Mueller: Trump-Russian collusion doesn’t seem to exist

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 10:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess around 90% of Americans wouldn't have approved of a war against Russia over Ukraine, so there's that Problem Obama has and Putin has not. Which puts options off the table, Putin knew that and I don't know how much Obama is to blame for not orchestrating some bluffs. He used sanctions, what else could he have announced and really followed through? But be that as it may, that still doesn't make Obama just like Trump in Putin's perception. That's just not very likely, given the things I listed (and then some I did not).

Putin is probably more concerned about Trump than Obama simply by dint of his unpredictability.  Obama was eminently rational and, as I said, risk averse.  Far easier to predict his responses than Trump's.

Quote:Yeah, come on :) First, as president of the United States he does have an obligation to the country that goes beyond just doing what benefits him politically. One can expect him to act in the country's interest before thinking of his own. That it "opens him up" is not a valid reason to give Russia a pass or to lie and push Hillary conspiracies and call all Russia meddling a hoax and attack the media that reports on it.
You might understand his motives, but you still shouldn't accept them. Says me.

I've told you before I enjoy your perspective, not only because it's rational but because it's coming from a completely different viewpoint.  That said, the above is entirely unrealistic.  If Trump gave any credence to the Russians helping him get elected then it's game over for his administration and agenda.

Quote:Second, there's a whole range of possible actions between the one extreme Trump exercises and the one extreme you laid out (him yelling "yeah I'm illegitimate", which I would not expect him or anyone to do in that situation).
E.g. he could go forward with the sanctions Congress ordered, demand an end to these cyber operations, don't muse around on Putin's feelings or things like that.

On this we agree.  I don't really understand the rational behind not imposing the sanctions.  Maybe there's an end game that's not readily apparent, although I am not hopeful in that regard.

Quote:I can get behind the first sentence.
As for the rest, honestly we have been there and I just cannot agree on that in good conscience, have yet not found the angle under which it appears that way. Out of the 500 most inflammatory and/or outrageous things said or done in US politics recently, I'd probably attribute 490 to Trump or someone around him.

I'm not talking about Trump's tweets, they're inane.  I'm talking about a sizable number of the losing party (a party that mocked Trump not accepting the election results prior to the election) claiming Trumps presidency is illegitimate the day after the election.  

Quote:There's not much to make out of that for sure discussion-wise, but since you said "it's absolutely been the other way", do you have some examples of outrageous Democrat behaviour that is really uncalled for and unmatched by Trump?

I did just give some.  Claiming the election is illegitimate the day after it occurred.  Calling for Trump's impeachment the day after the election.  Quite honestly, both those actions do far more to undermine the governance of our nation than every single dumbassed Trump tweet combined.

[Dill]

(02-19-2018, 10:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: I can get behind the first sentence.
As for the rest, honestly we have been there and I just cannot agree on that in good conscience, have yet not found the angle under which it appears that way. Out of the 500 most inflammatory and/or outrageous things said or done in US politics recently, I'd probably attribute 490 to Trump or someone around him.

There's not much to make out of that for sure discussion-wise, but since you said "it's absolutely been the other way", do you have some examples of outrageous Democrat behaviour that is really uncalled for and unmatched by Trump?

There is an excellent term now for what you describe--"Asymmetrical polarization." The Washington Monthly was discussing this back in 2010.   https://washingtonmonthly.com/2010/05/16/asymmetrical-polarization/

https://news.wgbh.org/2017/03/15/politics-government/major-new-study-shows-political-polarization-mainly-right-wing
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-polarization-is-asymmetric-and-conservatives-are-worse/373044/

Use of disinformation by partisan media sources is neither new nor limited to the right wing, but the insulation of the partisan right-wing media from traditional journalistic media sources, and the vehemence of its attacks on journalism in common cause with a similarly outspoken president, is new and distinctive.


https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592

Looks like the social scientists are on your side.

Pew researched polarization back in 2014, finding "both sides do it," but they don't seem to assess disinformation.
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/06/6-12-2014-Political-Polarization-Release.pdf

[Dill]

(02-19-2018, 03:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being fair, he is going to think just about anyone we put in office is weak because of the constitutional constraints we have on them. Our POTUS is a dog chained to a tree in the eyes of a despot like Putin. Trump just happens to be the kind that will jump up in his lap after being kicked.

