|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 12:54 Doodsmack wrote:On November 01 2016 12:44 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2016 12:38 ChristianS wrote:On November 01 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:
In the case of Clinton, we have all the evidence, how many emails, classified emails, deleting under subpoena, where the server was, who ran it, who had access, her making up all manner of CYA bullshit about not knowing what (C) means. This is information that came out from federal investigation. In Trump's case we have monsters under the bed. On the other hand, in the case of Clinton there's no real chance that she was actually an operative for another country with whom we're not too friendly right now. With Trump it's a distinct possibility. You think the big dumb oaf from Queens who has been trying to run for president for 30 years is a Russian agent? When did that happen? A great feature of early voting is not having to care about these hysterics anymore. In theory the 5 year timeline makes sense, it's when he used birtherism to start exploring a presidential bid. Can you elaborate what you meant by this? All I can get from it is the suggestion that he only became a Russian agent at age 65 and the evidence for this is using birtherism, as though it were a Putin plot, to try and explode into the election, and I know that couldn't be right. But you did give me an insight, which is that this phenomenon is virtually birtherism, just in another direction: the guy with a Slovenian wife is secretly working for the Russians (excuse me, he might be secretly working for the Russians, the evidence is unclear and the jury's still out so who knows, I mean, we can't disprove that he's working for the Russians so that ought to count for something), which is progress of a kind from thinking the half-black guy is a secret Muslim.
Do you have any similarities to birtherism besides the fact that birtherism is widely considered to have little basis, and you think this doesn't have much basis either? I can think of plenty of differences between the two, like that the Trump+Putin narratives don't seem to have any racist component, or that the birther conspiracy, even if it had been true, didn't have any apparent implications for Obama's actual policies.
|
On November 01 2016 13:13 LegalLord wrote:
So to what extent to people believe that organizations doing business with companies that reside in foreign countries is suspect and indicative of treason?
in a globalized world I don't think that fact alone is indicative of anything
|
On November 01 2016 13:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2016 12:54 Doodsmack wrote:On November 01 2016 12:44 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2016 12:38 ChristianS wrote:On November 01 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:
In the case of Clinton, we have all the evidence, how many emails, classified emails, deleting under subpoena, where the server was, who ran it, who had access, her making up all manner of CYA bullshit about not knowing what (C) means. This is information that came out from federal investigation. In Trump's case we have monsters under the bed. On the other hand, in the case of Clinton there's no real chance that she was actually an operative for another country with whom we're not too friendly right now. With Trump it's a distinct possibility. You think the big dumb oaf from Queens who has been trying to run for president for 30 years is a Russian agent? When did that happen? A great feature of early voting is not having to care about these hysterics anymore. In theory the 5 year timeline makes sense, it's when he used birtherism to start exploring a presidential bid. Can you elaborate what you meant by this? All I can get from it is the suggestion that he only became a Russian agent at age 65 and the evidence for this is using birtherism, as though it were a Putin plot, to try and explode into the election, and I know that couldn't be right. But you did give me an insight, which is that this phenomenon is virtually birtherism, just in another direction: the guy with a Slovenian wife is secretly working for the Russians (excuse me, he might be secretly working for the Russians, the evidence is unclear and the jury's still out so who knows, I mean, we can't disprove that he's working for the Russians so that ought to count for something), which is progress of a kind from thinking the half-black guy is a secret Muslim. This guy who vacillates between claiming to know Putin and having no idea who Putin is, intervened to change one policy platform at the convention related to Russian interests, and directly contradicts his U.S. intelligence briefings about Russia to the public is the main thing. Not the Slovenian wife. Like if Obama got on his knees facing east three times a day spontaneously and made a big stink about pork, I would be more okay with the secret Muslim angle.
Carly Fioriиa also pretended to know Putin. That's a common way people try to invent credentials. The GOP platform on Ukraine is not the product of a conspiracy. It's a foreign policy position that differs from the neocon Hillary's. That doesn't make someone a KGB plant. I don't know what the rest is supposed to be.
On November 01 2016 13:21 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2016 12:54 Doodsmack wrote:On November 01 2016 12:44 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2016 12:38 ChristianS wrote:On November 01 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:
In the case of Clinton, we have all the evidence, how many emails, classified emails, deleting under subpoena, where the server was, who ran it, who had access, her making up all manner of CYA bullshit about not knowing what (C) means. This is information that came out from federal investigation. In Trump's case we have monsters under the bed. On the other hand, in the case of Clinton there's no real chance that she was actually an operative for another country with whom we're not too friendly right now. With Trump it's a distinct possibility. You think the big dumb oaf from Queens who has been trying to run for president for 30 years is a Russian agent? When did that happen? A great feature of early voting is not having to care about these hysterics anymore. In theory the 5 year timeline makes sense, it's when he used birtherism to start exploring a presidential bid. Can you elaborate what you meant by this? All I can get from it is the suggestion that he only became a Russian agent at age 65 and the evidence for this is using birtherism, as though it were a Putin plot, to try and explode into the election, and I know that couldn't be right. But you did give me an insight, which is that this phenomenon is virtually birtherism, just in another direction: the guy with a Slovenian wife is secretly working for the Russians (excuse me, he might be secretly working for the Russians, the evidence is unclear and the jury's still out so who knows, I mean, we can't disprove that he's working for the Russians so that ought to count for something), which is progress of a kind from thinking the half-black guy is a secret Muslim. Do you have any similarities to birtherism besides the fact that birtherism is widely considered to have little basis, and you think this doesn't have much basis either? I can think of plenty of differences between the two, like that the Trump+Putin narratives don't seem to have any racist component, or that the birther conspiracy, even if it had been true, didn't have any apparent implications for Obama's actual policies.
