors suggested) it would be instantly viewed as an attempt to influence the election for Hillary.  He specifically waited until after the election so there could be no accusations of him trying to sway the election.  But then again he is Obama, so there literally is no correct course of action from the POV of the R's
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on January 13, 2017, 09:55:46 AM
I read through the 5 pages.

What I don't see is that 5 pages is the "so what"? of this all. In an open society like ours with freedom of speech and press, how do you prevent a foreign power from disseminating information/disinformation especially if they do it from with in their own borders?

So assuming the allegations are true, what do you want? Another election? More sanctions against Russia? War? Trump to step down?



I mean, if you really read all 5 pages, you skimmed a lot if you don't think those were also addressed. The point of this is not about figuring out ways to stop them from doing this (although we should try our best, obviously). Also, the "allegations" (regarding election meddling) are true--that's pretty indisputable at this point barring an amazingly coordinated conspiracy between over a dozen agencies that any government worker can tell you typically do not collaborate well. And frankly if they were going to bother, I think they would manufacture a much better bombshell than this. Whether the Trump camp colluded with Russia remains less substantiated although there is troubling circumstantial evidence that I truly hope doesn't pan out. I would prefer not to be alive to witness the fallout from the first outright traitorous president in US history. For now I'm going to presume that particular angle is overblown.

Regardless, that is largely beside the point. As for your question of what I want, Obama's response seemed reasonably good. We want to discourage nations from going too far in this inevitable meddling, just as with the China hacking thing a while back. When other countries mess with us, the response is not to call their president smart and/or deny that they actually messed with us. The response I expect of my leader is to stand up to them and enact carefully considered consequences (never war, which is always the worst option). Do you really want the leader of the free world to be a spineless bootlicker? I thought you conservatives valued strength in your leadership.

ETA - Finally, as I've said what must have been a dozen times by now, none of this would require Trump to step down. This is why I question whether you read the thread.

The media want something on Trump, I don't think there's any doubt about that. Trump hasn't exactly played nice with them so them gunning for him is understandable.

If he acknowledged Russian meddling, that would taint him before he even took office, giving his political opponents a huge stick to hit him with. I can see why that's off the table for him. These are frickin' politicians we're talking about here.

I reviewed the pages again to see if this point had been made and I did not see it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on January 13, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
Remember when it was a big deal for a presidential candidate to have tried marijuana when they were in college?

Trump's responses to the Russian hacking scandal have weakened him in my eyes. If he had stood up and said this isn't acceptable no matter who was elected - I would have been more impressed. Instead he seems whiny to me.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 13, 2017, 11:20:28 AM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.

Huh? If he had done it before the election that would have had every Republican crying to high heaven about how he was trying to influence it himself. I am struggling to see your logic here that his approach was somehow more political.

And to do something, or wait to something, that is the correct course of action purely because political opponents will whine about it is just about the definition of political motivation. The proper time to point out interference is not after your side has lost, but even before the event is over, even if your side is winning.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 13, 2017, 01:07:09 PM
The media want something on Trump, I don't think there's any doubt about that. Trump hasn't exactly played nice with them so them gunning for him is understandable.

If he acknowledged Russian meddling, that would taint him before he even took office, giving his political opponents a huge stick to hit him with. I can see why that's off the table for him. These are frickin' politicians we're talking about here.

I reviewed the pages again to see if this point had been made and I did not see it.

*boggle*

I and others explicitly addressed this multiple times. Again - if he acted presidential for once, he could easily acknowledge it without tainting the legitimacy of his presidency. It's simple. Ignore that aspect of the problem (he's good at ignoring things, plus it really is arguable whether this actually swung the election) while condemning Russia's actions as unacceptable. BAM, strong leadership. Instead, he continues to look like a weak-kneed, thin-skinned coward who has no problem with other countries meddling in our affairs as long as it helps him and/or hurts his opponents. Pathetic, really. Like I said, at least you used to be able to count on Republicans to offer candidates with a backbone.

Plus even he now has acknowledged that they "probably" did some stuff, but that it doesn't matter because his landslide victory was so yuge. Or something.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on January 13, 2017, 03:49:17 PM
Cartoon in today's The Times
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 13, 2017, 03:51:03 PM
Cartoon in today's The Times

I actually imagined the relationship the other way around, with Putin as the pampered cat.  But more like it was in Dune.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 13, 2017, 11:04:59 PM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.

This is pretty far from the mark.  He addressed the issue privately with Putin before the election.  If he had done anything else prior (like most of his advisors suggested) it would be instantly viewed as an attempt to influence the election for Hillary.  He specifically waited until after the election so there could be no accusations of him trying to sway the election.  But then again he is Obama, so there literally is no correct course of action from the POV of the R's

Umm... he campaigned relentlessly for Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure how much more he could have tried to get her elected. It's not as if he was trying to appear impartial to who won, or that this information was so secret it couldn't be released. It was held back strictly for political theater; though this is consistent with much of his presidency, I'm still disappointed. It's likely all of his advisors were telling him to allow this information to be released because it would have been the right thing to do.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 14, 2017, 12:21:28 AM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.

This is pretty far from the mark.  He addressed the issue privately with Putin before the election.  If he had done anything else prior (like most of his advisors suggested) it would be instantly viewed as an attempt to influence the election for Hillary.  He specifically waited until after the election so there could be no accusations of him trying to sway the election.  But then again he is Obama, so there literally is no correct course of action from the POV of the R's

Umm... he campaigned relentlessly for Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure how much more he could have tried to get her elected. It's not as if he was trying to appear impartial to who won, or that this information was so secret it couldn't be released. It was held back strictly for political theater; though this is consistent with much of his presidency, I'm still disappointed. It's likely all of his advisors were telling him to allow this information to be released because it would have been the right thing to do.

I still fail to see your reasoning here. If Obama pushed forward with this info earlier, there is a relatively good chance Trump would have sunk with it, especially if its release was timed just right. That President Obama would wait until after the election to release info that very obviously would have helped HRC could somehow be seen as "political theater" really makes no sense whatsoever to me. Perhaps you could expand on why you think this timing fits that narrative more than any other?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 14, 2017, 12:43:36 AM
I still fail to see your reasoning here. If Obama pushed forward with this info earlier, there is a relatively good chance Trump would have sunk with it, especially if its release was timed just right. That President Obama would wait until after the election to release info that very obviously would have helped HRC could somehow be seen as "political theater" really makes no sense whatsoever to me. Perhaps you could expand on why you think this timing fits that narrative more than any other?

The release was timed to avoid complaints from a major political party. How is this not a strictly political reasoning?

Would releasing the information that showed there was concerted effort by Russia to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election through hacking and fake news funding been political if released before the election? Sure - but it would have given the voting public a fuller knowledge of the issues raised from said hacks, and would have been much less politically motivated than keeping it a secret (you know, in the most transparent administration) purely to avoid having political opponents use the information against the candidate one supports.

While they both have political ramifications, one has its basis in free and open election; the other is a politically motivated cover-up.

Hopefully this expounded upon the reasoning.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 14, 2017, 09:50:42 AM
While they both have political ramifications, one has its basis in free and open election; the other is a politically motivated cover-up.

Are you suggesting that Obama promoted a politically motivated cover-up to help Donald Trump? 

That's a new one.  People hate him for lots of reasons, but "he's secretly a Republican" isn't usually on the list.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 14, 2017, 10:58:56 AM
Yeah I still don't get it, but I do agree that I wish he had done so earlier. In other news, we now have conservative icon Bill Kristol tweeting this:

"It's telling, I'm afraid, that Donald Trump treats Vladimir Putin with more respect than he does John Lewis."

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Wexler on January 14, 2017, 12:06:31 PM
While they both have political ramifications, one has its basis in free and open election; the other is a politically motivated cover-up.

Are you suggesting that Obama promoted a politically motivated cover-up to help Donald Trump? 

That's a new one.  People hate him for lots of reasons, but "he's secretly a Republican" isn't usually on the list.

Yeah.  I love an appropriately deployed "thanks, Obama" just like the next guy, but blaming Obama for this is missing the forest for the trees.  Shouldn't we spend most of our outrage on the one who is colluding with Putin? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 14, 2017, 01:56:19 PM
While they both have political ramifications, one has its basis in free and open election; the other is a politically motivated cover-up.

Are you suggesting that Obama promoted a politically motivated cover-up to help Donald Trump? 

That's a new one.  People hate him for lots of reasons, but "he's secretly a Republican" isn't usually on the list.

You are clearly misunderstanding.  The fact that withholding this information helped Trump was not the reason it was withheld, merely a predictable side effect. Do you not agree this information should have been released earlier, and that it was not released at a more appropriate time purely to avoid political ramifications?

If you disagree that it should have been relaesed earlier, that is fine, but unless the reasoning is something other than  "because Trump could have used it to attack Obama" than you are still agreeing with my overall premise.

If one agrees it should have been released earlier, they also must agree that it wasnt released for political reasons (as admited by the current administration) and thus basically agree with my premise as well.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 13, 2017, 12:46:55 PM
Hey looky here. To the surprise of no one, it seems Flynn was talking to the Russians about lifting sanctions before he should have after all. But I'm sure he was totally acting on his own and in no way coordinating with anyone else within the Trump camp, so thank goodness for that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on February 13, 2017, 07:53:36 PM
And they've corroborated some parts of that dossier...I'm still waiting to see when this finally blows up.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on February 13, 2017, 09:46:03 PM
Great balls of fire!!  I just heard Flynn resigned. Is it true?!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 13, 2017, 09:51:37 PM
Yep, he "resigned."

The wheels have started to come off.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: tavore on February 13, 2017, 09:56:46 PM
So now we know how bad it needs to be for any of the swamp creatures to resign/get-thrown-under-the-bus. The next question - who knew what and when?

What makes me mad is that if there was even a whiff of impropriety on the part of the Democrats, Republicans would howl bloody murder, and the Dems would cave in. About time the party developed a spine.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 13, 2017, 11:28:51 PM
Yep, he "resigned."

The wheels have started to come off.

What I don't understand is why the press isn't calling this by it's commonly known name: treason.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on February 14, 2017, 04:22:56 AM
It's looking more and more as though Melania made the right decision: no point disrupting your son's education because his father has a short-term work assignment.

At this stage I'd be tempted to put money on Trump being imprisoned, bankrupted and divorced before his 4 years are up.  Field is wide open on the nature of the criminal charges.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on February 14, 2017, 05:31:14 AM
Yep, he "resigned."

The wheels have started to come off.

What I don't understand is why the press isn't calling this by it's commonly known name: treason.

Me, too.  This is treason, and I want to know who else on the trump campaign has been committing treason, up to and including trump himself.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 14, 2017, 07:24:50 AM
Yep, he "resigned."

The wheels have started to come off.

What I don't understand is why the press isn't calling this by it's commonly known name: treason.
And why is he being allowed to resign instead of being charged with treason?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on February 14, 2017, 07:32:14 AM
Yep, he "resigned."

The wheels have started to come off.

What I don't understand is why the press isn't calling this by it's commonly known name: treason.
And why is he being allowed to resign instead of being charged with treason?
His resignation doesn't prevent a charge of treason.  Who would be the prosecuting authority, and can the recorded phone conversations be admitted as evidence?

Also, if Flynn is guilty of treason, the next question is: were there co-conspirators (I'm guessing yes, from what he has said about taking the fall on it) and what proof is there against them?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: scantee on February 14, 2017, 08:43:51 AM
None of Flynn's wrong-doings will have much political impact until congressional Republicans decide to turn on Trump. Right now, they are mostly holding steady in their nothing-to-see-here approach, but cracks are starting to show in the facade. Yesterday Paul Ryan  stated that people (whoever could this be?) who are extremely careless with classified info should be denied access to it, presumably in response to Trump's flagrant open-air national security dealings at Mar-a-Lago.

When will they turn on Trump? My guess is that they are waiting for the mountain of evidence of collusion with Russia to build and turn from circumstantial to confirmed. Most Republicans are smart enough to know that they do NOT want to go down in history as patsies in a cover-up of a foreign governments' intrusion in the US, and that's where this train is headed, so we know they'll need to get off this ride eventually.

Flynn was the first instance of confirmed collusion, more will certainly come. When hard proof drops that Trump knew and was involved -- and, at this point, it seems impossible that he didn't know (and if he truly didn't know that is a problem in its own right) -- they'll turn on him quickly, and en masse.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 14, 2017, 12:31:45 PM
I think Paul Manafort was the first case of confirmed collusion.

Remember back when republicans pretended to be outraged by perceived mishandling of classified information?  Trump just had a top secret diplomatic meeting in a public place, and his national security advisor committed treason and then lied to the administration about it.

This whole thing shades of Watergate and Iran-Contra.  What is it about republican administrations that causes them to so flagrantly break the law in pursuit of more executive power?  Why do people who profess patriotism so actively undermine American ideals?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 14, 2017, 02:49:25 PM
Per CNN, a short summary of what is known so far:

WHAT WE KNOW:

Trump knew Flynn misled officials on Russia calls "for weeks," White House says.
There are now bipartisan calls for an investigation into Flynn.
Press Secretary Sean Spicer says Trump asked for Flynn's resignation. Kellyanne Conway said it was Flynn who decided to resign.


He knew for weeks and was waiting for...what? For Flynn to get busted by the press, I guess? The two major mouthpieces diverge on whether he was fired or left on his own. Cracks upon cracks.

My favorite response was when Trump and friends tried to pivot into complaining about the leaks as if we should be shocked and horrified by them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on February 14, 2017, 03:03:52 PM
I will say it until I am blue in the face, if you voted for Trump almost entirely on the fact that you felt Clinton was irresponsible and dangerous based on her past behavior. And that Trump was better because he has clean political record. Then you were being ridiculous.

Trump and many of his merry band have given every indications both past and present that they would be every bit as shitty or worse than anything the Clinton's have been willing to do in reality or in the tabloids.

From day -365 he has been a cesspool of lies and conflicts of interest but I guess since he is not a politician its all good.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Wexler on February 14, 2017, 03:25:49 PM
One thing that may sway Trump supporters on this issue:

Russia is tight with Iran, and one of the big swirling questions is how much of our intelligence is ending up in Putin's hands via one or more compromised individuals in the WH.  Once with Putin, there is a high likelihood that some of that info ends up in Iran.  Given how ginned up the right wing is against Iran, I can't imagine that they'd be OK with our secrets being diverted to ayatollahs.  or maybe I'm a zillion steps behind the Bannons of the world, and he is hoping for exactly this to trigger a war?  I can't understand it, but the right wing does seem anxious for an Iran war to happen.  It would benefit Russia as well by driving up oil prices.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on February 14, 2017, 05:17:34 PM
I'm not sure I understand the seriousness of the situation.

Flynn, a civilian at the time spoke to Russian ambassador about sanctions.

Apparently it is illegal to do so as a civilian. As prepping for the job, isn't this understandable though?

The conversation led to Putin ultimately not expelling diplomats, and kinda preserved decent diplomatic ties. Is this not desirable?

Apparently he lies to Pence, leading to Pence telling press nothing was discussed regarding sanctions.

What difference does it make really?

Am I missing something? Is there some sort of lynchpin that ties it all together?  Perhaps I'm used to public officials getting away with at worse, but this seems pretty minor.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 14, 2017, 05:20:04 PM
I'm not sure I understand the seriousness of the situation.

Flynn, a civilian at the time spoke to Russian ambassador about sanctions.

Apparently it is illegal to do so as a civilian. As prepping for the job, isn't this understandable though?

The conversation led to Putin ultimately not expelling diplomats, and kinda preserved decent diplomatic ties. Is this not desirable?

Apparently he lies to Pence, leading to Pence telling press nothing was discussed regarding sanctions.

What difference does it make really?

Am I missing something? Is there some sort of lynchpin that ties it all together?  Perhaps I'm used to public officials getting away with at worse, but this seems pretty minor.

You think negotiating away a policy stance of the sitting government while you are a private citizen is minor? Yes, I think you are missing something.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 14, 2017, 05:40:34 PM
I think Paul Manafort was the first case of confirmed collusion.

Remember back when republicans pretended to be outraged by perceived mishandling of classified information?  Trump just had a top secret diplomatic meeting in a public place, and his national security advisor committed treason and then lied to the administration about it.

This whole thing shades of Watergate and Iran-Contra.  What is it about republican administrations that causes them to so flagrantly break the law in pursuit of more executive power?  Why do people who profess patriotism so actively undermine American ideals?

Just to add a little fuel to the fire, here's a quote from Rand Paul, basically saying that investigations are only useful if they don't involve Republicans, or get in the way of getting rid of Obamacare.
Quote
And while several other Republican senators have called for investigation of the incident, Paul said it would not make sense to have more investigations, especially of fellow Republicans.
"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/kfile-rand-paul-republican-investigations/index.html

FFS, how can anybody take the GOP seriously at this point?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on February 15, 2017, 03:46:40 AM

You think negotiating away a policy stance of the sitting government while you are a private citizen is minor? Yes, I think you are missing something.

What do you know of Flynn's conversation and what he gave away. Go share your info with the press.

***

Surprised this didn't make it in the thread, this is pretty "holy freaking shit, Trump and our adversary Russian actually were in cahoots." This is disturbing. This needs to be broadcast through every television screen and radio:

Quote
WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials

Quote
The call logs and intercepted communications are part of a larger trove of information that the F.B.I. is sifting through as it investigates the links between Mr. Trump’s associates and the Russian government, as well as the hacking of the D.N.C., according to federal law enforcement officials. As part of its inquiry, the F.B.I. has obtained banking and travel records and conducted interviews, the officials said.

Quote
The White House also declined to comment Tuesday night, but earlier in the day, the press secretary, Sean Spicer, stood by Mr. Trump’s previous comments that nobody from his campaign had contact with Russian officials before the election.

In other words, "in our alternate fact based universe, nothing happened."

Bonus quote from Manafort:

Quote
“It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 06:00:43 AM
That last Manafort quote was absolutely infuriating. Translation: We can't be expected to consider the possibility that not everyone from Russia is telling us the complete truth when they talk to us.

Holy fucking shit, dude.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 15, 2017, 07:08:33 AM
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.

They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.

Make America Russia Great Again!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 08:09:48 AM
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.

They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.

Make America Russia Great Again!

He'll ignore it. I'd bet money.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2017, 08:10:17 AM
They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him.

I appreciate the optimism inherent in your assumption that this wasn't part of Trump's plan all along.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 09:16:08 AM
By the way, here's a timeline that the NYT put together, of what we know right now.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/14/us/politics/flynn-call-russia-timeline.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 09:57:21 AM

You think negotiating away a policy stance of the sitting government while you are a private citizen is minor? Yes, I think you are missing something.

What do you know of Flynn's conversation and what he gave away. Go share your info with the press.

OK you're right I overstated what we definitively know. Doesn't change the fact that it's most certainly a big deal for a citizen with a different agenda than the sitting government, and without any approval whatsoever from them, to officially discuss policy with foreign governments, especially when it's something like sanctions. But as you say, it's merely the tip of the iceberg.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Unique User on February 15, 2017, 12:53:00 PM
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.

They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.

Make America Russia Great Again!

He'll ignore it. I'd bet money.

I'd bet money also.  Wondering how long it will take for a story will break on the $19B Rosneft deal and how Trump has his hands all over it. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 15, 2017, 01:16:01 PM
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.

They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.

Make America Russia Great Again!

He'll ignore it. I'd bet money.

I'd bet money also.  Wondering how long it will take for a story will break on the $19B Rosneft deal and how Trump has his hands all over it.

The Rosneft deal is explicitly mentioned in the Steele Dossier.  As is the Flynn conversation.  In addition, the Russian source of the dossier is dead.  And Steele is still in hiding.  It was widely panned as "fake news" at the time, due to incredible cognitive dissonance of Trump voters at the time.  When will the Trump voters stand up and realize that they elected someone who conspired with Russia to win the Presidency?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-fates-of-5-men-connected-to-the-trump-russia-dossier_us_589f5472e4b080bf74f03cd6

Never. I still see folks saying "Well at least we don't have Hillary...." The idiot could start a nuclear war with millions dying and they would still be clinging to the "At least it's not Hillary...."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on February 15, 2017, 01:26:29 PM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 01:33:41 PM
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.

They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.

Make America Russia Great Again!

He'll ignore it. I'd bet money.

I'd bet money also.  Wondering how long it will take for a story will break on the $19B Rosneft deal and how Trump has his hands all over it.

The Rosneft deal is explicitly mentioned in the Steele Dossier.  As is the Flynn conversation.  In addition, the Russian source of the dossier is dead.  And Steele is still in hiding.  It was widely panned as "fake news" at the time, due to incredible cognitive dissonance of Trump voters at the time.  When will the Trump voters stand up and realize that they elected someone who conspired with Russia to win the Presidency?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-fates-of-5-men-connected-to-the-trump-russia-dossier_us_589f5472e4b080bf74f03cd6

They will not. The "news" sources they consume will never tell them this -- or else, will couch it as a liberal conspiracy. They will not hear it and understand how absolutely mind-boggling this is. They've been conditioned not to.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Unique User on February 15, 2017, 02:12:39 PM
Another claim in the Steele Dossier comes true.  I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Dossier is true folks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/02/15/mattis-trumps-defense-secretary-issues-ultimatum-to-nato-allies-on-defense-spending/?utm_term=.604ebf6b3dea

Is there anywhere that summarizes the key points in the Dossier?  I want to be able to call my senators and rep on this, one of my senators is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 03:02:52 PM
I find it interesting at how well Pence has been shielded from all of this thus far. By all accounts he has been highly involved in most major decisions, and yet somehow the narrative we are to believe is that he has been kept in the dark on anything related to the Russia situation? I'm open to him truly being innocent here, but I would hope he is investigated as thoroughly as the rest. Not that I think this would happen (nor is this really a great outcome either), but President Paul Ryan, anyone? The RNC would be thrilled, at the least.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 15, 2017, 03:12:20 PM
I find it interesting at how well Pence has been shielded from all of this thus far. By all accounts he has been highly involved in most major decisions, and yet somehow the narrative we are to believe is that he has been kept in the dark on anything related to the Russia situation? I'm open to him truly being innocent here, but I would hope he is investigated as thoroughly as the rest. Not that I think this would happen (nor is this really a great outcome either), but President Paul Ryan, anyone? The RNC would be thrilled, at the least.

It makes sense for the GOP to shield Pence as much as possible, in case they do have to remove Trump.  Pence himself is of course fantasizing about this outcome.

It's an interesting narrative, being the mirror image of what happened with Nixon and Agnew in 1973, where Agnew went down to protect the president.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 03:16:55 PM
I find it interesting at how well Pence has been shielded from all of this thus far. By all accounts he has been highly involved in most major decisions, and yet somehow the narrative we are to believe is that he has been kept in the dark on anything related to the Russia situation? I'm open to him truly being innocent here, but I would hope he is investigated as thoroughly as the rest. Not that I think this would happen (nor is this really a great outcome either), but President Paul Ryan, anyone? The RNC would be thrilled, at the least.

It makes sense for the GOP to shield Pence as much as possible, in case they do have to remove Trump.  Pence himself is of course fantasizing about this outcome.

It's an interesting narrative, being the mirror image of what happened with Nixon and Agnew in 1973, where Agnew went down to protect the president.

Yup. I have this constant image of Mike Pence riding a roller-coaster, white-knuckling the whole thing, just waiting for it to stop and hoping he'll still be in the car when it does.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 15, 2017, 11:34:37 PM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?
This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.

I think the more likely scenario (assuming this whole mess plays out with Trump ignoring Russia because they are blackmailing/bribing him) is that Russia is free to walk all over smaller European states and flout other international rules, which while not nuclear war, is still quite serious.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 11:54:04 PM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?
This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.

I think the more likely scenario (assuming this whole mess plays out with Trump ignoring Russia because they are blackmailing/bribing him) is that Russia is free to walk all over smaller European states and flout other international rules, which while not nuclear war, is still quite serious.

I don't think anyone worrying about nuclear war is worrying about it happening with Russia. Trump loves Russia, why would he go to war with them? I also think most would agree with your latter supposition.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 16, 2017, 05:12:30 AM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?
This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.

I think the more likely scenario (assuming this whole mess plays out with Trump ignoring Russia because they are blackmailing/bribing him) is that Russia is free to walk all over smaller European states and flout other international rules, which while not nuclear war, is still quite serious.

Umm nuclear was brought up as an example of the willingness of how far Trump's die hard supporters would go to continue deflecting to Hillary. I don't think there was a question anywhere about starting nuclear war or a suggestion Trump was going to start a nuclear war.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2017, 07:03:18 AM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?
This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.

I think the more likely scenario (assuming this whole mess plays out with Trump ignoring Russia because they are blackmailing/bribing him) is that Russia is free to walk all over smaller European states and flout other international rules, which while not nuclear war, is still quite serious.

Umm nuclear was brought up as an example of the willingness of how far Trump's die hard supporters would go to continue deflecting to Hillary. I don't think there was a question anywhere about starting nuclear war or a suggestion Trump was going to start a nuclear war.

I do see Trump's policy as a nuclear threat, albeit a delayed one.

Capitulating over and over will keep Russia happy, absolutely.  The threat happens if they get used to America doing this, and then either this or a different administration at some point decides to stand up to them.  The greater that Russia's reach and power becomes, the greater the chance that the US will feel the need to stand up to them . . . and the greater the risk of nuclear conflict in my opinion.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 16, 2017, 08:37:36 AM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on February 16, 2017, 09:50:30 AM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?

But Trump could nuke Iran. I doubt we'd ever go to war directly with Russia especially with Trump's connections there. I could see a proxy war though anywhere on the globe.

How many proxy wars has the Americans and Russians participated in at odd with each other. Meanwhile alot of people die and both super powers come away with lots of new military toys at great expense and justification to buy more war toys.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on February 16, 2017, 09:52:27 AM
I find it interesting at how well Pence has been shielded from all of this thus far. By all accounts he has been highly involved in most major decisions, and yet somehow the narrative we are to believe is that he has been kept in the dark on anything related to the Russia situation? I'm open to him truly being innocent here, but I would hope he is investigated as thoroughly as the rest. Not that I think this would happen (nor is this really a great outcome either), but President Paul Ryan, anyone? The RNC would be thrilled, at the least.

