Russia and our election

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-14-2017, 07:09 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, I'm not defending him...but rather I'm impugning the media.

Promoting the "opposition research" defense means you're defending Trump.

Quote:What evidence would you present that anything I claimed here is wrong?  Bozo words don't prove that career staffers don't run anything  (and, actually, it kind of makes my point).

What bozo words would you present as evidence that career staffers run things as you claim? Please remember you have indicated you're not too lazy to get off your ass and do a 10 second Google search. So dazzle me.

[Belsnickel]

Nothing like this show of strength:

Just in: Russian Dep Foreign Minister Rybakov says Russian government "almost" at a deal on getting back property seized by the US

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) July 17, 2017

from Russia, that is. Letting the world know that the US is going to allow espionage on its soil intended to sow chaos in its government.

[Belsnickel]

77% of Trump voters think that even if collusion is proven he should stay in office, only 16% say resign: https://t.co/FX9sYGiFNc

— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) July 18, 2017

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-18-2017, 01:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nothing like this show of strength:

Just in: Russian Dep Foreign Minister Rybakov says Russian government "almost" at a deal on getting back property seized by the US

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) July 17, 2017

from Russia, that is. Letting the world know that the US is going to allow espionage on its soil intended to sow chaos in its government.

Honestly, if Hillary won, would anyone even being talking about this? It's not Russia's fault that she neglected a couple states, thinking she was guaranteed them. It's not Russia's fault that she used the DNC to install herself as the candidate over Sanders. It's not Russia's fault Hillary actively alienated voters by calling them deplorables, while trotting out absurdly rich celebrity after absurdly rich celebrity talking about how they'll move to Canada if she loses. She was supposed to be the professional candidate, but she got sucked into attacking Trump more than presenting plans and stances on issues.

Choose a better candidate, run a better campaign. Obama had just gotten 332 electoral votes (26 more than Trump) just 4 years earlier.

2016 Election by County:



Now am I saying Russia is innocent? No. But don't pretend Russia is the one who made Hillary lose. She did a pretty darn good job of that herself. The hissy fit of losing after being so assured of victory is what has sown chaos in the government.

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2017, 01:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly, if Hillary won, would anyone even being talking about this? It's not Russia's fault that she neglected a couple states, thinking she was guaranteed them. It's not Russia's fault that she used the DNC to install herself as the candidate over Sanders. It's not Russia's fault Hillary actively alienated voters by calling them deplorables, while trotting out absurdly rich celebrity after absurdly rich celebrity talking about how they'll move to Canada if she loses. She was supposed to be the professional candidate, but she got sucked into attacking Trump more than presenting plans and stances on issues.

Choose a better candidate, run a better campaign.




Now am I saying Russia is innocent? No. But don't pretend Russia is the one who made Hillary lose. She did a pretty darn good job of that herself. The hissy fit of losing after being so assured of victory is what has sown chaos in the government.

Are you able to respond to my post instead of building a straw man?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-18-2017, 01:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Are you able to respond to my post instead of building a straw man?

Fine.

The fact that you are automatically calling it weak without knowing the terms of the deal is awfully iffy. It's not like "I sanction you!" has really ever accomplished a whole lot. Just look at NK. Sanction them and their people freeze and starve while their leadership (the people you're presumably trying to punish) are fat and making nukes.

Now I am not holding my breath that anyone in charge in Russia will get heavily punished, because politics and justice sadly rarely seem to make a pair. That said, maybe Russia makes some big economic concessions as far as our exports to them or theirs to us, or just pays a large fine. Who knows.

If it comes to be that they do make a deal and it's basically "My bad, tehehe" then sure, I will be with you calling that shit weaksauce.


- - - - - - - - - -
PS, I don't make Strawman, I only make Wickerman. So watch yoself.

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2017, 01:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Fine.

The fact that you are automatically calling it weak without knowing the terms of the deal is awfully iffy. It's not like "I sanction you!" has really ever accomplished a whole lot. Just look at NK. Sanction them and their people freeze and starve while their leadership (the people you're presumably trying to punish) are fat and making nukes.

Now I am not holding my breath that anyone in charge in Russia will get heavily punished, because politics and justice sadly rarely seem to make a pair. That said, maybe Russia makes some big economic concessions as far as our exports to them or theirs to us, or just pays a large fine. Who knows.