Our current POTUS may be, but I don't think Putin would have regarded W., Obama, or Hillary (had she won) as "weak" in the sense Trump is. The ability to lead a sanctions campaign against a country whose GDP is so subject to fluctuations in oil/gas prices makes any competent U.S. president potentially a threat. Putin, so far, has never had the international clout to achieve something like the Iran deal.  While Trump's profile presents an extraordinary opportunity for any hostile intelligence service, but especially so for Russia's.

The invasion of the Crimea (like that of Georgia) was a response to NATO encroachment, and Ukrainian instability, not Russian "expansionism" or a calculation of Obama's weakness.  He knew he was going to pay a hefty price up front for that invasion, but Russian National interest could hardly allow the Ukraine to go NATO or join the European Union.  From the Russian's perspective, you'd have to worry about the addition of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and then Romania and Bulgaria. In '91 they were actually hoping to be part of NATO themselves. To be frozen out and then watch NATO encroachment would be very disturbing, as NATO was set up in the first place to contain the USSR.

Putin knows Russia is economically weak and does not want to overextend.  I don't think he is looking for any kind of extensive war and expensive occupation, anywhere. He is looking to up Russia's influence in world affairs, yes--but as cheaply as possible. Syria is an example. He made Russia a player in the Middle East at a fraction of the cost the U.S. expends there daily. Cyberwarfare is also tremendously cost effective--though it is still not clear whether Putin has gained or lost more by interfering with the U.S. election. That will depend on the sanctions. It is also not clear what the long term gain will be for rousing up so many European countries with cyber-attacks.

[hollodero]

(02-19-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Putin is probably more concerned about Trump than Obama simply by dint of his unpredictability.  Obama was eminently rational and, as I said, risk averse.  Far easier to predict his responses than Trump's.

I get what you say about Obama, I also get why you would call Trump unpredictable, but regarding Russia he was nothing but predictable until now. Putin is a friend, Putin does not lie, Putin is worthy of cooperation on cyber, an so on and so on. Trump has not done a single thing that would annoy Russia (not leaving NATO doesn't count), he says nothing critical about Putin, and it's been like that from the start.

I guess for Putin the concerning wildcard is impeachment. Trump did good for him.

(02-19-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've told you before I enjoy your perspective, not only because it's rational but because it's coming from a completely different viewpoint.  That said, the above is entirely unrealistic.  If Trump gave any credence to the Russians helping him get elected then it's game over for his administration and agenda.

Oh yeah right, I never said thanks for that. So, thanks. That said :), first off even the more rational people in his own party, and all intelligence heads including those he appointed, acknowledge Russian meddling and that it was directed against Hillary, we also have the obviously anti-Hillary DNC hacking and Guccifer 2.0, so everybody knows they meddled in Trumps favour anyway. At this point denying it is just stubborn and amounts to dozens of actual lies, when he could go as well with the "did not affect the outcome" wording (or the "they also were for Bernie" wording or whatever). He could downplay it maybe, although I feel that would be the wrong thing to do, but still the better thing. But Trump instead deflects away from that in the most destructive manner.

That's not what his oath demands, and since you gave me that one: Right, he could indeed at least have imposed the sanctions. And to me it seems like this would have been his duty, since Congress ordered him to. Also, he attacked the press, the FBI, his own DOJ and so many people in the most outrageous way to fight this narrative. That is not the "realistic" thing to happen. At the very least, history will not look favorably at that.

I'm actually drawn to the "well, even if it's game over then it's game over, he still has a duty towards the country" stance. But maybe that's too much to ask of an US president.

(02-19-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On this we agree.  I don't really understand the rational behind not imposing the sanctions.  Maybe there's an end game that's not readily apparent, although I am not hopeful in that regard.

