EPTReminiscent of when Obama claimed he only learned about the private email from the NYT article. He had been emailing that account for years earlier. But that's politics. And it's all a right wing conspiracy.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5843
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Reminiscent of when Obama claimed he only learned about the private email from the NYT article. He had been emailing that account for years earlier. But that's politics. And it's all a right wing conspiracy. | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
On November 01 2016 14:21 LegalLord wrote: 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. I think the most reasonable explanation is something along the lines of: a) Trump is not a KGB spy (this is frankly just hilarious - the guy can't control anything that's coming out of his mouth, he would be a horrible spy or agent). b) Putin is not directly influencing Trump (for the same reasons as above, Trump can't keep secrets and would have blurted this out already). c) Putin does however have a vested interested in a weaker america, and a great way to do this is via a Trump Presidency. So Putin indirectly helps Trump with the email dumps, the hacking, and so on. | ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 01 2016 14:24 levelping wrote: I think the most reasonable explanation is something along the lines of: a) Trump is not a KGB spy (this is frankly just hilarious - the guy can't control anything that's coming out of his mouth, he would be a horrible spy or agent). b) Putin is not directly influencing Trump (for the same reasons as above, Trump can't keep secrets and would have blurted this out already). c) Putin does however have a vested interested in a weaker america, and a great way to do this is via a Trump Presidency. So Putin indirectly helps Trump with the email dumps, the hacking, and so on. I'm not sure Putin even particularly wants Trump as president. The dangers of instability if he really does turn out to be as bad as people say is quite substantial. But these leaks aren't going away any time soon, and if Hillary wins we will still be talking about them two years from now. The effect of that would not be inconsequential. I also wonder if there is any particularly impressive bombshell that Russia has that it isn't releasing. I'm sure they can get more than just emails with enough effort. A few well-targeted wiretaps for example. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On November 01 2016 14:24 levelping wrote: I think the most reasonable explanation is something along the lines of: a) Trump is not a KGB spy (this is frankly just hilarious - the guy can't control anything that's coming out of his mouth, he would be a horrible spy or agent). b) Putin is not directly influencing Trump (for the same reasons as above, Trump can't keep secrets and would have blurted this out already). c) Putin does however have a vested interested in a weaker america, and a great way to do this is via a Trump Presidency. So Putin indirectly helps Trump with the email dumps, the hacking, and so on. I think this is the likely truth. I'd add that the Russian state media's unambiguously positive coverage of Trump has also allowed them to get talking points through to him. We've seen him parrot talking points before, but I don't think they're directly fed... they don't need to be. The Manafort connection (PR guy for Trump used to be PR guy for now-ousted pro-Russian wannabe-dictator) is somewhat more direct, but not really the essential issue. Putin is playing Trump without any need of direct connection. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3245 Posts
On November 01 2016 14:21 LegalLord wrote: 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. Prior to this most recent evidence (and, if that evidence turns out to be a crock of shit, then still) I was inclined to think this too. Maybe the biggest thing that seemed weird to me, though, was the promise to lift sanctions and recognize annexation at the outset. I mean, this guy didn't even want to promise at the outset that we would defend our allies in case of invasion, because he doesn't believe in taking bargaining chips off the table before a negotiation, but he's willing to grant Russia everything they want before he's even elected? It goes directly against his own professed strategy. Again, direct influence is an extraordinary claim for which the evidence is still murky, so I'm not jumping there just yet. My best guess was that since his last bankruptcy, Trump rebuilt his empire partly on a lot of Russian investment, so lifting sanctions would be a big boon to his business (this also explained the reluctance to release his tax returns). Or maybe he just has a man-crush on Putin, so he blushed and forgot his normal negotiating techniques because senpai noticed him. I'm no expert, and most of the facts are not available to me. But the point is, this isn't just a big nothing burger. We'll just have to wait and see if more evidence comes in to reveal just how significant this stuff is. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 01 2016 14:30 Yoav wrote: I think this is the likely truth. I'd add that the Russian state media's unambiguously positive coverage of Trump has also allowed them to get talking points through to him. We've seen him parrot talking points before, but I don't think they're directly fed... they don't need to be. The Manafort connection (PR guy for Trump used to be PR guy for now-ousted pro-Russian wannabe-dictator) is somewhat more direct, but not really the essential issue. Putin is playing Trump without any need of direct connection. The state media in Russia is not actually all that pro-Trump. They are only about as favorable as you would expect a state media channel to be when one candidate says "wouldn't it be nice if we could be friends with Russia?" and the other says "North winds blow! South winds blow! Typhoons! Hurricanes! Earthquakes! SMOG!" But the coverage is actually more balanced than one would expect. They mostly just report events and quotes. IIRC Manafort got paid by Yanukovych to help curry favor for Ukraine with the EU. The connection is tenuous at best. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
Nettles posted the direct link earlier but it was account blocked. From ny times U.S. Officials Doubt Donald Trump Has Direct Link to Russia WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank. Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump. Hillary Clinton’s supporters, angry over what they regard as a lack of scrutiny of Mr. Trump by law enforcement officials, pushed for these investigations. In recent days they have also demanded that James B. Comey, the director of the F.B.I., discuss them publicly, as he did last week when he announced that a new batch of emails possibly connected to Mrs. Clinton had been discovered. Supporters of Mrs. Clinton have argued that Mr. Trump’s evident affinity for Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — Mr. Trump has called him a great leader and echoed his policies toward NATO, Ukraine and the war in Syria — and the hacks of leading Democrats like John D. Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign, are clear indications that Russia has taken sides in the presidential race and that voters should know what the F.B.I. has found. Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story The F.B.I.’s inquiries into Russia’s possible role continue, as does the investigation into the emails involving Mrs. Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, from a computer she shared with her estranged husband, Anthony D. Weiner. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters argue that voters have as much right to know what the F.B.I. has found in Mr. Trump’s case, even if the findings are not yet conclusive. “You do not hear the director talking about any other investigation he is involved in,” Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Democrat of New York, said after Mr. Comey’s letter to Congress was made public. “Is he investigating the Trump Foundation? Is he looking into the Russians hacking into all of our emails? Is he looking into and deciding what is going on with regards to other allegations of the Trump Organization?” Mr. Comey would not even confirm the existence of any investigation of Mr. Trump’s aides when asked during an appearance in September before Congress. In the Obama administration’s internal deliberations over identifying the Russians as the source of the hacks, Mr. Comey also argued against doing so and succeeded in keeping the F.B.I.’s imprimatur off the formal findings, a law enforcement official said. His stance was first reported by CNBC. ... Yeah it's unlikely that Trump has any real ties but his actions haven't helped deter that image either. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 01 2016 14:33 ChristianS wrote: Prior to this most recent evidence (and, if that evidence turns out to be a crock of shit, then still) I was inclined to think this too. Maybe the biggest thing that seemed weird to me, though, was the promise to lift sanctions and recognize annexation at the outset. I mean, this guy didn't even want to promise at the outset that we would defend our allies in case of invasion, because he doesn't believe in taking bargaining chips off the table before a negotiation, but he's willing to grant Russia everything they want before he's even elected? It goes directly against his own professed strategy. Again, direct influence is an extraordinary claim for which the evidence is still murky, so I'm not jumping there just yet. My best guess was that since his last bankruptcy, Trump rebuilt his empire partly on a lot of Russian investment, so lifting sanctions would be a big boon to his business (this also explained the reluctance to release his tax returns). Or maybe he just has a man-crush on Putin, so he blushed and forgot his normal negotiating techniques because senpai noticed him. I'm no expert, and most of the facts are not available to me. But the point is, this isn't just a big nothing burger. We'll just have to wait and see if more evidence comes in to reveal just how significant this stuff is. Well we don't know if it's a "big nothing burger" or not. The accusations here come way before the evidence, so people tend to jump to conclusions. What I can tell you is that Trump doesn't talk like a Russian agent (i.e. someone under Russian influence) would. He talks like an RT junkie. If he were really working with the Russian government, the last thing he would do is go out and say "let's recognize Crimea and lift the sanctions!" He would just quietly make the case for himself to be elected, then actually do it. He really just comes off as a bumbling idiot caught in a compliment trap. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
... | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3245 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 01 2016 14:55 ChristianS wrote: Yeah, that's fair. I guess what I mean is "whether or not this is a big nothing burger is contingent on whether any corroborating evidence comes out in the next week or two, but if there's anything to the evidence out already, this is a big deal." As for whether Trump talks like a Russian agent, I couldn't pretend to be well-enough versed in international espionage and intrigue to know what a typical Russian agent looks like. I would note, though, that Russia seems to have an interest in undermining faith in American democracy, in which case they could hardly have picked a better scenario than Trump. If they didn't do anything to try to bring that about, at the very least they got incredibly lucky. Losing faith in American democracy isn't hard; it's like gravity: all you need is a little push. You don't need to look any further than Congressional approval ratings to see that. Frankly, the fact that the popular response to the email leak is so partisan and divided is probably the most notable thing about this all. If the same thing happened in any country with even a lick of national solidarity, the entire nation would flip a shit and resent the nation that tried it. The perception of foreign meddling is usually taken really poorly in most countries; that it isn't in the US is probably more indicative of the state of US politics than anything else. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4355 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On November 01 2016 15:25 Wegandi wrote:... but and here's the real kicker, she's also alleged to have had dealings with Russia through the Clinton Foundation with enriched uranium lmao (which is more likely than Trump being a Manchurian candidate LOL). ... On November 01 2016 13:06 KwarK wrote: Dude. You didn't read any part of that story. Here's the rundown. 1) Clinton didn't authorize it. Like 12 government departments and a dozen other independent agencies signed off on it. 2) No uranium was sold. No export license has been granted and will be granted. No American uranium is leaving to go to Russia, it's just not true. 3) No money came from Russia to the Clinton Foundation. The alleged bribe was made in like 2006 by the guy who founded the company who divested himself of all interest in the company in the late 2000s. The timeline is a nonsense, it's fodder for retards and hopefully you don't want to fall in that description. Bush was in power when this guy allegedly bribed Clinton to sign off on a sale that didn't exist yet for a company he wouldn't own a share in when the deal was conceived. 4) The "uranium" in this story is a mining company with international holdings, mostly in the former Soviet Union. It was purchased for those, the American assets are no use to them because, as I mentioned, no export license. 5) The US is not a uranium exporting nation. It doesn't produce uranium. Nobody is going to the US to try and get supplies of uranium, the US imports uranium from other countries that produce it. 6) The donors weren't Russian. 7) The donation was made long before Clinton became SoS. 8) The purchase wasn't within Clinton's power as SoS to authorize. That entire scandal is basically a "are you a fucking moron" test. If you repeat it verbatim the way you just did, well, let's just say you didn't pass the test. Someone goes onto facebook and they put the words "Russia", "uranium" and "Clinton Foundation" in some random forward that people who don't know any better will like and share because they don't know enough to make even the slightest effort to verify the things their racist redneck cousin shares. You should feel ashamed. And then you should take that shame and use it to better yourself. ............... | ||
|
netcana
Canada3 Posts
Takes the numbers of death from both sides, takes the humanitarian situation in both country, takes the army on both sides : everything shows that there is one super power with an economy almost on par with developed country and a weak country with almost half of the population under 14 years old. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On November 01 2016 14:30 Yoav wrote: I think this is the likely truth. I'd add that the Russian state media's unambiguously positive coverage of Trump has also allowed them to get talking points through to him. We've seen him parrot talking points before, but I don't think they're directly fed... they don't need to be. The Manafort connection (PR guy for Trump used to be PR guy for now-ousted pro-Russian wannabe-dictator) is somewhat more direct, but not really the essential issue. Putin is playing Trump without any need of direct connection. I am fairly certain that Trumps stance on Russia can be explained by the fact that his wife is Russian.. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On November 01 2016 18:06 Blisse wrote: Ivana is Czech and Melania is Slovenian... Same thing. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
Not really, though I wouldn't be surprised if at least one candidate didn't know the difference. + Show Spoiler + It's Gary Johnson. | ||
| ||