If it comes to be that they do make a deal and it's basically "My bad, tehehe" then sure, I will be with you calling that shit weaksauce.


- - - - - - - - - -
PS, I don't make Strawman, I only make Wickerman. So watch yoself.

See? That wasn't so hard. 

Completely fair response. I freely admit that my jumping the gun on calling it weak is the result of my opinions of the administration over all, but it is also in addition into the continued denial on the part of the administration as to Russia's efforts to undermine our democracy and their established willingness to potentially lift sanctions imposed by the previous administration. This one deal could end up not being a portrayal of weakness on the part of our foreign policy, but the actions and statements from the current administration lead me to assume it will be.

[Dill]

(07-18-2017, 01:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Fine.

The fact that you are automatically calling it weak without knowing the terms of the deal is awfully iffy. It's not like "I sanction you!" has really ever accomplished a whole lot. Just look at NK. Sanction them and their people freeze and starve while their leadership (the people you're presumably trying to punish) are fat and making nukes.

Now I am not holding my breath that anyone in charge in Russia will get heavily punished, because politics and justice sadly rarely seem to make a pair. That said, maybe Russia makes some big economic concessions as far as our exports to them or theirs to us, or just pays a large fine. Who knows.

Just a side comment here about the value of sanctions. North Korea is the exception which proves the rule, if anything, because nowhere in the world has any government such tight control over what its population thinks.

Looking elsewhere, we see that sanctions ended Apartheid in South Africa. They also brought Iran to the table for the nuclear deal. Their threat offers some protection to the West Bank and in Gaza as well.

In the case of Russia, the sanctions do have a powerful effect on Russia's economy and they help the pro-democratic forces there.  That is why Putin is working so hard to get them lifted and reduce the US power to impose them with international support.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-18-2017, 04:43 PM)Dill Wrote: Just a side comment here about the value of sanctions. North Korea is the exception which proves the rule, if anything, because nowhere in the world has any government such tight control over what its population thinks.

Looking elsewhere, we see that sanctions ended Apartheid in South Africa. They also brought Iran to the table for the nuclear deal. Their threat offers some protection to the West Bank and in Gaza as well.

In the case of Russia, the sanctions do have a powerful effect on Russia's economy and they help the pro-democratic forces there.  That is why Putin is working so hard to get them lifted and reduce the US power to impose them with international support.

Okay, then how about Iran? Last I checked they were sanctioned and still testing their ballistic missiles, too... contrary to their agreement.

In fact, the US has been sanctioning...
-Iran since 1979
-North Korea since 1950
-Syria since 1986 (how's it going today, Syria?)
-Sudan since 1993
-Cuba since 1962

I would argue none of those has accomplished anything. Except maybe for the fact all Cubans just drive around badass classic cars now because of it.

[Dill]

(07-18-2017, 01:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly, if Hillary won, would anyone even being talking about this? It's not Russia's fault that she neglected a couple states, thinking she was guaranteed them. It's not Russia's fault that she used the DNC to install herself as the candidate over Sanders. It's not Russia's fault Hillary actively alienated voters by calling them deplorables, while trotting out absurdly rich celebrity after absurdly rich celebrity talking about how they'll move to Canada if she loses. She was supposed to be the professional candidate, but she got sucked into attacking Trump more than presenting plans and stances on issues.

Choose a better candidate, run a better campaign. Obama had just gotten 332 electoral votes (26 more than Trump) just 4 years earlier.

Now am I saying Russia is innocent? No. But don't pretend Russia is the one who made Hillary lose. She did a pretty darn good job of that herself. The hissy fit of losing after being so assured of victory is what has sown chaos in the government.

If we are talking about Russia because of suspected collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, then no, we would not be talking about this if Hillary won.

We would still be talking about the interference with the US election, however. Hillary would be taking strong steps to protect the US. Russia might have been in for a counter-cyber attack.  She would not be working to return their property or proposing a joint task force to work with the Russians, letting right inside our policy and programs and institutions.

The Trump strategy was largely to suppress the Hillary vote. I doubt she alienated many potential voters by calling half the Trump supporters "deplorables."  She was the "professional candidate" as she proved in the debates.  But Republican voters did not want professional. 

