Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Mumbles]

Yeah, we get that. Clinton would have campaigned differently, too, and I have no doubt she would have picked up votes in the urban areas of Texas and some Southern and Western states. That's alternative history. (I note that the Popular Vote Compact is gaining steam.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

But it's just a mistake to say that with 46% of votes cast, Trump has a mandate to radically alter U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Trump voters were promised more jobs and better, cheaper health care; they didn't vote for tax cuts for billionaires, a rejection of climate science, cuts in environmental enforcement, cuts in Medicaid, expanded drug prosecutions, confrontation with North Korea, etc., etc., not to mention Trump profiting personally from his job. Nobody wrote Trump a blank check.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12...ster-trump-swing-voters-liberal-policies.html

I'd argue that, while this is true of some, it's also true that many people voted to "build the wall", to "lock her up", who cheered in favor of attacking the media, and who openly supported state violence against minorities. This is why he's referred to as a white populist, in the 1920's style - promises of plenty for white workers, along with violence towards racial and religious minorities. Some conservatives believed the former and ignored the latter, some (eg. Frum, McMullen, the Reagan Battalion) were repulsed by the latter and noted the fraudulent nature of the former, and thus refused to support him - and many voted for him explicitly because they approved of both.

 

[Childlike Empress]

But it's just a mistake to say that with 46% of votes cast, Trump has a mandate to radically alter U.S. domestic and foreign policy. [...] Nobody wrote Trump a blank check.

Last time I've checked, he didn't have a blank check, with many of his initiatives checked and balanced. You are trying to deflect from the original point. Please note that I'm not interested in the kind of endless "argument" we have been made to witness over the last couple of pages. Thanks. A point is a point.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The anti-Clinton derail is not unique to this subforum:

A clearly exasperated White House staffer told Yahoo News they believe the continued attacks on the Clintons are an effort to satisfy Trump, who has remained fixated on his election victory. The staffer suggested this focus on the Clintons is leading to statements that don’t address the issues at hand and therefore prevent the discussion from moving on.

The staffer’s take: “The Clinton stuff is purely done to appease Trump. It’s the equivalent of giving a sick, screaming baby whiskey instead of taking them to the doctor and actually solving the problem.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/even-whi...onewalling-donald-jr-s-meeting-232113089.html

 

[Emily's Cat]

I continue to be amazed at the extent that republicans are willingly accepting Russia working to get a specific person elected as President.

This well beyond "not the party of Eisenhower" and has reached the level of "not the party of Reagan"

Russia's overwhelming support for Trump (irrespective of their work in the election) should have been a huge red flag. As in, "Wait a minute - Russia wants him to be our President? That doesn't sound good." Because communist or not, there's no reason to be thinking that Russia wants what's best for the US.

This seems naive.

Do you think that no other nations have favorites for US presidents? Do you think that all the other countries out there are completely neutral and never seek to influence the outcome of US elections to their own benefit?

The US sure as hell takes part in the elections of other countries. Sometimes subtly, sometimes not so much. It seems naive to think that the Us should be immune from that same treatment at the hands of other countries.

 

[Babbylonian]

This seems naive.

Do you think that no other nations have favorites for US presidents? Do you think that all the other countries out there are completely neutral and never seek to influence the outcome of US elections to their own benefit?

The US sure as hell takes part in the elections of other countries. Sometimes subtly, sometimes not so much. It seems naive to think that the Us should be immune from that same treatment at the hands of other countries.

Let the tu quoque flow like wine.

 

[CapelDodger]

The list includes Vladamir Putin, the ambassador to the US, a big shot banker who funds Putin's projects and who has an intelligence background, and a lawyer presented as a representative of the Russian government.

A random selection of modern Russians. That's how great Russia is these days : there are no little people. Everybody's somebody. No more nomenklatura and then everybody else like in Soviet days.

You need to try harder. A lot harder.

I think there's just a need to keep going.

 

[quadraginta]

That is a misrepresentation of the SCOTUS's position. You're shooting down a straw man. The argument is not that money is speech, the argument is that speech which you pay for is still speech.

That thar's one o' them 'distinction without a difference' thingies right thar.

It still boils down to 'all the speech you can afford'. Which means "money".

 

[skyeagle409]

The emails are not proof that anything was illegal.

In this case it is because they attended a meeting in order to collude with an adversary of the United States and it is all there in the emails.

That's a political mistake. Unless specifically asked about this by the FBI, then it's not criminal.Again, a political mistake, not a crime.

It was no mistake and they got caught red-handed.

 

[newyorkguy]

I continue to be amazed at the extent that republicans are willingly accepting Russia working to get a specific person elected as President...

I agree though Putin is revered on the far right. Especially the ultra far right:

“I’ve always seen Russia as the guardian at the gate, as the easternmost outpost of our people,” said Sam Dickson, a white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan lawyer who frequently speaks at gatherings of the so-called alt-right, a far-right fringe movement that embraces white nationalism and a range of racist and anti-immigrant positions. “They are our barrier to the Oriental invasion of our homeland and the great protector of Christendom. I admire the Russian people. They are the strongest white people on earth.” Link

Was Trump using the Putin rhetoric during his campaign to lock in the alt-right? If so, it certainly worked: on alt right websites you continue to see people refer to Donnie as "God-Emperor."

 

[CapelDodger]

A propos of not much, when President Obama said he hoped the UK would remain in the EU during the Referendum, the right-wing in this country went frickin' ape-doodle, backed-up by Fox and the GOP on his side of the Pond. For expressing an opinion, with associated reasoning.