Maybe. But at this point, maybe it's time to give the "Putin has kompromat about Trump" narrative (please think money, not bladders) some consideration. I don't know if that's true of course, but I guess in all rationality it has to be regarded as a distinct possibility. That has the advantage of actually explaining quite a lot, so my money's actually on that anyway. As for you though, I wonder if you can reasonably rule it out, given all that there's to see and wonder.
OK, just a side remark.

(02-19-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not talking about Trump's tweets, they're inane.  I'm talking about a sizable number of the losing party (a party that mocked Trump not accepting the election results prior to the election) claiming Trumps presidency is illegitimate the day after the election.  

OK... why don't we talk Trump's tweets though. Of course to a large extent I base my assertions on those tweets, and why wouldn't I. Them being inane doesn't mean they don't count.
As for the illegitimacy claims, I'm honestly a bit torn, but force myself to agree with you on the matter. It probably isn't the thing to drum. That being said, I don't know how many Democrats actually used that direct illegitimacy claim. I remember that one civil rights hero from I guess somewhere Atlanta (and am seriously sorry I forgot his name) who actually said that. The way I see it, most democrat politicians always were too busy slamming Trump for things he just did though.
And what I certainly want to add, Trump is openly doubting the election's legitimacy. He did so before the election (rigged), he did so after the election (illegals voting). So for me it's hard to see how Dems are "worse" on the whole doubting the election front.
That really does not mean they are all just fine.

(02-19-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I did just give some.  Claiming the election is illegitimate the day after it occurred.  Calling for Trump's impeachment the day after the election.  Quite honestly, both those actions do far more to undermine the governance of our nation than every single dumbassed Trump tweet combined.

Hillary conceded. As for impeachment cries, maybe they were over the top, I sure thought they had something more substantial on him when talking impeachment (which were not just Democrats though, see Richard Painter). I don't remember many Democrats doing that though. Not Hillary, not the party leadership. Introduced impeachment procedures (sure there are those girls and guys) get voted down considerably and by many Democrats.
But sure, some did talk impeachment (I'm critical of that) and some talked Russian meddling in favor of Trump (which did happen, so that's to be expected). I have a couple dumbass tweets that more than match those things though. And again, that Trump's preferred method of communication can't be part of the picture isn't acceptable to me :)

[ballsofsteel]

(02-20-2018, 12:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK... why don't we talk Trump's tweets though. Of course to a large extent I base my assertions on those tweets, and why wouldn't I. Them being inane doesn't mean they don't count.
As for the illegitimacy claims, I'm honestly a bit torn, but force myself to agree with you on the matter. It probably isn't the thing to drum. That being said, I don't know how many Democrats actually used that direct illegitimacy claim. I remember that one civil rights hero from I guess somewhere Atlanta (and am seriously sorry I forgot his name) who actually said that. The way I see it, most democrat politicians always were too busy slamming Trump for things he just did though.
And what I certainly want to add, Trump is openly doubting the election's legitimacy. He did so before the election (rigged), he did so after the election (illegals voting). So for me it's hard to see how Dems are "worse" on the whole doubting the election front.
That really does not mean they are all just fine.



Hillary conceded. As for impeachment cries, maybe they were over the top, I sure thought they had something more substantial on him when talking impeachment (which were not just Democrats though, see Richard Painter). I don't remember many Democrats doing that though. Not Hillary, not the party leadership. Introduced impeachment procedures (sure there are those girls and guys) get voted down considerably and by many Democrats.
But sure, some did talk impeachment (I'm critical of that) and some talked Russian meddling in favor of Trump (which did happen, so that's to be expected). I have a couple dumbass tweets that more than match those things though. And again, that Trump's preferred method of communication can't be part of the picture isn't acceptable to me :)

Somebody must  watch Fox news too much. There were no Dems of any consequence claiming the election was illegitimate. There were a few that said it just like there were a few Repubs that said it. This claim is all bullcrap.

As far as saying don't pay attention to his tweets, this is one of the most moronic statements I have ever heard coming from a Trumpster. Instead of standing up in front of the press giving a press conference to get his thoughts across to the American people, this potus prefers to do it tweeting while taking his morning dump watching fox and friends. He prefers this way so he doesn't have to answer any questions about the stupid comments he just made. He is a real prize.