Th ways things are going - I might be thrilled with a President paul Ryan. (I have not voted Republican for a long, long time).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 16, 2017, 09:54:49 AM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?

Maybe it's positioning itself to get ready to take Trump back to his homeland. We can only hope.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 16, 2017, 10:06:31 AM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?

Maybe it's positioning itself to get ready to take Trump back to his homeland. We can only hope.

They were just stopping by to drop off a check for Manafort (or was it Flynn? or was it Tillerman? or was it Flynn, or was it....?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 07:45:56 PM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?

They had them off the coast while Obama was president. The last time this ship was off the coast was in 2015... So yes, people who study these things think that there would be a spy ship off the coast if Clinton were president.  People who don't know anything about international affairs with Russia may think differently. But the truth is, the Russians aren't coming.

Ignore that spy ship off the coast (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ignore-spy-ship-coast-russians-aren-t-coming-n722036)

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 07:56:55 PM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?

Maybe it's positioning itself to get ready to take Trump back to his homeland. We can only hope.
Ha. I think to get Trump back to where he fits in will take something with a lot more range than a ship...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jamesvt on February 17, 2017, 07:34:53 AM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?
Yes. Countries with the capability to have ISR assets active all the time. Russia has always collected on the US and will continue to regardless of who the president is. The same is true for the US. The US has had ISR assets active literally 24/7 365 for the past 50+ years. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 19, 2017, 03:35:09 PM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?
Yes. Countries with the capability to have ISR assets active all the time. Russia has always collected on the US and will continue to regardless of who the president is. The same is true for the US. The US has had ISR assets active literally 24/7 365 for the past 50+ years.

I'd posit that a warship would be more likely with Clinton as president than now.  There's less urgency associated with spying on the US when you've already bought and paid for the president.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 20, 2017, 08:57:14 AM
U.S. President Donald J. Trump's statement during his press conference on the Russian ship off the U.S. coast:

    "The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say, ‘Oh, it’s so great.’ That’s not great. That’s not great."

F'ing moron, literally NO ONE with half a brain would say that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 20, 2017, 09:09:46 AM
U.S. President Donald J. Trump's statement during his press conference on the Russian ship off the U.S. coast:

    "The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say, ‘Oh, it’s so great.’ That’s not great. That’s not great."

F'ing moron, literally NO ONE with half a brain would say that.

Well, to be fair, a lot of his supporters probably would say that, if he told them it was great.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on February 20, 2017, 03:16:51 PM
The only other naval situations I recall reading about regularly have commonly been between China and the US in the South China sea. 30 miles out is still international waters. Being so close to the US cost is certainly provocative, but I don't believe it is uncommon for China and Russia to test our military response with each new administration to determine temperament and gauge possible responses if they were to go further.

Do military drills and flybys of our naval vessels are also a typical form of posturing which we typically respond to in kind. I am very poorly versed in the recent history of such behaviors but I would imagine this is in line with our current adversarial situation with countries like Russia. And that while we may still be far from at war with them we are in a cold war like state with them.

I would be somewhat surprised if Trump doesn't simply defer to Republicans and the generals on their responses to such encounters. If he overrules standard procedure in favor of a softer stance it could easily ratchet up the calls for investigation and impeachment over dealings between his campaign and Russia. Republicans are generally not soft when it comes to Putin's Russia our our commitment to maintaining the current world order.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 20, 2017, 08:41:22 PM
Russia is apparently compiling a psychological dossier on Trump and I presume they will test him bigly. The latest Foreign Policy article on Trump/Russia was pessimistic on the notion any great improvement could be achieved by the new administration given the antagonistic nature of each country's objectives and current facts on the ground.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on February 21, 2017, 04:24:04 PM
I am confident the Russian's more than most size up every incoming President to the highest degree possible. The Russian media campaign to pit themselves against Western powers as hero's struggling to preserve their great people is a non stop propaganda machine.

Trump playing into their propaganda is just icing on the cake and we should investigate the shit out of him as anyone who so casually flirts with their rhetoric is at best a security risks with regards to maintaining a strong opposition stance to Russia's absurd leadership.

Why any leader would be stupid enough to compare US to Russia, where literally all of their television and media are 100% state controlled is beyond me.

The only saving grace is that I know the majority of the Republican leadership and all the old generals he is appointing don't have a soft spot for Russian leadership unless a handful of them are legitimately corrupted by the Kremlin.

I make sure to say opposition to the Russian leadership, because in general even given the dire state of Russian media. Russia still has a middle class and its citizens are still often good, live well, are worldly and well informed. Though at the same time, somewhat paradoxically and mostly due to decades of propaganda, Putin is remains popular.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 22, 2017, 01:06:14 PM
U.S. President Donald J. Trump's statement during his press conference on the Russian ship off the U.S. coast:

    "The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say, ‘Oh, it’s so great.’ That’s not great. That’s not great."

F'ing moron, literally NO ONE with half a brain would say that.

Well, to be fair, a lot of his supporters probably would say that, if he told them it was great.

Yes, that's why I put in the "with half a brain" caveat ;-)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 24, 2017, 10:51:22 PM
Trump playing into their propaganda is just icing on the cake and we should investigate the shit out of him as anyone who so casually flirts with their rhetoric is at best a security risks with regards to maintaining a strong opposition stance to Russia's absurd leadership.
Yes, thank god Trump hasn't done something that would truly play into their propaganda like "resetting their relationship with the U.S." Could you imagine how something as silly as that would appear when filtered through their media! A complete security nightmare for the entire country!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on March 02, 2017, 05:12:17 AM
So it appears Session's Russian connection is a bust. NY Times and WaPo have both picked the story up and ran with the angle that he "denied" Russian contact, yet the questions asked were pretty specific:

Quote
In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c83bd09547ed
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 02, 2017, 05:35:23 AM
So it appears Session's Russian connection is a bust. NY Times and WaPo have both picked the story up and ran with the angle that he "denied" Russian contact, yet the questions asked were pretty specific:

Quote
In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
Sessions' response in the oral hearings did not contain that qualification.  He specifically said "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I am unable to comment."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c83bd09547ed
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on March 02, 2017, 09:39:51 AM
So it appears Session's Russian connection is a bust. NY Times and WaPo have both picked the story up and ran with the angle that he "denied" Russian contact, yet the questions asked were pretty specific:

Quote
In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
Sessions' response in the oral hearings did not contain that qualification.  He specifically said "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I am unable to comment."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c83bd09547ed

This is correct. Sessions clearly lied to congress, even though he didn't actually have to within the confines of the question.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dogboyslim on March 02, 2017, 04:06:46 PM
So it appears Session's Russian connection is a bust. NY Times and WaPo have both picked the story up and ran with the angle that he "denied" Russian contact, yet the questions asked were pretty specific:

Quote
In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”

Sessions' response in the oral hearings did not contain that qualification.  He specifically said "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I am unable to comment."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c83bd09547ed

This is correct. Sessions clearly lied to congress, even though he didn't actually have to within the confines of the question.
I don't think you can say he clearly lied.  The question was related to the campaign, so the context of the question still has the qualifier of being related to the campaign.  Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't.  Its not clear to me.  At any rate, this story is now dead thanks to our friendly MO senator.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on March 02, 2017, 05:24:34 PM
Maybe you can sympathize with another situation:

After getting groceries-
Did you go to the store to buy booze?
No.

A loaded question like this is likely to bring a perfectly truthful answer-and a reticent attitude about offering more info than asked. Did they ask the same question regarding the other 20 or 30 countries he met with as a part of his current assignment that requires interaction with foreign countries?

It feels like a gotcha situation and is totally worthless except to score a point. He's since recused himself, smart.

Just FYI, I voted against Trump. I just recognize a weak position when I see it. If I can see the way this is playing out, the way the elites are using underhanded tactics to undermine our leader, how do ya think the rest of the country feels-ya know the ones who voted for him. It's time to let go of worthless angles and stick to the important issues. Yes, this Russia thing is serious, but can you truthfully say the administration has acted treacherously so far? It is all supposition, WEAK and will backfire.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on March 02, 2017, 05:27:27 PM
I don't think you can say he clearly lied.  The question was related to the campaign, so the context of the question still has the qualifier of being related to the campaign.  Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't.  Its not clear to me.  At any rate, this story is now dead thanks to our friendly MO senator.

Yes, the question was related to the campaign, but this is the direct quote: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.

Since he did have communications with the Russians, he was unequivocally lying. It doesn't matter what the context of the question was.

If it was a "gotcha" situation, he could easily have clarified long before now.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 02, 2017, 07:31:30 PM
Well Sessions recused himself from any investigations into Russian election interference.  If there ever is such an investigation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 03, 2017, 04:04:37 AM
According to this (segment starting at 24.40) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4FfVJnAuM

1.  The FBI knew before Sessions was confirmed that he had lied on oath to Congress - because they had been investigating his contacts with Russia from before his confirmation hearings - and did not tell Congress.

2.  FBI Director Comey is refusing to co-operate with the Congress investigation into Trump's ties with Russia, and Congress are contemplating subpoenaing him.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck is going on?  Has the FBI been compromised by the Russians?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on March 03, 2017, 05:44:13 AM
According to this (segment starting at 24.40) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4FfVJnAuM

1.  The FBI knew before Sessions was confirmed that he had lied on oath to Congress - because they had been investigating his contacts with Russia from before his confirmation hearings - and did not tell Congress.

2.  FBI Director Comey is refusing to co-operate with the Congress investigation into Trump's ties with Russia, and Congress are contemplating subpoenaing him.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck is going on?  Has the FBI been compromised by the Russians?

Trump's administration is a gigantic shit sandwich.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 03, 2017, 05:56:40 AM
According to this (segment starting at 24.40) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4FfVJnAuM

1.  The FBI knew before Sessions was confirmed that he had lied on oath to Congress - because they had been investigating his contacts with Russia from before his confirmation hearings - and did not tell Congress.

2.  FBI Director Comey is refusing to co-operate with the Congress investigation into Trump's ties with Russia, and Congress are contemplating subpoenaing him.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck is going on?  Has the FBI been compromised by the Russians?

Trump's administration is a gigantic shit sandwich.
To be fair (hard words to write in relation to Trump) if the FBI/Comey have been compromised then the evidence goes back into the Obama administration.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on March 03, 2017, 06:26:21 AM
 
I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much.  Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia.  If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc...  But no, they only meet with Russia.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on March 03, 2017, 09:18:23 AM

I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much.  Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia.  If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc...  But no, they only meet with Russia.

Do we actually know this? I have not seen any reporting showing the meeting schedule and if meetings with Russia are the only people they have been meeting with. Evidence shows a far greater degree of connection in the Trump admin (and prior campaign staff) than in recent precedent, but that is not to say they have not been meeting elsewhere. If that was their full meeting schedule, then it is indeed a shit sandwich. If not, then it is still damning because of the impropriety of the denials, or content of discussion (sanctions, etc).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on March 03, 2017, 09:30:48 AM

I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much.  Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia.  If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc...  But no, they only meet with Russia.

Do we actually know this? I have not seen any reporting showing the meeting schedule and if meetings with Russia are the only people they have been meeting with. Evidence shows a far greater degree of connection in the Trump admin (and prior campaign staff) than in recent precedent, but that is not to say they have not been meeting elsewhere. If that was their full meeting schedule, then it is indeed a shit sandwich. If not, then it is still damning because of the impropriety of the denials, or content of discussion (sanctions, etc).

I don't think there has been specific meeting schedule reporting.  The lack of reporting says mountains though.  Their initial defense was that the Russian meetings were getting to know you introduction things.  It would be a very supportive defense to list other countries you had similar meeting with.  *Crickets*.  Russia meetings were leaked because we do surveillance on all foreign diplomats, that includes non-Russian diplomats but no leaks about them.  No other countries have come forward and admitted to meetings with Trump officials. 

There are a lot of sources of information that could confirm if the Trump team met with other countries, since there is no confirmation, it stands to reason that those meetings did not happen.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on March 03, 2017, 09:43:09 AM

I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much.  Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia.  If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc...  But no, they only meet with Russia.

Do we actually know this? I have not seen any reporting showing the meeting schedule and if meetings with Russia are the only people they have been meeting with. Evidence shows a far greater degree of connection in the Trump admin (and prior campaign staff) than in recent precedent, but that is not to say they have not been meeting elsewhere. If that was their full meeting schedule, then it is indeed a shit sandwich. If not, then it is still damning because of the impropriety of the denials, or content of discussion (sanctions, etc).

I don't think there has been specific meeting schedule reporting.  The lack of reporting says mountains though.  Their initial defense was that the Russian meetings were getting to know you introduction things.  It would be a very supportive defense to list other countries you had similar meeting with.  *Crickets*.  Russia meetings were leaked because we do surveillance on all foreign diplomats, that includes non-Russian diplomats but no leaks about them.  No other countries have come forward and admitted to meetings with Trump officials. 

There are a lot of sources of information that could confirm if the Trump team met with other countries, since there is no confirmation, it stands to reason that those meetings did not happen.

I suspect that the Trump administration are not making any substantive attempt to defend because that would legitimize the allegations and attendant scrutiny.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on March 03, 2017, 05:02:33 PM

I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much.  Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia.  If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc...  But no, they only meet with Russia.

Actually Sessions has, per Wapo:
Quote
“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.

She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ecebaaf41944
.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on March 03, 2017, 05:29:04 PM
Regardless of how harmless the meetings were, the best case scenario for our assessment of Sessions is that he still willfully misled congress (if we want to be generous with how we view his statement), which is also a crime, though not so serious as perjury. Also, much of what we seem to know about the numerous Russia connections in the administration at a minimum seem to fall in the cover up being worse than the crime category. Perhaps there is no treason here and never was, but when you lie to congress (not to mention the American public!) and stubbornly block and obfuscate any efforts to learn exactly what happened and when, it certainly begs the question as to why.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on March 03, 2017, 06:49:55 PM
stubbornly block and obfuscate any efforts to learn exactly what happened and when, it certainly begs the question as to why.

Perhaps because he had just witnessed another cabinet official get the classic Trump "You're Fired" for doing the exact same thing?  I think Sessions realized his career was over if he admitted to doing the same thing, so he lied to Congress to cover it up.  Why not go all in, if you're going to get fired anyway?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on March 03, 2017, 09:04:30 PM
stubbornly block and obfuscate any efforts to learn exactly what happened and when, it certainly begs the question as to why.

Perhaps because he had just witnessed another cabinet official get the classic Trump "You're Fired" for doing the exact same thing?  I think Sessions realized his career was over if he admitted to doing the same thing, so he lied to Congress to cover it up.  Why not go all in, if you're going to get fired anyway?

I dunno, aren't Trump and Sessions BFFs?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: cerat0n1a on March 03, 2017, 11:18:38 PM
the best case scenario for our assessment of Sessions is that he still willfully misled congress (if we want to be generous with how we view his statement), which is also a crime, though not so serious as perjury.

"I did not have international relations with that country."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 03, 2017, 11:33:51 PM
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2017, 02:33:50 PM
Regardless of how harmless the meetings were, the best case scenario for our assessment of Sessions is that he still willfully misled congress (if we want to be generous with how we view his statement), which is also a crime, though not so serious as perjury. Also, much of what we seem to know about the numerous Russia connections in the administration at a minimum seem to fall in the cover up being worse than the crime category. Perhaps there is no treason here and never was, but when you lie to congress (not to mention the American public!) and stubbornly block and obfuscate any efforts to learn exactly what happened and when, it certainly begs the question as to why.
Yes. He should have went with the classic "I don't remember." Defense.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2017, 02:34:09 PM
the best case scenario for our assessment of Sessions is that he still willfully misled congress (if we want to be generous with how we view his statement), which is also a crime, though not so serious as perjury.

"I did not have international relations with that country."
Classic.  :)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on March 06, 2017, 05:55:47 AM

I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much.  Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia.  If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc...  But no, they only meet with Russia.

Actually Sessions has, per Wapo:
Quote
“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.

She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ecebaaf41944
.


I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much.  Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia.  If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc...  But no, they only meet with Russia.

Actually Sessions has, per Wapo:
Quote
“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.

She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ecebaaf41944
.

This is True and to be honest I don't fault Sessions for meeting the Russian ambassador, lots of lawmakers meet foreign dignitaries.  I fault him for omitting it when specifically asked.  I was referring primarily to the cadre of Trump associates who were civilians (Kushner, flynn, manafort etc...)and had no reason to have meetings with the Russians.  If Sessions meetings drifted into Trump policy discussions, that would be an issue.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on March 06, 2017, 11:04:01 AM
After this weekend I can say with even more confidence "This administration is nothing but a shit sandwich."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on March 06, 2017, 11:17:48 AM
After this weekend I can say with even more confidence "This administration is nothing but a shit sandwich."

But at least we are being distracted from substantive policy things like bills to defund the EPA, get rid of the CPB, etc.

And yes. The image of the sandwich in my mind resembles a sloppy joe.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on March 06, 2017, 11:38:57 AM
And yes. The image of the sandwich in my mind resembles a sloppy joe.

Made in a greasy shit diner, then dropped on a NY sidewalk and stepped on, then put on a fancy plate and sold to rural Americans as good wholesome American fare. 

Everyone is talking about the stepped-on sloppy joe shit sandwich TV commercial that aired during the Superbowl and man are they excited about it.  #MAG(gross)A

In totally unrelated news, last week with zero cameras present, Trump signed a new bill allowing mentally ill people to buy guns.  Because the NRA told him mass shootings are a mental health issue, not a firearms issue. WTF, dude?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on March 06, 2017, 03:28:41 PM
Did anyone else see where Marine Le Pen (French presidential candidate) has financial ties to Russia? She says she could not get a loan anywhere but Russia.

Just go to Google News and search for "Marine Le Pen russian loan". She reminds me alot of Trump. Also a conservative.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on March 06, 2017, 03:40:01 PM
Did anyone else see where Marine Le Pen (French presidential candidate) has financial ties to Russia? She says she could not get a loan anywhere but Russia.

Just go to Google News and search for "Marine Le Pen russian loan". She reminds me alot of Trump. Also a conservative.

This may not be what you are talking about specifically, but it is a very useful piece of context for Russia's involvement in both the USA and Europe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/putin-trump-le-pen-hungary-france-populist-bannon/512303/

The closing quote from the Atlantic article is:
Quote
“I don’t think we should underestimate the degree to which the undermining of the fabric of Western society is a fundamental aim of what Putin is all about,” said Ivo Daalder, President Obama’s former permanent representative to NATO and now president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “We are in a very different time period that has far more to do with the 1920s and 1930s than it does with 2010. We are at a tipping point where the success of these [populist] movements raises fundamental question about the [viability of the] international order we are living in.”
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on March 06, 2017, 03:57:52 PM
And yes. The image of the sandwich in my mind resembles a sloppy joe.

Made in a greasy shit diner, then dropped on a NY sidewalk and stepped on, then put on a fancy plate and sold to rural Americans as good wholesome American fare. 

Everyone is talking about the stepped-on sloppy joe shit sandwich TV commercial that aired during the Superbowl and man are they excited about it.  #MAG(gross)A

In totally unrelated news, last week with zero cameras present, Trump signed a new bill allowing mentally ill people to buy guns.  Because the NRA told him mass shootings are a mental health issue, not a firearms issue. WTF, dude?

Makes me think of this:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/54/71/93/54719354e086995c086014595f5bd1e2.jpg)

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 06, 2017, 06:59:27 PM

In totally unrelated news, last week with zero cameras present, Trump signed a new bill allowing mentally ill people to buy guns.  Because the NRA told him mass shootings are a mental health issue, not a firearms issue. WTF, dude?
Jesus titty fucking christ. Really? I had not heard of this.

Eta- odd to see Trump and republicians and the ACLU agree that this Law (which hadn't taken effect) was an overstep.  I'm sure some people would feel safe if people with anxiety or eating disorders couldn't own guns, but clearly the ACLU disagrees.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on March 06, 2017, 07:46:27 PM
I'm sure some people would feel safe if people with anxiety or eating disorders couldn't own guns, but clearly the ACLU disagrees.

The law that Trump just repealed didn't forbid bulimic people from buying guns.  It just required background checks for people who receive state disability payments for mental health diagnoses so severe that they can't work.

But hey, if you think everybody should be able to buy guns regardless of their history of mental illness, then President Trump is right there with you.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 07, 2017, 02:04:35 AM
I'm sure some people would feel safe if people with anxiety or eating disorders couldn't own guns, but clearly the ACLU disagrees.

The law that Trump just repealed didn't forbid bulimic people from buying guns.  It just required background checks for people who receive state disability payments for mental health diagnoses so severe that they can't work.

But hey, if you think everybody should be able to buy guns regardless of their history of mental illness, then President Trump is right there with you.
Well, him and the ACLU.

And it wasn't just people receiving benefits; just people with disabilities that also couldn't manage their own financial affairs.  Hardly a group of mass shooters or terrorists in waiting.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 07, 2017, 05:45:16 AM
OK, I've been trying to work out what the actual law is that has changed.  It's a bit Byzantine: where's Cathy when you need her?

The starting point is the Gun Control Act 1968.  That inserts into Section 102. Chapter 44 (Firearms) of title 18, United States Code a new section 922(g)(4) which among other provisions prevents the sale of firearms or ammunition"to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution."  The definition of those terms does not appear in that Act.

27 CFR 478.11 contains a definition of adjudicated as a mental defective and of committed to a mental institution.  A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court—or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications—has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment.  I found a reference to this definition being changed in 2007 by the NICS Act but couldn't chase down the details of how.

The restriction on sales to persons adjudicated mentally defective or involuntarily committed started to take practical effect with the requirement of background checks in the Brady Act of 1993.  Background checks under the Brady Act were given a greater degree of effectiveness by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) set up in 1998 and amended in 2007.  That system is only as good as the information provided to it, and the practical implementation of the passing of information to relevant bodies so that the NICS background checks system can work properly) was still ongoing in January 2017.   https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30407/implementation-of-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007 was the Obama regulation of December 2016 which was aimed at improving the information held in the NICS system on mentally ill people who met the definition of not being able to buy firearms.   It was this implementation provision that was repealed by Congress and Trump in February 2017 - http://www.snopes.com/congress-gun-legal-mental/

So, what Trump seems to have done is to stop background checks from identifying certain categories of people who since 1968/2007 should not have been able to buy guns on grounds of their mental illness.

And by God the USA Federal legal code is a convoluted mess and the discussion about it staggeringly ill-informed and/or deliberately misleading.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on March 07, 2017, 05:50:36 AM
I'm sure some people would feel safe if people with anxiety or eating disorders couldn't own guns, but clearly the ACLU disagrees.

The law that Trump just repealed didn't forbid bulimic people from buying guns.  It just required background checks for people who receive state disability payments for mental health diagnoses so severe that they can't work.

But hey, if you think everybody should be able to buy guns regardless of their history of mental illness, then President Trump is right there with you.
Well, him and the ACLU.

And it wasn't just people receiving benefits; just people with disabilities that also couldn't manage their own financial affairs.  Hardly a group of mass shooters or terrorists in waiting.

To be fair we are talking about mental health conditions that might range from moderate intellectual disabilities to depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. I would agree that there are folks in this broad range of mental health conditions who absolutely should not own firearms. And folks who should be allowed to own firearms. Unfortunately it was a broad sweeping legislation. But I don't think the answer is to scrap the whole thing either.

The VA does something similar with veterans who have psychiatric disabilities and have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their VA benefits. However the veteran in question is notified of the proposed determination and the supporting evidence, and is provided with an opportunity to request a hearing, be represented by counsel, and to contest the determination by presenting other relevant medical evidence.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 07, 2017, 06:04:32 AM
So, what Trump seems to have done is to stop background checks from identifying certain categories of people who since 1968/2007 should not have been able to buy guns on grounds of their mental illness.

And by God the USA Federal legal code is a convoluted mess and the discussion about it staggeringly ill-informed and/or deliberately misleading.
Well, to be more precise, congress stopped automatic reporting on these people solely based up their receipt of welfare, and not criminal history or propensity to violence. These people still have to be background checked before buying guns just like everyone else, the fact that they recieve aid money will not be included in the decision to approve or deny their purchase.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 07, 2017, 06:40:20 AM
So, what Trump seems to have done is to stop background checks from identifying certain categories of people who since 1968/2007 should not have been able to buy guns on grounds of their mental illness.

And by God the USA Federal legal code is a convoluted mess and the discussion about it staggeringly ill-informed and/or deliberately misleading.
Well, to be more precise, congress stopped automatic reporting on these people solely based up their receipt of welfare, and not criminal history or propensity to violence. These people still have to be background checked before buying guns just like everyone else, the fact that they recieve aid money will not be included in the decision to approve or deny their purchase.
What if there are people who are severely mentally impaired for whom the only record of that impairment which could be available on the NICS system will be through their claim for disability?  They are not being reported because they receive aid money, but because there is information available through the aid money system that they do not pass the background checks.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 07, 2017, 08:26:36 AM
So, what Trump seems to have done is to stop background checks from identifying certain categories of people who since 1968/2007 should not have been able to buy guns on grounds of their mental illness.

And by God the USA Federal legal code is a convoluted mess and the discussion about it staggeringly ill-informed and/or deliberately misleading.
Well, to be more precise, congress stopped automatic reporting on these people solely based up their receipt of welfare, and not criminal history or propensity to violence. These people still have to be background checked before buying guns just like everyone else, the fact that they recieve aid money will not be included in the decision to approve or deny their purchase.
What if there are people who are severely mentally impaired for whom the only record of that impairment which could be available on the NICS system will be through their claim for disability?  They are not being reported because they receive aid money, but because there is information available through the aid money system that they do not pass the background checks.
They are so severely mentally impaired they can not handle their own finances and their only source of income is welfare (because they can't work) and they have no history of violence AND they somehow find the money to buy a gun without their financial controller being aware AND they suddenly decide to commit a crime using that gun? Seems like we are in the level of absurdly small number of people here... while disenfranchising a lot of people strictly because they are on welfare. Probably why the ACLU had such a problem with it in the first place.

