President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[frank ryan]

"In my view, Russian interference and possible collusion with the Trump campaign had nothing to do with the Democrat's defeat; Hillary Clinton lost because she had the wrong message, failed to compete in key battleground states and spiked the football in the third quarter."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/opinio...art/index.html


My comment: Essentially this writer is saying they should forget about investigating Russia because Clinton still would have lost. Uh, I think there is a much bigger issue here if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians than whether you can prove if it caused Clinton to lose or not. I think it's very troubling if it's true that a political campaign colluded with a hostile nation to try to get them to hack into our country for the purpose of influencing something as important as an election. Whatever the result was isn't as important to me than if a politician actually tried to undermine the electoral process, which is a sacred tenet of our Constitutional form of government.

To me whether this or that specific law was broken is not as important as getting to the truth of what actually happened so the public can form an opinion based on the facts. Maybe Republicans don't care because their candidate won. If that's the only reason they don't care I think that's pretty tragic. I'm not a democrat and I don't like Clinton. That doesn't mean I should be ok with the idea of our candidates for president teaming up with an unfriendly foreign power to mess with our elections, while at the very same time repeatedly telling voters that elections are rigged anyway. Thinking that he may have actually been colluding with Russia to screw with our democracy makes me angry. I'd be just as angry if this had happened with a democrat, independent, or socialist candidate. This isn't a partisan thing for me. Don't bring in hostile foreign countries to mess with our elections. If you think it didn't really happen, that's another issue, but we should at least find that out also.

I'm sort of surprised you one of the few libertarian/conservative voices on this site who are genuinely concerned by all this. Trump's old campaign chief, Paul Manafort, has been accused of laundering money for the authoritarian/Russian puppet party that used to be in power in Ukraine.
Trump is willing to damage relationships with every other nation accept Russia.

[BlueK]

I'm sort of surprised you one of the few libertarian/conservative voices on this site who are genuinely concerned by all this. Trump's old campaign chief, Paul Manafort, has been accused of laundering money for the authoritarian/Russian puppet party that used to be in power in Ukraine.
Trump is willing to damage relationships with every other nation accept Russia.

To me this is the kind of thing that should make all of us think like Americans rather than Republicans and Democrats.

[Topper]

"In my view, Russian interference and possible collusion with the Trump campaign had nothing to do with the Democrat's defeat; Hillary Clinton lost because she had the wrong message, failed to compete in key battleground states and spiked the football in the third quarter."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/opinio...art/index.html


My comment: Essentially this writer is saying they should forget about investigating Russia because Clinton still would have lost. Uh, I think there is a much bigger issue here if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians than whether you can prove if it caused Clinton to lose or not. I think it's very troubling if it's true that a political campaign colluded with a hostile nation to try to get them to hack into our country for the purpose of influencing something as important as an election. Whatever the result was isn't as important to me than if a politician actually tried to undermine the electoral process, which is a sacred tenet of our Constitutional form of government.

To me whether this or that specific law was broken is not as important as getting to the truth of what actually happened so the public can form an opinion based on the facts. Maybe Republicans don't care because their candidate won. If that's the only reason they don't care I think that's pretty tragic. I'm not a democrat and I don't like Clinton. That doesn't mean I should be ok with the idea of our candidates for president teaming up with an unfriendly foreign power to mess with our elections, while at the very same time repeatedly telling voters that elections are rigged anyway. Thinking that he may have actually been colluding with Russia to screw with our democracy makes me angry. I'd be just as angry if this had happened with a democrat, independent, or socialist candidate. This isn't a partisan thing for me. Don't bring in hostile foreign countries to mess with our elections. If you think it didn't really happen, that's another issue, but we should at least find that out also.

Practical and theoretical concerns.

In theory, we should expect our candidates to be honorable people who follow the laws to the letter. I agree with this.

In practice, it always becomes more ambiguous than pundits, voters or advocates wish to depict.

I have lost interest on this issue. As a practical matter, I believe there are several nations we do not trust, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and few others. Yet we still need to interact with these countries and don't need to antagonize them at every step. That's realpolitik.

As another aside, Russia trying to influence the election should come as no surprise. There is ample evidence the US does this. Any outrage about Russia emulating the US is of little value.

Now, Trump's Russian contacts concern me insofar as he would make concessions for his personal financial benefit. That is irreconcilable. That should be investigated to identify conflicts of interest and to avoid them.

I find it far-fetched that Trump teamed up with the Russians to influence the election. The most probable purpose of pre-election contacts are likely to be a feeling out, "what will the new administration do in regards to X." That makes the most geo-political sense. Why would the Russians mess with an election if they didn't have anything to gain, other than to show the world they can?

Your assumption that something which likely did not happen should be investigated in the political realm makes no sense. Political witch hunts go on forever. I've not seen any evidence suggested that the Russians changed the actual count of votes. If the computation of votes was not compromised, then Blue K's description of "colluding with Russia to screw with our democracy" is invalid.

The allegations taken at their worst is that the Russians sought to influence public opinion so that voters would make a decision. And if we go that far that Team Trump colluded with the attempt to influence public opinion. I don't believe enough voters care and most voters disagree that this is screwing with our democracy. Public opinion is swayed and influenced by all sorts of devious means. We have Harry Reid claiming Mitt Romney didn't file tax returns and didn't pay taxes, when he knew such allegation was false. Is his intentional falsehood a criminal offense? Just because he didn't have a foreign government promoting this false accusation, is there anything different than Russians disseminating material designed to influence the opinions of voters? I see it on the same scale. Bad stuff, but not a threat to our democracy in the traditional sense of an armed assault on our armies, or our financial system, or the voting booths. This is about information provided.

