The Trump Presidency

Julio3000 said:
Isn't it fair to say that investigations, particularly of complicated international financial transactions, aren't resolved overnight?
Click to expand...

If the investigations are indeed as complicated as you are making them out to be, then how is it that you feel so comfortable walking away from that article with a definitive notion of foul-play at hand?

There's literally nothing in the four paragraphs you posted which leads someone in that direction (especially given Manafort's public consulting history) unless you are specifically itching to make connections. Which has been the case in practically everything Manafort related. The man was a high-level political consultant in Eastern Europe FFS -- of course there's going to be ties.

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.
 
Hawk said:
If the investigations are indeed as complicated as you are making them out to be, then how is it that you feel so comfortable walking away from that article with a definitive notion of foul-play at hand?

There's literally nothing in the four paragraphs you posted which leads someone in that direction (especially given Manafort's public consulting history) unless you are specifically itching to make connections. Which has been the case in practically everything Manafort related. The man was a high-level political consultant in Eastern Europe FFS -- of course there's going to be ties.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Julio3000 said:
That's possible. My reading is admittedly one-sided. I'd suggest Karen Dawisha's Putin's Kleptocracy, Masha Gessen's The Man Without a Face(which features a nice retelling of the Bob Kraft Super Bowl ring story), and Bill Browder's Red Notice, which covers the Magnitsky affair.
Click to expand...

Well, unfortunately, there isn't much (legitimate) literature stemming from Russia which accurately portrays the state of affairs that isn't predicated entirely on anti-Putinism. I'm more curious about modern Russian society, as most citizens have a positive (or, rather, positively apathetic) view toward Putin. I'd recommend Peter Pomerantsev's Nothing is True and Everything is Possible to that score.

I agree with the conclusion of the NYT editorial that the oligarchic system has deep roots in Russia, and that it will outlive its current master. That's still kinda eliding the point that there is a master. This article casts Putin as a referee among competing power centers. Ok, this may make it difficult to do business in a frictionless way, but it's hardly suggesting that he's not the boss--a distant first among equals. If Sechin disagrees with Timchenko who disagrees with Medvedev, they're all his creatures (at least two of them are) and owe their position to his patronage. They're beefing with each other, not bucking the boss.
Click to expand...

But if Sechin and Timchenko and Medvedev all disagree with Putin, then there's trouble. Putin may nominally be the boss, but in my interpretation that 'boss' is more akin to a captain of a baseball team or a president of a company than it is to any kind of Generalissimo or Supreme Leader.

Not exactly timely.
Click to expand...

I noted that, but I don't think it belies the point at all. In fact, I think it demonstrates - in rawest terms - exactly why Putin climbed into bed with the oligarchs and how the system has blossomed. You contend that Putin has marginalized non-Family oligarchs and/or replaced them with loyalists, which is true, but it also shouldn't (and doesn't) take us a default setting of constant peace in the Black Sea dacha. Power mongers gonna monger.

So if you want to say that the "power vertical" is an exaggeration, maybe you're right, but nothing here says that it's a myth.
Click to expand...

All I've said, and sourced, is that assertions of a unilateral power structure with Putin at the top and the oligarchs significantly below are disingenuous.
 
Julio3000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

My comment about 'bloodhounds' was in the context of Manafort 'lying' about connections to Russia (re: Trump campaign collusion). The hounds are in over-drive trying to find treasonous behavior, but, it's not untrue: they haven't turned anything worth anything up yet.

Look, I'm okay with you sending Manafort somewhere cold and dark (he literally freaks me out) for taking illegal payments during the sanctions period. But I suspect him meeting his demise on those grounds wouldn't be enough to satiate you.

I wonder if you have an opinion as to why his Eastern European consulting connections aren't simply disclosed and transparent.
Click to expand...

I don't know Julio, maybe because it's bad for business to transparently proclaim you've taken money from mass murderers.
 
who knew Mel Brooks would have predicted the future in some way with Blazing Saddles?

giphy.gif
 
Hawk said:
Well, unfortunately, there isn't much (legitimate) literature stemming from Russia which accurately portrays the state of affairs that isn't predicated entirely on anti-Putinism. I'm more curious about modern Russian society, as most citizens have a positive (or, rather, positively apathetic) view toward Putin. I'd recommend Peter Pomerantsev's Nothing is True and Everything is Possible to that score.

But if Sechin and Timchenko and Medvedev all disagree with Putin, then there's trouble. Putin may nominally be the boss, but in my interpretation that 'boss' is more akin to a captain of a baseball team or a president of a company than it is to any kind of Generalissimo or Supreme Leader.

I noted that, but I don't think it belies the point at all. In fact, I think it demonstrates - in rawest terms - exactly why Putin climbed into bed with the oligarchs and how the system has blossomed. You contend that Putin has marginalized non-Family oligarchs and/or replaced them with loyalists, which is true, but it also shouldn't (and doesn't) take us a default setting of constant peace in the Black Sea dacha. Power mongers gonna monger.

All I've said, and sourced, is that assertions of a unilateral power structure with Putin at the top and the oligarchs significantly below are disingenuous.
Click to expand...

I think that's reasonable and good food or thought. And yeah, "constant peace" is not really something that I think is realistic under this system. I'm just not sure we've ever reached a point where, to use your example, Timchenko and Sechin and Medvedev are all aligned against the boss. Captain of the baseball team doesn't quite get there, IMO, but I take your point.
 