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who have violent histories or propensity for crime; I don't feel this law did that, or made anyone safer. I wouldn't have argued to remove it, but I can see why many did.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on March 09, 2017, 02:35:51 PM
Congrats on the walrus.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 04:30:15 PM
It is time to talk of many things, he said. :D
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on March 20, 2017, 08:33:55 AM
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 21, 2017, 04:53:48 AM
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)
Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 21, 2017, 06:40:10 AM
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)
Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
He's said that the President has lied and that his campaign team is under investigation for collusion with Russia.  The campaign team that includes people now working in the White House, including people having access to matters of national security.

Isn't that enough?  That there are people now running the USA government that may have colluded with Russia?  With the obvious implication that they may still be colluding with Russia, including being subject to compromat which influences them to continue to collude with Russia? While in the White House and having access to USA government secrets?  And access to the secrets of the Five Eyes too?

It's more than enough for me, for now.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 21, 2017, 06:57:33 AM
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)
Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
He's said that the President has lied and that his campaign team is under investigation for collusion with Russia.  The campaign team that includes people now working in the White House, including people having access to matters of national security.

Isn't that enough?  That there are people now running the USA government that may have colluded with Russia?  With the obvious implication that they may still be colluding with Russia, including being subject to compromat which influences them to continue to collude with Russia? While in the White House and having access to USA government secrets?  And access to the secrets of the Five Eyes too?

It's more than enough for me, for now.

Yes, they are conducting an investigation. Much like the previous investigations of prominent political figures and their campaigns, I would wait for the evidence and conclusions of the investigation before I decide to burn anyone at the stake.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 21, 2017, 07:04:34 AM
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)
Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
He's said that the President has lied and that his campaign team is under investigation for collusion with Russia.  The campaign team that includes people now working in the White House, including people having access to matters of national security.

Isn't that enough?  That there are people now running the USA government that may have colluded with Russia?  With the obvious implication that they may still be colluding with Russia, including being subject to compromat which influences them to continue to collude with Russia? While in the White House and having access to USA government secrets?  And access to the secrets of the Five Eyes too?

It's more than enough for me, for now.

Yes, they are conducting an investigation. Much like the previous investigations of prominent political figures and their campaigns, I would wait for the evidence and conclusions of the investigation before I decide to burn anyone at the stake.
I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude.  The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on March 21, 2017, 07:08:35 AM
Paste is starting a 5 part series on Trump's connections to Russia.  Here's an article that has collected a timeline of the  Trump-Russia connections and statements over the years.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/the-kremlins-man-how-donald-trumps-own-words-conne.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 21, 2017, 07:15:06 AM
I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude.  The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.
I guess I see this as a very similar level of previous investigations. None of the aides are Secretary of State, but they could indeed have access to very powerful information. All the more reason to investigate fully and quickly.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on March 22, 2017, 11:41:59 AM
Part II, on Trump/Russia business ties that are currently known, is here: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/the-kremlins-man-how-donald-trumps-businesses-are.html

Part III, Mysterious Deaths and Arrests
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/the-kremlins-man-the-mysterious-deaths-and-arrests.html

He's been involved in some dirty, dirty stuff.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 22, 2017, 11:47:17 AM
I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude.  The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.
I guess I see this as a very similar level of previous investigations. None of the aides are Secretary of State, but they could indeed have access to very powerful information. All the more reason to investigate fully and quickly.
Both Tillerson and Wilbur Ross have significant ties to Russia - that's both the USA's foreign and commerce policies currently in dubious hands, and Homeland Security only beyond Russian influence because of leaked security information.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on March 22, 2017, 12:50:57 PM
I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude.  The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.
I guess I see this as a very similar level of previous investigations. None of the aides are Secretary of State, but they could indeed have access to very powerful information. All the more reason to investigate fully and quickly.

I imagine metric is referring to more than just the Clinton email investigation, though I am no History buff. I would at least note that scope and nature of the investigation into the Trump team is more disturbing because if at all true it inherently means treason was committed.

But at this point all you can do is wait. Just listening to a bit of the live hearings, the FBI literally cant share any useful information. The final conclusion could be that no one was engaged in any inherently nefarious or treasonous acts.

I can't lie part of me hopes it is that bad just see Trump thrown out on his ass like the piece of shit his business and public history tells us he is. The other part of me would be sad to see the US's global reputation sullied and have public trust in government further eroded.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on March 22, 2017, 12:54:36 PM
part of me would be sad to see the US's global reputation sullied

I think it's been too late for that since early last November.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on March 22, 2017, 01:14:17 PM
part of me would be sad to see the US's global reputation sullied

I think it's been too late for that since early last November.
Don't worry, the US foreign policy and image abroad has been the butt of a joke for about as long as I've been alive.

Last November just confirmed everyone's opinion on the subject.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on March 22, 2017, 05:15:36 PM
Come on, Obama was a freakin' rock star internationally! The US foreign policy reputation could not have been that bad (and was probably even pretty favorable) with him at the helm, no?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on March 27, 2017, 10:44:26 AM
Any chance whatsoever that the intelligence agencies will quietly start limiting what they share with Trump just in case he and his turn out to be a hotline to the Kremlin?

Or maybe they'll share loaded information and see if it comes out on the other side?

I know people who rattle on about their fears of some new world order run by "liberals and the United Nations". I think an American president in collusion with the Kremlin would be far scarier.

I don't want to see Trump pull a Nixon while he boards the WH helicopter - waving at the cameras with a big smile, I want to see Trump and his team escorted to the WH gate and pushed into the street. "You can pickup your papers and smart phones next Tuesday at the FBI office at such and such address..."

I know it would never happen but I'd like to see that... I don't expect any of them to serve time in jail. The system doesn't work that well. ;)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 27, 2017, 11:06:27 AM
The best chance of Trump serving time is probably through his finances - tax fraud, money laundering (that Florida tear-down) or foreign emoluments.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on March 27, 2017, 11:08:50 AM
And the next Republican would likely give him a pardon just like Ford did for Nixon.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on March 27, 2017, 11:31:29 AM
Come on, Obama was a freakin' rock star internationally! The US foreign policy reputation could not have been that bad (and was probably even pretty favorable) with him at the helm, no?
It was getting better during Obama's time in office after W's time in which people literally were lying and saying they were Canadian instead of from the states.  However, that does not mesh well with the opinions of the GOP so they like to say that Obama was too soft internationally and we looked weak.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 27, 2017, 08:06:32 PM
Come on, Obama was a freakin' rock star internationally! The US foreign policy reputation could not have been that bad (and was probably even pretty favorable) with him at the helm, no?
It was getting better during Obama's time in office after W's time in which people literally were lying and saying they were Canadian instead of from the states.  However, that does not mesh well with the opinions of the GOP so they like to say that Obama was too soft internationally and we looked weak.
And yet the criticism of Hillary was she was far too hawkish and was going to get us in a quagmire in the ME (I write this as Trump deploys 400 ground troops to Syria, with another 1000 possibly to follow). The problem with Obama is he wasn't Republican enough for the Republicans. No amount of foreign policy deftness could bridge that gap. Obama's policy was a risk-averse long-game approach with modest achievements (e.g. Iran deal, containment of ISIL) with many of the more difficult problems still unresolved (Russia, NK).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on March 28, 2017, 08:13:21 AM
Follow the money. The Trump brand was either renegotiating loans or getting new ones.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/kushner-meeting-russian-banker-tied-to-putin/index.html

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 28, 2017, 05:39:20 PM
So do Trump and Ryan have a quid pro quo going? Specifically, Trump doesn't throw Ryan under the bus on the health care reform meltdown as long as Ryan keeps Nunes on the investigative panel to obstruct its progress. The Yates hearing was pulled by Nunes as soon as the only path to blocking her testimony otherwise would require Trump citing executive privilege. This really is Stupid Watergate.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on March 28, 2017, 06:08:49 PM
So do Trump and Ryan have a quid pro quo going? Specifically, Trump doesn't throw Ryan under the bus on the health care reform meltdown as long as Ryan keeps Nunes on the investigative panel to obstruct its progress. The Yates hearing was pulled by Nunes as soon as the only path to blocking her testimony otherwise would require Trump citing executive privilege. This really is Stupid Watergate.

Seems like it, eh? Can they keep it going or will the wheels fall off? Nixon tried to contain Watergate too.

The Senate is going to start looking into it and Graham and McCain are not friendly with the Trump administration.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on April 04, 2017, 01:29:50 PM
Dominoes?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/blackwater-founder-held-secret-seychelles-meeting-to-establish-trump-putin-back-channel/2017/04/03/95908a08-1648-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?utm_term=.89820e35893c

Sometimes seems like literally everyone who has ever tried to abuse the US governmental process to enrich themselves is a big Trump supporter/involved with Russia in some way. Go figure.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on April 04, 2017, 01:41:39 PM
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.

Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on April 04, 2017, 01:58:57 PM
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.

Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.

Yeah. So why should we care at all that a failed superpower with ambitions of toppling the world's #1 superpower can effectively change the outcome of our presidential election?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on April 04, 2017, 02:37:55 PM
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.

Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.

I'm not sure that GDP is the issue so much as that Putin has a long track record of doing exactly what his is accused of in other countries. Marie LePen comes to mind if we need something else more recent and openly acknowledged. A great way to improve your standing in the world is to shift the stance of other nations to be more favorable, especially when one of those countries has the leverage to impose economically significant sanctions. Just to bring that point home, some of those sanctions were put in place (along with the sending-home of some 30 diplomats) were  put in place in direct response to evidence that Russia directly attempted to influence our election (and no, not by changing vote tallies directly).

If this were McCarthy, the question would be: Do you love America enough to stand up to foreign fellow travelers and conspirators? A love of Russia is fine and protected speech, even for the president and I have no problem with that in a legal sense even if I disagree with it personally. If the Trump campaign played dirty with Russia to help win, or in a quid-pro-quo then it is starting to smell a lot like treason. It is not currently conclusive (just as the FBI investigation of Clinton did not lead to a trial or conviction), but there is enough smoke to wonder if there is a fire, so to speak.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on April 04, 2017, 02:39:51 PM
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.

Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.

Yeah. So why should we care at all that a failed superpower with ambitions of toppling the world's #1 superpower can effectively change the outcome of our presidential election?

LOL @ the bolded. Puh-leeze. Read a history book (pretty much any of them) if you really believe that.

But I'll spell it out (AGAIN): the issue is not that anyone is scared of Russian agents toppling the government and folding us into a renewed USSR. That is a strawman so frail it can be blown away by a mouse fart. The issue is that our president and his administration is historically dishonest and corrupt, and has repeatedly colluded with a foreign government (that just happens to be Russia, but it wouldn't matter if it were Saudi Arabia, or China, or East Timor) in order to enrich themselves and their buddies. At least that is what increasingly overwhelming circumstantial evidence seems to suggest. We need a full investigation to know for sure, of course, but brainwashed Trumpbots like yourself appear to see him as incapable of doing wrong and thus won't even think of supporting an investigation of any kind, despite the fact you are sooooo confident there is nothing here. To parrot a favorite line of folks like you: why block investigations at every turn if there is nothing to hide?

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on April 04, 2017, 02:46:14 PM
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.

Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.

Yeah. So why should we care at all that a failed superpower with ambitions of toppling the world's #1 superpower can effectively change the outcome of our presidential election?
why would Russia try?
they had great allies in 'more flexible' Obama and the Clintons
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445186/left-hypocrisy-russia-partner-under-obama
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03prexy.html

Really, Mrs Clinton was given 90%+ chance of winning throughout the campaign. President Hillary was de-facto. Remember? it wasn't long ago. Really think Russia would risk a massive scandal with the new Clinton administration by trying to undermine her? when they'd been such good friends, so many mutual benefits, so many years?




I'm not sure that GDP is the issue so much as that Putin has a long track record of doing exactly what his is accused of in other countries. Marie LePen comes to mind if we need something else more recent and openly acknowledged. A great way to improve your standing in the world is to shift the stance of other nations to be more favorable, especially when one of those countries has the leverage to impose economically significant sanctions. Just to bring that point home, some of those sanctions were put in place (along with the sending-home of some 30 diplomats) were  put in place in direct response to evidence that Russia directly attempted to influence our election (and no, not by changing vote tallies directly).

If this were McCarthy, the question would be: Do you love America enough to stand up to foreign fellow travelers and conspirators? A love of Russia is fine and protected speech, even for the president and I have no problem with that in a legal sense even if I disagree with it personally. If the Trump campaign played dirty with Russia to help win, or in a quid-pro-quo then it is starting to smell a lot like treason. It is not currently conclusive (just as the FBI investigation of Clinton did not lead to a trial or conviction), but there is enough smoke to wonder if there is a fire, so to speak.

Bold mine

But where is the logic? There is none. There would be only downside for Russia to engage in such risky behavior.
All the hoopla is inane hysteria; trying to create smoke.
Trump as Hitler meme has failed; now it's Trump as Putin. Whatever.
Russia as 'enemy #1' is 'tilting at windmills'. Russia is a convenient way to try to smear Trump.
Just more 'crying Wolf'

Obama+Clinton worked deals with Russia. Facts. If anything, if I was Putin, i'd be pulling for Clinton. A known, flexible candidate. Not the crazy Trump, no one knows what he's going to do.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on April 04, 2017, 02:50:33 PM
The issue is that our president and his administration is historically dishonest and corrupt, and has repeatedly colluded with a foreign government (that just happens to be Russia, but it wouldn't matter if it were Saudi Arabia, or China, or East Timor) in order to enrich themselves and their buddies. At least that is what increasingly overwhelming circumstantial evidence seems to suggest. We need a full investigation to know for sure, of course, but brainwashed Trumpbots like yourself appear to see him as incapable of doing wrong and thus won't even think of supporting an investigation of any kind, despite the fact you are sooooo confident there is nothing here. To parrot a favorite line of folks like you: why block investigations at every turn if there is nothing to hide?
I'm sorry, were you referring to the previous O Admin, or current Trump admin? it's hard to tell...

You may attack my opinions, but do not lower yourself to attack my intelligence, or so quickly pigeon-hole me, please. Try to do better than ad hominum. Flinging mud is infantile.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on April 04, 2017, 04:02:38 PM
The issue is that our president and his administration is historically dishonest and corrupt, and has repeatedly colluded with a foreign government (that just happens to be Russia, but it wouldn't matter if it were Saudi Arabia, or China, or East Timor) in order to enrich themselves and their buddies. At least that is what increasingly overwhelming circumstantial evidence seems to suggest. We need a full investigation to know for sure, of course, but brainwashed Trumpbots like yourself appear to see him as incapable of doing wrong and thus won't even think of supporting an investigation of any kind, despite the fact you are sooooo confident there is nothing here. To parrot a favorite line of folks like you: why block investigations at every turn if there is nothing to hide?
I'm sorry, were you referring to the previous O Admin, or current Trump admin? it's hard to tell...

You may attack my opinions, but do not lower yourself to attack my intelligence, or so quickly pigeon-hole me, please. Try to do better than ad hominum. Flinging mud is infantile.

Apologies, I didn't realize you supported a special investigation of the Trump-Russia ties regarding possible collusion. Also, I never suggested you were unintelligent, just closed-minded and hyper partisan (edit - and ignorant of history, in the case of McCarthyism).

I personally have gladly and loudly criticized Obama, Clinton (both of them), Carter, etc., on many occasions, just as I have criticized Bush (both of them), Reagan, etc. Lots of terrible decision-making to go around in the oval office. This administration just happens to be especially (and very obviously) bad from a corruption standpoint. From a treason standpoint remains to be seen, but there is plenty of smoke here. People like you (or how you are coming across anyway) might "admit" wrongdoing on their "side," but are ever so fond of dismissing it with your own favorite fallacy: tu quoque.

Sorry if I misinterpreted, though. Please do feel free to set the record straight.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 04, 2017, 08:26:01 PM
If anything, if I was Putin, i'd be pulling for Clinton. A known, flexible candidate. Not the crazy Trump, no one knows what he's going to do.

Except that your proposition is completely false. U.S. intelligence agencies have determined with a strong degree of confidence (in intelligence circles, that's as certain as it gets) that Putin did not want H. Clinton to win, that he could not stand her, and he wanted Trump to win. Unless you believe the directors of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI, DIA, and other intelligence agencies are all complicit in this "McCarthy conspiracy to smear Trump," in which case there is no point trying to reason with you.

Besides, not sure if you're following the actual, non-fake news, but one of the central questions of the investigation is to determine if there was a quid pro quo between Putin and Trump (there's already a whole lot of credible "smoke" that this is true, investigations will reveal if there's fire); specifically, that Putin would try to help Trump win in exchange for letting Russia essentially do what it wants in Ukraine and Crimea if Trump does win. See the "unexplained" change to the official Republican Party platform at the RNC convention last summer as just one piece of evidence, plus possible compromising information against Trump as blackmail to ensure Trump upholds his part of the bargain. If this quid pro quo exists, then Putin would not pull for Clinton (with whom he had no agreement), he would pull for Trump, see?

Also, it is important to understand that from the Kremlin's point of view, sowing discord in the U.S. government is a win, no matter the outcome of the election. On that front they've already won. Russia has a long and proud history of trying to sow chaos among adversaries. You know, it wasn't a coincidence that they chose the name "KAOS" for the evil, Russian KGB stand-in in the old "Get Smart" TV show. It is and was such an obvious trait of Russia's dealings with the world that even Hollywood television show writers made fun of it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Wexler on April 04, 2017, 10:34:47 PM
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.

Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.

It's incredible to me that the conservative side is so tribal that they happily carry water for Russia because they perceive this stance helps Trump.  The same people who, you know, were responsible for McCarthyism, are furiously spinning happy tales of Russia Should Be Our Ally!  Honestly, imagine a Reagan-era Republican looking at this right now. I can't imagine a more wholesale defeat of conservatives and conservative ideals than Trumpism.  All that remains are the grievances.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 05, 2017, 12:06:53 PM
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.

Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.

It's incredible to me that the conservative side is so tribal that they happily carry water for Russia because they perceive this stance helps Trump.  The same people who, you know, were responsible for McCarthyism, are furiously spinning happy tales of Russia Should Be Our Ally!  Honestly, imagine a Reagan-era Republican looking at this right now. I can't imagine a more wholesale defeat of conservatives and conservative ideals than Trumpism.  All that remains are the grievances.

So true. Hard to comprehend how the Republican party has shifted so dramatically in recent years. The recent breakdown over "repeal and replace" is just one illustration of how the party is being torn apart by the different factions.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dr. Hasslein: Russian Bot Commander on April 07, 2017, 01:03:25 PM
And today Russia is fuming because we hit their vassal Syria. Is Prez Trump still on the take of the Russkies? Has everyone adjusted their  cockamamie conspiracy theories accordingly? Bueller??? Bueller???
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cranberries on April 07, 2017, 01:35:13 PM
And today Russia is fuming because we hit their vassal Syria. Is Prez Trump still on the take of the Russkies? Has everyone adjusted their  cockamamie conspiracy theories accordingly? Bueller??? Bueller???

Authoritarian regimes (and Trump wishes he were one) routinely switch alliances and enemies depending on political whims. They need an outside enemy to unite the populace. This is basic politics, not conspiracy. Putin may have helped get Trump elected (possibly by accident), but that says nothing about how long an alliance between the two would last.

This is why I have been extremely wary of the anti-Russia obsession on the political left. It might be true that Russia interfered. It is certainly true that several of Trump's appointments had extremely strong ties to Russia. It is definitely true that stoking xenophobia and anti-other sentiment feeds into the authoritarian's hand when they decide it is time to switch the narrative.

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 07, 2017, 01:36:09 PM
And today Russia is fuming because we hit their vassal Syria. Is Prez Trump still on the take of the Russkies? Has everyone adjusted their  cockamamie conspiracy theories accordingly? Bueller??? Bueller???

I'll take your bait. I see no reason to change the investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interlopers because of the recent missile strikes to Syria. You can call it "cockamamie conspiracy theories" but there's a reason investigations are being conducted by:

1. The FBI
2. The Republican-led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
3. The Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The entire intelligence community has determined Russia interfered with our electoral process and purposely spread "fake news" to aid Trump. At least 6 to 8 close Trump advisers had contacts with Russian foreign agents (Manafort, Sessions, Kushner, Page, Flynn...). Trump's friggin' National Security Advisor had to step down after only 3 weeks because of it. The RNC's official platform regarding Russia was changed because Paul Manafort and another Trump senior adviser (Carter Page?? I don't recall) insisted on it at the convention, after they met with Russian operatives. It's not like the FBI goes around opening national security investigations just because some internet troll made up a conspiracy on a website. And the Congressional investigations have been launched by the president's own party -- hardly a political witch hunt. You realize all this, right?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on April 07, 2017, 01:40:13 PM
+1 to DoubleDown. All the Trumpbots continually miss the point. It doesn't matter what Trump is doing now relative to Russia. If he/his team colluded with them during the election/transition in any way shape or form (a claim for which there is enough evidence to effect the aforementioned investigations), that's still treason and should be treated accordingly.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 07, 2017, 01:57:03 PM
^ All the Trumpbots continually miss the point. It doesn't matter what Trump is doing now relative to Russia. If he/his team colluded with them during the election/transition in any way shape or form (a claim for which there is enough evidence to effect the aforementioned investigations), that's still treason and should be treated accordingly.

I know, I'm just easily baited by calls of "Bueller?? Bueller?" :-)

Plus I didn't want the Fox and Friends and Breitbart crowd to interpret silence as agreement, like we were all instantly forced back under our rocks and forced to admit how stupid we were ever to question Trump and Russian meddling in the election once we saw how Our President and Savior bravely and forcefully stood up to Syria.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on April 07, 2017, 02:10:38 PM
^ All the Trumpbots continually miss the point. It doesn't matter what Trump is doing now relative to Russia. If he/his team colluded with them during the election/transition in any way shape or form (a claim for which there is enough evidence to effect the aforementioned investigations), that's still treason and should be treated accordingly.

I know, I'm just easily baited by calls of "Bueller?? Bueller?" :-)

Plus I didn't want the Fox and Friends and Breitbart crowd to interpret silence as agreement, like we were all instantly forced back under our rocks and forced to admit how stupid we were ever to question Trump and Russian meddling in the election once we saw how Our President and Savior bravely and forcefully stood up to Syria.

For sure. Should have been "+1" rather than "^" Sorry for being unclear, I am totally in agreement on all fronts!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: BlueHouse on April 07, 2017, 04:18:54 PM

why would Russia try?

well, we can't fully answer that unless and until we know the full extent of Trump's business and personal dealings with foreign powers.  Releasing his tax returns would be a first step in getting more people to trust that there aren't back-channel agreements that could mean he would put his own or his family's interests ahead of the American People.

Why would he promise to release them for so long and then just go back on his word?  What is he hiding?  And I don't ask that from the standpoint of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".  No, this man has more financial entanglements than any other official in the history of our government.  And he's a liar.  Proven repeatedly.  So we really need to verify these financial commitments that he has. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on April 08, 2017, 07:38:01 AM
And today Russia is fuming because we hit their vassal Syria. Is Prez Trump still on the take of the Russkies? Has everyone adjusted their  cockamamie conspiracy theories accordingly? Bueller??? Bueller???

"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on April 10, 2017, 11:08:21 AM
Thanks for posting the Uranium deal links acroy. I guess all of our politicians are on the take.... Anybody flipping their lids over Trumputin romance should take a read of that NYT article-would Clinton be any less entangled? Pretty freaking depressing. Our leaders are globalist, jet setting, self enriching liars.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on April 10, 2017, 02:31:33 PM
I saw this article some time ago... http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/ 
It cites acroy's NYT article, but also adds:
"The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on April 10, 2017, 04:42:18 PM
+1 to DoubleDown. All the Trumpbots continually miss the point. It doesn't matter what Trump is doing now relative to Russia. If he/his team colluded with them during the election/transition in any way shape or form (a claim for which there is enough evidence to effect the aforementioned investigations), that's still treason and should be treated accordingly.

http://www.thebrainwashingofmydad.com/

The movie detailed some of the methods.

In short Russia gathered the email addresses and details of individuals across the country via hacking events. Then Russia identified groups of people who would be susceptible to "fake news" and who also used social media. Russia then bombarded those people with propaganda (fake news) that looked "legit". Whether there are other players involved I don't know.

Supposedly this was easier than trying to hack voting machines directly.

Steer a whole series of demographics (mostly angry white male voters) to believe whatever Russia wanted them to believe. Because this same group discounts the mainstream media as "liberal" or unreliable in other ways, and b/c this same group of people refuse to listen to reason from other sources - they are very useful to the puppeteers.

This is assuming the articles I've read and the movie are correct.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 03:51:44 PM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 15, 2017, 05:11:19 PM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 07:11:29 PM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...

Well McMaster denied this happened so obviously it didn't, case closed! Phew!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on May 15, 2017, 07:15:38 PM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...

Well McMaster denied this happened so obviously it didn't, case closed! Phew!

Did you notice how precisely worded his denial was?  He used enough words that someone who blindly supports Trump would hear that it didn't happen, but the words he used are not a denial. He specifically said that they did not discuss "sources," "methods," and "military operations."  There was utter silence regarding disclosure of information.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 15, 2017, 07:20:55 PM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

This is hilarious, in part because Trump is currently the President precisely because so many people were very very concerned with keeping America's secrets.  The Russians never actually hacked Hillary's emails, but they argued successfully that they had the opportunity to steal classified information from Hillary Clinton, and that she was therefore insufficiently protective of America's secrets and was thus untrustworthy to be President.

Then Trump literally sits down with the top Russian spies in America, in the oval office, and just blab blab blab fucking TELLS them classified information.  Outright.  No hacking, no stealing necessary, just tells the Russians classified information.  He spent a year attacking Hillary for making information vulnerable to being stolen, even though it wasn't stolen, and then he gets elected and just starts giving it away?

My favorite part?  The senator from Idaho who suggested this is totally fine because the President has the authority to declassify anything at any time, without any process.  So it's apparently fine for him to share classified information directly with the Russians, because he's the President and he's allowed to do that if he wants to.  Shades of "it's not illegal when the President does it."

The entire intelligence community is rolling their eyes today.  We work SO hard to keep secrets compartmentalized in this country, and the man at the top of the food chain is apparently a loudmouthed braggart who just can't shut the hell up?  How are any of our international partners supposed to trust us when the Pres himself just blabs everything to the Russians?  This is some junior high level he-said-she-said (but don't tell anyone I told you) type bullshit going on right here. 

