The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
That's cool though right? Isn't gender supposed to be fluid and optional now?
Based on the response I got a few pages back when I suggested this, I’d say that there is virtually no agreement on the symbolism score.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
There's certainly bad blood. We've been on the Ukrainian election merry-go-round before, and my only comment is to say that Ukraine is not Russia (though your previous apologia for Russian action there indicates that you may disagree). As for cyber attacks on nuclear plants, can you provide a link? If you google it you just get scores of articles about Russian cyber attacks on American power plants.
I think I understand what you mean when you say you are pro-Russia. You explain it here:
I have openly advocated for a closer relationship with Russia on these forums for years now. But that wasn't always the case. I didn't support Obama's limp-wristed response to the annexation of Crimea - but I adapted, and watched as the sanctions did literally nothing except embolden Russia and sharpen Putin's resolve to exact revenge on Obama (quite successfully, apparently). Now we're back again with Obama trying to flex his muscles in the waning days of a term that leaves him as an afterthought. Nothing more and nothing less.
Supporting Russia is the easy and smart move and Trump will accomplish it with little resistance from charlatans like Graham and McCain who are simply bitter vestiges of the old-guard riding reelection highs.*
America stands to be richer, safer, and stronger with Russia as an ally. Like it or not, that's the reality of Obama's foreign 'policy'.
But I suppose the faux indignation and pearl clutching about Pussy Riot and polonium are the LOLGop and Occupy Democrats lines of the day so that archaic thought pattern is being regurgitated accordingly.
Also another post I couldn't find by I recollect your saying that you're pro-Russia but acknowledging that they need us more than we need them. Anyway, from where I sit, what it means in practice is you putting the most positive spin possible on all things Russian--from Crimea to Chechnya to Trump to opposition/journalist murders etc ad infinitum. Your last paragraph in the quote above just scans as incredibly heartless and cynical to me. Like, seriously, it's "pearl-clutching" to be disturbed by extrajudicial murder and political imprisonment? We should ignore it because it'll somehow make us safer and richer (which reads like a "step 3: ?/step 4: PROFIT!!" meme to me).
Ok. When it comes to the election hacks, your stock-in-trade has been to minimize, qualify, and use modifiers like "purported" or "supposed." You minimized the fact, then minimized the import, as well as more than once repeating the misinformation that Podesta's gmail was breached because his password was "podesta1234." Then your position evolved to include a series of whatabouts, from stuxnet on.
Let's start in October:
10.11.16
Me:
So just to get this on the record...
You DON'T think that Russia is behind the hacks, and you DON'T think that Russia is trying to influence the election?
You:
It's not so cut and dried.*
Has Russia been hacking? Yes. All over the world. Read yesterday that Russian hackers are being held responsible for attacks against TV5Monde in France - a hack so brutal that it almost took 10 cable channels off the air permanently. Why TV5Monde? British intelligence deduced, 'Because they can, they enjoy testing the waters and flexing their cyber-muscle.'*
So, yeah, I believe they are likely responsible for some of the information that Wikileaks has recently produced, but probably not all of it. Where I draw issue here is with the pejorative nature of claiming the hacks/leaks are 'influencing an election' ... especially when it is being conveniently framed to fit a ludicrous, conspiratorial narrative. If Russia is truly responsible, then Americans should be thanking the Kremlin for making the election process much more transparent that it has ever been before.
IF Russia were responsible, we should thank them.
Later:
And now they're supposedly throwing a little shade our way. So what? Turnabout is fair play. Who is being hurt?
So, it's still "supposedly," but if they WERE doing it, it was just a little payback, but with no victim, apparently.
11/1/16:
11.1.16
Guess mother Russia can be ruled out.
12.30.16
Hacking? I mean, does anybody remember the little darling called Stuxnet that we unleashed on Iran? I guess it was OK then because it was in our interests. But we're furious because the Russians exploited our inability to comprehend two-factor identification or resist millions of dollars from marooned Nigerian princes.*
…
To classify this as espionage is pushing it way too far. I mean, dangerously and irresponsibly so.
You liked the "dangerous and irresponsible" line so much you used it twice. So your POV is that this was not espionage, and to name it thus was dangerous and irresponsible. Is that something you'd stick with today? Not espionage?
3.21.17 With the Podesta e-mail 'hacks' it's been reported that the incursion came as a result of poor password selection practices and run-of-the-mill phishing. IIRC, the DNC e-mail server was accessed in a similar fashion (unless one is to believe the Seth Rich murdered by Russian agents cover-up/conspiracy theory which has been making the rounds since the summer).
