Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Aridas]

I suppose you don't drive a car? If you are, doesn't this make you a polluter?

If these polluters are your enemy, why aren't you bike riding?

Giving a nonsensical reply doesn't help your case. At what point did I claim that polluters are "the enemy?" Coal is in decline because, overall, there are notably better alternatives, economically, even if the regulations were to be largely lifted. Big Oil wants to focus more on natural gas anyways as oil continually gets harder to obtain. Clean energy has been growing quite quickly and significantly, on top of that. It's much less of an actual hardship on the US than Trump and the rest of the climate change deniers want to portray it as.

One of the more interesting points I've heard made, by the way, is that staying in the Paris Accords and selling more of the increasing amount of "green" energy that we have available to the rest of the world, rather than having them buy fossil fuels from the Middle East, would rather certainly do notably more to help the US in quite a few ways than just leaving the already non-binding and voluntary Paris Accords could ever hope to do.

Of course, given that this is the Trump + Russia thread, I may as well wonder if your understanding of that matter is on par with Fox News' "understanding" that colluding with Russia with regards to the Presidential election wouldn't have been a crime?

 

[Aridas]

So both Sessions and Nunes now have volunteered faux recusals.

Ugh. It was barely alright when Nunes was supposedly just keeping up to date with the investigation. This would be outright violating the recusal, though.

Whatsisname had a phone call with the Russian guy between when Trump was elected and when he took office, and during that call there was discussion of Obama's sanctions. It may not have been "yuge" bad-doings, but it was definitely a breach of protocol. Not proof of collusion, but certainly disallowed.

Sounds like Flynn.

Brennan testified that there was sufficient contact between people associated with Trump's campaign and known Russian operatives to raise suspicion and merit an investigation. Not proof of collusion though.

That sounds rather off. Taken in context, didn't Brennan more specifically say that it was his job to present evidence/do intelligence, not to rule on what the implications of that evidence are or whether a crime actually was committed? It's true that he didn't directly say that there was proof of collusion and for us to make unsubstantiated conclusions that there was collusion based on such would be irresponsible, but your interpretation that he said that there wasn't proof of collusion here seems to be stretching a bit, too, for much the same reasons.

And yet, you were perfectly willing to support a candidate whose entire campaign consisted of "rabid, frothing at the mouth appeals to emotion". How, exactly, does that square with your noble defense of "logic, reason and rationality"?

Did Emily's Cat actually support Trump or Putin? Either way, a bad argument is a bad argument. Calling out a bad argument for being a bad argument does not constitute support or opposition for what the argument was being used to try to do. Opposing the claim that "Trump sky-dived in a mini-skirt and faulty parachute" is not actually opposing the claim that "Trump is an idiot," for example.

 

[jimbob]

I comment on the system. Very rarely do I have an opinion on the political policy (president should do X, Congress should vote Y).

Yes, and most of your comments are inane as a result of attempting to fit reality to your inaccurate and idealised view of the system.

 

[TofuFighter]

Most of congress, then? Seriously, how many mansions and luxury items do the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Obamas, the McCains, etc. have? Pretty much any of our well-established senators or house representatives have a substantial volume of luxuries, mansions, etc. as a result of them being involved in politics for their whole careers.

I suspect this is substantially true of most life-long politicians in any country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth

All 49 of whom combined own less than 10% of Putin's estimated net worth.

 

[Belz...]

stunning approval rates at home

Oh, my. For someone who espouses conspiracy theories about how evil the US government is, you sure accept _Russian_ government propaganda as fact rather easily.

 

[Tony Stark]

Oh, my. For someone who espouses conspiracy theories about how evil the US government is, you sure accept _Russian_ government propaganda as fact rather easily.

Russia is anti west so therefore (some) people that don't like the west swallow Russian propaganda.

 

[Childlike Empress]

 

[TofuFighter]

In Russia, bird flips you. Putin's pretty manly though. Doubt he'll be troubled.

 

[Tony Stark]

Birds like Bernie Sanders too.

Therefore Putin isn't so terrible and Trump is right for sucking his cock.

 

[quadraginta]

Ugh. It was barely alright when Nunes was supposedly just keeping up to date with the investigation. This would be outright violating the recusal, though.

Since his recusal was self-imposed and voluntary, with no legal obligation, to say he "violated" it is a bit misleading. More like he decided he didn't want to do that any more.

<snip>

Did Emily's Cat actually support Trump or Putin? Either way, a bad argument is a bad argument. Calling out a bad argument for being a bad argument does not constitute support or opposition for what the argument was being used to try to do. Opposing the claim that "Trump sky-dived in a mini-skirt and faulty parachute" is not actually opposing the claim that "Trump is an idiot," for example.

This would be more persuasive if, among her vigorous and unflagging explanations, apologies, and defenses for every single misstep Trump has ever made, she had ever shown even the slightest interest in calling out any bad arguments concerning Clinton.

One is forced to conclude that she had never encountered one, the odds of which are vanishingly unlikely, or otherwise that her claims to an absence of partisanship are something less than convincing.