I am so disappointed right now.  In everyone.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 15, 2017, 07:33:45 PM
Quote
We can’t have someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word 'confidential'.
-Donald Trump in Greenville North Carolina in September 2016

Quote
Individuals who are ‘extremely careless’ w/ classified info should be denied further access to it.
-Paul Ryan in July 2016

Quote
That is a criminal offense. That makes it an impeachable offense.
-Rep Mo Brooks (R-AL) on Hillary Clinton's potential disclosure of classified information
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 08:24:34 PM
Did you notice how precisely worded his denial was?  He used enough words that someone who blindly supports Trump would hear that it didn't happen, but the words he used are not a denial. He specifically said that they did not discuss "sources," "methods," and "military operations."  There was utter silence regarding disclosure of information.

Good point. The article doesn't claim that he discussed sources or methods, but rather specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 15, 2017, 08:31:10 PM
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.

This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps.  Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, .  I don't claim to have any specific information.  But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 09:07:43 PM
Here is an interesting legal analysis of the situation as it stands from the information we currently possess, albeit the end clearly indicates their overall opinion of the president regardless of this situation (one that I personally share but YMMV).

https://www.lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 09:09:12 PM
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.

This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps.  Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, .  I don't claim to have any specific information.  But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.

One can only hope that when (if?) we recover from this travesty of an administration we can rebuild some of the trust lost in the international community.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 15, 2017, 09:44:45 PM
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.

This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps.  Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, .  I don't claim to have any specific information.  But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.

One can only hope that when (if?) we recover from this travesty of an administration we can rebuild some of the trust lost in the international community.

Remember when we were saying thus at the end of Bush's presidency? Good times. Good times.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 09:55:08 PM
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.

This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps.  Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, .  I don't claim to have any specific information.  But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.

One can only hope that when (if?) we recover from this travesty of an administration we can rebuild some of the trust lost in the international community.

Remember when we were saying thus at the end of Bush's presidency? Good times. Good times.

Well at least Bush can decisively vacate his claim to the "worst president in modern history" title. Pretty impressive, in a way, that Trump has so quickly taken a bigly lead on that front.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on May 15, 2017, 10:14:06 PM
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.

This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps.  Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, .  I don't claim to have any specific information.  But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.

One can only hope that when (if?) we recover from this travesty of an administration we can rebuild some of the trust lost in the international community.

Ironic that Trump's letter firing Comey stated "It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence" -- and...now this, a week later. Public trust and confidence of the FBI is not a concern, lol.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on May 16, 2017, 07:45:09 AM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...

And don't forget that oldie but goodie: Bengahzi....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 16, 2017, 08:43:15 AM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...

And don't forget that oldie but goodie: Bengahzi....

How could I forget?

And the answer is: all of the above: 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 11:25:06 AM
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/864448127813783552

I would say "ROFL" except I want to puke.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 11:54:12 AM
Also, even if he's impeached (which at this point seems pretty much impossible), doesn't that just make Trump an even bigger security risk? He knows way too much and if I'm a foreign intelligence agency, I'm already plotting how to get to him if/when he's out of office. I highly doubt he would be any more restrained then...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on May 16, 2017, 11:55:56 AM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere

In the meantime life goes on. Time to get back to it. I like MMM's 'Circle of Concern' graphic enough to post it again.

O hey, my net worth hit a record high yesterday, one more day closer to FI. Thanks Trump Effect!

Carry on.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 12:10:36 PM
Good to know you are just as hyper-partisan as ever acroy. Indeed, nevermind that after carefully "denying" that anything improper was said, the words directly out of the mouths of Trump and his lackies have subsequently and explicitly acknowledged his leaking of highly classified intel. Like, that is literally undeniable except through a single-minded commitment to ignorance. So what do Trumpbots like you do? All of the things Kris listed, of course, or else take a big old bite of the "he's president so he can do whatever he wants" shit sandwich and try to regurgitate it back to the rest of us with assurances that people who don't take a big old spoonful are the crazy ones.

But you're right, even though I am not a Democrat, by disagreeing with your stance that Trump is incapable of making mistakes I must be part of the "increasingly small" minority of Americans who disapproves of him. All of the polls that say otherwise (and by increasing margins) are fake news, of course.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OurTown on May 16, 2017, 12:13:40 PM
How Trump ultimately leaves the White House:

1)  Walks out on Jan. 20, 2021?  (we won't survive that long)
2)  Impeached?  (not likely with this Congress)
3)  Removed by Pence & the Cabinet under the 25th Am.?  (hmmmm)
4)  In a pine box?  (he doesn't look very healthy)
5)  Gets bored and resigns?  (hope springs eternal)
6)  White House destroyed in nuclear retaliation?  (hope not)
7)  Seeks asylum in Russia?  (this one has possibilities)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Timodeus on May 16, 2017, 12:39:49 PM
Good to know you are just as hyper-partisan as ever acroy. Indeed, nevermind that after carefully "denying" that anything improper was said, the words directly out of the mouths of Trump and his lackies have subsequently and explicitly acknowledged his leaking of highly classified intel. Like, that is literally undeniable except through a single-minded commitment to ignorance. So what do Trumpbots like you do? All of the things Kris listed, of course, or else take a big old bite of the "he's president so he can do whatever he wants" shit sandwich and try to regurgitate it back to the rest of us with assurances that people who don't take a big old spoonful are the crazy ones.

But you're right, even though I am not a Democrat, by disagreeing with your stance that Trump is incapable of making mistakes I must be part of the "increasingly small" minority of Americans who disapproves of him. All of the polls that say otherwise (and by increasing margins) are fake news, of course.

I'm not a Democrat either, in fact many would think of my wife and I as part of "Trump's base", i.e. we're white, Christian, socially conservative, and my wife is Russian (mistakenly believed to love Putin). We're utterly appalled by Trump and his associates. Several friends I've engaged in political discussion in the past are now intolerable to talk to, it's a non-stop whinefest of how bad the other party is. One friend even labeled me a "Socialist" because I took a pragmatic opinion on the state of our country. If I don't read, listen, and watch HIS sources which by the way are just right-wing personalities or as he calls them-"Independent Media" (think Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones), then I am brainwashed by the mainstream media. Feels like I live in a giant mental institution.

I was a Republican until 5 months ago. Trump and the utter disregard of my former party to my fellow countrymen pushed me into what I suppose is purgatory in American politics-Independent. My only hope now is that the Democrats either moderate (not likely) or the Republicans come back from the fringe (not looking likely now either) or a new 3rd party establishes itself like Macron in France somewhere in the middle. These are pretty dark days for our Republic.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Wexler on May 16, 2017, 12:50:43 PM
Looks like we have BINGO. Fake news, not a big deal, I can't hear you, but her emails.

Oddly, I can't find acroy's posts about the Obama Effect during the market runup of the last 8 years, since anyone credibly invested in the market had to have several net worth highs in that time period.  But, I'm happy to do it for him: Thanks, Obama.

Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere

In the meantime life goes on. Time to get back to it. I like MMM's 'Circle of Concern' graphic enough to post it again.

O hey, my net worth hit a record high yesterday, one more day closer to FI. Thanks Trump Effect!

Carry on.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 12:54:30 PM
I really wish the DNC had imploded more thoroughly after the Bernie Sanders fiasco. The establishment wings of both parties are cancerous, although I really never thought someone like Trump would be given the keys to the kingdom so enthusiastically just because he belonged to one of those "sides."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 16, 2017, 01:10:53 PM

I was a Republican until 5 months ago. Trump and the utter disregard of my former party to my fellow countrymen pushed me into what I suppose is purgatory in American politics-Independent. My only hope now is that the Democrats either moderate (not likely) or the Republicans come back from the fringe (not looking likely now either) or a new 3rd party establishes itself like Macron in France somewhere in the middle. These are pretty dark days for our Republic.
One could argue that you've remained a Republican while the party cleaved significantly from its former values.  In July '16 I wrote a post about how much the GOP platform had changed and asked the somewhat retorical question: if you believed in the earlier values, what are you now?

...
Oddly, I can't find acroy's posts about the Obama Effect during the market runup of the last 8 years, since anyone credibly invested in the market had to have several net worth highs in that time period.  But, I'm happy to do it for him: Thanks, Obama.
I don't attribute this to anything, but the largest run-ups to my family's wealth (first my parents and now mine) occurred under Clinton and then Obama. We'll see what happens under DJT, but I've never credited or faulted a president for the state of the economy during their first 100 days (too soon).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 16, 2017, 01:30:23 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere

In the meantime life goes on. Time to get back to it. I like MMM's 'Circle of Concern' graphic enough to post it again.

O hey, my net worth hit a record high yesterday, one more day closer to FI. Thanks Trump Effect!

Carry on.

Damn, you hit all four with one post! BINGO! Nice!

You did miss the bonus "Benghazi" points, though. Sad!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 16, 2017, 02:30:56 PM
Aannnndd the intelligence source country that Trump betrayed by sharing their classified information with Russia is... Israel. Yup. And now Iran has information about their intelligence gathering systems.  Trump has just given Israel a reason to stop sharing information with us -- as well as our other allies, who can't possibly think he's trustworthy going forward.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 16, 2017, 02:40:35 PM
Aannnndd the intelligence source country that Trump betrayed by sharing their classified information with Russia is... Israel. Yup. And now Iran has information about their intelligence gathering systems.  Trump has just given Israel a reason to stop sharing information with us -- as well as our other allies, who can't possibly think he's trustworthy going forward.
Adding to that, Russia's closest ally in the region is Iran - Israel's mortal enemy. Wittingly or not, DJT may have just handed Iran some nice crumbs about Israeli intelligence gathering all on the eve of Trump's 9 day international trip which includes a stop in Israel.

Speaking of the upcoming trip, I think we've effectively set the bar for "success" at "did not start an international incident".  oy vey!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Timodeus on May 16, 2017, 02:42:35 PM

I was a Republican until 5 months ago. Trump and the utter disregard of my former party to my fellow countrymen pushed me into what I suppose is purgatory in American politics-Independent. My only hope now is that the Democrats either moderate (not likely) or the Republicans come back from the fringe (not looking likely now either) or a new 3rd party establishes itself like Macron in France somewhere in the middle. These are pretty dark days for our Republic.
One could argue that you've remained a Republican while the party cleaved significantly from its former values.  In July '16 I wrote a post about how much the GOP platform had changed and asked the somewhat retorical question: if you believed in the earlier values, what are you now?


I had dinner with a friend recently who like myself is more moderate and now doesn't find a home in either party, said "You didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left you." I really do wish people who aren't party ideologues and just want to live in a decently run country band together and create a new movement or party. Other countries have done this, why can't we? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 16, 2017, 02:46:14 PM
Aannnndd the intelligence source country that Trump betrayed by sharing their classified information with Russia is... Israel. Yup. And now Iran has information about their intelligence gathering systems.  Trump has just given Israel a reason to stop sharing information with us -- as well as our other allies, who can't possibly think he's trustworthy going forward.
Adding to that, Russia's closest ally in the region is Iran - Israel's mortal enemy. Wittingly or not, DJT may have just handed Iran some nice crumbs about Israeli intelligence gathering all on the eve of Trump's 9 day international trip which includes a stop in Israel.

Speaking of the upcoming trip, I think we've effectively set the bar for "success" at "did not start an international incident".  oy vey!

Yup. I think it's almost a given that Iran now has info on Israel's intelligence gathering.

Hey Trump fans, how do you twist your minds into this being okay?

Oh yeah, I forgot:

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...
5) Benghazi.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 16, 2017, 03:09:39 PM
you forgot the 6) 'pay-to-play' Clinton foundation.

Oh wait... is that the Trump foundation?  I can't remember.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 03:57:14 PM
More fuel for the fire. Comey memo states Trump asked him to stop his investigation of Flynn:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 16, 2017, 04:35:26 PM
More fuel for the fire. Comey memo states Trump asked him to stop his investigation of Flynn:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

I would think this would be grounds for impeachment, since Trump is trying to shut down the Russian/Trump investigation using the power of his presidency.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on May 16, 2017, 04:54:26 PM
I'd be willing to be a 'memo' of the same meeting will magically appear in the White House as well, with a conflicting account.  Probably using less than 140 characters and mention the electoral college win, of course.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 16, 2017, 05:02:32 PM
More fuel for the fire. Comey memo states Trump asked him to stop his investigation of Flynn:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

I would think this would be grounds for impeachment, since Trump is trying to shut down the Russian/Trump investigation using the power of his presidency.

You might think that, if you mistakenly believed in the preservation of American political norms.  Trump has upended that apple cart.  Obstruction of justice is fine.  Sexual assault is fine.  Nepotism is fine.  Facts don't exist.  Black is white and up is down.

He's making America great again, by destroying everything it stands for.  He's bringing back jobs by offshoring.  He's balancing the budget by cutting taxes.  He's protecting America's secrets by telling them to the Russians.  He respects women more than anyone, because he grabs pussies.  Mexico is paying for the wall, which is why he asked congress to fund it.  The Muslim ban was not a Muslim ban, but is totally working because it was blocked.  He's saving healthcare by taking healthcare away from 24 million Americans.

Next up:  standing up for blue collar Americans by giving a massive tax cut to the wealthy.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 05:04:12 PM
I'd be willing to be a 'memo' of the same meeting will magically appear in the White House as well, with a conflicting account.  Probably using less than 140 characters and mention the electoral college win, of course.

Possibly, but per the NYT article: "An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations." Not so sure an unverifiable document from the WH would be treated the same. I am starting to think there finally is clear-cut grounds for impeachment, but as the article below details, I doubt it will happen unless Dems take over the midterms, and even then he might be impeached but still not removed from office.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/even-the-biggest-scandals-cant-kill-party-loyalty/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on May 16, 2017, 05:25:07 PM
Quote
Possibly, but per the NYT article: "An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations." Not so sure an unverifiable document from the WH would be treated the same. I am starting to think there finally is clear-cut grounds for impeachment, but as the article below details, I doubt it will happen unless Dems take over the midterms, and even then he might be impeached but still not removed from office.

That may be the case if you assume that nothing else is going to happen that amounts to grounds for impeachment.  Given that we see a new impeachable offense almost every day (or so it seems), that might change fast.

I am more worried that he will fear impeachment enough that his enablers decide to make a grab for power - wrap themselves in the flag, arrest opponents, promote willing generals (most wouldn't but I'm sure some would, as always).  Suddenly dissent and opposition become life threatening choices, and then it is too late.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 16, 2017, 06:18:04 PM
Quote
Possibly, but per the NYT article: "An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations." Not so sure an unverifiable document from the WH would be treated the same. I am starting to think there finally is clear-cut grounds for impeachment, but as the article below details, I doubt it will happen unless Dems take over the midterms, and even then he might be impeached but still not removed from office.

That may be the case if you assume that nothing else is going to happen that amounts to grounds for impeachment.  Given that we see a new impeachable offense almost every day (or so it seems), that might change fast.

As much as I think this is a total s**t show, I'm not sure that this alone would do it... According to Comey's notes, Trump said "I hope you can let this go" - like many DJT statements it leaves just enough room to wiggle out of.  It can be argued this wasn't an order or a threat, much int he way that me saying to an officer "gee, could you give me a warning instead of a ticket?"...

From the WaPo article:
Quote from: Barak Cohen
There’s definitely a case to be made for obstruction. But, on the other hand, you have to realize that — as with any other sort of criminal law — intent is key, and intent here can be difficult to prove.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 16, 2017, 06:38:56 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 08:52:56 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 17, 2017, 05:15:40 AM
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
I'm genuinely curious - for those that believe so much of the news is fake and intentionally trying to harm Trump - what do they think the motivation is?  Ratings? To get Trump replaced with Pence (and if so why would that be better for 'the media')?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 17, 2017, 05:23:16 AM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.

Yes it's all fake news. What about Clinton, Obama and Benghazi? ( :
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 17, 2017, 07:18:04 AM
Trump has upended that apple cart. 

In addition to Trump upending the apple cart, I think Mitch McConnell and other Republicans that are putting party first, rather than the country first, are also to blame here. The scorched earth politics of the Republicans in the Senate and the House have been responsible for not allowing the debt limit to increase under Obama, refusing to allow Obama to have a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland, and now for rushing through an ill-conceived health insurance replacement for Obamacare/ACA are but just some examples. We can also talk about extreme gerrymandering in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, and others. The anti-intellectualism and double-speak of the Republican party up and down is appalling and disingenuous. Bottom line for these people is the ends justify the means, democracy can be thrown under the bus - which is apparent when all they care about is investigating the leakers of Trump's obstruction of the FBI investigations rather than caring about the way Russia has subverted the federal election and whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on May 17, 2017, 07:46:09 AM
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
I'm genuinely curious - for those that believe so much of the news is fake and intentionally trying to harm Trump - what do they think the motivation is?  Ratings? To get Trump replaced with Pence (and if so why would that be better for 'the media')?
I think they think the motivation is to (somehow?) pull down Trump and install Hillary in his place. For the most part they're still super fixated on "She lost get over it!" Which tells me they're still fixated on her having lost. They're so fixated on that, they are (probably wilfully) completely blind to the present.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 17, 2017, 08:11:01 AM
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
I'm genuinely curious - for those that believe so much of the news is fake and intentionally trying to harm Trump - what do they think the motivation is?  Ratings? To get Trump replaced with Pence (and if so why would that be better for 'the media')?
I think they think the motivation is to (somehow?) pull down Trump and install Hillary in his place. For the most part they're still super fixated on "She lost get over it!" Which tells me they're still fixated on her having lost. They're so fixated on that, they are (probably wilfully) completely blind to the present.

Oh, for God's sake...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dabnasty on May 17, 2017, 08:43:13 AM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 

So if you don't trust mainstream media two questions:

1) What are your sources of information?
2) Do you still watch any news that you would consider MSM?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on May 17, 2017, 12:59:32 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.

There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).

Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 17, 2017, 01:18:18 PM
Yes I meet Trump voters all the time, they are everyday people. I think they're misinformed, but that's my opinion. Many are religiously conservative, or are blue collar and white collar workers who feel that Trump will "drain the swamp" of corrupt politicians, or believe the lies fed by Trump that Hillary's email server at home was a reckless way to handle classified information. Nevermind that Trump just divulged such information to the Russian spymaster, Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, putting in the field secret assets at severe risk.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 17, 2017, 01:57:49 PM
There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).

Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.

Nah, I am well aware of, and openly sympathetic to the plight of most Trump supporters, as has been documented thoroughly by many of my other posts on this board. You, however, appear to be pigeonholing everyone who opposes Trump into the same narrowly defined category. You might want to take your own advice.

ETA - Even if we accept your premise completely, I have yet to see a defense of Trump by this supposed 99.9999% of his supporters that is not a part of Kris' list, or at best a litany of past grievances against the major parties (hell, we can even just keep it DNC focused if you like). Yes, those grievances are often legitimate, but they are still irrelevant to whether or not Trump's behavior being discussed here is defensible.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 17, 2017, 04:07:51 PM
Wow, a special prosecutor has been named - Robert Mueller, former FBI director. This just got interesting. I suppose we'll (presumably?) find out our answers now, sooner or later. How those answers are spun by each side remains to be seen.

ETA - The Atlantic on why a special prosecutor is not necessarily the best way to determine malfeasance in this sort of scenario:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/a-special-prosecutor-is-not-the-answer/526662/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Fireball on May 17, 2017, 04:30:50 PM
Wow, a special prosecutor has been named - Robert Mueller, former FBI director. This just got interesting. I suppose we'll (presumably?) find out our answers now, sooner or later. How those answers are spun by each side remains to be seen.

ETA - The Atlantic on why a special prosecutor is not necessarily the best way to determine malfeasance in this sort of scenario:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/a-special-prosecutor-is-not-the-answer/526662/

Potentially good news. I just have this feeling Rosenstein wouldn't have tapped Mueller if he wasn't pretty confident it would turn out well for Republicans. Hopefully I'm wrong. I don't know much about Mueller.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 17, 2017, 06:14:03 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.

There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).

Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.

Speaking of straw men, we're not talking about Trump voters here.

That ship sailed a while back.  I think it's been well covered that there are many reasons why fewer people voted for him than Clinton in the last election.  Trump's racism and misogyny were well known at that point, so it's not surprising that his stances in these areas hasn't lost him much support.  Security though, was something that Trump campaigned on . . . and he has shown himself woefully unfit for duty as president along these lines, given the treason perpetrated by members of his campaign and the fact that he has personally leaked secret information while boasting to other foreign leaders.

It's somewhat surprising that this doesn't appear to bother his supporters.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on May 17, 2017, 07:06:12 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.

There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).

Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.

Speaking of straw men, we're not talking about Trump voters here.

That ship sailed a while back.  I think it's been well covered that there are many reasons why fewer people voted for him than Clinton in the last election.  Trump's racism and misogyny were well known at that point, so it's not surprising that his stances in these areas hasn't lost him much support.  Security though, was something that Trump campaigned on . . . and he has shown himself woefully unfit for duty as president along these lines, given the treason perpetrated by members of his campaign and the fact that he has personally leaked secret information while boasting to other foreign leaders.

It's somewhat surprising that this doesn't appear to bother his supporters.

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 17, 2017, 07:23:40 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.

There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).

Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.

Speaking of straw men, we're not talking about Trump voters here.

That ship sailed a while back.  I think it's been well covered that there are many reasons why fewer people voted for him than Clinton in the last election.  Trump's racism and misogyny were well known at that point, so it's not surprising that his stances in these areas hasn't lost him much support.  Security though, was something that Trump campaigned on . . . and he has shown himself woefully unfit for duty as president along these lines, given the treason perpetrated by members of his campaign and the fact that he has personally leaked secret information while boasting to other foreign leaders.

It's somewhat surprising that this doesn't appear to bother his supporters.

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.

It certainly is indicative of what importanct Trump supporters really attach to security, however.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on May 18, 2017, 08:42:23 AM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...

And don't forget that oldie but goodie: Bengahzi....

How could I forget?

And the answer is: all of the above:

I never did understand why those four men in Benghazi were so much more important than the thousands of soldiers/airmen/sailors who died in the line of duty or the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have died in the past twenty years of war in the Middle East starting with Desert Storm I.

All lives are important and should be protected and recognized, never squandered.

The constant lectures about Benghazi by the GOP got really old, especially when the GOP overlooked the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of lives lost during Bush's tenure.

Mistakes are made. Own up to them, study to ensure they they are prevented if possible in the future  and move on.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on May 18, 2017, 08:43:28 AM
Also, even if he's impeached (which at this point seems pretty much impossible), doesn't that just make Trump an even bigger security risk? He knows way too much and if I'm a foreign intelligence agency, I'm already plotting how to get to him if/when he's out of office. I highly doubt he would be any more restrained then...

Put him in Chelsea Manning's former cell? /sarcasm of course
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on May 18, 2017, 02:22:34 PM

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 18, 2017, 02:32:46 PM

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.

Great, so we can all agree that the technicality of the law is not always sufficient defense of behavior unbecoming of our national leadership. Glad you're on the same page as the rest of us with that one!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: ncornilsen on May 18, 2017, 05:11:51 PM

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.

Great, so we can all agree that the technicality of the law is not always sufficient defense of behavior unbecoming of our national leadership. Glad you're on the same page as the rest of us with that one!

both Trump and Clinton supports are hipocrits on this one, unless they didn't care in either case, or are outraged (like I am) in either case. Trump is less defensible, since it happened later... and I think his blab has more chance of doing material harm.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 18, 2017, 05:49:10 PM

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.

Great, so we can all agree that the technicality of the law is not always sufficient defense of behavior unbecoming of our national leadership. Glad you're on the same page as the rest of us with that one!

both Trump and Clinton supports are hipocrits on this one, unless they didn't care in either case, or are outraged (like I am) in either case. Trump is less defensible, since it happened later... and I think his blab has more chance of doing material harm.

Let's not make this an equivalency, though it is absolutely fair to be outraged by both. Clinton's email server was technically legal, as was Trump's spontaneous declassification of information. Clinton's actions were stupid, but nobody was hurt, and the information wasn't classified at the time of transmittal through the server. Trump betrayed a sensitive ally intelligence source to a foreign power that has been a long-time adversary of both the US and Israel (largely through alignment with Iran). Yes, it was technically legal, but it was a colossal faux pax with far-reaching real world consequences. Honestly, this probably wouldn't have as much traction as it does if he had a  history of making subtle, informed, and strategic foreign policy decisions and actions. He has a history of quite the opposite and the information release is instead emblematic of someone who simply isn't up to snuff for the job.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on May 19, 2017, 06:11:06 AM

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.

Great, so we can all agree that the technicality of the law is not always sufficient defense of behavior unbecoming of our national leadership. Glad you're on the same page as the rest of us with that one!

I may be on the same page as you, not sure about the "rest" of us.

Even If he said "I hope you can drop [this]" not really impeachable or whatever, but it is also like a a mob boss saying "I hope nothing bad happens to your store." You get the message.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on May 19, 2017, 06:16:26 AM
um. guess I am more disgusted by what he said to Comey. the declassification thing...I have (at this time) no problem with. "hey, enemy of my enemy(Russia), bad guys are over here. I'll let you use that information as you will." bad guy thinks "someone dropped bombs on us, we're dead." Russia thinks "Wonder how they received that information?" Meh.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 19, 2017, 08:06:03 AM
um. guess I am more disgusted by what he said to Comey. the declassification thing...I have (at this time) no problem with. "hey, enemy of my enemy(Russia), bad guys are over here. I'll let you use that information as you will." bad guy thinks "someone dropped bombs on us, we're dead." Russia thinks "Wonder how they received that information?" Meh.

Except that there are reports the source of the intel is Israel. Which means that Trump, because he just can't help but brag, put Israeli intelligence, and information on their intelligence-collecting strategies -- and potentially information about an under-cover Israeli operative -- in the hands of Russia, who almost certainly would give such information to Iran, one of Israel's most hostile neighbors.

I don't see this as very "meh."

Not to mention the fact that because of this, our other allies are going to really think twice about sharing information with us as long as Trump is in office. Yay.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 19, 2017, 06:08:48 PM
Not to mention the fact that because of this, our other allies are going to really think twice about sharing information with us as long as Trump is in office. Yay.

