What a load of steaming nonsense -- your post that is.
It would be nice if Intel would release all of the juicy details, but alas. I urge you to re-read the first two paragraphs.
Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
- Status
It would be nice if Intel would release all of the juicy details, but alas. I urge you to re-read the first two paragraphs.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
If it was simply that then even I wouldn't be concerned, in spite of the fact that I roundly loath both of them.
I don't see how any politician, from any country, at any level, much less a head of state, can avoid having some preferences regarding who is going to be the President of the United States. As the saying goes, when we get a cold the whole world sneezes. What happens here affects everyone.
But the are differences between preferring a result and actively promoting that result by illegal means and methods.
If Putin just wanted Trump to be President because he believed that Trump's attitude would be less hostile and pugnacious than Clinton's that would be one thing.
If he wanted it because of quid pro quo's he had been making arrangements in advance for then that is something entirely different.
If there were deals in which Russia used its power and influence to illegally affect the results of the election then I want to see all of the actors involved punished. Just to discourage such efforts in the future.
We are perfectly capable of screwing up our elections and making our government into a clown show all on our own. The last thing we need is outside help to do it.
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
That's just saying trust me its classified. TV journalists should not present opinions as facts. What about America interfering in Italian elections in the past then?
Indeed, a government simply preferring one head of state over another in another country is perfectly reasonable. Making public appeals to support one candidate over another is also perfectly reasonable.
Using illegal means, including computer hacking, release of mis-information and lies, selective use of illegally obtained information to favor one candidate over another, extortion, bribery, and/or coordination of the resources of that foreign government with the campaign of one candidate is all subversive to the very concept of a democratic government. And as noted can easily result in the favored candidate being susceptible to blackmail and forced to do the bidding of the foreign government.
This is as far from trivial as one can imagine- it strikes at the very heart of democracy.
I should also point out that Russia likely had multiple goals in their attempts to manipulate the USA elections. Electing Trump need not have been their only, or even their direct, goal. This manipulation, by simply creating confusion, uncertainty, ineffectiveness, internal strife, and undermining the legitimacy of the USA government, would serve Russia's interests by substantially weakening the USA's power and influence.
As it is, they appear to have achieved both goals. Just look at what has happened to the USA's position, respect, and influence among our allies in the past 6 months.
As it is, they appear to have achieved both goals. Just look at what has happened to the USA's position, respect, and influence among our allies in the past 6 months.
I know this is not an original observation, but I am struck every day by Trump's continued, increasingly desperate actions in regard to the Russia investigations. Could anyone act more guilty than Trump in this regard? He has repeatedly attempted to short circuit the investigations, ranted when others in government have failed to do so on his behalf (firing or threatening to fire many of them), written or spoke multiple mis-leading statements, and has embarked on an intense campaign to attempt to discredit the special counsel in as many ways as possible (including such gems as the observation that some of Mueller's staff come from Baltimore, which according to Trump invalidates the investigation because Baltimore has a lot of Democrats!).
An innocent person would aid the investigations expecting that they would be quickly cleared and could move one. Instead, Trump's actions are those of someone who is convinced that they and/or their campaign will be found to be guilty of illegal activities and who is desperately doing everything possible to head-off the investigation. There are two potential explanations for someone feeling this way:
1. The belief that Mueller is so incredibly and overtly biased that, even though innocent, Trump and/or his campaign will be railroaded and found guilty. Of course this is what Trump is attempting to sell to the public right now, but any inspection of Mueller's credentials and reputation immediately reveals how absurd this concept is! In fact Trump and the Republican Congress heaped praise on Mueller when he was first appointed. I can't imagine a more upright, fair, serious individual to head the observation (which is are likely the actual problems Trump has with Mueller). Or,
2. Trump is fully aware that he, his family, and/or others in his campaign committed substantial illegal and/or immoral deeds and that Mueller will now discover, document, report, and indict individuals based on these actions. Trump is therefore now desperate, made more so by his subsequent attempts to interfere with these investigations and subvert justice, and will do anything to prevent the investigation.
I think it is pretty clear which of these possibilities is the likely one.
Although I believe the current evidence strongly indicative of illegal actions on the part of Trump's campaign, I find Trump's actions so suspicious that I fully expect far more serious crimes and misdeeds to be revealed by Mueller's investigation that extend well beyond what has been discussed to date.