Yes, an undesirable boogeyman enemy group, in this case Russia, in Obama's case, browns, then unfalsifiably lumping the person you hate into it.
|
"KGB plant" seems a bit strong. Put it this way: nobody thinks Hillary "planted" Donna Brazile. They just think that Donna Brazile had something to offer the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign had something to offer Donna Brazile, and they made a deal.
So the question is: seems like Russia had something to offer Donald Trump, and Donald Trump had something to offer Russia. Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal?
Edit:
On November 01 2016 13:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 13:21 ChristianS wrote:On November 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2016 12:54 Doodsmack wrote:On November 01 2016 12:44 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2016 12:38 ChristianS wrote:On November 01 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:
In the case of Clinton, we have all the evidence, how many emails, classified emails, deleting under subpoena, where the server was, who ran it, who had access, her making up all manner of CYA bullshit about not knowing what (C) means. This is information that came out from federal investigation. In Trump's case we have monsters under the bed. On the other hand, in the case of Clinton there's no real chance that she was actually an operative for another country with whom we're not too friendly right now. With Trump it's a distinct possibility. You think the big dumb oaf from Queens who has been trying to run for president for 30 years is a Russian agent? When did that happen? A great feature of early voting is not having to care about these hysterics anymore. In theory the 5 year timeline makes sense, it's when he used birtherism to start exploring a presidential bid. Can you elaborate what you meant by this? All I can get from it is the suggestion that he only became a Russian agent at age 65 and the evidence for this is using birtherism, as though it were a Putin plot, to try and explode into the election, and I know that couldn't be right. But you did give me an insight, which is that this phenomenon is virtually birtherism, just in another direction: the guy with a Slovenian wife is secretly working for the Russians (excuse me, he might be secretly working for the Russians, the evidence is unclear and the jury's still out so who knows, I mean, we can't disprove that he's working for the Russians so that ought to count for something), which is progress of a kind from thinking the half-black guy is a secret Muslim. Do you have any similarities to birtherism besides the fact that birtherism is widely considered to have little basis, and you think this doesn't have much basis either? I can think of plenty of differences between the two, like that the Trump+Putin narratives don't seem to have any racist component, or that the birther conspiracy, even if it had been true, didn't have any apparent implications for Obama's actual policies. Yes, an undesirable boogeyman enemy group, in this case Russia, in Obama's case, browns, then unfalsifiably lumping the person you hate into it.
So by this description, the problem with birtherism was that it unfairly and unfalsifiably tried to lump Obama in with black people? I must be misunderstanding something here. Unfalsifiable doesn't even seem strictly accurate, seeing as releasing the long form certificate seemed to shrink the birther movement quite a bit.
This seems like a real stretch of an analogy.
|
On November 01 2016 12:40 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 12:32 Ropid wrote:I dislike the Slate article because I felt it was suggestive. It felt like they tried to push things as far as possible. They left out things that you can immediately find if you start searching around yourself. Compare with the NYT article about that Uranium deal: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.htmlI feel that's a much better article. You can see that it's fair to say that the donations were well intentioned. They explain why that can make sense. The writers could instead have pushed the narrative very far into treason territory, but they were fair so that you can decide yourself. I don't feel like the Slate article pushed things that far until they started digging into the history of the bank and the relationship between Putin and Aven. But even then I would kind of expect an article like that to explore the bank a bit further as well. What parts were suggestive? I felt like everything was presented pretty clearly as facts and it even tried making plausible excuses for the activity. Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 12:40 Nevuk wrote:
A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump
On Friday, FBI Director James Comey set off a political blast when he informed congressional leaders that the bureau had stumbled across emails that might be pertinent to its completed inquiry into Hillary Clinton's handling of emails when she was secretary of state. The Clinton campaign and others criticized Comey for intervening in a presidential campaign by breaking with Justice Department tradition and revealing information about an investigation—information that was vague and perhaps ultimately irrelevant—so close to Election Day. On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information."
Reid's missive set off a burst of speculation on Twitter and elsewhere. What was he referring to regarding the Republican presidential nominee? At the end of August, Reid had written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign," and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had recently visited Moscow. Last month, Yahoo News reported that US intelligence officials were probing the links between Page and senior Russian officials. (Page has called accusations against him "garbage.") On Monday, NBC News reported that the FBI has mounted a preliminary inquiry into the foreign business ties of Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chief. But Reid's recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.
"This is something of huge significance, way above party politics," the former intelligence officer says. "I think [Trump's] own party should be aware of this stuff as well."
Does this mean the FBI is investigating whether Russian intelligence has attempted to develop a secret relationship with Trump or cultivate him as an asset? Was the former intelligence officer and his material deemed credible or not? An FBI spokeswoman says, "Normally, we don't talk about whether we are investigating anything." But a senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government.
In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump's dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. This was for an opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul. (Before the former spy was retained, the project's financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.) "It started off as a fairly general inquiry," says the former spook, who asks not to be identified. But when he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, "there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit."
This was, the former spy remarks, "an extraordinary situation." He regularly consults with US government agencies on Russian matters, and near the start of July on his own initiative—without the permission of the US company that hired him—he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. (He declines to identify the FBI contact.) The former spy says he concluded that the information he had collected on Trump was "sufficiently serious" to share with the FBI.
Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him." It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls."
The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was "shock and horror." The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. "It's quite clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on," he says.
"This is something of huge significance, way above party politics," the former intelligence officer comments. "I think [Trump's] own party should be aware of this stuff as well."