Carry on.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is more handwaving - Donkey Don Jr was explicitly told that he was meeting with a representative of the Russian government, to be given oppo research as part of Russia's campaign to influence the US presidential election. All of these hypotheticals about "six degrees of whoever" do nothing to change this fact.

Forgive me if my google fu is failing... but didn't they meet with Natalia Veselnitskaya? She isn't a representative of the Russian government, is she?

The emails mention Russia's support of Trump, and well... duh. Who the hell else are they going to support? Clinton? Not bloody likely.

 

[Elagabalus]

I'm getting whiplash from all these "Look over there!" posts ...

 

[quadraginta]

The anti-Clinton derail is not unique to this subforum:

Originally Posted by unattributed White House staffer


<snip>

The staffer’s take: “The Clinton stuff is purely done to appease Trump. It’s the equivalent of giving a sick, screaming baby whiskey instead of taking them to the doctor and actually solving the problem.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/even-whi...onewalling-donald-jr-s-meeting-232113089.html

Is it just my imagination, or are "unattributed White House staffer" quotes increasingly using analogies to babies, infants, and small children when they discuss Trump ?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I wouldn't call it skepticism at this point. At some point the evidence reached a tipping point.

At some point, I suspect the actual real evidence *will* reach a tipping point. But a preponderance of speculation and allegation and investigation *still* isn't evidence. Otherwise we'd have to accept the "evidence" of big foot. There's a lot of speculation about big foot, and a lot of suggestion that a whole lot of things might be evidence of big foot if confirmed, and a lot of investigation into whether or not bog foot exists. There's decades worth of it. Still not evidence.

This particular exchange is highly suggestive. It is definitely worth being investigated.

But I'm still going to wait for a ruling from the people who are doing the actual investigating before insisting that proof exists.

 

[CapelDodger]

In this case it is because they attended a meeting in order to collude with an adversary of the United States and it is all there in the emails.

"Adversary" is a rather ugly word, don't you think? "Rival" seems more appropriate to a multi-polar world in a state of considerable flux.

I think Trump has hurried along the US's relative slide from Global Power to Great Power. Which is actually a good thing : dragging it out can be horribly debilitating. Look how Make France Great Again played out in Indo-China and Algeria. Ugly stuff.

 

[Elagabalus]

"Adversary" is a rather ugly word, don't you think? "Rival" seems more appropriate to a multi-polar world in a state of considerable flux.

I think Trump has hurried along the US's relative slide from Global Power to Great Power. Which is actually a good thing : dragging it out can be horribly debilitating. Look how Make France Great Again played out in Indo-China and Algeria. Ugly stuff.

High quality Rival

 

[Ziggurat]

That thar's one o' them 'distinction without a difference' thingies right thar.

It still boils down to 'all the speech you can afford'. Which means "money".

Well, no. Money used to buy things other than speech has no speech protection, even though it's still money. Because money isn't speech, and the SCOTUS never said otherwise.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The denial that this attorney was an agent of the Russian government is insane.
Email transcripts

7 June 2016
Goldstone to Trump Jr
Hope all is well. Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and the Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.

That should be enough to end this nonsense the woman had nothing to do with the Kremlin. But if it isn't, let's look at the work she does as a lobbyist:

Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr... (Article includes her denials.)

The Magnitsky Act imposes sanctions on Russian officials identified by the U.S. government as having been involved in violations of human rights. The Kremlin hates the law — and banned the adoption of Russian children by Americans in retaliation. One of Veselnitskaya’s clients, Denis Katsyv, has been lobbying hard to get the American law overturned. He is the son of senior Russian government official Pyotr Katsyv and the owner of Prevezon, under investigation by the Department of Justice for laundering millions of dollars into New York City real estate....

Veselnitskaya has worked closely with the Katsyv family on the issue. She has lobbied extensively for repeal of the Magnitsky Act and helped organize a Brussels screening of an anti-Magnitsky film.

How is that not a Russian government operative?

The absurdity of the assertion this woman was not connected to Putin cannot be emphasized enough. The US asserts Magnitsky was murdered in prison, the Kremlin claims that is a lie.

 

[quadraginta]

This seems naive.

Do you think that no other nations have favorites for US presidents? Do you think that all the other countries out there are completely neutral and never seek to influence the outcome of US elections to their own benefit?

It doesn't matter what other countries do. What matters is what we do about it, and more importantly, what our candidates do with it.

The US sure as hell takes part in the elections of other countries. Sometimes subtly, sometimes not so much. It seems naive to think that the Us should be immune from that same treatment at the hands of other countries.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making. Other countries have every right to take steps against interference in their government by foreign agents, just like we do.

Yeah. Our government has done and will likely continue to do things which can be viewed as reprehensible. Some of that is happening right now, only we're doing it to ourselves for a change.

So what?

Are you arguing that two wrongs make a right?

And that we shouldn't bother trying to take any steps to discourage foreign interference in our elections because "Everybody's doing it."?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Let the tu quoque flow like wine.

It's not tu quoque. I'm not using "they do it too" as some sort of an excuse. I am, however, pointing out that the widespread existence of countries trying to influence the outcomes of elections in other countries is sufficient argument against the kind of naive special pleading represented by being out-of-the-tree outraged that Russia had a favored candidate in the US and wanted to help that candidate win.

Look - I truly don't give a damn if other countries try to influence US public opinion toward various candidates. Those countries have an interest in US leaders, and it would be stupid of me to think they wouldn't try to have their voices heard as well. They can't *vote*, they can't *contribute*, and they can't *commit crimes*.

But they can certainly try to influence opinion. It's in their interests to do so, just as it's in our interests to do so with respect to other countries that we have an interest in. It's absurd to suggest it should be otherwise, just because we're America.