As far as Putin,

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-20-2018, 08:10 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Somebody must  watch Fox news too much. There were no Dems of any consequence claiming the election was illegitimate. There were a few that said it just like there were a few Repubs that said it. This claim is all bullcrap.

Good to see you taking a break from your other accounts to post again, you were missed.  Do us a favor, put a list together of Dems who are "of any consequence" so we can discuss this.

Quote:As far as saying don't pay attention to his tweets, this is one of the most moronic statements I have ever heard coming from a Trumpster. Instead of standing up in front of the press giving a press conference to get his thoughts across to the American people, this potus prefers to do it tweeting while taking his morning dump watching fox and friends. He prefers this way so he doesn't have to answer any questions about the stupid comments he just made. He is a real prize.

Who stated "don't pay attention to his tweets?

Quote:As far as Putin,

I hope you cleaned your monitor off after posting that. 

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2018, 07:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, Fred is fine with Russia stealing territory from its neighbors, endlessly harassing it's neighbors, conducting military campaigns in the territory of its neighbors, conducting cyber attacks on its neighbors, extorting its neighbors by cutting off natural gas shipments, etc.  If only you were as liberal with gun owners, we probably wouldn't have a problem with you then.

No.  I never said anything like that.

All I said was that Russia is not going to take over any more of the Ukraine or any other Baltic states.

Why can't you ever address what i actually say?

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I'm talking about a sizable number of the losing party (a party that mocked Trump not accepting the election results prior to the election) claiming Trumps presidency is illegitimate the day after the election. 

(02-20-2018, 10:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Good to see you taking a break from your other accounts to post again, you were missed.  Do us a favor, put a list together of Dems who are "of any consequence" so we can discuss this.

Could you please define "sizable number" so we can discuss this?

[ballsofsteel]

(02-20-2018, 10:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: hI
Good to see you taking a break from your other accounts to post again, you were missed. 
You lost me here

Do us a favor, put a list together of Dems who are "of any consequence" so we can discuss this.
You make a list. Your the one claiming the Dems did this. By any consequence I mean a politician or persons in power, not bloggers or people posting on message boards.


Who stated "don't pay attention to his tweets?

Your right you didn't say "don't pay attention to his tweets? My bad. You said his tweets were "inane" which mean:
empty, insubstantial and lacking significance, meaning, or point.
So you do pay attention to his tweets and don't think he is a dotard?
Maybe you post on here while taking your morning dump that is why you like him so much? Just saying.


I hope you cleaned your monitor off after posting that. 
Why is this what you do when viewing these two close friends together?

[JustWinBaby]

(02-19-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't really understand the rational behind not imposing the sanctions.  Maybe there's an end game that's not readily apparent, although I am not hopeful in that regard.

Economic sanctions don't do squat except to starve and make common folk poorer.  More of a symbolic action to provide some political cover to be able to say you did "something".

So Trump is doing the one thing Trump does well - making liberal heads explode, in this case by literally doing nothing.

[Dill]

(02-20-2018, 06:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Economic sanctions don't do squat except to starve and make common folk poorer.  More of a symbolic action to provide some political cover to be able to say you did "something".

LOL that's what Putin says too. He wants sanctions ended as soon as possible, because they don't do squat.

And you knew that the Ukraine sanctions were TARGETED, right?
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/ukraine.pdf

And the sanctions proposed to punish Russia for election interference follow the same model.
They are restricted to Russian citizens known to

-- undermine US cybersecurity on behalf of the Russia government
-- invest certain amounts in Russia's energy export pipelines
-- conduct "significant" transactions with Russian defense and intelligence agencies
-- commit, or assist in, serious human rights abuses
-- commit acts of "significant" corruption
-- provide support to the Syrian government to acquire arms
-- invest, or facilitate the investment of, $10 million or more in the Russian government's privatization of any state owned asset in a one year period that could unfairly benefit government officials or their associates.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/trump-russia-sanctions-explainer/index.html

Still waiting for most of these to be imposed, though.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-check-administration-actions-russia-tougher-trumps-words/story?id=53223453

(02-20-2018, 06:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So Trump is doing the one thing Trump does well - making liberal heads explode, in this case by literally doing nothing.