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding the memos. In the past, Trump has declared, "I have nothing to do with Russia."
The FBI is certainly investigating the hacks attributed to Russia that have hit American political targets, including the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton's presidential campaign. But there have been few public signs of whether that probe extends to examining possible contacts between the Russian government and Trump. (In recent weeks, reporters in Washington have pursued anonymous online reports that a computer server related to the Trump Organization engaged in a high level of activity with servers connected to Alfa Bank, the largest private bank in Russia. On Monday, a Slate investigation detailed the pattern of unusual server activity but concluded, "We don't yet know what this [Trump] server was for, but it deserves further explanation." In an email to Mother Jones, Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, maintains, "The Trump Organization is not sending or receiving any communications from this email server. The Trump Organization has no communication or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.")
According to several national security experts, there is widespread concern in the US intelligence community that Russian intelligence, via hacks, is aiming to undermine the presidential election—to embarrass the United States and delegitimize its democratic elections. And the hacks appear to have been designed to benefit Trump. In August, Democratic members of the House committee on oversight wrote Comey to ask the FBI to investigate "whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests may have contributed to these [cyber] attacks in order to interfere with the US. presidential election." In September, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff, the senior Democrats on, respectively, the Senate and House intelligence committees, issued a joint statement accusing Russia of underhanded meddling: "Based on briefings we have received, we have concluded that the Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election. At the least, this effort is intended to sow doubt about the security of our election and may well be intended to influence the outcomes of the election." The Obama White House has declared Russia the culprit in the hacking capers, expressed outrage, and promised a "proportional" response.
There's no way to tell whether the FBI has confirmed or debunked any of the allegations contained in the former spy's memos. But a Russian intelligence attempt to co-opt or cultivate a presidential candidate would mark an even more serious operation than the hacking.
In the letter Reid sent to Comey on Sunday, he pointed out that months ago he had asked the FBI director to release information on Trump's possible Russia ties. Since then, according to a Reid spokesman, Reid has been briefed several times. The spokesman adds, "He is confident that he knows enough to be extremely alarmed."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump(This was written by the same journalist who publised the 47% tape in 2012, but I'd wait for at least another source before taking it at face value) should've put the discretion at the top, it sounded really out there. I mean, it wouldn't be surprising if it's true, but this election is really something. hopefully it gets picked up by some bigger people.
After I read the article, I felt it was strangely written (didn't know why exactly) and I browsed around some more.
You can do "whois trump-email.com" on the command line (Mac and Linux at least). In the whois info you get, you'll see a second business mentioned named Cendyn. That Cendyn company seems to offer marketing services for any hotel business according to their website: www.cendyn.com
It wasn't mentioned that the server's address is used by that different company, not Trump. There's no Trump admin email contact mentioned in the lines that are about the registrant, just someone at Cendyn. The article also didn't mention a typo "Trump Orgainzation" in the whois data that's perhaps strange.
The article then later shows a reply the writer got after they asked a US business in Michigan that also was contacted by that server, same as the Russians. That reply mentions Cendyn. The article then does not further explain the contents of that reply they showed. The reader has to do that themselves. I feel here they should have done more. They probably could have found out if it's just a shitty spam mail server or what.
For the rest of the article they start diving into Russia and all kinds of stuff.
EDIT:
Here's what I get when I do "whois trump-email.com":
+ Show Spoiler +Domain Name: TRUMP-EMAIL.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1565681481_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: [url=http://www.godaddy.com]http://www.godaddy.com[/url]
Update Date: 2016-06-29T14:27:44Z
Creation Date: 2009-08-14T20:06:37Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-07-01T03:59:59Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited [url=http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited]http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited[/url]
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited [url=http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited]http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited[/url]
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited [url=http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited]http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited[/url]
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited [url=http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited]http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited[/url]
Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry
Registrant Name: Trump Orgainzation
Registrant Organization: Trump Orgainzation
Registrant Street: 725 Fifth Avenue
Registrant City: New York
Registrant State/Province: New York
Registrant Postal Code: 10022
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.2128322000
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: emcmullin@cendyn.com
Registry Admin ID: Not Available From Registry
Admin Name: Emily McMullin
Admin Organization: Cendyn
Admin Street: 1515 N Federal Highway
Admin Street: Suite 419
Admin City: Boca Raton
Admin State/Province: Florida
Admin Postal Code: 33432
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: (561) 750-3173
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: ssl.admin@cendyn.com
Registry Tech ID: Not Available From Registry
Tech Name: Emily McMullin
Tech Organization: Cendyn
Tech Street: 1515 N. Federal Highway
Tech Street: Suite 419
Tech City: Boca Raton
Tech State/Province: Florida
Tech Postal Code: 33432
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.5617503173
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: ssl.admin@cendyn.com
Name Server: NS1.CDCSERVICES.COM
Name Server: NS2.CDCSERVICES.COM
Name Server: NS3.CDCSERVICES.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: [url=http://wdprs.internic.net/]http://wdprs.internic.net/[/url]
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2016-11-01T04:00:00Z <<<
That shop looks like a rented office in a building somewhere in Florida.
|
On November 01 2016 13:32 ChristianS wrote:
"KGB plant" seems a bit strong. Put it this way: nobody thinks Hillary "planted" Donna Brazile. They just think that Donna Brazile had something to offer the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign had something to offer Donna Brazile, and they made a deal.
So the question is: seems like Russia had something to offer Donald Trump, and Donald Trump had something to offer Russia. Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal?