Actually, I'd argue that this is the silver lining of the whole incident.  Trump has proven himself dangerously incompetent.  His incompetence is now publicly on display for the world to see . . . the sooner that the rest of the world stops trusting America while under his leadership the better.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 19, 2017, 06:19:26 PM
Not to mention the fact that because of this, our other allies are going to really think twice about sharing information with us as long as Trump is in office. Yay.

Actually, I'd argue that this is the silver lining of the whole incident.  Trump has proven himself dangerously incompetent.  His incompetence is now publicly on display for the world to see . . . the sooner that the rest of the world stops trusting America while under his leadership the better.

I worry now that the US won't get intelligence sharing that could have averted an attack on the lives of soldiers abroad or people in the US.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 20, 2017, 11:27:27 AM
Not to mention the fact that because of this, our other allies are going to really think twice about sharing information with us as long as Trump is in office. Yay.

Actually, I'd argue that this is the silver lining of the whole incident.  Trump has proven himself dangerously incompetent.  His incompetence is now publicly on display for the world to see . . . the sooner that the rest of the world stops trusting America while under his leadership the better.

I worry now that the US won't get intelligence sharing that could have averted an attack on the lives of soldiers abroad or people in the US.

Elections have consequences.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 26, 2017, 06:48:07 PM
I keep thinking "could there possibly be anything more outrageous to come out of this Russia investigation than [whatever the last major news story was]"

Apparently yes.

Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin
Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports....
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn


Either this is a giant lie or the biggest boneheaded move by anyone in politics in quite some time.
Article here. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_kushner-705pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.445305a09953)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 26, 2017, 08:20:39 PM
I keep thinking "could there possibly be anything more outrageous to come out of this Russia investigation than [whatever the last major news story was]"

Apparently yes.

Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin
Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports....
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn


Either this is a giant lie or the biggest boneheaded move by anyone in politics in quite some time.
Article here. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_kushner-705pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.445305a09953)

Woah, I thought this couldn't be accurate when I read your post. Plus now it seems there have been 3 other times Kushner contacted the Russians during and after the election that were not previously disclosed. Can't wait to hear the apologist stance on this one.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 27, 2017, 06:09:37 AM
I doubt there will be any apology.  A fierce denial, then an attack and mis-direct on the 'leakers'.  Some rhetoric. DJT's WH dodge and attack, but never apologize.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 27, 2017, 07:24:09 AM
I read some comments in relation to the article. Same old shift the goalpost fallacies. Fake news, Hillary, Obama, etc. Some will defend this traitor to their death beds. The Trump supporters in my family have grown extremely quiet. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 27, 2017, 08:17:01 AM
The Trump family and campaign and administration's connections with the autocrat Putin is just mind-boggling. The willingness on the part of Trump to undermine our own security interests to curry favor with Putin is shocking.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 27, 2017, 08:21:16 AM
I read some comments in relation to the article. Same old shift the goalpost fallacies. Fake news, Hillary, Obama, etc. Some will defend this traitor to their death beds.
I've found I'm much happier simply not reading the comments on news articles. It's not even set up in a way where conversation and debate can take place, but rather streams shouted-out comments.

Quote
The Trump supporters in my family have grown extremely quiet.
yeah, same here. At least in my family of mostly older retired military republicans their lifelong distrust of Russia is not sitting well with their inherent desire to support their president who comes from their party.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 27, 2017, 10:59:24 AM
I doubt there will be any apology.  A fierce denial, then an attack and mis-direct on the 'leakers'.  Some rhetoric. DJT's WH dodge and attack, but never apologize.

I meant the Trump apologists, as in the supporters who literally seem to think he and his administration are incapable of doing anything wrong. But yeah, the less crazy Trump supporters mostly seem to have gone quiet lately, although I would bet most would say it's because they're sick of listening to the liberal echo chamber and biased media. Better to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 27, 2017, 11:28:31 AM
I doubt there will be any apology.  A fierce denial, then an attack and mis-direct on the 'leakers'.  Some rhetoric. DJT's WH dodge and attack, but never apologize.

I meant the Trump apologists, as in the supporters who literally seem to think he and his administration are incapable of doing anything wrong. But yeah, the less crazy Trump supporters mostly seem to have gone quiet lately, although I would bet most would say it's because their sick of listening to the liberal echo chamber and biased media. Better to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand.
Gotcha.
Well, HR McMaster was sent out to say "I would not be concerned" by this, and punted questions to Spicer.  Perhaps unsurprisingly Spicer's response was "We have nothing [to say to the press]."  After trying unsuccesfully to steer the Q&A back towards the G7 McMaster ended the briefing and Spicer left taking no questions.  Nothing from DJT or Kushnur as of yet.

Full-court press on the sunday talk shows by the WH tomorrow?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 27, 2017, 04:45:33 PM
In December 2016 Jared Kushner met with a Russian bank, used as a front by Putin for recruiting spies in the past.

http://www.businessinsider.com/kushner-meeting-russian-bank-gorkov-vnesheconombank-2017-5

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 28, 2017, 07:40:37 AM
...the WH is now considering establishing a 'war room' (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-considers-major-changes-amid-escalating-russia-crisis/2017/05/27/44d1a016-4230-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpshakeup-323pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7c587a69fc46) to combat the growing pressure from probes surrounding the Trump campaigns involvement with Russia during the election.

So - they see themselves at war... with the American public. Earlier I read something about this being viewed by the WH as a "branding and messaging problem" - not about whether what they did was or was not appropriate.

Bottom line is this thing is likely to get even more hostile. How is it we've only started month 5?!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on May 31, 2017, 02:46:03 PM
I think you can all see this as a stress test of the American constitutional system.

As designed, was it built resilient enough to withstand such an overt and intense attempt to wreck it?  Are the checks and balances going to hold the line?

Back in the day none of the 'Founding Fathers' thought that all presidents would be good or competent, nor that all members of Congress or all judges etc.  That's the whole point of a constitutional system - to have a democratic immune system that will limit the damage when any one (or even two) parts become sick. 

Right now you have one branch of government that is wholly compromised, and another that is somewhat compromised (with a chance for redemption in another 18 months). 

The question everyone is watching to see is whether your system is robust enough to withstand this kind of infection.  I think it's up in the air, but it is far from over. 

If anything it is shaking up the Democrats and forcing them to realize that their unholy alliance of identity politics + corporate selling out cannot continue, and they have to actually represent people's economic interests again (as well as their civil rights, which they've been pretty good on for the most part).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 31, 2017, 02:50:27 PM
If anything it is shaking up the Democrats and forcing them to realize that their unholy alliance of identity politics + corporate selling out cannot continue, and they have to actually represent people's economic interests again (as well as their civil rights, which they've been pretty good on for the most part).

I dunno, this has been said about the Republican alliance between corporate selling out and religious extremists, and yet here we are. Not that I think this likely or even logistically plausible, but a legit third party really seems like the best way to take our country back from the extremists.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 31, 2017, 04:41:57 PM
If anything it is shaking up the Democrats and forcing them to realize that their unholy alliance of identity politics + corporate selling out cannot continue, and they have to actually represent people's economic interests again

It's under the Democrats the number of uninsured Americans dropped by about half.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 01, 2017, 08:47:04 AM
If anything it is shaking up the Democrats and forcing them to realize that their unholy alliance of identity politics + corporate selling out cannot continue, and they have to actually represent people's economic interests again

It's under the Democrats the number of uninsured Americans dropped by about half.
Can't help but notice that health care is now in the Russia OT thread, while the health-care thread has lately been dominated by discussions on Russia.  Black is white, up is down and dogs are sleeping with cats.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 01, 2017, 08:56:16 AM
...Back to Russia!

DJT is giving back the two compounds in NY and MD which Obama took away as a penalty for meddling in the presidential election.

Originally the WH position was that the US would turn the compounds back over to the Russians if Moscow would lift the freeze on construction of a US Consulate in St. Petersburg

For reasons one can only guess, the new position is that Russia gets the compounds back with no concessions to the US whatsoever.

The "great deal-maker" (possibly the greatest in history) plopped down his chips and then apparently folded before looking at the cards. Or maybe he knows Russia is holding five aces. Whatever.  I'm just pissed that the punishment for Russian sanctions appears to have lasted a grand total of 6 months.

From WaPo's Right Turn (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/06/01/what-is-trumps-possible-justification-for-this-gift-to-putin/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ce0d4084fd82)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on June 01, 2017, 10:42:47 AM
DJT is giving back the two compounds in NY and MD which Obama took away as a penalty for meddling in the presidential election.
...
I'm just pissed that the punishment for Russian sanctions appears to have lasted a grand total of 6 months.

You're only upset because you've mistakenly assumed that Trump was actually in some kind of negotiation with the Russians where he wanted to get something in return.  He already got everything he wanted.  Returning those compounds to the Russians wasn't him folding his hand, it was him rewarding the Russians for their good work.

We saw the same thing when Trump became the republican nominee and the party promptly changed its official platform to classify Russia as an ally instead of an adversary.  We saw it when they called Moscow during the campaign to discuss lifting sanctions the US imposed over Ukraine, if he won the election.  We saw it when he appointed a recipient of the Russian Order of Friendship to be Secretary of State.

Donald Trump seems to love Russia, for reasons that aren't quite clear.  Remember during the early debates when everyone made fun of him for saying that Russia was the biggest national security threat to America?  Boy did his tune change quickly on that one.

And we already know that several of Trump's buildings were saved from bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs buying up the units as investment properties.  He's literally made hundreds of millions of dollars from personal friends of Vladimir Putin giving him money for empty buildings. 

But all of that would be circumstantial evidence if it weren't for the phone taps, and that's what I think will sink the administration.  The US security apparatus routinely monitors the phones of Russian spies living in the US, and several of them had blatantly illegal phone conversations with members of the administration before during and after the election.  That's the backstory to Trump's claims about Obama wiretapping him: technically we wiretapped Russian spies and suddenly we had all these hours of Trump staffers talking to the Russians.

Like everything else about this administration, the question is not whether any of this happened, it's just a question of how illegal something has to be to take down a president.  Obstruction of justice is illegal, unless you're the president.  Revealing classified information is illegal, unless you're the president.  Nepotism is illegal, unless you're the president.  Pussy grabbing is illegal, unless you're the president.  He's walking a fine line, trying to figure out exactly how much be can get away with.  He openly admits to doing all of these things that would be illegal for anyone else, but then claims immunity because of the office he holds.

At this point I think it's only a matter of time before the special prosecutor decides it was all intentionally malevolent, and thus illegal, or just bumbling incompetence and thus stupidly embarrassing but not prosecutable.  They need to get him under oath to give him the chance to perjure himself, because that's probably the only crime they can definitely nail him for.  Everything else he can chalk up to "honest" mistakes.

Personally, I'm hoping it's incompetence and not malevolent anti-American activity.  Right now Trumps's idiocy is the only thing standing in the way of Paul Ryan's wet dream of destroying the American economy from the inside.  If Trump does get removed from office, then anyone else in the line of succession who would rise to the office is suddenly a competent and experienced right wing crusader who hates everything that makes America great.  Looking at the list (Pence, Ryan, Hatch) makes me fear for the republic if Trump were to leave office before the next election.

No, as a proud American liberal who believes the strength of our nation lies in the cohesiveness of our diversity and our ability to look out for each other, I want Trump to stay in office, to tweet ridiculous things more often, to support fantasy legislation with no chance of passing, and to continue to so perfectly embody everything that is wrong with the republican party that broad swaths of America finally shake off their lingering reagan-era nostalgia and embrace a brighter, cheerier vision of our collective future by voting for people who don't openly espouse hatred and intolerance.  #AnyDemocrat2020

Until then, Mr. President, be true to yourself.  Don't listen to the haters.  You have exactly the instincts America needs most in this time of peril.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 01, 2017, 11:24:48 AM
#Sol2020?

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

But hold on a second, must we wait until 2020?  Let's assume for a second that all this smoke billowing around indeed comes from a fire. Let's also assume that another 16 months of this crap results in the democrat version of the '94 republican revolution.
what then? do we prefer an antagonistic and increasingly hostile president to what could certainly be a lame-duck Pence? As abhorrent as I find many of Pence's beliefs to be, he's unlikely to launch twitter-attacks at Germany, praise dictators and harbor conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 01, 2017, 12:56:42 PM
It's so critical the Democrats regain the US House of Representatives or at least get achingly close. Don't think the Democrats can win the Senate back because most of the elections in 2018 are for Democrat Senate seats.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: tavore on June 01, 2017, 01:02:36 PM
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on June 01, 2017, 02:51:26 PM
#Sol2020?

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

But hold on a second, must we wait until 2020?  Let's assume for a second that all this smoke billowing around indeed comes from a fire. Let's also assume that another 16 months of this crap results in the democrat version of the '94 republican revolution.
what then? do we prefer an antagonistic and increasingly hostile president to what could certainly be a lame-duck Pence? As abhorrent as I find many of Pence's beliefs to be, he's unlikely to launch twitter-attacks at Germany, praise dictators and harbor conspiracy theories.
He'll just electrocute gays and remove bodily autonomy from women.  Oh, maybe even cause an HIV epidemic like he did in the state he was governor of....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 01, 2017, 03:40:55 PM
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

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

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

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

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

The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms.  A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on June 01, 2017, 03:46:02 PM
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

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

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

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

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

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

I have this dream of Dwayne Johnson beating Trump in the GOP primary. My god would that be top notch schadenfreude.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: tavore on June 01, 2017, 04:21:41 PM
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd love for Jerry Brown to run, but again, this is not calling someone from the bench. This is the old guard rising again. The Democrats have not done a good job of nurturing talent.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 01, 2017, 04:31:40 PM
I have this dream of Dwayne Johnson beating Trump in the GOP primary. My god would that be top notch schadenfreude.

And Jesse Ventura running as an independent.  Need to find an analogous Democrat candidate.  Or just vote for Jesse: "a plague on both their (Dem and Rep) houses."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 01, 2017, 06:00:22 PM
I have this dream of Dwayne Johnson beating Trump in the GOP primary. My god would that be top notch schadenfreude.

And Jesse Ventura running as an independent.  Need to find an analogous Democrat candidate.  Or just vote for Jesse: "a plague on both their (Dem and Rep) houses."
Too bad Arnie's not eligible to run against DJT in the primaries.  I'd just love to see him troll Trump again.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on June 01, 2017, 06:21:56 PM
Has the FBI investigated the DNC servers yet? No?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on June 01, 2017, 06:44:12 PM
Has the FBI investigated the DNC servers yet? No?

Red herring (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring)?

And yes, they did.

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on June 01, 2017, 06:55:55 PM
Has the FBI investigated the DNC servers yet? No?

Red herring (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring)?

And yes, they did.

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

John Podesta and his Password being Password and his own cyber security people mistakenly telling him that his inquiry about a questionable email it was a legit email? Come on!!!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on June 02, 2017, 11:55:58 AM
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd love for Jerry Brown to run, but again, this is not calling someone from the bench. This is the old guard rising again. The Democrats have not done a good job of nurturing talent.
I'd love to see Gavin Newsom run, personally.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on June 02, 2017, 12:16:49 PM
More smoke. A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....

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

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

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

Wasn't there a contingent who wanted a businessperson in the WH to make things more efficient? I think we now see the potential downfalls of that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 12:50:51 PM
A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....
...
because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
Admitting the need to invoke Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) here....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Wexler on June 02, 2017, 01:14:39 PM
A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....
...
because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
Admitting the need to invoke Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) here....

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

 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 01:20:34 PM
...might be compromised....
Ok, I'll play.

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

E.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't?  Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos?  Or...?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on June 02, 2017, 01:33:12 PM
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 02, 2017, 01:33:42 PM
...might be compromised....
Ok, I'll play.

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

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

Since I don't have access to the NSA tapes of the conversations Kisylak and other Putinites had with Kushner, Flynn and other Trump campaign officials and administration officials I really don't know.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 02, 2017, 01:34:54 PM
Well... Russia remains in the Paris Climate Accord, while the US doesn't.
Maybe we're not the United States of Russia afterall.

United States of Syria?  (would explain why all our Navy's ships are already designated USS ___)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 02, 2017, 01:36:48 PM
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

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

...but good troll Acroy!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OneCoolCat on June 02, 2017, 02:03:08 PM
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

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

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

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

*I voted for Johnson.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 02, 2017, 02:43:29 PM
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on June 02, 2017, 02:52:39 PM
Ok, I'll play.

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

Was that a return volley of Poe's Law?

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

That is why we have a special prosecutor, n'est-ce pas?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 03:25:36 PM
What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?
Was that a return volley of Poe's Law?
The absence of a smiley was intentional.  Back to the question...?

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

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

Of course, It ain't over till [Robert Mueller] sings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_ain%27t_over_till_the_fat_lady_sings).  Or will that depend on what Mueller sings?

One can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google   Trump Russia evidence.
E.g.,
There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion (https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/05/23/there-remains-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion/#242cf2da242c)
Evidence Mounts for Trump's Meddling in Russia Probe. But Is It Obstruction? - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/evidence-mounts-trump-s-meddling-russia-probe-it-obstruction-n763951)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on June 02, 2017, 03:48:07 PM
@MDM - So your stance is that any criminal investigation that takes longer than a few months to lead to a conviction is probably smoke and mirrors?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on June 02, 2017, 03:59:29 PM
When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing.  After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one. 

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

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

Yeah...?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 03:59:58 PM
@MDM - So your stance is that any criminal investigation that takes longer than a few months to lead to a conviction is probably smoke and mirrors?
Nope, just this one. ;)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 04:00:49 PM
When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing.  After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one. 

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

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

Yeah...?
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.  Any speculation at this point is...speculation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 02, 2017, 04:24:50 PM
When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing.  After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one. 

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

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

Yeah...?
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.  Any speculation at this point is...speculation.
My speculation on your speculation is... speculative.
But seriously - most investigations, be they congressional or criminal, take several months to a few years to complete.  Sometimes they conclude intentional wrong-doing, sometimes stupidity, other times they fail to find anything conclusive.
We'll just have to wait and see - I wouldn't expect any of the investigations to conclude before this fall, though there will be significant pressure from all sides to hurry this up - WH wants it gone entirely, GOP doesn't want it bleeding into the midterms, Dems want to impeach, and almost everyone else wants the whole thing over so we can go back to watching videos of cats riding Roombas in silly costumes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLt5rBfNucc).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 04:55:02 PM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

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

More smoke. A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-house-secret-efforts-lift-russia-sanctions-putin-619508
Trump lifts sanctions (and immediately after becoming President) because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on June 02, 2017, 05:30:57 PM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

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

Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 02, 2017, 07:00:24 PM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

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

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

His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 02, 2017, 08:27:40 PM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

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

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

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

It's good he used a golf cart when he met with the European leaders for a short stroll.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 03, 2017, 05:53:28 AM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

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

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

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

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

Absolutely! He's conserving "battery" life.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 03, 2017, 02:08:57 PM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

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

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

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

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

Absolutely! He's conserving "battery" life.

Trump is doing what other pro-Trumpers on here would scream at you for doing if you have to buy your own health insurance through the federal exchange.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 05, 2017, 02:27:30 PM
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

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

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on June 05, 2017, 03:35:26 PM
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

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

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
The two reasons I've seen that this is an issue (rather than simply a hilarious gaffe) are:
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 05, 2017, 05:16:40 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBazdpGVoAAweMA.jpg)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on June 05, 2017, 11:39:48 PM
I don't think covfefe taught us anything we didn't already know about Trump but it did elevate his typical brand of unbelievable incoherence to a new level of hilarity.

Also, never forget: Ed Balls (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/ed-balls-day-how-the-former--shadow-chancellor-became-twitters-f/)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on June 06, 2017, 05:31:02 AM
FYI: There's a lot of chatter this morning about a leak to the Intercept by a 25 year old named "Reality Winner".  Being pushed hard by fake-news outlets such as Infowars and Palmer Report. Very suspect; I would take this info with a grain of salt until every bit of it is confirmed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dabnasty on June 06, 2017, 03:00:32 PM
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

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

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

Second, rather than saying whoops, and making fun of himself for his mistake, he acts like it was intentional because he of course, never makes mistakes. And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 06, 2017, 07:06:25 PM
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

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

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

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

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

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

If this man manages to serve more than 1 term then our political system is a complete an utter failure.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on June 06, 2017, 10:32:37 PM
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If he manages to finish an entire term, our political system is a complete and utter failure...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on June 06, 2017, 10:52:12 PM
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on June 06, 2017, 11:17:41 PM
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

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

I'm working Thursday night, so that'd probably be a bad plan...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on June 07, 2017, 01:25:48 AM
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

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

Also, it will stop me buying a lovely but unnecessary antique mahogany chest at auction that day.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on June 07, 2017, 04:59:20 AM
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

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

I was just talking about that with the husband. I work from home, so I'm leaving the possibility open.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 07, 2017, 06:40:10 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

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

what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on June 07, 2017, 09:19:36 AM
...And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".
Small Group = ?
Team of psychiatrists?
Russian handlers?
Alien overlords?
Small group of people who tweet from the toilet at all hours of the day/night?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on June 07, 2017, 09:29:45 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

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

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

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

Riot, burn down the bar and the next 4 city blocks:
- golden shower
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on June 07, 2017, 09:38:28 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

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

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

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

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

I like it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on June 07, 2017, 09:49:47 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

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

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

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

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

Nobody has said it, but I naturally assume that the drink is vodka, no?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 07, 2017, 11:12:49 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

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

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

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

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

What about crowd size or anything in reference to winning the election?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on June 07, 2017, 11:39:07 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

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

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

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

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

What about crowd size or anything in reference to winning the election?
Fake news
Illegal leaks
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on June 07, 2017, 12:39:10 PM
Can we start early with Comey's opening statement?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 07, 2017, 05:42:09 PM
Just got done reading Comey's prepared statement. His interactions with Trump sound like a bad mafia movie.

Asking repeatedly for loyalty. Dancing around until they could awkwardly conclude a conversation that made Trump feel okay "Honest Loyalty..." Questioning whether Comey wanted a job that was basically supposed to be a given, so a typical vague allusion to saying you should only stick around if you will be loyal.

Then proceeding to intermittently politely request that the FBI give up their investigation and publicly remind us that he isn't himself being investigated.

Nothing really surprising, though its interesting to get a visual of how it went down and to hear snippets of the petty dance that Trump likes to do.

But apparently 40% of the country doesn't give a shit that this president has pretty much zero ethical boundaries. These conversations sound like one of those don't do this training videos that every corporate office puts out yearly, to remind its employees how not to act.

Its only been 4 or 5 months and having to hear about this wannbe Oligarch parade around the white house  like a spoiled child with an overzealous Republican agenda is annoying and disheartening as the day it was all set in motion.

If ever a president were deserving of no more than a one and done term in office its this guy. Impeachment is too unlikely. Hopefully the Repubs get what they feel they need over 4 years so we don't have to suffer 8 and they can gracefully let the next campaign crumble. Not optimistic about that either though.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on June 08, 2017, 06:02:16 AM
If ever a president were deserving of no more than a one and done term in office its this guy. Impeachment is too unlikely. Hopefully the Repubs get what they feel they need over 4 years so we don't have to suffer 8 and they can gracefully let the next campaign crumble. Not optimistic about that either though.

Personally, I'd love to see Trump get primaried and replaced in 2020 which ought to piss off enough of the diehard Trump supporters to squash Republican turnout. Either way, though, if the Dems can't convince the country that they have a better candidate on offer in 2020, we might as well go ahead and sign their death warrant, at least in the red states.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 08, 2017, 07:34:01 AM
Trump has stated he will be tweeting during the Comey testimony. Lawyers are worried it will get him into even more legal trouble. Man this ought to be good. Time for the popcorn.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 08, 2017, 07:53:29 AM
At what time does the Comey testimony start and where can you watch it?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on June 08, 2017, 07:57:05 AM
At what time does the Comey testimony start and where can you watch it?
In 4 minutes. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-live-james-comey-testify-senate-hearing-russia/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on June 08, 2017, 07:57:33 AM
Live WaPo stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puGY5JmWqUU
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 08, 2017, 08:12:01 AM
Live WaPo stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puGY5JmWqUU

Popcorn ready...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on June 08, 2017, 08:13:06 AM
Trump has stated he will be tweeting during the Comey testimony. Lawyers are worried it will get him into even more legal trouble. Man this ought to be good. Time for the popcorn.
I don't have access to Twitter right now. Anyone feel like posting tweets here (assuming his handlers don't tie him up and sit on him)?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 08, 2017, 08:51:24 AM
Trump has stated he will be tweeting during the Comey testimony. Lawyers are worried it will get him into even more legal trouble. Man this ought to be good. Time for the popcorn.
I don't have access to Twitter right now. Anyone feel like posting tweets here (assuming his handlers don't tie him up and sit on him)?
So far he's not tweeting.  Nothing since yesterday.  Maybe cooler heads have secured his phone for the time being?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on June 08, 2017, 09:09:07 AM
Comey be like

(https://i.imgur.com/SUWmQYR.gif)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dabnasty on June 08, 2017, 12:27:08 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 08, 2017, 12:36:18 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

I felt like Comey had this, "Gee gosh golly Trump asked me about stopping the investigation into Michael Flynn" quality while at the same time he felt perfectly fine about criticizing Clinton's private email server when admitting that he wasn't going to file any wrongdoing charges, and also just days before the election he influences the election by making the earthshattering announcement that he was reopening the email investigation because Weiner's laptop had some duplicate Clinton emails via Huma Abedin.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on June 08, 2017, 12:39:51 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

The initial pundit take seems to be that Comey aptly backed up his statements and the republicans really couldn't poke holes in any of it. These included opining that he was fired because of the Russia investigation, that Trump demanded loyalty and indirectly asked him to end his investigation prematurely, and somewhat amazingly (to me), outright calling Trump a liar. He also admitted that he had indeed told Trump that he was not personally under investigation (at that time). In any case, few seem to think this will change any minds on the side of the GOP, so at most this is just more fuel for future proceedings if the Dems take over the house in 2018.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on June 08, 2017, 12:53:38 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation.  Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation.  Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun.  He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.

It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer:  "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News:  But But Hillary.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on June 08, 2017, 01:07:46 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation.  Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation.  Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun.  He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.

It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer:  "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News:  But But Hillary.

Gotta love that general incompetence is now being used as a supposedly legitimate defense.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on June 08, 2017, 01:10:52 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation.  Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation.  Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun.  He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.