Do I feel comfortable spending millions of dollars on a politically driven investigation to ultimately learn that the Russians exploited technical stupidity? Absolutely not. It would seem, rather obviously, those funds might be better allocated toward cyber defense ... or just internet safety 101 courses.
It's been 9 months. Untold resources expended with no tangible findings/convictions/recommendations to speak of. Meanwhile the public remains wholly in the dark. We've been told the Russians "interferred" "meddled" "attempted to influence" and so on, but we haven't yet been made privy to exactly (or even generally) how (we've assumed by/through WikiLeaks, Guccifer, DCLeaks ... but on the basis of unsourced media reports).
3.21.17
If more is unearthed, and the Russians are implicated in any fashion beyond stealing a few e-mails, then I'll pick up a pitchfork with you.
Seems like we’re there. Is your pitchfork arm limbered up? Note that response was not to me, but to 57. But the question is reasonable. There's been more than a few stolen emails, but something tells me you're not ready to pick up the pitchfork yet.
So, that's a little peek at the hacking issue (and there are more posts I can cite, for sure). On the bigger picture, your position has unflaggingly been both pro-Trump and pro-Russia. One thing you've consistently done is accused me of promoting wild-eyed conspiracy theories, and I've always thought that was kinda unfair. I think I've been fairly measured and consistent in my statements about it. At the same time that you wrote the above, and in the wake of your writing that "the Russia conspiracy as it relates to the Trump Administration is dead," I wrote this:
Me, same date as the above quotes:
I wish we could just eliminate the word "treason" and the like from this kind of discussion. It's counterproductive and even chilling to the goal of transparency and getting a consensus handle on some kind of objective set of facts. I agree that some folks are going off the rails about the collusion aspect of this, and maybe--though this is not really known or even knowable at this point--about its overall import. But if Russian attempts at fiddling with our election process is going to be the status quo, it seems like we're doing ourselves a disservice if we don't seek to fully understand it. There are going to be partisan cudgels swung, but I also expect they'll be headed in both directions, and sometimes with some merit.
You, re Manafort:
Drawing a line between Manafort and Putin that goes through a Russian aluminum tycoon whose oligarchy status is questionable, at best, is a tenuous proposition.
…
Still sending bloodhounds to the banks and coming back dry.
You, 3.23.17:
“There could very well be a Russian connection with Manafort that links to collusion and the Trump administration, but that doesn't mean that we have to treat every dribble of Sbiten as damnable proof until the time comes when that piece is unearthed.”
Me, same day:
I don't think that article, or the investigation to which it refers, necessarily has*any connection whatsoever*to Trump campaign collusion. Now, it does speak to the judgement of the Trump team, potentially, but it doesn't prove collusion, though it's arguable that it leaves another circumstantial door open.*
You're being pretty cavalier, IMO, about the fact that he's apparently under (multiple) criminal investigations. And your "bloodhounds" comment speaks as much to your bias as your accusations do to mine.
I wonder if you have an opinion as to why his Eastern European consulting connections aren't simply disclosed and transparent.
Me, same day:
“And there are some nasty blind spots in the law and public opinion about people like Manafort (and plenty of consultants who've worked for Democrats) who get rich on overseas blood money. If he's done that in way that contravenes American law, I hope he goes down for it.
He was involved in a Trump campaign that directly advocated weakening our partnership with NATO and building closer ties with Russia. Purely as a matter of policy, I'm concerned about that. The appearance of a campaign with him--and his sketchy associations--at the top, advocating for that policy, is distressing to me. That's subjective and based on my political leanings, for sure, but the genesis of that concern surely has some real-world grounding.”
Ok, I expressed concerns about Manafort's proximity to and financial entanglements with Deripaska. You did your usual thing, accusing me of being overblown and conspiratorially-minded. We did a little two-step about if Derispaka is even an oligarch (!?) and the nature of his relationship to Putin. Since then we've learned that Manafort offered to brief Deripaska on the campaign...which is exactly the kind of thing that I was suggesting that proximity and entanglement could conceivably result in. Your response? Basically, so what? Conspiracy to what?