Well the FBI just said theyve found no link between Trump and Russia http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0&referer=http://drudgereport.com/
Maybe you want to argue the FBI has been infiltrated by Russian spies? Or maybe the dems will realise these paranoid conspiracy theories they're pushing are all false.
|
On November 01 2016 13:32 ChristianS wrote:
"KGB plant" seems a bit strong. Put it this way: nobody thinks Hillary "planted" Donna Brazile. They just think that Donna Brazile had something to offer the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign had something to offer Donna Brazile, and they made a deal.
So the question is: seems like Russia had something to offer Donald Trump, and Donald Trump had something to offer Russia. Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal?
So the question is: seems like Saudi Arabia had something to offer Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton had something to offer Saudi Arabia . Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal?
So the question is: seems like Wall Street had something to offer Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton had something to offer Wall Street . Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal?
At least in Hillary's case we know about the billions of dollars her organization got, and the millions she got for speaking fees. I'm sure the Sheiks were just being charitable, and that Wall Street was REALLY interested in her oratory and there were no other intentions. Trump is obviously a Russian Agent though.
|
On November 01 2016 13:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 13:32 ChristianS wrote:
"KGB plant" seems a bit strong. Put it this way: nobody thinks Hillary "planted" Donna Brazile. They just think that Donna Brazile had something to offer the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign had something to offer Donna Brazile, and they made a deal.
So the question is: seems like Russia had something to offer Donald Trump, and Donald Trump had something to offer Russia. Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal? Well the FBI just said theyve found no link between Trump and Russia http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0&referer=http://drudgereport.com/Maybe you want to argue the FBI has been infiltrated by Russian spies? Or maybe the dems will realise these paranoid conspiracy theories they're pushing are all false.
The FBI doesn't even seem to have concluded its investigation yet. It seems a little early to shout people down with "there's no connection, the FBI said so!"
|
On November 01 2016 13:32 ChristianS wrote:
"KGB plant" seems a bit strong. Put it this way: nobody thinks Hillary "planted" Donna Brazile. They just think that Donna Brazile had something to offer the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign had something to offer Donna Brazile, and they made a deal.
So the question is: seems like Russia had something to offer Donald Trump, and Donald Trump had something to offer Russia. Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal?
If you are speculating in perpetuity in the absence of any tangible claim, yes.
When did this deal happen and what was it? Are you with Doodsmack, he made a deal with Putin before the last election cycle (2012) when he dropped out before the four real primary candidates? Some payoff. Or did the deal happen before this primary, 2016? Putin would be great at roulette, I wonder if they hedged their bets and made deals with any of the other 16 GOP contenders or the wider field of potential ones. And what's the deal that's so good for Trump, that outweighs the tens of millions his campaign has cost him, the damage to his brand... Even my asking these questions undermines the chances of someone realizing the absurdity here.
|
United States42004 Posts
The Saudi Arabia Clinton deal relies upon assuming that the last few years of history didn't happen and that time travel exists. The largest and most notable of the bribes Hillary is alleged to have received through the Clinton Foundation, for example, took place during her husband's presidency and were to his Presidential Library fund, which he subsequently spent building his Presidential Library. I struggle to believe that those donations were made with the expectation of influencing her decisions as secretary of state in an administration four elections later. Furthermore US policy in the region has been decidedly contrary to Saudi interests. The reintroduction of Iran into the international community has created a rival power that can challenge Saudi (and Sunni) influence, and one that has a historical pedigree far greater than SA in the region. It also legitimatizes Shiite Islam in the region and undermines SA's Wahhabi tendrils. More importantly it has destroyed OPEC. Iran showed no interest in price fixing, instead deciding to maximize market share. This created a race to the bottom which has created a budget crisis in SA (among other nations), much as the White House intended. Low oil prices are great for the domestic consumer, great for the balance of trade deficit and fantastic for fucking with all the oil producing nations, very few of whom are American friends (rip Canada).
US foreign policy is costing Saudi Arabia hundreds of billions of dollars and undermining their regional dominance which they have invested hugely in creating by pushing their brand of Islam across the region. If you want me to believe that Saudi Arabia paid Clinton to orchestrate this scenario, and that they paid her less than one percent of a penny on the dollar what the policy was worth to them, and that they paid her to deliberately fuck them, and that they paid her because a time traveller told them she'd have their back two decades later, well, it's certainly one theory.
But I don't buy it.
If Saudi Arabia really had any influence over Obama's policy in the Middle East they wouldn't have been fucked so hard by it. And if I were to be bribed by Saudi Arabia to make them a few hundred bil by restoring their oil cartel, well, I'd want more than a donation to my library.
|
I don't know about a years-long super secret plan... I feel you'd be retarded to think Trump had any chance to win the election last year or even just months ago. It then seems strange for anyone to try to grease palms already.
Thinking back... in past elections, weren't there foreign ambassadors and members-of-parliament and stuff visiting candidates before the election? This time I didn't hear anything about anyone meeting with Trump. They must all think it would be a waste of time.
|
We have truly entered into the twilight zone when trump supporters, whose candidate thinks climate change is a Chinese conspiracy, now complain about conspiracy theories.
Please let this end
|
On November 01 2016 13:18 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 12:53 ticklishmusic wrote:This election in a nutshell (stolen from Reddit) This is all rather familiar.
Clinton emails.
Trump admitting sexual assault.
Clinton emails.
Trump charity fraud.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls for nuclear proliferation.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls for national stop and frisk.
Clinton emails.
Trump violates trade embargo with Cuba.
Clinton emails.
Trump sued over Trump University fraud.