It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer:  "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News:  But But Hillary.

Gotta love that general incompetence is now being used as a supposedly legitimate defense.

Only when it's a Republican.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 08, 2017, 01:46:44 PM
After watching the testimony I've come to the conclusion that there could be several possibilities

1) Trump legitimately didn't know what he was doing was inappropriate.  This narrative is currently being pushed by Paul Ryan
2) Trump knew enough to know this was entirely inappropriate, but he did it anyway.  This narrative is backed up by the fact that he asked everyone, including Attorney General Sessions to leave the room.
3) Trump was attempting to stop an ongoing investigation because he did not want them to find out whatever there is to find out.  Here we have lots of smoke but the root cause - if there is one - hasn't been made public. 

I've listed them in order of severity.  Starting with (1) - this is worrisome because it suggests that the POTUS doesn't have a basic understanding of how our government works nor how his actions would be interpreted. The current defense that "he's inexperienced, it's ok" rings hollow to me, and it suggests that we should excuse his actions as an innocent newbie mistake.  Two problems I have with this - one not one single person of at least a half-dozen high-ranking people (including the US attorney general) made any move to stop this closed-door meeting. second, "not knowing better" is not an excuse.  I'm reminded of the pathetic first attempts of managment to shrug off sexual harassment claims saying 'what, i didn't know what i was doing was inappropriate - i just made a comment about her bra".  Ignorance is not a defense for something that should be obvious.

(2) More troubling is the idea that, even though there "may be no 'there' there" DJT knew at some level that his requests were on shaky moral ground but he pressed ahead anyway. In other words, he's so convinced that nothing below-grade happened that he just doesn't give a damn about how he goes about trying to end the whole thing.  This involves an incredible amount of hubris ("Flynn's a great guy - I'm sure there's nothing there even I don't know about") and a complete disrespect for independent investigations. At a minimum it suggests that DJT won't even consider the possibility that the Russians may be craftier than at least one of his staff.

Finally there's the most troubling option (3), that this is in fact at attempt to obfuscate the truth.  Not much was learned from this hearing to put this theory to bed, but nothing Comey said confirms it either.  one interesting factoid is that Comey called out the NY Times expo as being largely false, but as expected would not say what exactly they got wrong nor what the FBI knows (or knew at the time of his firing) - for that we'll have to wait for when/if Mueller makes his report public.  I'm still deeply troubled by this option, as there's just so much damn smoke.  But, is the smoke largely the result of arrogant rookie pols falling into the laps of seasoned Russian opporatives, or is it more deliberate and sinister.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OurTown on June 08, 2017, 03:07:18 PM
It's obstruction of justice.  I asked the investigator to stop investigating.  He didn't.  I fired his ass.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on June 08, 2017, 03:18:08 PM
It's obstruction of justice.  I asked the investigator to stop investigating.  He didn't.  I fired his ass.

The reason this isn't an impeachable offense is that he didn't order him to stop the investigation.  He said he hoped he would drop the investigation, instead of telling him to drop the investigation, and that subtle difference is why today's proceedings haven't sparked an impeachment hearing. 

Apparently, asking someone to do something illegal is legal, but telling him to do something illegal is illegal.  I know that I personally have a hard time deciphering when my boss is asking me to do something vs when he is telling me to do something.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 08, 2017, 03:47:58 PM
Ignorance is absolutely no defense here. Though it is no surprise they will play that card and many others, like dragging Comey needlessly through quesetions about Clinton's emails, to mitigate the weight of the fact that we have a president who respect 0 ethical boundaries. Honestly who gives 2 fucks about Obama or Clinton's emails anymore. Why even waste the breath.

But its absolute bullshit that he didn't know this is wrong. He just doesn't care. Comey directly told him that what he was asking is wrong. Comey's words,

No I cannot be "loyal", the FBI must act independently for reasons X, Y and Z.

Trump:
But I need loyalty...

There, that is all any average person would need to know to realize they may be crossing some ethical boundaries. He has plenty of lawyers of officials he could have bounced that off of after their first dinner. Trump knew exactly what he was doing in so far as he wanted the FBI to drop any negative investigation of him or his team. And he wanted to Comey to stay out of his business and not make him look bad, or you know be loyal jerk-off like everyone in his twisted family...

The fact that he though firing Comey would make things easier just makes him completely incompetent or petty. I lean towards him being so petty it makes him do incompetent impulsive things to keep his ego from caving in. The sad part is the Republicans will defend him as long as his presidency suits their ends and or he retains the majority support of the Republican base.

I in the recent past wanted to give his kids the benefit of the doubt. They at the very least all appear to be brighter than their dad and by themselves probably wouldn't be all bad people. But their shameless covering for Trumps consistent unethical behavior is damning when it comes to taking any of them seriously.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 08, 2017, 04:09:07 PM
It's obstruction of justice.  I asked the investigator to stop investigating.  He didn't.  I fired his ass.

The reason this isn't an impeachable offense is that he didn't order him to stop the investigation.  He said he hoped he would drop the investigation, instead of telling him to drop the investigation, and that subtle difference is why today's proceedings haven't sparked an impeachment hearing. 

Apparently, asking someone to do something illegal is legal, but telling him to do something illegal is illegal.  I know that I personally have a hard time deciphering when my boss is asking me to do something vs when he is telling me to do something.

Ethically Trump has crossed enough boundaries to where is completely impeachable if there were the political will to proceed with impeachment. Never going to happen with his own party in control though. Impeachment is political due to the fact that the constitution is open to the prevailing interpretation by congress which need not require the a president to commit an indictable crime.

Committing an indictable crime on Trumps part would however remove the likely Republican interpretation of the constitution that is in fact a requirement to proceed.

Even then its possible if public opinion remained on Trumps side Repubs could drag their feet. Then it seems the President is more or less free to absolve himself of any charges of a crime against the US not brought against him through a process of impeachment.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 08, 2017, 06:04:53 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation.  Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation.  Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun.  He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.

It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer:  "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News:  But But Hillary.

Gotta love that general incompetence is now being used as a supposedly legitimate defense.

Only when it's a Republican.

I don't think his being Republican is related.  His biggest selling point for the election was that Trump had no idea what he was doing.  It was what he showed people over and over at every chance.  Continuing to demonstrate wild incompetence is continuing to play his base.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on June 08, 2017, 07:31:37 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation.  Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation.  Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun.  He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.

It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer:  "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News:  But But Hillary.

Gotta love that general incompetence is now being used as a supposedly legitimate defense.

Only when it's a Republican.

I don't think his being Republican is related.  His biggest selling point for the election was that Trump had no idea what he was doing.  It was what he showed people over and over at every chance.  Continuing to demonstrate wild incompetence is continuing to play his base.

yes. But Democrats still have a tiny bit of shame. I do not think they would use this excuse with a straight face.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 09, 2017, 06:06:42 AM

The reason this isn't an impeachable offense is that he didn't order him to stop the investigation.  He said he hoped he would drop the investigation, instead of telling him to drop the investigation, and that subtle difference is why today's proceedings haven't sparked an impeachment hearing. 


Yes, telling someone you “hope” they’ll do something can support an obstruction of justice case.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/documents/3861627-United-States-of-America-v-Collin-McDonald?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=opening-statement&utm_term=newsletter-20170609-774#.a1HAypq6a
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Forever Wednesday on June 09, 2017, 08:28:54 AM
Interesting to see that Comey felt the need to log all correspondence with Trump after meeting him for the very first time. This alone speaks volumes about Trump's character.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 09, 2017, 09:20:59 AM
Interesting to see that Comey felt the need to log all correspondence with Trump after meeting him for the very first time. This alone speaks volumes about Trump's character.

He is a compulsive liar. Not too difficult to make that observation. I would be writing everything down too. And probably recording it and leaking it to the press.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on June 09, 2017, 09:30:49 AM
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.

Quote
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 09, 2017, 01:12:20 PM
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.

Quote
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."

This is what has frustrated me so much about this whole damn thing - the WH is obsessed with leaks to the press, and the GOP keeps coming back to HRC's email server, while the Dems are acutely focused on the whole obstruction-of-justice thing.

To me, the single most important thing about this is the fact that a hostile nation successfully monkeyed with our entire electoral process.
That's become secondary to all parties involved.  WTF!!?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 09, 2017, 05:35:19 PM
Interesting to see that Comey felt the need to log all correspondence with Trump after meeting him for the very first time. This alone speaks volumes about Trump's character.

He actually explained the progression to the point of logging pretty clearly towards the end. It was his first official meetings odd nature that clearly triggered the notes.

He noted before that meeting on 2 or 3 separate occasions Trump had said to him directly in public settings that he hoped he would stay on as FBI director.

You don't even have to read between the lines or know Trump is a compulsive liar. He was clearly being brought into a situation where it was likely his conversations with Trump would be used in a way that would adversely affect his job and the current investigation.  Any diligent and careful person would have recommended taken notes.

I am happy to see those notes and his cautious reporting carry so much credibility. You notice not a single republic of note question his credibility. They only picked at his interpretation of events. I have always heard it was recommended to take notes if for instance you are getting verbally abused at say work but i always assumed it would be taken as not much better than your word versus theirs. But I can really see the value of that diligence in this case as a tool to defend your integrity and experience.

Only Trump was dumb enough to call Comey a liar. Trumps lying about such things is so compulsive I think it is literally a built in defense mechanism for his ego that requires no thought or purpose. He simply cant handle the fact that he did something wrong so instead of taking an ounce of responsibility he will just say its all lies...

I feel so sorry for everyone that has to deal with this jerk off.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 09, 2017, 05:55:31 PM
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.

Quote
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."

This is what has frustrated me so much about this whole damn thing - the WH is obsessed with leaks to the press, and the GOP keeps coming back to HRC's email server, while the Dems are acutely focused on the whole obstruction-of-justice thing.

To me, the single most important thing about this is the fact that a hostile nation successfully monkeyed with our entire electoral process.
That's become secondary to all parties involved.  WTF!!?

These are partisan oversight committees. The real investigation is being handled by the FBI which is anything help confirm for me that they are mostly unbiased on their to bring charges against anyone they feel committed a crime against the US.

The congressional and house oversight committees appear to simply be the usual circus side show meant only to garner political capital and trying rally public opinion to their side.

It is absolutely purely a matter of competing partisan narratives and that's all it can be. Sadly you have to cross this political bridge to invoke impeachment.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 09, 2017, 06:27:47 PM
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.

Quote
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."

This is what has frustrated me so much about this whole damn thing - the WH is obsessed with leaks to the press, and the GOP keeps coming back to HRC's email server, while the Dems are acutely focused on the whole obstruction-of-justice thing.

To me, the single most important thing about this is the fact that a hostile nation successfully monkeyed with our entire electoral process.
That's become secondary to all parties involved.  WTF!!?

These are partisan oversight committees. The real investigation is being handled by the FBI which is anything help confirm for me that they are mostly unbiased on their to bring charges against anyone they feel committed a crime against the US.

The congressional and house oversight committees appear to simply be the usual circus side show meant only to garner political capital and trying rally public opinion to their side.

It is absolutely purely a matter of competing partisan narratives and that's all it can be. Sadly you have to cross this political bridge to invoke impeachment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FBI only investigates US citizens on domestic soil, and wouldn't have jurisdiction to investigate individuals with Russian diplomacy papers.  The NSA and CIA would be the ones investigating those folks.  Not that the FBI isn't looking into contacts with the Trump campaign (Comey and Mueller have said as much) - just wondering how much investigating is being done in the dark by forces we may never see or know about.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 09, 2017, 09:45:28 PM
This thing just keeps getting weirder and weirder...

From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.
Shouldn't this have come up while going through the hiring phase??

DJT:  So people keep trying to tie me to Russia.  I keep telling them I've got nothing to do with Russia

Kasowitz: No problem, I'm very close to some powerful people in the Russian Government. 

DJT: You're hired!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: aaahhrealmarcus on June 10, 2017, 10:41:20 AM
From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.

Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 10, 2017, 10:55:29 AM
From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.

Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
I don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs.  The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.

As for the 0.01%ers... yeah, we have a few notables that seem to rise to oligarch-like status; the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc.  These people get high-ranking pols to sit down with them for contributions of a few million each cycle. In the last cycle we've seen several be given high-profile positions (DeVos, McMahan)  But true Russian oligarchs are in a completely higher league of mingling business with politics.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on June 11, 2017, 09:43:34 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FBI only investigates US citizens on domestic soil, and wouldn't have jurisdiction to investigate individuals with Russian diplomacy papers.  The NSA and CIA would be the ones investigating those folks.  Not that the FBI isn't looking into contacts with the Trump campaign (Comey and Mueller have said as much) - just wondering how much investigating is being done in the dark by forces we may never see or know about.

The NSA is an espionage organization, while the CIA is an espionage + covert action organization. They gather, analyze, and disseminate intelligence information. Neither has any criminal investigation component or charter, with the exception of performing counterintelligence (CI) investigations to ferret out moles/leakers/etc. But even in those instances, any information gathered in a CI investigation would be shared with the FBI for the criminal aspect and eventual criminal charges and prosecution. The FBI's National Security division does, in fact, have jurisdiction over watching foreign "diplomats" operating on American soil. So, the CIA, NSA, and other intel agencies would not be conducting any investigations of their own. They would only support the FBI in things like technical matters (for example, if the FBI wanted some help setting up technical surveillance or similar situations), providing background info on foreign diplomats being watched, and so on.

It's a weird and imperfect separation between what the FBI and CIA can do and where -- a legacy of J. Edgar Hoover's insistence on not giving up the FBI's "turf" back when the fledgling CIA was being launched in 1947. And Hoover largely got what he wanted because of his power back then (particularly the dirt he held against politicians at the time), even though most felt it would unduly tie the hands of the CIA to make that weird separation. And that separation did harm the nation (hello, 9/11 and lack of information-sharing between the FBI and CIA... I'm looking at you). Most people believe the CIA wasn't given this jurisdiction because we, as Americans, had such a strong revulsion against Stasi-like state police and domestic intelligence gathering following WWII, but that was more like 1% of the issue, while Hoover's turf claims was 99%.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on June 12, 2017, 09:32:25 AM
From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.

Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
I don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs.  The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.

As for the 0.01%ers... yeah, we have a few notables that seem to rise to oligarch-like status; the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc.  These people get high-ranking pols to sit down with them for contributions of a few million each cycle. In the last cycle we've seen several be given high-profile positions (DeVos, McMahan)  But true Russian oligarchs are in a completely higher league of mingling business with politics.

...Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros....


(let's not pretend it's a right-wing phenomenon, no?)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 12, 2017, 10:44:09 AM
From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.

Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
I don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs.  The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.

As for the 0.01%ers... yeah, we have a few notables that seem to rise to oligarch-like status; the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc.  These people get high-ranking pols to sit down with them for contributions of a few million each cycle. In the last cycle we've seen several be given high-profile positions (DeVos, McMahan)  But true Russian oligarchs are in a completely higher league of mingling business with politics.

...Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros....


(let's not pretend it's a right-wing phenomenon, no?)
Of course - never meant to imply that spending money for influence was exclusive to one party (guilty of picking only the most recent examples), but it's gross hyperbole to equate the level of political influence these people have with the Russian oligarchs.
There's simply no contest.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 12, 2017, 12:27:07 PM
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.

Quote
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."

This is what has frustrated me so much about this whole damn thing - the WH is obsessed with leaks to the press, and the GOP keeps coming back to HRC's email server, while the Dems are acutely focused on the whole obstruction-of-justice thing.

To me, the single most important thing about this is the fact that a hostile nation successfully monkeyed with our entire electoral process.
That's become secondary to all parties involved.  WTF!!?

These are partisan oversight committees. The real investigation is being handled by the FBI which is anything help confirm for me that they are mostly unbiased on their to bring charges against anyone they feel committed a crime against the US.

The congressional and house oversight committees appear to simply be the usual circus side show meant only to garner political capital and trying rally public opinion to their side.

It is absolutely purely a matter of competing partisan narratives and that's all it can be. Sadly you have to cross this political bridge to invoke impeachment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FBI only investigates US citizens on domestic soil, and wouldn't have jurisdiction to investigate individuals with Russian diplomacy papers.  The NSA and CIA would be the ones investigating those folks.  Not that the FBI isn't looking into contacts with the Trump campaign (Comey and Mueller have said as much) - just wondering how much investigating is being done in the dark by forces we may never see or know about.

I would guess the technical application of the FBI to investigate Trumps campaign comes under the mandate to discover if those Americans involved took actions that did harm to America. Criminal or otherwise. That fact that the method of harm was collusion with a foreign government is some what incidental.

Initial information gathering that triggered the FBI investigation, to my recollection of public information, was incidental intelligence gathering by the NSA which routinely monitors foreign communications with Americans. Hence all the unmasking stuff. Of course initially the FBI wouldn't have been doing any such monitoring since they don't investigate foreign communications.

Moving forward though, the FBI may gather some intelligence through the NSA or CIA, but I would expect that the FBI itself and maybe home land security or the only appropriate agencies to investigate Americans and harm they may have done.

The CIA is probably least involved since they mainly operate on a person to person level foreign intelligence gathering.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 12, 2017, 12:47:28 PM
From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.

Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
I don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs.  The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.

As for the 0.01%ers... yeah, we have a few notables that seem to rise to oligarch-like status; the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc.  These people get high-ranking pols to sit down with them for contributions of a few million each cycle. In the last cycle we've seen several be given high-profile positions (DeVos, McMahan)  But true Russian oligarchs are in a completely higher league of mingling business with politics.

...Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros....


(let's not pretend it's a right-wing phenomenon, no?)
Of course - never meant to imply that spending money for influence was exclusive to one party (guilty of picking only the most recent examples), but it's gross hyperbole to equate the level of political influence these people have with the Russian oligarchs.
There's simply no contest.

Today of course it is, but the difference is a matter of degrees. Russia has reached the point where true political opposition is nearly impossible in the near term. The wealthy elite, business men and politicians have all merged into a single explicit entity in Russia. They generally aren't out terrorizing the populace and in many ways Russia is still a nice place to live, but the government still has full control over the media, politics and big business all under the same umbrella maintaining political power through imprisonment and killing of major opposition.

The US of course has business and political corruption. But our laws and conventions prevent us still from going anywhere near as far as Russia. Media and politicians can generally oppose each other in public without fear of death or imprisonment. We have reasonably healthy independent media and judiciary. Big money still has competing interests that align under two major competing parties.

In general in all major western countries it is very easy to distinguish systemic corruption in Russia from the pockets of corruption every country has in their system and we all rest along a spectrum.

My primary issue with Trump is that his public disdain for all opposition to his office is running a 24/7 campaign to discredit all entities not on the same page. And he has convinced a non-trivial portion of the population that it is okay and that he is a victim. That is doing an unknown amount of real long term damage to our system and pushing us along the spectrum away from a healthy system and towards a more authoritarian disposition where we are being told to believe a president over and independent and free press. Their is a vast difference between a healthy defense of your policy that opposes the popular press narrative and attempting fully discredit the only organizations able to analyze and criticize political action.

Our other branches of government are mostly holding strong, but they are unfortunately allowing this to continue for partisan gain. To spread the blame beyond Trump, there has been a long campaign in this country to discredit media sources on partisan grounds and this is the most recent culmination of that growing sentiment that some major news groups just can't be trusted.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 13, 2017, 07:37:52 AM
Word on the street is Trump might be firing Mueller as well. Did anyone watch clips of Trump's cabinet meeting? It reminded me of how lil Kim conducts meetings in North Korea. "Say something nice about me or I'll kill your family."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on June 13, 2017, 08:32:19 AM
Word on the street is Trump might be firing Mueller as well. Did anyone watch clips of Trump's cabinet meeting? It reminded me of how lil Kim conducts meetings in North Korea. "Say something nice about me or I'll kill your family."

Re: Firing Mueller...just when I think my mind can't get more boggled by Trump's terrible instincts, I'm proven wrong. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on June 13, 2017, 09:26:06 AM
Word on the street is Trump might be firing Mueller as well. Did anyone watch clips of Trump's cabinet meeting? It reminded me of how lil Kim conducts meetings in North Korea. "Say something nice about me or I'll kill your family."

Re: Firing Mueller...just when I think my mind can't get more boggled by Trump's terrible instincts, I'm proven wrong. 

No kidding. It would appear that the idea made public by a Trump ally (Chris Ruddy) as a way to stimulate a public conversation to "prove" to Trump how bad of an idea it would be. It's painfully unsettling that this seems to be an increasingly more common way for Trump's friends and advisers to communicate with him.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on June 13, 2017, 10:45:00 AM
So, basically, since Trump only gets his 'intel' from the right-wing media he consumes with alarming alacrity, the only way his advisors can communicate with him (that he'll pay any attention to) is via those media. This is so bizarre.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 13, 2017, 10:46:43 AM
So, basically, since Trump only gets his 'intel' from the right-wing media he consumes with alarming alacrity, the only way his advisors can communicate with him (that he'll pay any attention to) is via those media. This is so bizarre.

Echo?

echo... echo... echo....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 13, 2017, 03:00:36 PM
Sessions as expected doubling down on having valid non Russian reasons for letting Commy go.

I am reading a live written feed of the conversation. I am somewhat surprised no one has hammered on the details on if he felt Commy was lying or misinterpreting Trumps requests to drop the investigation.

The strategy he is employing really is his only option. Dropping a lot of lines to cover his ass like:

 "to the best of my recollection" meaning I could be wrong but I am not lying.

 "I only know what I have read in the paper" alluding to the notion that most of the Russian investigation is hot tabloid crap.

It is a bit of game where he has to try to make the Democrats look crazy for pressing him. It seems the Republican questioners are making a point to use Session's staunch defense of Trump as a means to downplay any accusations made at Sessions.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 13, 2017, 03:02:25 PM
Five times in roughly five minutes Sessions has answered using some variation of "I cannot recall if this was discussed".

ETA:  WaPo's analysis had the following;
Quote
The attorney general underwent a barrage of questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee, but about the only thing he could recall is that he didn’t do anything wrong

All of Session's answers seemed designed to give him an 'out' should his testimony be proven later to be false.

Tomorrow morning I'm sure we'll be treated to a barrage of declairations about how this was the greatest testimony ever.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 13, 2017, 03:28:43 PM
Yep, tough to lie when you use such generic phrases. Sessions just got nailed for sticking by the Clinton excuse for firing Comey. Called out for his own contradictory statements back then and Trump admitting it was because of the Russian investigation.

Trump needs to testify next. You know since Comey lied so much. He can set the record straight!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 14, 2017, 05:15:44 PM
With an exceedingly rare, near-unanimous vote (97-2) the Senate voted today to block any efforts by the president to scale back sanctions against Russia, and to strengthen those sanctions in retaliation for Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 election and its actions in Syria.

The two senators who voted "no" were Rand Paul and Mike Lee (both R).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on July 05, 2017, 12:23:42 PM
Interesting article referencing the Wall Street journal articles  http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/russia-scandal-takes-alarming-turn-trump-world?cid=sm_fb_maddow
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Greenback Reproduction Specialist on July 05, 2017, 01:16:52 PM
speaking of interesting articles....

Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation, actually False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html

Salon reports : The FBI is leading an investigation into Donald Trump’s connections with Russia, actually False, as later revealed by Comey himself.
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/20/the-fbi-is-leading-an-investigation-into-donald-trumps-connections-with-russia/

NY Times reports:F.B.I. Is Investigating Trump’s Russia Ties, Comey Confirms, Again False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html?mcubz=1&_r=0

This is truly a witch hunt, and the media has already lost credibility for being so careless with their facts.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 05, 2017, 01:39:21 PM
speaking of interesting articles....

Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation, actually False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html

Salon reports : The FBI is leading an investigation into Donald Trump’s connections with Russia, actually False, as later revealed by Comey himself.
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/20/the-fbi-is-leading-an-investigation-into-donald-trumps-connections-with-russia/

NY Times reports:F.B.I. Is Investigating Trump’s Russia Ties, Comey Confirms, Again False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html?mcubz=1&_r=0

This is truly a witch hunt, and the media has already lost credibility for being so careless with their facts.

I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 05, 2017, 02:58:52 PM
speaking of interesting articles....

Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation, actually False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html

I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Yes, that NY Times article probably is accurate - including the part where it says "CNN was forced to apologize after retracting a story on its website that a Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 05, 2017, 03:34:37 PM
Yes, a news outlet got something wrong and retracted, therefore the Russia story is 100% FAKE NEWS. Impeccable logic.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Greenback Reproduction Specialist on July 05, 2017, 03:37:03 PM
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 05, 2017, 06:09:42 PM
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.

None of this matters.
We still have Trump removing Comey because Comey was investigating Putin efforts to undermine the 2016 federal elections, and the Trump's campaign's connections to Putin.
We still have connections of Manafort and Sessions and Kushner with Putin and Kislyak.
And finally, we still don't have any Trump tax returns.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on July 06, 2017, 07:08:39 AM
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.


And CNN admitted their fault and retracted, and fired 3 journalists over it. I'm not sure what the problem is. If anything, their actions help their credibility, rather than hurt it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 06, 2017, 08:05:58 AM
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.


And CNN admitted their fault and retracted, and fired 3 journalists over it. I'm not sure what the problem is. If anything, their actions help their credibility, rather than hurt it.

Meanwhile, the Trump's extensive list of blatant bullshit claims (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html) go completely ignored by his supporters.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 06, 2017, 08:34:28 AM
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.


And CNN admitted their fault and retracted, and fired 3 journalists over it. I'm not sure what the problem is. If anything, their actions help their credibility, rather than hurt it.

Meanwhile, the Trump's extensive list of blatant bullshit claims (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html) go completely ignored by his supporters.

Nevermind Trump (because he doesn't care about being a liar), when was the last time Breitbart retracted a bullshit story?  They're still standing behind their pizzagate "reporting".
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 07, 2017, 08:17:10 PM
Someone or organization is trying to plant a fake NSA document to the Rachel Maddow Show to attempt to derail investigating any Trump campaign links to Russia's efforts at altering the presidential outcome.

The link provides an interesting video link to the Rachel Maddow show which explains this fake document

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-forged-nsa-document-discredit-news-organizations_us_595ef40ce4b0d5b458e96791
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 08, 2017, 05:29:34 AM
Someone or organization is trying to plant a fake NSA document to the Rachel Maddow Show to attempt to derail investigating any Trump campaign links to Russia's efforts at altering the presidential outcome.