It's very much of a piece with your response to the DJTJ/Kushner/Manafort meeting with the Russians. You made light of it, you discounted it, you minimized it, you ultimately dismissed it. OK, fine. I get that you're casting yourself as sort of a team B, trying to poke holes in what you perceive as politically motivated groupthink, but you've been unwilling to move on anything, except to quietly change your bottom line opinion on the "interference" question. You subsequently say that there may have been Russian "interference" in the election but not collusion with "the Trump campaign proper."
And, as an aside, I think it's doubtful that the bloodhounds sent to the banks came up entirely dry. Even that was a weird one to me. You're seriously gonna take Manafort's part in that one?
So here's a selection from the DJTJ meeting period:
7.11.17 Sorry for being able to keep it in my pants over an innocuous email between Donald Trump Jr. and this guy…This (the email) is a nothing burger and you know it.
7.12.17
I believe the Russians may have overtly interfered with the election. I don't believe that the Trump campaign (proper) colluded with them.
In reference*to the DJTJ meeting:
I don't see where it's implicit that these documents are being leaked, much less stolen. In fact, that they are official legal documents coming from a court is explicit. Hypothetically they could have even been public record.
7.12.17
This is the Joe Arpaio going to Hawaii stage of the fantasy.
So, your knee-jerk reaction to the revelation of the surveillance of Paul Manafort was that it was improper or illegal, but your knee-jerk response to the Russian government, through intermediaries, offering dirt on HRC was that it was probably totally on the level.
So here's at least two doors cracked in the direction of collusion with the campaign proper, and your response is to make light, minimize, and legitimize what is at best suspicious behavior. Now, we don't know that anything came of either instance, but it seems like their very existence would give one pause. Not so, apparently. You say the DJTJ/Kushner/Manafort meeting was "due dilligence" and "oppo," and that the Manafort proffer to Deripaska was innocuous.
So this is where it seems to me that whatever you're intimating about my saying that being "pro-Russia" is a slur is kinda rich. It is what it is. I agree--and have throughout--that there's overheated rhetoric and assumptions in certain circles. I agree that there are Clintonistas that are using the Russian ****ery as an unwarranted get-out-of-jail-free card for their mistakes. And I'm happy to concede that your skepticism is useful and welcome. On the other hand your thoughts on this have, in the best interpretation, reflected a head in the sand, and in the worst, some pretty severe intellectual dishonesty. When you've, in every case--from "RT = BBC" to joking about politically motivated murders to excusing the hacking to harrumphing the invasion of Ukraine and the war in Chechnya--taken a pro-Russian stance, it doesn't really seem to matter what I think your position is. You're entitled to those opinions, but I'm not sure why you object to them being called pro-Russian.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Agreed: there is no agreement on what it symbolizes, and thus no agreement on whether it should be "respected".
[MENTION=4]Julio3000[/MENTION]
First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond in detail. I hope that you've gathered by now that I really value the thoughtfulness of your posts on here and, even when I disagree with the underlying logic, I rarely ever disagree with the way you use words (which are clearly based on true and tangible convictions).
And what about Yeltsin and the 1996 election?
No, Ukraine is not Russia, but to shoo away the cultural, economic, and political connection between the two countries - which predates the Bloc era - is a little bit counterintuitive. Russia and the United States have been at odds over the direction of that country for years, most obviously, and publicly, during the Yushchenkno years. To what extent the United States was involved in the Euromaidan Revolution is certainly up for debate but, at the same time, acknowledging American fingerprints at the scene of the crime isn't necessarily assuming culpability either.
RE: American cyber attacks on Russia
- https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-1.557511
- http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/339630-russian-oil-company-rosneft-hit-by-cyber-attack
Again, I'll ask: Why is it so integral to your worldview to determine who needs who more?
Stating that I believe the United States stands to be "safer, richer, and stronger" as a consequence of fully opening diplomatic channels, peeling back sanctions, and normalizing relations with Russia is not "positive spin" nor it is "heartless" or "cynical". It's a foreign policy approach that is ... I don't know, steeped in geopolitical reality. Putin has inserted himself into European affairs (where he belongs more rightfully than the US does), Middle Eastern affairs (where he belongs more rightfully than the US does), and Korean affairs (where, again, he belongs more rightfully than the US does). Heck, if the fruits of a Russia-USA normalization were only basically superficial in nature it still wouldn't be much of a stretch to identify angles where the United States could obviously stand to benefit. But because Russia might gain 'more' (and, really, in what sense?), we aren't going to go there? As I've said before, I just don't get that mentality - it's just so entirely half-baked.