Clinton emails.
Trump bribes District Attorney.
Clinton emails.
Trump doesn't pay taxes for 20 years.
Clinton emails.
Trump disparages a gold star family.
Clinton emails.
Trump threatens to jail his enemies in fascistic style.
Clinton emails.
Trump threatens to restrict freedom of the press in fascistic style.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls for ban of an entire religion from entering US.
Clinton emails.
Trump lied about support for Iraq War over and over in debate.
Clinton emails.
Trump in court for rape of a minor.
Clinton emails.
Trump unaware of Russia's Crimea occupation.
Clinton emails.
Trump unaware of situation in Syria.
Clinton emails.
Trump penalized for racist housing discrimination.
Clinton emails.
Trump files for bankruptcy 6 times.
Clinton emails.
Trump goes 0-3 in debates by showing scant knowledge of world politics.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls the most famous American POW a loser for getting caught.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls Mexicans rapists.
Clinton emails.
Trump questions judge's integrity because of parent's heritage.
Clinton emails.
Trump deletes emails involved in casino scandal.
Clinton emails.
Trump commits insurance fraud after Florida hurricane.
Clinton emails.
Trump has dozens of assault victims and witnesses come forward with allegations of abuse.
Clinton emails.
Trump attacks former Ms America for being overweight.
Clinton emails.
Trump tweets about sex tapes at 3am.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls for US citizens to be sent to Gitmo.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls for more extreme forms of torture to be used.
Clinton emails.
Trump asks why cant we use our nukes if we have them.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls for offensive bombing attack on sovereign nations because someone gave the middle finger.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls to kill women and children of suspected terrorists.
Clinton emails.
Trump says women should be punished for having abortions.
Clinton emails.
Trump makes fun of disabled people.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls for end of freedom of the press.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls global warming a Chinese hoax.
Clinton emails.
Trump praises Putin and Kim Jong Un's strong leadership.
Clinton emails.
Trump openly admits to not paying his employees during debate.
Clinton emails.
Trump calls Obama an illegitimate non-citizen hundreds of times over for 7 years.
Clinton emails.
Trump uses campaign donations to enrich his own businesses.
Clinton emails.
Trump first candidate to refuse to release tax returns.
Clinton emails.
Trump says Ted Cruz involved in JFK assassination unironically citing National Enquirer.
Clinton emails.
Trump's campaign manager involved in illegal corruption with Russia, forcing him to step down and triggering FBI investigation.
Clinton emails.
Trump says election is rigged ... unless he wins.
Clinton emails.
Trump encourages followers to commit blatant voter fraud.
Clinton emails.
Trump encourages voter intimidation through "poll watchers" in minority precincts.
Clinton emails.
Donald Trump’s companies destroyed emails in defiance of court orders (today)
Clinton emails.
Years later, Trump thinks Central Park Five still guilty, despite DNA evidence to contrary.
Clinton emails.
Trump says laziness is an inherent trait in black people.
Clinton emails.
Trump is a proven pathological liar.
Clinton emails. Benghazi Multi millions in Donations from Saudi Arabia Health concerns Super predators Bill Clinton rape allegations DNC collaboration to deny Sanders nomination Hosts giving Clinton debate questions ahead of time Media bias toward Clinton in both the primary and general Haiti Plus far more that will come out shortly 
Benghazi was already investigated
What's wrong with people in Saudi Arabia caring about the needy?
What concerns?
Normal term at the time?
Bill is not running for office?
No evidence of wrongdoing
No evidence of wrongdoing
The one that attacks Clinton all the time?
The Clinton Foundation you mean?
Like, literally none of those are anything. Either it has no evidence, is not her, or it was already investigated.
|
On November 01 2016 07:48 oneofthem wrote:
a lasting impact of the bernie situation is the split between the activist left and the democratic party.
the left flank was sort of a cold war in more tranquil times, but the pressure's been building. going deeper into how the revolutionary left sees the world, it is not really about party politics but social change, specifically changing a system that is viewed as dominated by wealth and power. this sort of 'society is composed of adversarial groups at cross interests' view is classically revolutionary, not just marxist. on the left, more and more has been subjected to this transformation from politics to class struggle. this is a change from a policy centric view to a class centric view.
now, everyone has policy ideas and everyone thinks certain people are really bad. to give meaning to policy centric and class centric, i should refine the definitions so that the former focus on specific policy problems when trying to explain why bad things happen, while the latter blames someone. policy based thinking in politics is a functionalist sort, agents are effects of rules, even morally culpable 'bad actors' are a problem to be controlled. the more personal sort of view of this second group is that a group of evil force exists, and that is something the people should fight against. undeniably, behind every bad policy is a political opponent whom we might call bad, but this group is defined in terms of class based properties like wealth and line of work, the demonization is a bit too rough edged and deal in large groups like wall street, billionaires, politicians.
we might call it populism, but it is really about a view of society as composed of adversarial and conflicting group level entities. this class based view is hungry for the rhetoric of class struggle constantly drummed up by sanders. his appeal is purely one of willingness to engage in this sort of crass, group conflict rhetoric that a lot of people believe in. this is also why people think bernie has all the policies, because their idea of policy is defined by their group conflict view of society, instead of how the process actually works. when sanders is talking about corporations, wall street, that to people are the issues and the policy.
this transformation from "fixing the system" to "revolution" is not captured by the general description of the sanders phenomenon, that of a dissatisfied electorate. the framing shift from an american sense of "politics" as collective decisionmaking to the revolutionary model of class conflict, more than behavioralist description of wellbeing, is more instructive.