Julio3000 said:
I think that's reasonable and good food or thought. And yeah, "constant peace" is not really something that I think is realistic under this system. I'm just not sure we've ever reached a point where, to use your example, Timchenko and Sechin and Medvedev are all aligned against the boss. Captain of the baseball team doesn't quite get there, IMO, but I take your point.
Click to expand...

And trust me, I yours.
 
Hawk said:
My comment about 'bloodhounds' was in the context of Manafort 'lying' about connections to Russia (re: Trump campaign collusion). The hounds are in over-drive trying to find treasonous behavior, but, it's not untrue: they haven't turned anything worth anything up yet.

Look, I'm okay with you sending Manafort somewhere cold and dark (he literally freaks me out) for taking illegal payments during the sanctions period. But I suspect him meeting his demise on those grounds wouldn't be enough to satiate you.

I don't know Julio, maybe because it's bad for business to transparently proclaim you've taken money from mass murderers.
Click to expand...

If there's no evidence of collusion, so be it. I think you've misread or misrepresented my position here. That's independent of whether Paul Manafort should be in bracelets if there's some other reason for it.

it's bad for business to transparently proclaim you've taken money from mass murderers.

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.
 
After one day of negotiation on the new health care bill, the great deal-maker says he's done. Vote Friday or keep Obamacare.
 
If Obamacare is not replaced it will be Trump in trouble.

The members of the freedom caucus are in very safe districts. They have nothing to lose. Trump's dealmaking skills would come into question and have zero credibility. Those members can easily sell that Trumpcare is worse than Obamacare and come out of their districts unscathed.
 
Krgrecw said:
That's what great deal makers do. The Take it or leave it approach.
Click to expand...

That is short game ****
Those that are good at governance understand long game and know how to play it.

Against the Dallas Cowboys with Ezekiel Elliot it is about the 4th quarter. Not splash plays
.............

To those that think government should be run like a business.
How many business' left from 1792 ?
 
57Brave said:
That is short game ****

Those that are good at governance understand long game and know how to play it.

Against the Dallas Cowboys with Ezekiel Elliot it is about the 4th quarter. Not splash plays

.............

To those that think government should be run like a business.

How many business' left from 1792 ?
Click to expand...

Is our government the same as it was in 1792?
 
57Brave said:
How many business' left from 1792 ?
Click to expand...

1613 Shirley Plantation Farm
1632-33 Tuttle's Red Barn Farm
1639 Field View Farm Farm
1642 Barker's Farm Farm
1667 Seaside Inn Hotel
1673 White Horse Tavern Restaurant
1680 Saunderskill Farm
1690 Towle Silversmiths Silversmith
1705 The John Stevens Shop Stone carver
1711 Orchards of Concklin Orchard
1720s Smiling Hill Farm Farm (and lumber mill since 1970s)
1736 Lakeside Mills Corn products
1741 WD Cowls Lumber
1752 Caswell-Massey Perfume
1760 Lorillard Tobacco Company Tobacco
1764 The Hartford Courant Newspaper
1765 Baker's Confectionery
1774 Ames Manufacturing
1776 The Griswold Inn Restaurant and Hotel
1778 Dowse Orchards Farm
1778 Greenbrier Hotel
1778 Willow Grove Inn Hotel
1780 Laird & Company Distillery
1785 Bixler's Jewelry
1785 Turpin Farms Farm
1786 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Newspaper
1787 Hayes Coffee
1790 King Arthur Flour Flour and baking
1792 CIGNA Insurance
1792 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft Lawyers
1792 New York Stock Exchange Stock Exchange
1792 Old Farmer's Almanac Almanac
1792 State Street Banking
 
Runnin said:
1613 Shirley Plantation Farm
1632-33 Tuttle's Red Barn Farm
1639 Field View Farm Farm
1642 Barker's Farm Farm
1667 Seaside Inn Hotel
1673 White Horse Tavern Restaurant
1680 Saunderskill Farm
1690 Towle Silversmiths Silversmith
1705 The John Stevens Shop Stone carver
1711 Orchards of Concklin Orchard
1720s Smiling Hill Farm Farm (and lumber mill since 1970s)
1736 Lakeside Mills Corn products
1741 WD Cowls Lumber
1752 Caswell-Massey Perfume
1760 Lorillard Tobacco Company Tobacco
1764 The Hartford Courant Newspaper
1765 Baker's Confectionery
1774 Ames Manufacturing
1776 The Griswold Inn Restaurant and Hotel
1778 Dowse Orchards Farm
1778 Greenbrier Hotel
1778 Willow Grove Inn Hotel
1780 Laird & Company Distillery
1785 Bixler's Jewelry
1785 Turpin Farms Farm
1786 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Newspaper
1787 Hayes Coffee
1790 King Arthur Flour Flour and baking
1792 CIGNA Insurance
1792 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft Lawyers
1792 New York Stock Exchange Stock Exchange
1792 Old Farmer's Almanac Almanac
1792 State Street Banking
Click to expand...

I asked !

duPont ?
 
Visiting Longwood Gardens many years ago I thought I remembered that the foundation of the duPont fortune was gun powder for the Revolutionary War.
Or like we Pennsylvanians like to call it The War of British Aggression

I could Google it but seems like a fun thing to talk about on a slow news day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top