Now, regarding Pussy Riot and Litvinenko. Come on. I can be 'disturbed' by those particular instances of state violence, concede that they are just two notably public examples in a legitimate Black Sea of others, and still be "pro-Russia". Why is this the angle you are trying to take? I do find it a good example of misplaced pearl-clutching - and just short of massively hypocritical - to out-and-out reject a closer relationship between the two countries solely on moral grounds. Especially when we (as a country) have been all too willing to secede that same exact (political persecution, civil liberty smothering) moral ground in our dealings with the Iranians and the Cubans. I submit those countries as examples because they are two of the most recent instances of entente where the United States has broken bread with countries that engage (present tense) in repugnant and reprehensible civil rights abuses. And yeah, as a point of information, also instances where the United States gave (exponentially) more than it got to facilitate agreement.
IF Russia were responsible ^for the Wikileaks releases, yes, we should thank them (for making the election process much more transparent).
This is why I asked for context, because it's important.
Yes, I would stick by that comment. But I'm also not really sure what 'this' is to you.
How are we there? What are these examples of unambiguous Russian "espionage"? I see a lot of assumption. I see a lot of circumstantial evidence. But I don't see you making anywhere near as compelling of a case as you might believe heretofore exists.
You complain about me labeling you a conspiracy theorist, but you literally just got through trying to sell a narrative that is essentially bereft of veracity. The book writes itself.
I still don't see what you perceive to be so inherently wrong (either from a legal perspective or just as a pure point of morality) in that kind of back-channel.
As of right now, yes, I am.
And that was the prosecution's closing argument? Landed with a bit of a thud.
You acknowledge that "doors are cracked" and that behaviors are suspicious ... but can't quite seal the deal. I see an attempt to dole out justice on a preponderance of evidence because of the belief that a burden of proof has been sufficiently met. I don't think that it is. I'm looking for that beyond a reasonable doubt level proof. Now, how you've confused "intellectual dishonesty" and good old "rationality" is another story entirely, but I think that it has a lot to do with your emotions on the topic habitually running hot and your own knee-jerk tendencies to call me out on things that I haven't really said. Remember when you started that thread falsely accusing me of stating that Russia wasn't a kleptocracy? (Well, I guess, as it turns out, your apology in thread was empty - you just didn't have a quote to try and nail me with.)
I think the genesis of my quotable verbosity regarding the Russian angle to all of this really exploded when HRC referred to Trump as a Russian "puppet" during one of the debates. And, if I had to guess, in many (if not most) of the instances where you've pulled my commentary it was likely in response to a thought bubble emanating that same kind of reckless belief - not a belief that Russia toyed in the American electoral process, but that Trump was willfully engaged in that process on a very serious, treasonable level. Perhaps I might have 'over-responded' in a few of those instances to try and get my point across. But let's be real; my position, when 'wrong', has has been like a 2.5 out of 10 on the egregiousness scale.
But don't mind me, I'm just a little c conservative over here preaching caution and slow-moving processes.
And, PS, yeah RT = BBC. Propaganda = Propaganda.
Edit: Oh yeah, what about those multiple instances of me supposedly comparing birtherism to this Russian investigation?
First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond in detail. I hope that you've gathered by now that I really value the thoughtfulness of your posts on here and, even when I disagree with the underlying logic, I rarely ever disagree with the way you use words (which are clearly based on true and tangible convictions).
And what about Yeltsin and the 1996 election?
No, Ukraine is not Russia, but to shoo away the cultural, economic, and political connection between the two countries - which predates the Bloc era - is a little bit counterintuitive. Russia and the United States have been at odds over the direction of that country for years, most obviously, and publicly, during the Yushchenkno years. To what extent the United States was involved in the Euromaidan Revolution is certainly up for debate but, at the same time, acknowledging American fingerprints at the scene of the crime isn't necessarily assuming culpability either.
RE: American cyber attacks on Russia
- https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-1.557511
- http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/339630-russian-oil-company-rosneft-hit-by-cyber-attack
Again, I'll ask: Why is it so integral to your worldview to determine who needs who more?