this is why the democrats who look at politics as a collection of policy and rules are so caught off guard by the fever swamp hatred for HRC. policy-wise, she is certainly acutely aware of the problems that people have about inequality and stagnant wages. the focus on equality is there.
a lot of people have all identified why she is susceptible. the enthusiasm for war against the evil forces is underestimated. viewed as opportunistic and power hungry, traits that looks especially stark and vile on a woman, negative associations just stick better on HRC. but few have pointed out the continuity between the type of attack used against her in the primaries and by trump, ones invoking wall street, elites and insiderness. the clear commonality is that there is real bloodthirst for revolution in a large part of the country due to political radicalization on both sides, so that guilt by association is just a fact.
the center, defined as recognizing stability and sustainability in function as necessary conditions, is not something with a lot of advocates. certainly not on the activist left which is responsible for producing a lot of social media propagated propaganda material. that hose has been turned against HRC this cycle, hence her low positive rating, which is a combination between left and right radicals.
it's not a permanent thing of course. a lot of people harbor resentments and they pass when personal circumstances improve or their perception of how things are going improve. it's just that HRC is uniquely vulnerable to indulgence of this resentment, and the other side was extremely willing to exploit it while being naive about the harms, not only to general election but to general quality of politics.
why is the activist left important? because they produce a lot of influence content, and you need that stuff to generate enthusiasm. it is also important because political energy and the wielder of that energy need each other. blind revolutionary zeal will be disastrous, and inattentive leadership is also disastrous, mostly in producing the former. this relationship needs to function well, and it is the difference between ending up in a nordic system or in venezuela.
your description is missing a few key things. why have the tranquil times ended? why has the "pressure been building"? it takes you multiple paragraphs before you get to what should have been your starting point: increasing inequality.
the way you talk about "the left" reminds me a bit of the way Dawkins talks about religious folk. you've set up some false dichotomies between the "revolutionary left" and properly educated policy wonks who discuss real politics. class struggle isn't an essentialist philosophy, like you might expect from warring tribes. true, a hatfield will never be a mccoy, but a properly conceived revolutionary politics is focused on disrupting power structures and changing relations between people in groups, or even dissolving the groups entirely. it's not personal; the groups are fluid. class relations are always historically contingent and independent of any particular individual. it's hardly the shallow populism that you make it out to be, but a critique that recognizes this would vitiate the distinction you are trying to make between "politics" and "class struggle."
so why does the radical left critique clinton? it's because they know what side she is on. oh she is aware of inequality and stagnant wages? i'm sure she has a lot of sympathy to go around. let's look at where wages are in four years or ten years and see where she took us with that. will inequality increase, decrease, or stay the same under hillary?
|
On November 01 2016 13:39 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 13:32 ChristianS wrote:
"KGB plant" seems a bit strong. Put it this way: nobody thinks Hillary "planted" Donna Brazile. They just think that Donna Brazile had something to offer the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign had something to offer Donna Brazile, and they made a deal.
So the question is: seems like Russia had something to offer Donald Trump, and Donald Trump had something to offer Russia. Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal? So the question is: seems like Saudi Arabia had something to offer Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton had something to offer Saudi Arabia . Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal? So the question is: seems like Wall Street had something to offer Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton had something to offer Wall Street . Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal? At least in Hillary's case we know about the billions of dollars her organization got, and the millions she got for speaking fees. I'm sure the Sheiks were just being charitable, and that Wall Street was REALLY interested in her oratory and there was no other intentions. Trump is obviously a Russian Agent though.
Again, the stakes in those scandals are nowhere near as high. It's well known she took a lot of money from Wall Street to give speeches, but giving paid speeches for Wall Street is neither illegal nor treasonous.
I think somehow I'm getting cornered into being the crazy conspiracy theorist that thinks Donald Trump was actually sired by a time-travelling Mecha-Putin or something. I'm just saying that
a) there's some preliminary evidence that looks a little fishy – nothing to draw serious conclusions from yet, but certainly something to keep an eye out for in the next few days, and
b) trying to refute this evidence with "c'mon, he's from Queens!" or "nuh uh, this is just like birtherism" is essentially the rhetorical equivalent of shoving your fingers in your ears and singing.
Here's a hint: if your refutation of the evidence does not at any point actually address that evidence, it's probably not a very sound refutation.
On November 01 2016 13:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 13:32 ChristianS wrote:
"KGB plant" seems a bit strong. Put it this way: nobody thinks Hillary "planted" Donna Brazile. They just think that Donna Brazile had something to offer the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign had something to offer Donna Brazile, and they made a deal.
So the question is: seems like Russia had something to offer Donald Trump, and Donald Trump had something to offer Russia. Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal? If you are speculating in perpetuity in the absence of any tangible claim, yes. When did this deal happen and what was it? Are you with Doodsmack, he made a deal with Putin before the last election cycle (2012) when he dropped out before the four real primary candidates? Some payoff. Or did the deal happen before this primary, 2016? Putin would be great at roulette, I wonder if they hedged their bets and made deals with any of the other 16 GOP contenders or the wider field of potential ones. And what's the deal that's so good for Trump, that outweighs the tens of millions his campaign has cost him, the damage to his brand... Even my asking these questions undermines the chances of someone realizing the absurdity here.
Okay, I'll try to be a bit more specific.
1) Trump's campaign has been somewhat inexplicably Russia-friendly. Talking up Putin as a great leader, antagonizing Western allies, promising up front – before any negotiations even take place – to lift sanctions on Russia and formally recognize their annexation of Crimea, etc.