Even if all the things you accuse Hillary of were true, what really hurt her were two issues--the private email server and wikileaks. Could be a hack of the Trump campaign would have levelled the playing field, but that was not Putin's intent.

As far a running a "better candidate"--I hear that often on news programs. Hillary was "flawed" we are told, despite being well prepared for the most important office in the land.

But if professional and prepared do not seal the deal, while vulgar and ignorant carry the day, then it is hard to imagine what that better candidate would look like. 

[Dill]

(07-18-2017, 04:57 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Okay, then how about Iran? Last I checked they were sanctioned and still testing their ballistic missiles, too... contrary to their agreement.

In fact, the US has been sanctioning...
-Iran since 1979
-North Korea since 1950
-Syria since 1986 (how's it going today, Syria?)
-Sudan since 1993
-Cuba since 1962

I would argue none of those has accomplished anything. Except maybe for the fact all Cubans just drive around badass classic cars now because of it.

Leonard, I partially agree with you on the ineffectiveness of sanctions. They aren't for every case. 

Your list above is rather heterogeneous. Sanctions aren't always aimed at regime change, and if they are and don't accomplish that end, they still may limit a bad government's power. So we shouldn't apply one measure of the effectiveness of sanctions in every case.

The Cuban sanctions are an example of sanctions imposed for ideological reasons and impervious to assessment. I agree with you they not only have been a total failure, but may have strengthened and prolonged the Castro rule.

I agree they have not effected regime change in NK, but they do curb that state's power.
Same with Syria. Assad's ability to kill his own is greatly limited.
Sanctions on Sudan have enabled the South to break away and become a separate country. When civil war between tribal factions broke out there, the threat of sanctions brought both sides to a cease fire. Sanctions have certainly weakened Sudan's ability to make war on its own people, though they have also ******** economic growth. The sanctions have undergone fine tuning since the '90s and more directly impact the ruling circle. Wait and see.

I dispute that sanctions have not worked in Iran. In addition to bringing Iran to the negotiation table, they have brought the country a step closer to political liberalization. The partial removal of sanctions has ended (or at least paused) that country's efforts to become a nuclear power in the short term. The treaty does not forbid testing mid-range missiles.

So I don't agree that sanctions in most of the above cases accomplished nothing. Regime change over the short term is rarely the actual goal anyway, so it should not be the measure of success. 

Since sanctions sometimes work well, sometimes partially, and sometimes not at all, then the conclusion I draw is not that we should not use them, but that we should do so judiciously.  Listen to area experts who know the target countries economy and social institutions. Keep domestic politics at arm's length, if possible. Develop realistic metrics for deciding whether sanctions are working or not.

[GMDino]

Is it possible they just lie out of habit?  Or maybe they just don't care anymore?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342589-ian-bremmer-trump-and-putin-held-second-informal-meeting-during-g-20?amp

Quote:Trump, Putin had second, undisclosed talk at G-20


President Trump held a second, informal talk with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the Group of 20 (G-20) summit in Hamburg, Germany, earlier this month, the White House confirmed Tuesday.



Press secretary Sean Spicer confirmed Trump and Putin spoke at the G-20 heads of state dinner, hours after their formal bilateral sit-down.



According to Tuesday reports, in their second conversation, Trump spoke with the Russian leader for roughly an hour, joined only by Putin's translator. The meeting had previously gone without mention by the administration.


The White House confirmed that Trump and Putin spoke at a dinner for G-20 leaders and their spouses. But a White House official appeared to dispute that the discussion lasted an hour, saying the two only spoke "briefly" near the end of the dinner.

"There was no 'second meeting' between President Trump and President Putin, just a brief conversation at the end of a dinner," the official said. "The insinuation that the White House has tried to 'hide' a second meeting is false, malicious and absurd."


The White House said the two men used the Russian translator to converse because the American translator accompanying President Trump spoke Japanese.

Trump arrived at the dinner just after 7 p.m. local time, according to a pool report. He did not depart the dinner venue until a few minutes before midnight.
The dinner was scheduled to last from 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m., according to an official G-20 schedule.

The president's interactions with Putin are the subject of particularly intense scrutiny in the U.S., because of the ongoing special counsel and congressional investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.