The link provides an interesting video link to the Rachel Maddow show which explains this fake document

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-forged-nsa-document-discredit-news-organizations_us_595ef40ce4b0d5b458e96791

Don't you know, innocent folks always attempt to derail investigations when there is nothing to find.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 09, 2017, 04:31:53 AM
Well it's not even speculation anymore: DJT Jr. confirms that he, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with a Kremlin official last June.  He claims they never spoke about the campaign, and only talked about sanctions against Russia, including adoption.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 09, 2017, 09:46:19 AM
And apparently Donnie and Putin discussed collaborating on an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit." Yeah, Putin will really help curb those millions of illegal votes being cast here in the US, good thinking DJT!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 09, 2017, 04:28:03 PM
And apparently Donnie and Putin discussed collaborating on an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit." Yeah, Putin will really help curb those millions of illegal votes being cast here in the US, good thinking DJT!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753

Too bad Bin Laden is dead. Trump could have corroborated with him to form an anti-terrorism unit.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 09, 2017, 05:38:02 PM
And apparently Donnie and Putin discussed collaborating on an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit." Yeah, Putin will really help curb those millions of illegal votes being cast here in the US, good thinking DJT!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753

Too bad Bin Laden is dead. Trump could have corroborated with him to form an anti-terrorism unit.

I liked this one from DCResisterBee
"This is like the FBI asking the Mafia to form an anti-crime unit together"

I also like, "Asking Russia for advice on cyber security makes about as much sense as asking the Koch brothers for advice on global warming. Oh, wait.."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 09, 2017, 07:03:08 PM
And apparently Donnie and Putin discussed collaborating on an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit." Yeah, Putin will really help curb those millions of illegal votes being cast here in the US, good thinking DJT!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753

Too bad Bin Laden is dead. Trump could have corroborated with him to form an anti-terrorism unit.

I liked this one from DCResisterBee
"This is like the FBI asking the Mafia to form an anti-crime unit together"

I also like, "Asking Russia for advice on cyber security makes about as much sense as asking the Koch brothers for advice on global warming. Oh, wait.."

Haha I read those as well. I was reading them off to my family. We were all cracking up.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 10, 2017, 09:45:12 AM
This piece from the Atlantic is a nice summary of the idiocy of Donald Trump Jr. Basically, "Yes we met with a Russian who promised to give us incriminating stuff about Clinton, but then bailed when she didn't have the goods." In other words, we would have been really stoked if the collusion had paid off better. What a dumpster fire.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/if-there-wasnt-collusion-it-wasnt-for-lack-of-trying/533070/

And the source NY Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

... and speaking of dumpster fires, here's how it's being covered on Faux News:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer-meeting-brit-hume-says-no-evidence-collusion
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 10, 2017, 12:37:35 PM
This directly contradicts months from the Trump campaign claiming that they never met with Russian officials nor discussed compaign issues with Russians.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 10, 2017, 01:56:22 PM
Wonder how this is going over behind closed doors. Trump can't use his go to "fake news" quip. Anyone watch the train wreck Conway interview? I don't know how that woman can live with herself. Wowzer!!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 10, 2017, 02:15:21 PM
Meh, par for the course.  It won't matter.

He denied being a sexist even after all those comments about pageant contestants, and then the pussy grabbing tape came out and removed all doubt, and people accepted him.

He denied any and all contact with the Russians, then this happens, but people will still accept him.  This is America today.

His tax evasion, his corrupt charity, his potential nepotism, his conflicts of interest, his fraud lawsuits, none of it will matter.  He denies everything, then when proved to be a liar he attacks his opponents with the same claim instead of admitting any wrongdoing.  People eat it up.  He can do no wrong.

He's currently competing with U. Grant for the title of most corrupt US president ever.  History will judge him to be an embarrassment to our nation, like Grant, but he still gets to be president for as long as he can win elections.  The greatest flaw in democracy is that popularity does not endow any worthiness for the job, so sometimes we end up with dumpster fires as leaders.  We'll either move past it, or sunset.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 10, 2017, 02:35:36 PM
Meh, par for the course.  It won't matter.

He denied being a sexist even after all those comments about pageant contestants, and then the pussy grabbing tape came out and removed all doubt, and people accepted him.

He denied any and all contact with the Russians, then this happens, but people will still accept him.  This is America today.

His tax evasion, his corrupt charity, his potential nepotism, his conflicts of interest, his fraud lawsuits, none of it will matter.  He denies everything, then when proved to be a liar he attacks his opponents with the same claim instead of admitting any wrongdoing.  People eat it up.  He can do no wrong.

He's currently competing with U. Grant for the title of most corrupt US president ever.  History will judge him to be an embarrassment to our nation, like Grant, but he still gets to be president for as long as he can win elections.  The greatest flaw in democracy is that popularity does not endow any worthiness for the job, so sometimes we end up with dumpster fires as leaders.  We'll either move past it, or sunset.

Well, there is still the Mueller wild card. He could throw a wrench into Trump's cogs. It seems likely that Trump would just fire him if it seemed problematic, and then it would simply be a political football if enough Republicans would turn on Trump at that point. Given their current level of acceptance of his behavior, I'm not particularly hopeful.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 10, 2017, 07:20:41 PM
This seems like a slow moving train wreck right now. But as soon as the moment is right, Trump is going to be dumped overboard.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 10, 2017, 08:18:11 PM
Meh, par for the course.  It won't matter.

He denied being a sexist even after all those comments about pageant contestants, and then the pussy grabbing tape came out and removed all doubt, and people accepted him.

He denied any and all contact with the Russians, then this happens, but people will still accept him.  This is America today.

His tax evasion, his corrupt charity, his potential nepotism, his conflicts of interest, his fraud lawsuits, none of it will matter.  He denies everything, then when proved to be a liar he attacks his opponents with the same claim instead of admitting any wrongdoing.  People eat it up.  He can do no wrong.

He's currently competing with U. Grant for the title of most corrupt US president ever.  History will judge him to be an embarrassment to our nation, like Grant, but he still gets to be president for as long as he can win elections.  The greatest flaw in democracy is that popularity does not endow any worthiness for the job, so sometimes we end up with dumpster fires as leaders.  We'll either move past it, or sunset.
I think what's hard to grasp sometimes is the level of hatred for Hillary. There is now this non-falsifiable view held by intransigent Trumpistas that Trump's blunders since assuming office are excusable because Hillary would have done far, far worse, corrupt, criminal things.

My former boss at work who voted for Trump without shame***, recently agreed with me that Trump is ineffectual and an embarrassment (baby steps).

***speaking of shame, I live in one of the reddest parts of the country; many, many people came back from the polls on election day and meekly and with shame admitted to voting for Trump. Red America has a brain and a conscience but it is superseded by the propaganda machine that leveled Hillary. The country is in trouble if tribalism and habit continue to win out over reason.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 10, 2017, 10:47:09 PM
I think what's hard to grasp sometimes is the level of hatred for Hillary. There is now this non-falsifiable view held by intransigent Trumpistas that Trump's blunders since assuming office are excusable because Hillary would have done far, far worse, corrupt, criminal things.

My former boss at work who voted for Trump without shame***, recently agreed with me that Trump is ineffectual and an embarrassment (baby steps).

***speaking of shame, I live in one of the reddest parts of the country; many, many people came back from the polls on election day and meekly and with shame admitted to voting for Trump. Red America has a brain and a conscience but it is superseded by the propaganda machine that leveled Hillary. The country is in trouble if tribalism and habit continue to win out over reason.

I think this may be true. Many on the left tend to characterize the Trump voters as inexplicably slavish in their devotion to him. And surely, there are a fair number of those folks out there. But as someone who pathologically reads many of the cesspool of comments on news articles (yes, I know, I need a life), I have recently noticed (albeit anecdotally) and interesting trend towards even more "but Hillary" responses than ever (as opposed to "snowflake," "Obama," "this isn't actually a big deal," etc.), the more bombs that are dropped. They may not even realize it, but I think these people instinctively understand that Trump really is the disaster everyone says he is, thus they have to revert to the one core belief that they think still justifies voting for such a disaster--HRC would have been even worse.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 11, 2017, 05:48:05 AM
Many Trump supporters support him for reasons similar to many post-Lewinsky Clinton supporters: they agree with his policies and choose to overlook his personal behavior.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 11, 2017, 06:08:44 AM
There has been a concerted, semi-cordinated effort to discredit and demonize HRC for over 25 years, going back to when she was first lady of Arkansas and then FLOTUS.  It would be hard for anyone to overcome that.  I certainly don't think she's the best we have to offer, but she's certainly not the evil-incarnate many have portrayed her as.
 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OurTown on July 11, 2017, 08:30:18 AM
This seems like a slow moving train wreck right now. But as soon as the moment is right, Trump is going to be dumped overboard.

Mueller issues a report implicating Tr*mp, the Rs in Congress reluctantly call on Tr*mp to resign for the good of the nation, he refuses, impeachment!  Maybe?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 11, 2017, 08:40:40 AM
This seems like a slow moving train wreck right now. But as soon as the moment is right, Trump is going to be dumped overboard.

Mueller issues a report implicating Tr*mp, the Rs in Congress reluctantly call on Tr*mp to resign for the good of the nation, he refuses, impeachment!  Maybe?

More likely Mueller issues a report implicating Trump, the Rs in Congress suddenly claim Mueller is on the Russian payroll and try him for treason, Trump gives a campaign rally style speech at Mueller's public execution.  Adoring crowds chant "drain the swamp" as democracy dies.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 11, 2017, 09:01:14 AM
This seems like a slow moving train wreck right now. But as soon as the moment is right, Trump is going to be dumped overboard.

Mueller issues a report implicating Tr*mp, the Rs in Congress reluctantly call on Tr*mp to resign for the good of the nation, he refuses, impeachment!  Maybe?

More likely Mueller issues a report implicating Trump, the Rs in Congress suddenly claim Mueller is on the Russian payroll and try him for treason, Trump gives a campaign rally style speech at Mueller's public execution.  Adoring crowds chant "drain the swamp" as democracy dies.
So, your basic Turkey/Erdogan scenario?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 11, 2017, 09:29:41 AM
Many Trump supporters support him for reasons similar to many post-Lewinsky Clinton supporters: they agree with his policies and choose to overlook his personal behavior.

Maybe, except his policies are backfiring as well. American's are paying for the wall. ISIS wasn't defeated in 30 days. Coal and manufacturing jobs aren't coming back as he promised. Repeal and replace is highly unfavorable in every single state. And he doesn't know what to do with NK because bullying didn't work. His approval ratings have plunged. He still won't acknowledge Russia hacked the election. And every day seemingly more and more evidence of Russia collusion.

Frankly I have no ideal what policies they are still supporting. He's torn apart families by deporting a few hard working folks back to Mexico. Maybe that is it? Perhaps it's the watered down version of his Muslim ban that finally got approved? At this point I am more likely to agree those still supporting him just love pissing off liberals. Policies be damned.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: madgeylou on July 11, 2017, 09:50:28 AM
Many Trump supporters support him for reasons similar to many post-Lewinsky Clinton supporters: they agree with his policies and choose to overlook his personal behavior.

Maybe, except his policies are backfiring as well. American's are paying for the wall. ISIS wasn't defeated in 30 days. Coal and manufacturing jobs aren't coming back as he promised. Repeal and replace is highly unfavorable in every single state. And he doesn't know what to do with NK because bullying didn't work. His approval ratings have plunged. He still won't acknowledge Russia hacked the election. And every day seemingly more and more evidence of Russia collusion.

Frankly I have no ideal what policies they are still supporting. He's torn apart families by deporting a few hard working folks back to Mexico. Maybe that is it? Perhaps it's the watered down version of his Muslim ban that finally got approved? At this point I am more likely to agree those still supporting him just love pissing off liberals. Policies be damned.

Yep. He's never had any coherent or consistent policy stances. He embraces the last thing that was said to him, either by humans around him or on Fox News.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 11, 2017, 10:00:18 AM
...Russia hacked the election.
If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).

If by "hacked" you mean "changed electronic vote totals" then you'll need to support that claim.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 11, 2017, 10:18:03 AM
...Russia hacked the election.
If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).

If by "hacked" you mean "changed electronic vote totals" then you'll need to support that claim.

1. Two wrongs do not make a right. We have done things that are bad, but that does not mean we should accept overt foreign tampering. We should be especially vigilant when our candidates potentially colluded with them. Sovereignty is important.

2. This is just a single report, and it correctly states to be cautious of running to far with it, but:
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/06/heres-the-public-evidence-that-supports-the-idea-that-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.3c092403ecba

Quote
“Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election,” the Intercept’s report said, detailing the NSA’s analysis supporting that claim. It noted, though, that the analysis represents only one point of evidence to the charges it presents and that the document does not include the raw intelligence supporting the claims. That said, it comports with what was released publicly by the intelligence agencies.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 11, 2017, 10:20:09 AM
...Russia hacked the election.
If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).

If by "hacked" you mean "changed electronic vote totals" then you'll need to support that claim.

Or the third choice that I was actually referring to whereby they actually hacked voting systems in 39 states accessing a campaign finance database in one state and trying to alter voter data in another. Which of course more fits the literal definition of hacking.  Trump thinks it could have been some fat guy lying on his bed. The fact that he won't accept what every single US agency has concluded, that it indeed was Russia, is extremely telling.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 11, 2017, 10:36:53 AM
...Russia hacked the election.
If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).

If by "hacked" you mean "changed electronic vote totals" then you'll need to support that claim.

I mean, to me this reads like classic deflection, but whatever. The fact remains many of the policies Trump was elected on, that you claim people support, people clearly (by polling--re: Trumpcare) don't actually support, or have not been effectively executed as promised (wall, ISIS, etc.). The only things I've seen actually happening that I know these people "support" are a) Gorsch b) making America hostile towards immigrants again b) pissing off liberals daily c) at least he's not HRC d) a lot of handwaving at actual "conservative" policies (the definition of conservatism an ever moving target, but as long as their favorite bobble head supports something...)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 11, 2017, 10:42:38 AM
"But Benghazi!"

See how easy that is?  We don't need to worry about colluding with the Russians, or sexual assaults, or fraud convictions, or the emolument clause, or hidden tax returns, or six bankruptcies, or martial infidelities, or demonizing immigrants, or voter suppression, or enciting violence against the free press, or carny hands.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.

Trump could go on Fox and say "of course I colluded with the Russians to beat crooked Hillary, I had to do it to make America great again" and his supporters world lap it up.  They don't care that it's illegal or immoral or that he previously denied it.  Nothing matters anymore.  He's untouchable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 11, 2017, 11:00:57 AM
Manchurian Candidate
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 11, 2017, 11:36:02 AM
The email exchange reported in this article is pretty good (and by good, I mean damning, bad, and treasonous). I'm curious how the veracity of the emails was confirmed. Though, it should be noted that Don Trump Jr confirmed the meetings and the general progression of events, so at present I have little reason to doubt the veracity of the wording.

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15953204/donald-trump-jr-emails-russia
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on July 11, 2017, 12:08:52 PM
The email exchange reported in this article is pretty good (and by good, I mean damning, bad, and treasonous). I'm curious how the veracity of the emails was confirmed. Though, it should be noted that Don Trump Jr confirmed the meetings and the general progression of events, so at present I have little reason to doubt the veracity of the wording.

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15953204/donald-trump-jr-emails-russia

Don Jr tweeted out screenshots of the actual email exchange so the wording is quite accurate.  No word on the post meeting follow-up emails...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 11, 2017, 12:13:24 PM
The email exchange reported in this article is pretty good (and by good, I mean damning, bad, and treasonous). I'm curious how the veracity of the emails was confirmed. Though, it should be noted that Don Trump Jr confirmed the meetings and the general progression of events, so at present I have little reason to doubt the veracity of the wording.

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15953204/donald-trump-jr-emails-russia

Don Jr tweeted out screenshots of the actual email exchange so the wording is quite accurate.  No word on the post meeting follow-up emails...
Yep, he tweeted them out.
How fucking stupid is he? Did he really think this would help him? Wow. Or is he assuming the world is as Sol says it is and the Trumps have some sort of teflon immunity?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TornWonder on July 11, 2017, 12:19:51 PM
"But Benghazi!"

See how easy that is?  We don't need to worry about

colluding with the Russians
no evidence of this
Quote
or sexual assaults
no evidence of this
Quote
or fraud convictions
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime
Quote
or the emolument clause
people that use this as argument against Donald Trump obviously don't understand what it is
Quote
or hidden tax returns
what purpose would releasing them do, would it change your opinion of him to see a clean tax return with no ties to Russian companies, or would you probably still hate him?
Quote
or six bankruptcies
out of hundreds of enterprises he created
Quote
or martial infidelities
at least he got them out of the way before he entered office?
Quote
or demonizing immigrants
only criminal ones
Quote
or voter suppression
of illegal voters
Quote
or enciting violence against the free press
tweeting a gif is inciting violence?  I hope you're joking
Quote
or carny hands
you're body shaming now?

Quote
.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.
Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.

Quote
Trump could go on Fox and say "of course I colluded with the Russians to beat crooked Hillary, I had to do it to make America great again" and his supporters world lap it up.  They don't care that it's illegal or immoral or that he previously denied it.  Nothing matters anymore.  He's untouchable.
Is there anything Trump could do that would give you a positive opinion of him?  If not, aren't you simply the opposite side of the coin you claim to hate.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dabnasty on July 11, 2017, 12:32:08 PM
no evidence of this

Careful, it's a black hole. Anyone going in?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dabnasty on July 11, 2017, 12:39:43 PM
Could anyone give a solid explanation as to the legal implications of what Donald Jr. has admitted to?

It certainly seems suspicious and dirty but honestly I don't know what is and isn't allowed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 11, 2017, 12:42:57 PM
Quote
or fraud convictions
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime

That's true.  Trump has settled out of court on hundreds of cases to make them go away.  Most recently he settled one of the Trump University lawsuits by paying the plaintiffs 25 million dollars.  Sol should have used:

Quote
or fraud convictions
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 11, 2017, 12:44:53 PM
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime

Quote
.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.
Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.

Hillary Clinton has never been convicted of any crime.

Pot - meet kettle.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 11, 2017, 12:46:53 PM
Donald Trump committed fraud in his charity foundation. He was informed by the IRS of self-dealing. He had to correct this.
Are you saying because he corrected the self dealing that he didn't commit a crime?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 11, 2017, 01:07:09 PM
Could anyone give a solid explanation as to the legal implications of what Donald Jr. has admitted to?

It certainly seems suspicious and dirty but honestly I don't know what is and isn't allowed.

I am no expert but the majority of op-eds I've read so far trend more towards "what he did was contemptible and should have no place in American democracy, might technically along very (very) narrow legal lines have been illegal, even, but probably isn't prosecutable."

Kind of like sharing crucial intel with a non-ally that probably got operatives killed and at a minimum damaged relations with an actual ally who is crucial to our middle east policy. Not technically illegal if the president did it, so it's all good, right?

Anyway, the consensus still seems to be that proof of a cover up is the most likely path towards criminal charges for most of these guys.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dabnasty on July 11, 2017, 01:10:23 PM
Quote
or enciting violence against the free press
tweeting a gif is inciting violence?  I hope you're joking
Twitter is a means of communication, if words can incite violence then so can gifs. More importantly, do you think this is the only instance of Trump inciting violence against the press? calling the media the "enemy of the American people" sounds rather inciteful to me.
Quote
or carny hands
you're body shaming now?
This is not a joke about his hands, it's a joke about his ego. Graydon Carter referred to Trump as "short-fingered" in Spy Magazine in 1988. Since then Trump has periodically mailed pictures of himself to Carter with his hands circled to indicate they are normal sized. He even received one that said "See, not so short" written in gold sharpie just before Trump announced his nomination. 28 years later.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 11, 2017, 01:22:42 PM
Could anyone give a solid explanation as to the legal implications of what Donald Jr. has admitted to?

It certainly seems suspicious and dirty but honestly I don't know what is and isn't allowed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

Quote
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

Quote
A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

So almost everyone agrees - he, at the very least, violated campaign finance law.  I think there will need to be something more to prove anything beyond that.  Of course, the investigations are still ongoing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 11, 2017, 01:36:04 PM

or sexual assaults
no evidence of this

Except Trump admitted to it. If you want to keep defending sexual assault I doubt you'll last long on these boards and rightfully so.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TornWonder on July 11, 2017, 01:38:41 PM
Quote
or fraud convictions
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime

That's true.  Trump has settled out of court on hundreds of cases to make them go away.  Most recently he settled one of the Trump University lawsuits by paying the plaintiffs 25 million dollars.  Sol should have used:

Quote
or fraud convictions

He has settled a lawsuit, in civil court.  For him to be convicted of a crime, he would have to be tried in a criminal court, which has never happened.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on July 11, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
I try not to publicly waste too much time shit talking Trumps family. I don't believe they are as ignorant or potentially mentally ill as Trump himself is. By that standard they appear very normal and maybe even well adjusted. But I do think at this point none of them are worth defending from a political standpoint because it has been made evident that they are 100% loyal to Trump.

His kids, in-laws and his wife all relentlessly cover for him even when their narrative runs counter to the truth staring you right in the face. I kind of get it, its a tough road if your daddy is a public figure and a piece of shit. I can't say I wouldn't roll with it and defend him if I were in their place. I mean why should I give a shit about the American public, the media or the truth over my own father if he treats me well and looks out for me?

But that is exactly the reason none of those people should be in any appointed position of power or influence within our government. Clearly all of his family are too conflicted to act in anyone's interest but their own families.

The only silver lining, for a more left leaning person, that may come out of Trump is that we may actually see a congress willing to cut back on some of the presidential overreached we were all too happy to allow in the Bush and Obama years.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TornWonder on July 11, 2017, 01:47:13 PM

or sexual assaults
no evidence of this

Except Trump admitted to it. If you want to keep defending sexual assault I doubt you'll last long on these boards and rightfully so.

I'm not defending sexual assault, I'm defending against false accusations.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 11, 2017, 01:50:05 PM
Quote
or fraud convictions
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime

That's true.  Trump has settled out of court on hundreds of cases to make them go away.  Most recently he settled one of the Trump University lawsuits by paying the plaintiffs 25 million dollars.  Sol should have used:

Quote
or fraud convictions

Trump is guilty of fraud.  Not just settling lawsuits, actually losing lawsuits.  Multiple lawsuits, where a judge declared him guilty.  His supporters claim this doesn't count because it is his family businesses and subsidiaries that have been convicted, not him personally, but I don't see the distinction.

So I comfortably stand by my earlier statement.  Trump is guilty of fraud, and it still doesn't matter at all to his supporters.  Just like it didn't matter when he admitted sexual assault, or colluding with the Russians, or tax evasion, or taking payments from foreign governments, or anything else.

Yep, he tweeted them out.
How fucking stupid is he? Did he really think this would help him? Wow. Or is he assuming the world is as Sol says it is and the Trumps have some sort of teflon immunity?

Trump junior only released the emails because he knew the times was going to do it mere hours later, and it looks better to release incriminating evidence yourself than to have it uncovered by investigative journalists.  He didn't release then to clear himself, he released them as damage control.  Notice the headlines are all "Tump junior releases..." instead of "NYTimes reveals..."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dabnasty on July 11, 2017, 01:59:58 PM
Trump junior only released the emails because he knew the times was going to do it mere hours later, and it looks better to release incriminating evidence yourself than to have it uncovered by investigative journalists.  He didn't release then to clear himself, he released them as damage control.  Notice the headlines are all "Tump junior releases..." instead of "NYTimes reveals..."
And now Trump supporters can say "this can't really be incriminating, no one is that stupid."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dabnasty on July 11, 2017, 02:05:09 PM

or sexual assaults
no evidence of this

Except Trump admitted to it. If you want to keep defending sexual assault I doubt you'll last long on these boards and rightfully so.

I'm not defending sexual assault, I'm defending against false accusations.
So Trump made a false accusation against himself?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OneCoolCat on July 11, 2017, 02:40:59 PM
"But Benghazi!"

See how easy that is?  We don't need to worry about

colluding with the Russians
no evidence of this
Quote
or sexual assaults
no evidence of this
Quote
or fraud convictions
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime
Quote
or the emolument clause
people that use this as argument against Donald Trump obviously don't understand what it is
Quote
or hidden tax returns
what purpose would releasing them do, would it change your opinion of him to see a clean tax return with no ties to Russian companies, or would you probably still hate him?
Quote
or six bankruptcies
out of hundreds of enterprises he created
Quote
or martial infidelities
at least he got them out of the way before he entered office?
Quote
or demonizing immigrants
only criminal ones
Quote
or voter suppression
of illegal voters
Quote
or enciting violence against the free press
tweeting a gif is inciting violence?  I hope you're joking
Quote
or carny hands
you're body shaming now?

Quote
.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.
Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.

Quote
Trump could go on Fox and say "of course I colluded with the Russians to beat crooked Hillary, I had to do it to make America great again" and his supporters world lap it up.  They don't care that it's illegal or immoral or that he previously denied it.  Nothing matters anymore.  He's untouchable.
Is there anything Trump could do that would give you a positive opinion of him? If not, aren't you simply the opposite side of the coin you claim to hate.

He could resign from office.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 11, 2017, 03:54:19 PM

or sexual assaults
no evidence of this

Except Trump admitted to it. If you want to keep defending sexual assault I doubt you'll last long on these boards and rightfully so.

I'm not defending sexual assault, I'm defending against false accusations.

You missed the bolded part. Try again?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 11, 2017, 04:09:39 PM
He has settled a lawsuit, in civil court.  For him to be convicted of a crime, he would have to be tried in a criminal court, which has never happened.

Quote
.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.
Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.

Can you point to the criminal court case where Hillary was tried and convicted?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 11, 2017, 04:25:16 PM
He has settled a lawsuit, in civil court.  For him to be convicted of a crime, he would have to be tried in a criminal court, which has never happened.

Quote
.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.
Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.

Can you point to the criminal court case where Hillary was tried and convicted?

You're banging your head on a brick troll wall.  In the brave new world of Trump's America, Hillary is a criminal without ever appearing in court, but Trump is innocent after literal convictions.