2) There's a fair bit of evidence that Russia's been meddling in the election, primarily by hacking Democrats and releasing damaging e-mails, presumably to damage their election chances.
3) We've got some preliminary reports from a couple different sources suggesting that there's been back channel communication between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Now I lack the technical expertise to know whether the DNS server stuff really is indicative of human-to-human communication, or if it could easily just be marketing spam. The Slate article certainly seemed to have talked to a number of experts to try to address that issue; if those experts didn't do a satisfactory job, I hope more experts are interviewed in the coming days to look at this data. It could easily turn out that Slate got their facts wrong, and Mother Jones's anonymous spook has bad intel. But it's a bit early to dismiss the evidence as pure conspiracy.
|
On November 01 2016 13:55 levelping wrote:
We have truly entered into the twilight zone when trump supporters, whose candidate thinks climate change is a Chinese conspiracy, now complain about conspiracy theories.
Please let this end
You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize you're right. If you cast a ballot for someone who once said something absurd, you really don't have the right to think through completely unrelated issues, or else you shouldn't vote at all.
|
On November 01 2016 13:55 levelping wrote:
We have truly entered into the twilight zone when trump supporters, whose candidate thinks climate change is a Chinese conspiracy, now complain about conspiracy theories.
Please let this end
I just want to have a good prediction about the election's outcome to better guess what might happen the next few years over here where I am. The shit that's happening this time around with the US election is crazy so you have to argue a lot of strange things.
Over here, there's nice, predictable people like Merkel. There's nothing to guess about, really.
|
On November 01 2016 13:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 07:48 oneofthem wrote:
a lasting impact of the bernie situation is the split between the activist left and the democratic party.
the left flank was sort of a cold war in more tranquil times, but the pressure's been building. going deeper into how the revolutionary left sees the world, it is not really about party politics but social change, specifically changing a system that is viewed as dominated by wealth and power. this sort of 'society is composed of adversarial groups at cross interests' view is classically revolutionary, not just marxist. on the left, more and more has been subjected to this transformation from politics to class struggle. this is a change from a policy centric view to a class centric view.
now, everyone has policy ideas and everyone thinks certain people are really bad. to give meaning to policy centric and class centric, i should refine the definitions so that the former focus on specific policy problems when trying to explain why bad things happen, while the latter blames someone. policy based thinking in politics is a functionalist sort, agents are effects of rules, even morally culpable 'bad actors' are a problem to be controlled. the more personal sort of view of this second group is that a group of evil force exists, and that is something the people should fight against. undeniably, behind every bad policy is a political opponent whom we might call bad, but this group is defined in terms of class based properties like wealth and line of work, the demonization is a bit too rough edged and deal in large groups like wall street, billionaires, politicians.
we might call it populism, but it is really about a view of society as composed of adversarial and conflicting group level entities. this class based view is hungry for the rhetoric of class struggle constantly drummed up by sanders. his appeal is purely one of willingness to engage in this sort of crass, group conflict rhetoric that a lot of people believe in. this is also why people think bernie has all the policies, because their idea of policy is defined by their group conflict view of society, instead of how the process actually works. when sanders is talking about corporations, wall street, that to people are the issues and the policy.
this transformation from "fixing the system" to "revolution" is not captured by the general description of the sanders phenomenon, that of a dissatisfied electorate. the framing shift from an american sense of "politics" as collective decisionmaking to the revolutionary model of class conflict, more than behavioralist description of wellbeing, is more instructive.
this is why the democrats who look at politics as a collection of policy and rules are so caught off guard by the fever swamp hatred for HRC. policy-wise, she is certainly acutely aware of the problems that people have about inequality and stagnant wages. the focus on equality is there.
a lot of people have all identified why she is susceptible. the enthusiasm for war against the evil forces is underestimated. viewed as opportunistic and power hungry, traits that looks especially stark and vile on a woman, negative associations just stick better on HRC. but few have pointed out the continuity between the type of attack used against her in the primaries and by trump, ones invoking wall street, elites and insiderness. the clear commonality is that there is real bloodthirst for revolution in a large part of the country due to political radicalization on both sides, so that guilt by association is just a fact.
the center, defined as recognizing stability and sustainability in function as necessary conditions, is not something with a lot of advocates. certainly not on the activist left which is responsible for producing a lot of social media propagated propaganda material. that hose has been turned against HRC this cycle, hence her low positive rating, which is a combination between left and right radicals.
it's not a permanent thing of course. a lot of people harbor resentments and they pass when personal circumstances improve or their perception of how things are going improve. it's just that HRC is uniquely vulnerable to indulgence of this resentment, and the other side was extremely willing to exploit it while being naive about the harms, not only to general election but to general quality of politics.
why is the activist left important? because they produce a lot of influence content, and you need that stuff to generate enthusiasm. it is also important because political energy and the wielder of that energy need each other. blind revolutionary zeal will be disastrous, and inattentive leadership is also disastrous, mostly in producing the former. this relationship needs to function well, and it is the difference between ending up in a nordic system or in venezuela. your description is missing a few key things. why have the tranquil times ended? why has the "pressure been building"? it takes you multiple paragraphs before you get to what should have been your starting point: increasing inequality. the way you talk about "the left" reminds me a bit of the way Dawkins talks about religious folk. you've set up some false dichotomies between the "revolutionary left" and properly educated policy wonks who discuss real politics. class struggle isn't an essentialist philosophy, like you might expect from warring tribes. true, a hatfield will never be a mccoy, but a properly conceived revolutionary politics is focused on disrupting power structures and changing relations between people in groups, or even dissolving the groups entirely. it's not personal; the groups are fluid. class relations are always historically contingent and independent of any particular individual. it's hardly the shallow populism that you make it out to be, but a critique that recognizes this would vitiate the distinction you are trying to make between "politics" and "class struggle." so why does the radical left critique clinton? it's because they know what side she is on. oh she is aware of inequality and stagnant wages? i'm sure she has a lot of sympathy to go around. let's look at where wages are in four years or ten years and see where she took us with that. will inequality increase, decrease, or stay the same under hillary?