 

[WilliamSeger]

In Russia, bird flips you.

 

[varwoche]

I'm getting pretty tired of your assumptions, varwoche. You're way off base, and it's becoming offensive.

Er, you absurdly liken Putins wealth to that of US politicians, I point out that Putin is vastly wealthy and that he didn't gain his wealth via books and speaking fees, and you find that offensive? How very unimpressive.

 

[varwoche]

Speculation, you said it. By the same crowd who assumed after they destroyed the place and impaled the man that the wealth of the Libyan nation was what Gaddafi "stole", so it was confiscated. Absurd, rotten distortions of the truth and with Putin it is even more laughable. If you know anything about the man you know that he is not after personal wealth. Unlike your idol Killary the done rightful war criminal ruler of Yankistan.

Disjointed blather.

Funny thing about my "idol" -- I didn't vote for her in 2008 nor in 2016. Nor will you find me saying positive things about her in my posting history. But other than that, I idolize her.

 

[trustbutverify]

Did Emily's Cat actually support Trump

She indicated she would have voted for Trump, had she lived in a swing state; in other words, had her vote been of any actual value to him. That's support in my book.

or Putin?

I never said EC supported Putin. Where did you get that from?

Either way, a bad argument is a bad argument. Calling out a bad argument for being a bad argument does not constitute support or opposition for what the argument was being used to try to do.

Completely irrelevant to the point I was making--i.e., posturing as the defender of "reason and rationality" and the challenger of "rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth appeals to emotion", after having supported a candidate who's entire mission in life (besides cheating people out of their money and groping women in public) is making rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth appeals to emotion, is an example of cringe level hypocrisy. Which it is.

 

[Stacko]

Congress is turning it's eye to Jared's debts.

Congressional investigators are seeking to determine whether President Trump’s son-in-law was vulnerable to Russian influence during and after the campaign because of financial stress facing his family firm’s signature real estate holding – a Manhattan skyscraper purchased at the height of the real estate boom.

And they are focused, officials told ABC News, on a December meeting Jared Kushner held with executives from a Russian bank.

“It's very peculiar that of all the people he could be talking to in a transition period where you've got lots of balls in the air, that you end up talking to a Russian banker who is under sanction and who is related to Putin and has a KGB background,” said Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. “I think the question has to be asked, was this about you trying to get financing for your troubled real estate that you have in New York City?”

The timing of Kushner’s December meeting with executives from VneshEconomBank, or VEB, at the suggestion of the Russian ambassador, has also raised concerns from government watchdog groups across the political spectrum.

 

[sts60]

Er, you absurdly liken Putins wealth to that of US politicians, I point out that Putin is vastly wealthy and that he didn't gain his wealth via books and speaking fees, and you find that offensive? How very unimpressive.

Well, it must be hard work portraying oneself as oh-so-reasonable just in the case of Trump. It's even harder when you have to stretch yourself to cover a muderous foreign kleptocrat, as opposed to the domestic non-murderous variety.

 

[Stacko]

Mueller is expanding his Trump campaign-Russia probe to include a grand jury investigation into Mike Flynn

Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating possible ties between the Trump election campaign and Russia, is expanding his probe to include a grand jury investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, three sources told Reuters.

The move means Mueller’s politically charged inquiry will now look into Flynn’s paid work as a lobbyist for a Turkish businessman in 2016, in addition to contacts between Russian officials and Flynn and other Trump associates during and after the Nov. 8 presidential election.

Federal prosecutors in Virginia are investigating a deal between Flynn and Turkish businessman Ekim Alptekin as part of a grand jury criminal probe, according to a subpoena seen by Reuters.

Alptekin’s company, Netherlands-based Inovo BV, paid Flynn's consultancy $530,000 between September and November to produce a documentary and research on Fethullah Gulen, an exiled Turkish cleric living in the United States. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan blames Gulen for a failed coup last July.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And yet, you were perfectly willing to support a candidate whose entire campaign consisted of "rabid, frothing at the mouth appeals to emotion". How, exactly, does that square with your noble defense of "logic, reason and rationality"?

False assumption. I did not support Trump.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So the United States should surrender to Putin?

You know we're not at war with Russia, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sounds like Flynn.

Sounds right, but I couldn't recall for sure and was too lazy to go look it up again.

That sounds rather off. Taken in context, didn't Brennan more specifically say that it was his job to present evidence/do intelligence, not to rule on what the implications of that evidence are or whether a crime actually was committed? It's true that he didn't directly say that there was proof of collusion and for us to make unsubstantiated conclusions that there was collusion based on such would be irresponsible, but your interpretation that he said that there wasn't proof of collusion here seems to be stretching a bit, too, for much the same reasons.

My apologies - that was poorly worded. I did not intend to imply that Brennan expressed any opinion on collusion. I should have been more explicit in my wording. It is my opinion that Brennan's testimony in and of itself doesn't represent proof of collusion, pretty much in line with what you've said.

Did Emily's Cat actually support Trump or Putin?

Nope.