The official said talking with world leaders is part of the president's job.


"It is not merely perfectly normal, it is part of a president's duties, to interact with world leaders. Throughout the G-20 and in all his other foreign engagements, President Trump has demonstrated American leadership by representing our interests and values on the world stage," the official said.


That Trump was not joined in the conversation by his own translator is a breach of national security protocol, according to Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, though one that the president likely would not know about.


Trump and Putin met for a formal discussion during the G-20 summit - a meeting that was scheduled to last 30 minutes but exceeded two hours.
Bremmer said in an interview with Bloomberg's Charlie Rose that the rapport Trump established with Putin during the summit is "clearly his best personal relationship" with a G-20 leader.


"Never in my life as a political scientist have I seen two countries - major countries - with a constellation of national interests that are as dissonant, while the two leaders seem to be doing everything possible to make nice and be close to each other," he said.


During the formal meeting, Trump reportedly pressed Putin about Moscow's efforts to meddle in the 2016 election, which the Russian president denied.

[Dill]

(07-18-2017, 09:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: That Trump was not joined in the conversation by his own translator is a breach of national security protocol, ...though one that the president likely would not know about.


Bremmer said in an interview with Bloomberg's Charlie Rose that the rapport Trump established with Putin during the summit is "clearly his best personal relationship" with a G-20 leader.

"Never in my life as a political scientist have I seen two countries - major countries - with a constellation of national interests that are as dissonant, while the two leaders seem to be doing everything possible to make nice and be close to each other," he said

Geezus.

[GMDino]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trumps-and-the-truth-1500332545

Quote:The Trumps and the Truth
The best defense against future revelations is radical transparency.




U.S. President Donald Trump in the Blue Room of the White House, July 17. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
By the Editorial Board
Updated July 17, 2017 9:27 p.m. ET

Even Donald Trump might agree that a major reason he won the 2016 election is because voters couldn’t abide Hillary Clinton’s legacy of scandal, deception and stonewalling. Yet on the story of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump and his family are repeating the mistakes that doomed Mrs. Clinton.

That’s the lesson the Trumps should draw from the fiasco over Don Jr.’s June 2016 meeting with Russians peddling dirt on Mrs. Clinton. First Don Jr. let news of the meeting leak without getting ahead of it. Then the White House tried to explain it away as a “nothingburger” that focused on adoptions from Russia.

When that was exposed as incomplete, Don Jr. released his emails that showed the Russian lure about Mrs. Clinton and Don Jr. all excited—“I love it.” Oh, and son-in-law Jared Kushner and Beltway bagman Paul Manafort were also at the meeting. Don Jr. told Sean Hannity this was the full story. But then news leaked that a Russian-American lobbyist was also at the meeting.

Even if the ultimate truth of this tale is merely that Don Jr. is a political dunce who took a meeting that went nowhere—the best case—the Trumps made it appear as if they have something to hide. They have created the appearance of a conspiracy that on the evidence Don Jr. lacks the wit to concoct. And they handed their opponents another of the swords that by now could arm a Roman legion.
***
Don’t you get it, guys? Special counsel Robert Mueller and the House and Senate intelligence committees are investigating the Russia story. Everything that is potentially damaging to the Trumps will come out, one way or another. Everything. Denouncing leaks as “fake news” won’t wash as a counter-strategy beyond the President’s base, as Mr. Trump’s latest 36% approval rating shows.

Mr. Trump seems to realize he has a problem because the White House has announced the hiring of white-collar Washington lawyer Ty Cobb to manage its Russia defense. He’ll presumably supersede the White House counsel, whom Mr. Trump ignores, and New York outside counsel Marc Kasowitz, who is out of his political depth.

Mr. Cobb has an opening to change the Trump strategy to one with the best chance of saving his Presidency: radical transparency.
Release everything to the public ahead of the inevitable leaks. Mr. Cobb and his team should tell every Trump family member, campaign operative and White House aide to disclose every detail that might be relevant to the Russian investigations.

That means every meeting with any Russian or any American with Russian business ties. Every phone call or email. And every Trump business relationship with Russians going back years. This should include every relevant part of Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which the President will resist but Mr. Mueller is sure to seek anyway.