in other words, here is how i interpret what you have said:
these radicals don't get it the only real politics is discussion about how best to manage the population through policy levers in order to grow the national GDP. they keep talking about "classes" and "struggle" but the real struggle is keeping the birth rate in line and productivity high. they are only useful insofar as they push for benign social reforms that don't impact our policy goals and keep out the crazy right-wingers who would fuck up our beautiful system with Austrian ideas
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Talking up Putin as a "strong leader" has been a thing for a while now, at least among the populist wing of the Republican Party. The rest, I personally see it as more likely that just a few kind words from the president of Russia was all it really took to make Trump take a pro-Russian stance. I have seen nothing to suggest that the connection is anything more than that maybe someone in the Trump camp got a heavy dose of RT. Of course, if there's proof then it'd be interesting to see, but we've been here before, and circumstantially I don't see the "direct influence" narrative being more supported than the "bought over by a few compliments" narrative.
|
On November 01 2016 14:00 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 13:39 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 01 2016 13:32 ChristianS wrote:
"KGB plant" seems a bit strong. Put it this way: nobody thinks Hillary "planted" Donna Brazile. They just think that Donna Brazile had something to offer the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign had something to offer Donna Brazile, and they made a deal.
So the question is: seems like Russia had something to offer Donald Trump, and Donald Trump had something to offer Russia. Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal? So the question is: seems like Saudi Arabia had something to offer Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton had something to offer Saudi Arabia . Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal? So the question is: seems like Wall Street had something to offer Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton had something to offer Wall Street . Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal? At least in Hillary's case we know about the billions of dollars her organization got, and the millions she got for speaking fees. I'm sure the Sheiks were just being charitable, and that Wall Street was REALLY interested in her oratory and there was no other intentions. Trump is obviously a Russian Agent though. Again, the stakes in those scandals are nowhere near as high. It's well known she took a lot of money from Wall Street to give speeches, but giving paid speeches for Wall Street is neither illegal nor treasonous. I think somehow I'm getting cornered into being the crazy conspiracy theorist that thinks Donald Trump was actually sired by a time-travelling Mecha-Putin or something. I'm just saying that a) there's some preliminary evidence that looks a little fishy – nothing to draw serious conclusions from yet, but certainly something to keep an eye out for in the next few days, and b) trying to refute this evidence with "c'mon, he's from Queens!" or "nuh uh, this is just like birtherism" is essentially the rhetorical equivalent of shoving your fingers in your ears and singing. Here's a hint: if your refutation of the evidence does not at any point actually address that evidence, it's probably not a very sound refutation. Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 13:43 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2016 13:32 ChristianS wrote:
"KGB plant" seems a bit strong. Put it this way: nobody thinks Hillary "planted" Donna Brazile. They just think that Donna Brazile had something to offer the Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign had something to offer Donna Brazile, and they made a deal.
So the question is: seems like Russia had something to offer Donald Trump, and Donald Trump had something to offer Russia. Is it really equivalent to birtherism to speculate that they might have made a deal? If you are speculating in perpetuity in the absence of any tangible claim, yes. When did this deal happen and what was it? Are you with Doodsmack, he made a deal with Putin before the last election cycle (2012) when he dropped out before the four real primary candidates? Some payoff. Or did the deal happen before this primary, 2016? Putin would be great at roulette, I wonder if they hedged their bets and made deals with any of the other 16 GOP contenders or the wider field of potential ones. And what's the deal that's so good for Trump, that outweighs the tens of millions his campaign has cost him, the damage to his brand... Even my asking these questions undermines the chances of someone realizing the absurdity here. Okay, I'll try to be a bit more specific. 1) Trump's campaign has been somewhat inexplicably Russia-friendly. Talking up Putin as a great leader, antagonizing Western allies, promising up front – before any negotiations even take place – to lift sanctions on Russia and formally recognize their annexation of Crimea, etc. 2) There's a fair bit of evidence that Russia's been meddling in the election, primarily by hacking Democrats and releasing damaging e-mails, presumably to damage their election chances. 3) We've got some preliminary reports from a couple different sources suggesting that there's been back channel communication between the Trump campaign and Russia. Now I lack the technical expertise to know whether the DNS server stuff really is indicative of human-to-human communication, or if it could easily just be marketing spam. The Slate article certainly seemed to have talked to a number of experts to try to address that issue; if those experts didn't do a satisfactory job, I hope more experts are interviewed in the coming days to look at this data. It could easily turn out that Slate got their facts wrong, and Mother Jones's anonymous spook has bad intel. But it's a bit early to dismiss the evidence as pure conspiracy.
I wonder if Trump might have started with his Russia stuff mainly because he thought it was a topic where you can easily say the exact opposite as what Clinton says. He likes those kinds of topics.
Then next he likes to talk like an idiot and exaggerate everything so you get the results that you feel are inexplicable. Like, instead of someone normal saying we should do our best to get to a world where both US and Russia can coexist peacefully, his way of saying it was that Russia is great and will be super good friends, blah, blah, blah. He might not have thought about how big a topic this would be compared to all other possible topics where he also similarly exaggerates his plans a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