LOL  Trump won't protect liberals. If the cyber attacks on the US continue, that will really shake them up.

[fredtoast]

(02-20-2018, 06:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Economic sanctions don't do squat except to starve and make common folk poorer.  More of a symbolic action to provide some political cover to be able to say you did "something".

So Trump is doing the one thing Trump does well - making liberal heads explode, in this case by literally doing nothing.

Sanctions work if you get enough countries involved.  That is what lead to the Iranian nuclear weapons deal.  We just had to have a group of countries work with us.

In countries (other than North Korea) the government has to deal with serious problems when the common folk start to suffer too much.

[fredtoast]

(02-20-2018, 06:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Economic sanctions don't do squat except to starve and make common folk poorer.  More of a symbolic action to provide some political cover to be able to say you did "something".

So Trump is doing the one thing Trump does well - making liberal heads explode, in this case by literally doing nothing.

What do you think we should do about Russia meddling in our elections?

Gargle Putin's balls and tell everyone he would never lie to us?

I'm sure that will fix everything.

[Dill]

(02-20-2018, 12:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK... why don't we talk Trump's tweets though. Of course to a large extent I base my assertions on those tweets, and why wouldn't I. Them being inane doesn't mean they don't count.

Quite right. And quite the opposite. Their inanity is exactly what counts because they come from the Commander in Chief and make his deficient judgment and absence of self control public. Chaos in government and disarray in policy follow. No US president has appeared so spectacularly incompetent before the whole world.

And for all that, Trump is not the real problem. He did not vote himself into office.  And he would not remain without the acquiescence of his party to the avid support from his base.

[BmorePat87]

I have been much tougher on Russia than Obama, just look at the facts. Total Fake News!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2018

I'm not sure trusting Putin over your entire intelligence community and refusing to enforce sanctions is "tough".

[ballsofsteel]

(02-20-2018, 07:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Quite right. And quite the opposite. Their inanity is exactly what counts because they come from the Commander in Chief and make his deficient judgment and absence of self control public. Chaos in government and disarray in policy follow. No US president has appeared so spectacularly incompetent before the whole world.

And for all that, Trump is not the real problem. He did not vote himself into office.  And he would not remain without the acquiescence of his party to the avid support from his base.

This



Sarah Mule face Suckabee will lie for him no matter how blatant and false the lies are.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-20-2018, 07:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sanctions work if you get enough countries involved.  That is what lead to the Iranian nuclear weapons deal.  We just had to have a group of countries work with us.

Ehhh, so goes the argument after 30 years of NOT WORKING in Iran.  There likely were other factors involved, not to mention getting billions to sign a deal that probably isn't going to do much to stop nuclear development.

Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and yes Russia....it's a long list of failed sanctions after decades.  This is hardly an unpopular or uncommon opinion, one backed by research.

I don't know what you do with Russia.  That's why you have sanctions - it's a placebo, but allows politicians to say they did something.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-20-2018, 07:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What do you think we should do about Russia meddling in our elections?

Gargle Putin's balls and tell everyone he would never lie to us?

I'm sure that will fix everything.

Yeah, he should have tried something like a "Russian reset". Or setting up to mock his 2020 opponent for worrying about Russia just like Obama did with Romney.

[BmorePat87]

(02-21-2018, 06:38 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ehhh, so goes the argument after 30 years of NOT WORKING in Iran.  There likely were other factors involved, not to mention getting billions to sign a deal that probably isn't going to do much to stop nuclear development.

Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and yes Russia....it's a long list of failed sanctions after decades.  This is hardly an unpopular or uncommon opinion, one backed by research.

I don't know what you do with Russia.  That's why you have sanctions - it's a placebo, but allows politicians to say they did something.

So are you arguing that accepting the word of a foreign leader over your entire intelligence agency and not doing anything is "tougher" than doing something that you don't think is super effective?

[Griever]

(02-21-2018, 09:29 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So are you arguing that accepting the word of a foreign leader over your entire intelligence agency and not doing anything is "tougher" than doing something that you don't think is super effective?

well trump does know more than the generals...