Then release it all to the public. Whatever short-term political damage this might cause couldn’t be worse than the death by a thousand cuts of selective leaks, often out of context, from political opponents in Congress or the special counsel’s office. If there really is nothing to the Russia collusion allegations, transparency will prove it. Americans will give Mr. Trump credit for trusting their ability to make a fair judgment. Pre-emptive disclosure is the only chance to contain the political harm from future revelations.

This is the opposite of the Clinton stonewall strategy, which should be instructive. That strategy saved Bill Clinton’s Presidency in the 1990s at a fearsome price and only because the media and Democrats in Congress rallied behind him. Mr. Trump can’t count on the same from Republicans and most of the media want him run out of office.

If Mr. Trump’s approval rating stays under 40% into next year, Republicans will begin to separate themselves from an unpopular President in a (probably forlorn) attempt to save their majorities in Congress. If Democrats win the House, the investigations into every aspect of the Trump business empire, the 2016 campaign and the Administration will multiply. Impeachment will be a constant undercurrent if not an active threat. His supporters will become demoralized.
***
Mr. Trump will probably ignore this advice, as he has most of what these columns have suggested. Had he replaced James Comey at the FBI shortly after taking office in January, for example, he might not now have a special counsel threatening him and his family.

Mr. Trump somehow seems to believe that his outsize personality and social-media following make him larger than the Presidency. He’s wrong. He and his family seem oblivious to the brutal realities of Washington politics. Those realities will destroy Mr. Trump, his family and their business reputation unless they change their strategy toward the Russia probe. They don’t have much more time to do it.
Appeared in the July 18, 2017, print edition.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-18-2017, 11:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trumps-and-the-truth-1500332545

Are you even reading the articles you post? Or are you just C&P'ing every negative Trump article you can find?

You replied to me, then 2 minutes later posted a whole article. Then 3 minutes after that posted a whole different article, and I imagine there had to be at least SOME time in between finding each one.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2017, 11:06 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Are you even reading the articles you post? Or are you just C&P'ing every negative Trump article you can find?

You replied to me, then 2 minutes later posted a whole article. Then 3 minutes after that posted a whole different article, and I imagine there had to be at least SOME time in between finding each one.

I was reading them earlier...didn't get around to posting immediately after reading.  I found one article on one new site and the other on another.  Each was opened in a separate tab in my browser.  I read one and then the other.  Didn't take very long to read them.

When I came to the forum to post I saw your post and responded and then shared the two stories in their appropriate threads.

I can provide certified letters with documentation on my browsing and posting habits if they are needed.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2017, 11:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was reading them earlier...didn't get around to posting immediately after reading.  I found one article on one new site and the other on another.  Each was opened in a separate tab in my browser.  I read one and then the other.  Didn't take very long to read them.

When I came to the forum to post I saw your post and responded and then shared the two stories in their appropriate threads.

I can provide certified letters with documentation on my browsing and posting habits if they are needed.  

I was going to say, I often post a link long after reading it. Sometimes it is so I can ponder it, mostly it's because I am on my phone and hate trying to post from this thing.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-18-2017, 11:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was reading them earlier...didn't get around to posting immediately after reading.  I found one article on one new site and the other on another.  Each was opened in a separate tab in my browser.  I read one and then the other.  Didn't take very long to read them.

When I came to the forum to post I saw your post and responded and then shared the two stories in their appropriate threads.

I can provide certified letters with documentation on my browsing and posting habits if they are needed.  

Last thing I want to see is your browser history. I know how you hardcore Democrat types are. You love your Donkey mascot.  


Yeah, I just had to ask because I was like "the hell, didn't he just post a full article a minute ago?" and checked to make sure I wasn't imagining things or got distracted and let some time slip by.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2017, 11:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was going to say,  I often post a link long after reading it. Sometimes it is so I can ponder it, mostly it's because I am on my phone and hate trying to post from this thing.

And I might have three or four tabs open and until I get to it I post all the links at once.

Now if I didn't so long to format them....

[GMDino]

(07-18-2017, 11:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Last thing I want to see is your browser history. I know how you hardcore Democrat types are. You love your Donkey mascot.  


Yeah, I just had to ask because I was like "the hell, didn't he just post a full article a minute ago?" and checked to make sure I wasn't imagining things or got distracted and let some time slip by.