Also, Hillary was working with Russians, Hillary is too old to be president, Hillary is too secretive, Hillary disclosed classified information, Hillary is in the pocket of wall street, and Hillary wants to ruin healthcare.  Not Trump though, he's innocent of all of those charges.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on July 11, 2017, 04:31:58 PM
Stop trying to convert Trump supporters.  It’s a lost cause.  They belong to a cult.  They would live, die or kill for him I think.  At a certain point, they went all in, and there is no leaving the cult.  Any action of his is justifiable.  They will rationalize away actions that they would disown their own family members for. 

I don’t get it, but I think, at some level, he just “feels” right to these people.  I have a visceral distaste for the man that runs deep, but these people look at him and the things he does and says and they feel warm and happy inside.  I have a hard time even looking at his face (and I think that is part of the appeal too for Trumpers).  They love that he pisses liberals off.

It doesn’t matter what he does, legal or illegal.  It doesn’t matter what his policies are.  It doesn’t even matter that his policies will likely hurt them personally.   The only thing that matters is that he makes them feel better about themselves.  The rest is just irrelevant.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on July 11, 2017, 04:47:16 PM
Stop trying to convert Trump supporters.  It’s a lost cause.  They belong to a cult.  They would live, die or kill for him I think.  At a certain point, they went all in, and there is no leaving the cult.  Any action of his is justifiable.  They will rationalize away actions that they would disown their own family members for. 

I don’t get it, but I think, at some level, he just “feels” right to these people.  I have a visceral distaste for the man that runs deep, but these people look at him and the things he does and says and they feel warm and happy inside.  I have a hard time even looking at his face (and I think that is part of the appeal too for Trumpers).  They love that he pisses liberals off.

It doesn’t matter what he does, legal or illegal.  It doesn’t matter what his policies are.  It doesn’t even matter that his policies will likely hurt them personally.   The only thing that matters is that he makes them feel better about themselves.  The rest is just irrelevant.

Agreed. They wouldn't care if he literally destroyed the country, as long as it pissed liberals off.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 11, 2017, 05:11:49 PM
Sure looks like Donald Trump junior is going to jail.

Any bets on how long the presidential pardon takes?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 11, 2017, 05:23:39 PM
Sure looks like Donald Trump junior is going to jail.

Any bets on how long the presidential pardon takes?

He can pardon preemptively a la Ford/Nixon. I'm surprised he hasn't pardoned his entire family and everyone he likes for everything they may have done already.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 11, 2017, 06:36:05 PM
Sure looks like Donald Trump junior is going to jail.

Any bets on how long the presidential pardon takes?

He can pardon preemptively a la Ford/Nixon. I'm surprised he hasn't pardoned his entire family and everyone he likes for everything they may have done already.

He could preemptively pardon himself?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 11, 2017, 06:51:24 PM
Kristof's column about the implications of Donald Jr.'s emails are spelled out really well.

"This is also arguably “soft collusion,” acceptance of a foreign power’s interference in an election for one’s own benefit. Whether there was a quid pro quo and “hard collusion,” we’ll have to see. We do have the outlines of a quid pro quo, in which each side was signalling what it wanted: The Trump campaign wanted dirt on the Clintons, and Russia wanted an easing of sanctions if Trump was elected.
After this meeting, the Trumps or the White House denied at least eight times that such a meeting had taken place. That is duplicity on top of collusion."


The Trumps Embraced a Russian Plot
https://nyti.ms/2u4r5t0 via @NickKristof
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 11, 2017, 08:20:59 PM
There may be something tangible in this latest brouhaha.  Problem is all the previous "cry wolf" episodes of "this is finally the thing that will bring Trump down" that ultimately evaporated. 

As with any cry wolf situation, sometimes there really is a wolf but too often there isn't.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 11, 2017, 08:47:37 PM
There may be something tangible in this latest brouhaha.  Problem is all the previous "cry wolf" episodes of "this is finally the thing that will bring Trump down" that ultimately evaporated. 

As with any cry wolf situation, sometimes there really is a wolf but too often there isn't.

I'm sure Trump tries to make things look like wolves merely crying by blocking evidence from being discovered - so he fired Comey.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 11, 2017, 08:54:05 PM
I'm sure Trump tries to make things look like wolves merely crying by blocking evidence from being discovered - so he fired Comey.
How does firing Comey block evidence from being discovered? 

For background, I'm assuming the head of the FBI is analogous to the CEO of some science-based company.  The CEO doesn't personally discover new products, the R&D folks do.  Similarly, the head of the FBI doesn't personally discover evidence, the agents in the FBI do.  I don't have personal knowledge of the FBI's inner workings so that assumption may be incorrect.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 11, 2017, 10:19:12 PM
That's a question to ask Trump
Trump to NBC: "When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story."

Firing Comey was meant to send a message to the FBI to stop investigating the "made up story."

Maybe the FBI agents you refer to are going to go real slow.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 12, 2017, 04:31:41 AM
The FBI director determines which cases to investigate and where the department outlays its resources, not unlike a CEO.  He (or she) could assign an entire task force to investigate someone or something - conversely s/he could reduce or completely eliminate investigative resources.

none of this is to say that the firing of Comey has done this, but one popular explanation for his firing is that DJT wanted the investigation(s) to end.  Trump himself helped fuel this speculation by publically stating that he fired Comey over that "Russia thing".
A more forgiving explanation would be that Trump feels there is nothing there, and felt persecuted by the investigation and decided to end it. But even that explanation implies that he hoped Comey's firing would end the investigation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: ncornilsen on July 12, 2017, 09:53:13 AM
The FBI director determines which cases to investigate and where the department outlays its resources, not unlike a CEO.  He (or she) could assign an entire task force to investigate someone or something - conversely s/he could reduce or completely eliminate investigative resources.

none of this is to say that the firing of Comey has done this, but one popular explanation for his firing is that DJT wanted the investigation(s) to end.  Trump himself helped fuel this speculation by publically stating that he fired Comey over that "Russia thing".
A more forgiving explanation would be that Trump feels there is nothing there, and felt persecuted by the investigation and decided to end it. But even that explanation implies that he hoped Comey's firing would end the investigation.

I think Trump had a good case to fire Comey. He willingly came out and told the world that Clinton wasn't under investigation... for whatever reason. He refused to do the same thing for Trump when he wasn't under investigation... seeming to want the speculation to continue to damage Trump.

Anyway, looks like Donny JR is in hot water. If he is guilty, I hope he is punished to the full extent of the law, along with anyone else who was directly and provably involved. As far as I'm concerned, trump has accomplished the mission I had in mind - ending Hillary Clinton's political career. Impeach the fucker for all I care now.

Also, I would agree that almost all of Trumps support centers around how much he pisses liberals off. Look at the headlines on shitbart: "obama FURIOUS this or that" etc. If he were to back off on the controversy, he'd loose this support.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on July 12, 2017, 10:15:36 AM
The FBI director determines which cases to investigate and where the department outlays its resources, not unlike a CEO.  He (or she) could assign an entire task force to investigate someone or something - conversely s/he could reduce or completely eliminate investigative resources.

none of this is to say that the firing of Comey has done this, but one popular explanation for his firing is that DJT wanted the investigation(s) to end.  Trump himself helped fuel this speculation by publically stating that he fired Comey over that "Russia thing".
A more forgiving explanation would be that Trump feels there is nothing there, and felt persecuted by the investigation and decided to end it. But even that explanation implies that he hoped Comey's firing would end the investigation.

I think Trump had a good case to fire Comey. He willingly came out and told the world that Clinton wasn't under investigation... for whatever reason. He refused to do the same thing for Trump when he wasn't under investigation... seeming to want the speculation to continue to damage Trump.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the difference is Clinton wasn't under investigation, and there was minimal chance that she would be after that point. Whereas with Trump, the odds of him subsequently becoming the subject of an investigation were/are much, much higher. Saying Trump wasn't under investigation and then having him come under investigation would have been a huge problem.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 12, 2017, 10:17:41 AM
I'm sure Trump tries to make things look like wolves merely crying by blocking evidence from being discovered - so he fired Comey.
How does firing Comey block evidence from being discovered? 

For background, I'm assuming the head of the FBI is analogous to the CEO of some science-based company.  The CEO doesn't personally discover new products, the R&D folks do.  Similarly, the head of the FBI doesn't personally discover evidence, the agents in the FBI do.  I don't have personal knowledge of the FBI's inner workings so that assumption may be incorrect.

Also, anyone with half a brain (which, unfortunately, the US President lacks) would have known that firing the FBI director would bring MORE scrutiny, not less.

However, I'm starting to be swayed by the argument that Trump is just a dummy (along with a sexual predator and a liar, etc.) and he really didn't do anything knowingly with Russia, but his entire campaign staff, close advisers, and family, were basically owned by Russia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on July 12, 2017, 10:34:44 AM
The FBI director determines which cases to investigate and where the department outlays its resources, not unlike a CEO.  He (or she) could assign an entire task force to investigate someone or something - conversely s/he could reduce or completely eliminate investigative resources.

none of this is to say that the firing of Comey has done this, but one popular explanation for his firing is that DJT wanted the investigation(s) to end.  Trump himself helped fuel this speculation by publically stating that he fired Comey over that "Russia thing".
A more forgiving explanation would be that Trump feels there is nothing there, and felt persecuted by the investigation and decided to end it. But even that explanation implies that he hoped Comey's firing would end the investigation.

I think Trump had a good case to fire Comey. He willingly came out and told the world that Clinton wasn't under investigation... for whatever reason. He refused to do the same thing for Trump when he wasn't under investigation... seeming to want the speculation to continue to damage Trump.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the difference is Clinton wasn't under investigation, and there was minimal chance that she would be after that point. Whereas with Trump, the odds of him subsequently becoming the subject of an investigation were/are much, much higher. Saying Trump wasn't under investigation and then having him come under investigation would have been a huge problem.

Exactly. As Comey himself stated. The investigation into Clinton was pretty much done. The Trump campaign investigations were just beginning, and as he said during the hearings, the FBI is very wary of saying someone is not under investigation, because of the subsequent obligation to correct such a statement creates if further down the road the situation changes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on July 12, 2017, 11:19:12 AM
Huh.

Quite a "coincidence."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: redbirdfan on July 12, 2017, 09:45:47 PM
I highly doubt that Trump didn't know about the meeting.  His son, son-in-law and campaign manager had the meeting in the same place where Trump lived and worked at the time.  I would be shocked if the Secret Service didn't have to clear everyone who entered Trump Tower to meet with Trump, Jr. and/or the campaign manager.  Even if Jr., Manafort and Kushner ALL somehow initially forgot about the meeting AND the email chain I cannot believe that they were not reminded of the just-released email chain after: 1) the DNC was hacked and the emails were leaked; 2) Podesta's emails were hacked; 3) Wikileaks started dumping emails right after the Access Hollywood tape broke.  Keep in mind that Trump stated that Chris Christie had to know about Bridgegate because those closely associated with him orchestrated it/knew about it. 

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/262394-trump-christie-totally-knew-about-bridgegate


I am (or was) a moderate Republican and am amazed, shocked and saddened that the party is tying itself in knots to deny the obvious.  Who gives a damn if any of this was technically illegal.  The bar for ethics, patriotism and civility should not be at the front door of a prison.  This administration has spent the last year feigning ignorance and outrage about the mere possibility that there was any collusion.  Now the party line seems to be that collusion isn't a crime and anyone would be remiss not to do opposition research with an adversarial foreign government.  We are well past the looking glass here.  No tax cuts, healthcare reform or Supreme Court justice is worth this.  The fact that this is up for debate shows that we have already lost. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on July 13, 2017, 01:24:53 AM
I highly doubt that Trump didn't know about the meeting.  His son, son-in-law and campaign manager had the meeting in the same place where Trump lived and worked at the time.  I would be shocked if the Secret Service didn't have to clear everyone who entered Trump Tower to meet with Trump, Jr. and/or the campaign manager.  Even if Jr., Manafort and Kushner ALL somehow initially forgot about the meeting AND the email chain I cannot believe that they were not reminded of the just-released email chain after: 1) the DNC was hacked and the emails were leaked; 2) Podesta's emails were hacked; 3) Wikileaks started dumping emails right after the Access Hollywood tape broke.  Keep in mind that Trump stated that Chris Christie had to know about Bridgegate because those closely associated with him orchestrated it/knew about it. 

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/262394-trump-christie-totally-knew-about-bridgegate


I am (or was) a moderate Republican and am amazed, shocked and saddened that the party is tying itself in knots to deny the obvious.  Who gives a damn if any of this was technically illegal.  The bar for ethics, patriotism and civility should not be at the front door of a prison.  This administration has spent the last year feigning ignorance and outrage about the mere possibility that there was any collusion.  Now the party line seems to be that collusion isn't a crime and anyone would be remiss not to do opposition research with an adversarial foreign government.  We are well past the looking glass here.  No tax cuts, healthcare reform or Supreme Court justice is worth this.  The fact that this is up for debate shows that we have already lost.
Post of the day.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on July 13, 2017, 06:04:55 AM
I highly doubt that Trump didn't know about the meeting.  His son, son-in-law and campaign manager had the meeting in the same place where Trump lived and worked at the time.  I would be shocked if the Secret Service didn't have to clear everyone who entered Trump Tower to meet with Trump, Jr. and/or the campaign manager.  Even if Jr., Manafort and Kushner ALL somehow initially forgot about the meeting AND the email chain I cannot believe that they were not reminded of the just-released email chain after: 1) the DNC was hacked and the emails were leaked; 2) Podesta's emails were hacked; 3) Wikileaks started dumping emails right after the Access Hollywood tape broke.  Keep in mind that Trump stated that Chris Christie had to know about Bridgegate because those closely associated with him orchestrated it/knew about it. 

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/262394-trump-christie-totally-knew-about-bridgegate


I am (or was) a moderate Republican and am amazed, shocked and saddened that the party is tying itself in knots to deny the obvious.  Who gives a damn if any of this was technically illegal.  The bar for ethics, patriotism and civility should not be at the front door of a prison.  This administration has spent the last year feigning ignorance and outrage about the mere possibility that there was any collusion.  Now the party line seems to be that collusion isn't a crime and anyone would be remiss not to do opposition research with an adversarial foreign government.  We are well past the looking glass here.  No tax cuts, healthcare reform or Supreme Court justice is worth this.  The fact that this is up for debate shows that we have already lost.

Perfectly stated, redbirdfan.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 14, 2017, 08:35:07 PM
...
I am (or was) a moderate Republican and am amazed, shocked and saddened that the party is tying itself in knots to deny the obvious.  Who gives a damn if any of this was technically illegal.  The bar for ethics, patriotism and civility should not be at the front door of a prison.  This administration has spent the last year feigning ignorance and outrage about the mere possibility that there was any collusion.  Now the party line seems to be that collusion isn't a crime and anyone would be remiss not to do opposition research with an adversarial foreign government.  We are well past the looking glass here.  No tax cuts, healthcare reform or Supreme Court justice is worth this.  The fact that this is up for debate shows that we have already lost.

Great post redbirdfan.  I'm constantly wondering how those who lined up behind DJT after the convention around this time last year can come to terms with the wrenching turns he has led them through.  Colluding with Russian operatives is now something 'most anyone would do'. Medicaid has gone from something we need to protect to something we must shred. He'd appoint a special prosecutor to indite HRC his first week of office because she was the most crooked politician perhaps in history, but now apparently she never was that bad....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 14, 2017, 09:52:44 PM
He'd appoint a special prosecutor to indite HRC his first week of office because she was the most crooked politician perhaps in history, but now apparently she never was that bad....

Ironic that after calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, as soon as the election is over he admits she never actually did anything illegal, and now we have a special prosecutor (appointed by Republicans, no less) investigating Trump, instead.

But this is classic Trump.  He knows he colluded with the Russians, so he attacked Clinton for her ties to Russia.  He knows his charity is a fraud (and here I use the technical legal meaning of the word), so he attacked the Clinton foundation for being crooked.  He knows he's the oldest person ever elected to be President, in the entire history of the country, so he attacked Clinton's health and called her too frail.  He knows his immigrant wife worked illegally in the US, so he attacked illegal immigrants.  He knows he dodged the draft thee times, so he claimed to be the only candidate who supported the military.  He knows he's publicly cheated on his wives before being multiply divorced, so he attacked the Clinton family's values.  Every single weakness he has a candidate, he has instead turned into an attack ad on his opponents.

Face it folks, he a world class con man.  All fluff, no substance.  Why do you think congressional republicans are running away from him so fast?

On the bright side, now that he's in office I'm glad he's too teflon for anything to stick.  Impeachment would be a godsend for the conservatives because it would get ride of the single biggest obstacle to enacting their agenda.  I hope Trump keeps on keeping on being Trump, making fun of disabled people, calling women fat and stupid, bragging about pussy grabbing, praising the Russians, taking payments from foreign governments, pushing that Mexico wall, crying about healthcare, the works.  He's like a liberal Manchurian Candidate, sabotaging the tea party from the inside by pretending to be their most stalwart champion.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on July 17, 2017, 07:38:36 AM
He'd appoint a special prosecutor to indite HRC his first week of office because she was the most crooked politician perhaps in history, but now apparently she never was that bad....

Ironic that after calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, as soon as the election is over he admits she never actually did anything illegal, and now we have a special prosecutor (appointed by Republicans, no less) investigating Trump, instead.

But this is classic Trump.  He knows he colluded with the Russians, so he attacked Clinton for her ties to Russia.  He knows his charity is a fraud (and here I use the technical legal meaning of the word), so he attacked the Clinton foundation for being crooked.  He knows he's the oldest person ever elected to be President, in the entire history of the country, so he attacked Clinton's health and called her too frail.  He knows his immigrant wife worked illegally in the US, so he attacked illegal immigrants.  He knows he dodged the draft thee times, so he claimed to be the only candidate who supported the military.  He knows he's publicly cheated on his wives before being multiply divorced, so he attacked the Clinton family's values.  Every single weakness he has a candidate, he has instead turned into an attack ad on his opponents.

Face it folks, he a world class con man.  All fluff, no substance.  Why do you think congressional republicans are running away from him so fast?

On the bright side, now that he's in office I'm glad he's too teflon for anything to stick.  Impeachment would be a godsend for the conservatives because it would get ride of the single biggest obstacle to enacting their agenda.  I hope Trump keeps on keeping on being Trump, making fun of disabled people, calling women fat and stupid, bragging about pussy grabbing, praising the Russians, taking payments from foreign governments, pushing that Mexico wall, crying about healthcare, the works.  He's like a liberal Manchurian Candidate, sabotaging the tea party from the inside by pretending to be their most stalwart champion.

We don't agree on a lot, but I agree wit you on this.  If Trump is out and Pence survives the fallout or worst case scenario, Paul Ryan steps up then it is all aboard the conservative fail train.  Let Trump limp along until at least 2018 after the Left recovers the house and senate.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Unique User on July 18, 2017, 09:30:00 AM
He'd appoint a special prosecutor to indite HRC his first week of office because she was the most crooked politician perhaps in history, but now apparently she never was that bad....

Ironic that after calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, as soon as the election is over he admits she never actually did anything illegal, and now we have a special prosecutor (appointed by Republicans, no less) investigating Trump, instead.

But this is classic Trump.  He knows he colluded with the Russians, so he attacked Clinton for her ties to Russia.  He knows his charity is a fraud (and here I use the technical legal meaning of the word), so he attacked the Clinton foundation for being crooked.  He knows he's the oldest person ever elected to be President, in the entire history of the country, so he attacked Clinton's health and called her too frail.  He knows his immigrant wife worked illegally in the US, so he attacked illegal immigrants.  He knows he dodged the draft thee times, so he claimed to be the only candidate who supported the military.  He knows he's publicly cheated on his wives before being multiply divorced, so he attacked the Clinton family's values.  Every single weakness he has a candidate, he has instead turned into an attack ad on his opponents.

Face it folks, he a world class con man.  All fluff, no substance.  Why do you think congressional republicans are running away from him so fast?

On the bright side, now that he's in office I'm glad he's too teflon for anything to stick.  Impeachment would be a godsend for the conservatives because it would get ride of the single biggest obstacle to enacting their agenda.  I hope Trump keeps on keeping on being Trump, making fun of disabled people, calling women fat and stupid, bragging about pussy grabbing, praising the Russians, taking payments from foreign governments, pushing that Mexico wall, crying about healthcare, the works.  He's like a liberal Manchurian Candidate, sabotaging the tea party from the inside by pretending to be their most stalwart champion.

We don't agree on a lot, but I agree wit you on this.  If Trump is out and Pence survives the fallout or worst case scenario, Paul Ryan steps up then it is all aboard the conservative fail train.  Let Trump limp along until at least 2018 after the Left recovers the house and senate.

If Trump is out, the GOP will be so damaged they will not be able to enact anything.  I do agree the longer it drags on, the closer we get to  mid-terms.  That said, as fast as this thing is going, I'll be surprised if Trump is still in by early 2018
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 18, 2017, 10:00:00 AM

If Trump is out, the GOP will be so damaged they will not be able to enact anything.  I do agree the longer it drags on, the closer we get to  mid-terms.  That said, as fast as this thing is going, I'll be surprised if Trump is still in by early 2018

I have a high degree of confidence that Trump will last through the midterms.  Here's why
Forcing him our will involve drafting articles of impeachment, BUT those articles must come from the House (currently controlled by the GOP) and by precedence would be drafted by the House Oversight Committee (chaired by Gowdy - R/SC).
Nothing to date has shown that the House is willing to tolerate articles of impeachment so far - suggesting we'd need something substantially more damning to go down this route so long as the GOP holds the majority.  What that could be I'd only hazard a guess.

Even if articles were drafted, it would be followed by months of high-drama testomonies and a trial, none of which the GOP wants.  They'll avoid this at all costs, up and until it become apparent that NOT doing so will cost them their seats.  Unfortunately, too many are in such ridiculously safe districts that there's no reason for them to set fire to their own boat while they're still in it.

Trump could quit and resign, but this seems unlike too - while he's been infurated by circumstances thus far he seems to adore the title and is convinced not only that he's done nothing wrong, but that everything would be "great" if people would just do what he says.

The wildcard is still Mueller, and DJT's team seems busy laying the groundwork to discredit him already.  FBI investigations though typically take upwards of a few years, and we're on month 2.  Plus, the huge scope of this investigation on so many fronts suggests it will take longer than other investigations. Even if Mueller has found criminal wrongdoing the indictments won't come out until the end when he's confident he's learned all he can from the investigative portion. I don't expect to hear anything from Mueller until 2018 at the earliest.

Interestingly, I think the most probable scenario is a strong GOP challenger to the incumbent DJT during the 2020 primary. This is something we haven't seen in over a generation - Buchanan held a lackluster challenge to H.W. in 92, but the last time a GOP seriously challenged the incumbent president was Reagan in 1980.  I think this scenario will become much more likely should the GOP lose the house in 2018 and with it whatever ability they could have had to draft legislation in committee and get sent to the WH.
If this happens get ready for a stream of attack ads from within the GOP about how Trump has been a false republican, and all the counter-punching we saw during the 2016 GOP primary taken up a new level.  DJT demands loyalty above all else, so any factions that challenge him will become 'the enemy' with no holds barred. Maybe the GOP will split, which I wouldn't necessarily consider a bad thing (indeed, I think it would be great if both the Dems and Reps split into 2 or more parties). 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 18, 2017, 11:39:26 AM

If Trump is out, the GOP will be so damaged they will not be able to enact anything.  I do agree the longer it drags on, the closer we get to  mid-terms.  That said, as fast as this thing is going, I'll be surprised if Trump is still in by early 2018

I have a high degree of confidence that Trump will last through the midterms.  Here's why
Forcing him our will involve drafting articles of impeachment, BUT those articles must come from the House (currently controlled by the GOP) and by precedence would be drafted by the House Oversight Committee (chaired by Gowdy - R/SC).
Nothing to date has shown that the House is willing to tolerate articles of impeachment so far - suggesting we'd need something substantially more damning to go down this route so long as the GOP holds the majority.  What that could be I'd only hazard a guess.

Even if articles were drafted, it would be followed by months of high-drama testomonies and a trial, none of which the GOP wants.  They'll avoid this at all costs, up and until it become apparent that NOT doing so will cost them their seats.  Unfortunately, too many are in such ridiculously safe districts that there's no reason for them to set fire to their own boat while they're still in it.

Trump could quit and resign, but this seems unlike too - while he's been infurated by circumstances thus far he seems to adore the title and is convinced not only that he's done nothing wrong, but that everything would be "great" if people would just do what he says.

The wildcard is still Mueller, and DJT's team seems busy laying the groundwork to discredit him already.  FBI investigations though typically take upwards of a few years, and we're on month 2.  Plus, the huge scope of this investigation on so many fronts suggests it will take longer than other investigations. Even if Mueller has found criminal wrongdoing the indictments won't come out until the end when he's confident he's learned all he can from the investigative portion. I don't expect to hear anything from Mueller until 2018 at the earliest.

Interestingly, I think the most probable scenario is a strong GOP challenger to the incumbent DJT during the 2020 primary. This is something we haven't seen in over a generation - Buchanan held a lackluster challenge to H.W. in 92, but the last time a GOP seriously challenged the incumbent president was Reagan in 1980.  I think this scenario will become much more likely should the GOP lose the house in 2018 and with it whatever ability they could have had to draft legislation in committee and get sent to the WH.
If this happens get ready for a stream of attack ads from within the GOP about how Trump has been a false republican, and all the counter-punching we saw during the 2016 GOP primary taken up a new level.  DJT demands loyalty above all else, so any factions that challenge him will become 'the enemy' with no holds barred. Maybe the GOP will split, which I wouldn't necessarily consider a bad thing (indeed, I think it would be great if both the Dems and Reps split into 2 or more parties).

I feel like this is a careful what you wish for proposition, but I still think it would be hilarious if Dwayne Johnson ran against him in the Republican primary.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 18, 2017, 11:59:25 AM
Is "the rock" a republican?
It would be a curious spectacle though.  What's DJT going to argue, that he lacks sufficient experience?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 18, 2017, 12:07:33 PM
...he lacks sufficient experience?
One can make a reasonable case that nobody has sufficient experience.  Some state governors may have the most - a combination of leadership responsibility and the need to negotiate with a legislative body.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 18, 201