Stating that I believe the United States stands to be "safer, richer, and stronger" as a consequence of fully opening diplomatic channels, peeling back sanctions, and normalizing relations with Russia is not "positive spin" nor it is "heartless" or "cynical". It's a foreign policy approach that is ... I don't know, steeped in geopolitical reality. Putin has inserted himself into European affairs (where he belongs more rightfully than the US does), Middle Eastern affairs (where he belongs more rightfully than the US does), and Korean affairs (where, again, he belongs more rightfully than the US does). Heck, if the fruits of a Russia-USA normalization were only basically superficial in nature it still wouldn't be much of a stretch to identify angles where the United States could obviously stand to benefit. But because Russia might gain 'more' (and, really, in what sense?), we aren't going to go there? As I've said before, I just don't get that mentality - it's just so entirely half-baked.
Now, regarding Pussy Riot and Litvinenko. Come on. I can be 'disturbed' by those particular instances of state violence, concede that they are just two notably public examples in a legitimate Black Sea of others, and still be "pro-Russia". Why is this the angle you are trying to take? I do find it a good example of misplaced pearl-clutching - and just short of massively hypocritical - to out-and-out reject a closer relationship between the two countries solely on moral grounds. Especially when we (as a country) have been all too willing to secede that same exact (political persecution, civil liberty smothering) moral ground in our dealings with the Iranians and the Cubans. I submit those countries as examples because they are two of the most recent instances of entente where the United States has broken bread with countries that engage (present tense) in repugnant and reprehensible civil rights abuses. And yeah, as a point of information, also instances where the United States gave (exponentially) more than it got to facilitate agreement.
IF Russia were responsible ^for the Wikileaks releases, yes, we should thank them (for making the election process much more transparent).
This is why I asked for context, because it's important.
Yes, I would stick by that comment. But I'm also not really sure what 'this' is to you.
How are we there? What are these examples of unambiguous Russian "espionage"? I see a lot of assumption. I see a lot of circumstantial evidence. But I don't see you making anywhere near as compelling of a case as you might believe heretofore exists.
You complain about me labeling you a conspiracy theorist, but you literally just got through trying to sell a narrative that is essentially bereft of veracity. The book writes itself.
I still don't see what you perceive to be so inherently wrong (either from a legal perspective or just as a pure point of morality) in that kind of back-channel.
As of right now, yes, I am.
And that was the prosecution's closing argument? Landed with a bit of a thud.
You acknowledge that "doors are cracked" and that behaviors are suspicious ... but can't quite seal the deal. I see an attempt to dole out justice on a preponderance of evidence because of the belief that a burden of proof has been sufficiently met. I don't think that it is. I'm looking for that beyond a reasonable doubt level proof. Now, how you've confused "intellectual dishonesty" and good old "rationality" is another story entirely, but I think that it has a lot to do with your emotions on the topic habitually running hot and your own knee-jerk tendencies to call me out on things that I haven't really said. Remember when you started that thread falsely accusing me of stating that Russia wasn't a kleptocracy? (Well, I guess, as it turns out, your apology in thread was empty - you just didn't have a quote to try and nail me with.)
I think the genesis of my quotable verbosity regarding the Russian angle to all of this really exploded when HRC referred to Trump as a Russian "puppet" during one of the debates. And, if I had to guess, in many (if not most) of the instances where you've pulled my commentary it was likely in response to a thought bubble emanating that same kind of reckless belief - not a belief that Russia toyed in the American electoral process, but that Trump was willfully engaged in that process on a very serious, treasonable level. Perhaps I might have 'over-responded' in a few of those instances to try and get my point across. But let's be real; my position, when 'wrong', has has been like a 2.5 out of 10 on the egregiousness scale.
But don't mind me, I'm just a little c conservative over here preaching caution and slow-moving processes.
And, PS, yeah RT = BBC. Propaganda = Propaganda.
Edit: Oh yeah, what about those multiple instances of me supposedly comparing birtherism to this Russian investigation?
I meant that in terms of geography.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
That seems...problematically simplistic.
Sort've. There are a variety of inter-regional affairs that the Russians and the Europeans engage in almost exclusively because they share borders. Their economies are entangled, energy resources shared, and in some locales there's a ton of cross-societal overlap (not just of culture, but of peoples as well).
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Sure: because of past Russian/Soviet imperialism, many Eastern European states have substantial ethnic Russian minorities—which Putin has already used as justification for violently annexing territory in Ukraine, and which he'd undoubtedly like to use as justification for further incursion—which is exactly why that part of Europe doesn't want Putin in Europe.
I don’t dispute that Europe generally dislikes Russian tactics and influence - my point is that Russian claims to a seat at the Euro table are legitimate and, in the scope of my initial comment, more natural than America’s.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Sweet! Maybe we could just move this wall to the border to save money.