An innocent person would aid the investigations expecting that they would be quickly cleared and could move one. Instead, Trump's actions are those of someone who is convinced that they and/or their campaign will be found to be guilty of illegal activities and who is desperately doing everything possible to head-off the investigation. There are two potential explanations for someone feeling this way:
1. The belief that Mueller is so incredibly and overtly biased that, even though innocent, Trump and/or his campaign will be railroaded and found guilty. Of course this is what Trump is attempting to sell to the public right now, but any inspection of Mueller's credentials and reputation immediately reveals how absurd this concept is! In fact Trump and the Republican Congress heaped praise on Mueller when he was first appointed. I can't imagine a more upright, fair, serious individual to head the observation (which is are likely the actual problems Trump has with Mueller). Or,
2. Trump is fully aware that he, his family, and/or others in his campaign committed substantial illegal and/or immoral deeds and that Mueller will now discover, document, report, and indict individuals based on these actions. Trump is therefore now desperate, made more so by his subsequent attempts to interfere with these investigations and subvert justice, and will do anything to prevent the investigation.
I think it is pretty clear which of these possibilities is the likely one.
Although I believe the current evidence strongly indicative of illegal actions on the part of Trump's campaign, I find Trump's actions so suspicious that I fully expect far more serious crimes and misdeeds to be revealed by Mueller's investigation that extend well beyond what has been discussed to date.
I'd say that's way less than reasonable. It's not any foreign official's business who we elect. Holding a private opinion is one thing; publicly supporting someone is something else. You also have to consider the paradox that a foreign adversary might "support" the person they don't want. Suppose Putin had openly talked about how much better it would be for Russia if Hillary got elected. "We can make deals with her, she'll give us what we want if we send money to her foundation, but that Trump guy is just too tough!" Who would come out ahead? Foreign governments are not entitled to say a word about our elections.
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 13,590
We'll, they are entitled in the sense that they have the right to make public comments, but I agree that it is unethical to do so in most circumstances.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Governments routinely publicly support or oppose the actions of other governments (in regard to economic policy, foreign relations, military actions, etc.). However the outcome of such a public appeal in regard to a candidate would be very difficult to predict. I assume that the Russian government publicly supporting Ms. Clinton would alone have doomed her campaign- especially among the more conservative component of the electorate. But remarkably the obvious Russian support for Trump appeared to be okay among many of these same individuals. It is a strange world out there now.
They're not shooting the breeze in a sports bar. When a public official takes a position, it is on behalf of his government. When Russia tries to influence a U.S. election, overtly or surreptitiously, it's indefensible.
And for anyone, like Trump himself, who says "We do it too," in Latin America, Iran, etc., yeah, that was indefensible, too, and it ultimately hurt us badly.
If it occurred it would have be reprehensible.
But given your dedication to facts and evidence; what evidence do you have that it occurred, rather than just being opinion? And assuming you have some authentic evidence in this regard, please explain how this evidence is convincing to you whereas the evidence indicating that Russia interfered with the USA election is not?
Just to clarify: I do believe that the USA interfered with Italian elections- but here I am interested in the evidence that you find sufficient for your own conclusion in this regard.
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
I'm with Bob001 on this particular point. In general, it's way too close to the line for me to be comfortable with. For example, not that I think any U.S. network would air this, but a commercial where Putin urged Americans to vote for Trump would clearly be on the wrong side of reasonable.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
There's yer problem. Trump is the least aware person I've ever been aware of. He's self-centered without even being self-aware.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
I disagree. Perfectly reasonable and informative. As human beings, they have a right to freely speak their minds.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
Okay, since reason is only logic applied, please with logic give reasons for your claims.
I know that you can't and I know that you don't know this. You can't with logic alone give proof for the fact that humans have rights. This is not about just logic, it is about ethics. But you don't get that, because you don't understand how logic works.
So I suggest that despite the fact that you think that you are good, you start a thread about ethics and politics and the limitations of reason and logic. But I know that you won't, because you don't understand that the fact that you feel good about your ability to reason and use logic is not reasoning and logic. It is an emotional and ethical claim about good and bad.
With regards
portlandatheist
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,725
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
These sanctions passed by Congress against Russia interfere with international trade, but not with General McMasters or other Americans who do not trade with the Russians, who are good traders. I agree that you should not drop your guard, but military conflict is not the solution to all problems. A sense of humor is not the strong point of Congress, rather like Prince Charles.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
In that thread I was not willing to concede colloquial meaning to reasonability. Here I am.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
And you continue to dodge it Henri.
Good choice I suppose. It's not answerable from your highly irrational perspective.
- Status