How was Team Trump supposed to have colluded? Did they provide computers for the Russians to use? Did they make up the stuff so that the Russians would disseminate it? If you look at what actually occurred, your depiction of it is over the top.

I don't see investigation of the misinformation and propaganda dissemination by the Russians as what should be investigated. The potential financial conflicts, yes. That is the potential for harm.

[wuapinmon]

[wuapinmon]

[Uncle Ted]

I was ok with the ban on terrorists but banning my electronics is where I draw the line... When is this going to end?

US and UK ban cabin laptops on some inbound flights

The US ban on electronic devices larger than a smartphone is being imposed as an anti-terrorist precaution.


It covers inbound flights on nine airlines operating out of 10 airports. Phones are not affected.
The British ban, announced hours after the American measure, is similar but applies to different airlines.
Downing Street said airline passengers on 14 carriers would not be able to carry laptops in cabin luggage on inbound direct flights from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia.

The Turkish government said the US ban was wrong and should be reversed.

Large electronic devices will still be allowed on board in checked baggage.


Canadian Transport Minister Marc Garneau said his country was also considering restrictions on electronics in the cabins of planes.


British Airways and EasyJet are among the airlines affected by the UK ban.


The nine airlines affected by the US ban are Royal Jordanian, EgyptAir, Turkish Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Kuwait Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Qatar Airways, Emirates and Etihad Airways.
[...]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39333424

I would be OK with banning windows-based laptops and tablets, however. Only a terrorist would use those and Samsung smartphones.

[BlueK]

I was ok with the ban on terrorists but banning my electronics is where I draw the line... When is this going to end?


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39333424

I would be OK with banning windows-based laptops and tablets, however. Only a terrorist would use those and Samsung smartphones.

In other news, several new travel agenices opened doors in these countries today to help passengers find flights on the right combination of airlines and countries to be able to sneak through with their laptops.

[Uncle Ted]

"In my view, Russian interference and possible collusion with the Trump campaign had nothing to do with the Democrat's defeat; Hillary Clinton lost because she had the wrong message, failed to compete in key battleground states and spiked the football in the third quarter."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/opinio...art/index.html


My comment: Essentially this writer is saying they should forget about investigating Russia because Clinton still would have lost. Uh, I think there is a much bigger issue here if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians than whether you can prove if it caused Clinton to lose or not. I think it's very troubling if it's true that a political campaign colluded with a hostile nation to try to get them to hack into our country for the purpose of influencing something as important as an election. Whatever the result was isn't as important to me than if a politician actually tried to undermine the electoral process, which is a sacred tenet of our Constitutional form of government.

To me whether this or that specific law was broken is not as important as getting to the truth of what actually happened so the public can form an opinion based on the facts. Maybe Republicans don't care because their candidate won. If that's the only reason they don't care I think that's pretty tragic. I'm not a democrat and I don't like Clinton. That doesn't mean I should be ok with the idea of our candidates for president teaming up with an unfriendly foreign power to mess with our elections, while at the very same time repeatedly telling voters that elections are rigged anyway. Thinking that he may have actually been colluding with Russia to screw with our democracy makes me angry. I'd be just as angry if this had happened with a democrat, independent, or socialist candidate. This isn't a partisan thing for me. Don't bring in hostile foreign countries to mess with our elections. If you think it didn't really happen, that's another issue, but we should at least find that out also.

Let keep the facts separated away from speculation:

We know for a fact that the CIA has been involved in throwing elections at least 81 times. Maybe if we want to Russians to stop messing with other countries' elections we should stop messing with them ourselves.

We know for a fact that the CIA likes to feed us, the taxpayers, bullsh*t for whatever (evil) motives they have but won't disclose. Yeah, yeah, yeah, national security reasons and other BS.

We know for a fact that the CIA can mask their hacking attacks and make it look like anyone, including the Russians. So if the FBI ever digs up any proof that the Russians were involved with hacking our election how do we know it was actually the Russians? If the CIA can cover up the JFK Assassination then they can certainly hack our elections.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Let keep the facts separated away from speculation:

We know for a fact that the CIA has been involved in throwing elections at least 81 times. Maybe if we want to Russians to stop messing with other countries' elections we should stop messing with them ourselves.

We know for a fact that the CIA likes to feed us, the taxpayers, bullsh*t for whatever (evil) motives they have but won't disclose. Yeah, yeah, yeah, national security reasons and other BS.

We know for a fact that the CIA can mask their hacking attacks and make it look like anyone, including the Russians. So if the FBI ever digs up any proof that the Russians were involved with hacking our election how do we know it was actually the Russians? If the CIA can cover up the JFK Assassination then they can certainly hack our elections.

:foilhat:

[BlueK]

Let keep the facts separated away from speculation:

We know for a fact that the CIA has been involved in throwing elections at least 81 times. Maybe if we want to Russians to stop messing with other countries' elections we should stop messing with them ourselves.

We know for a fact that the CIA likes to feed us, the taxpayers, bullsh*t for whatever (evil) motives they have but won't disclose. Yeah, yeah, yeah, national security reasons and other BS.

We know for a fact that the CIA can mask their hacking attacks and make it look like anyone, including the Russians. So if the FBI ever digs up any proof that the Russians were involved with hacking our election how do we know it was actually the Russians? If the CIA can cover up the JFK Assassination then they can certainly hack our elections.

If the CIA wanted Trump to win and was willing to go to those lengths to get it done, then they're really stupid because their life would have been a lot easier with a Clinton presidency than it will be under Trump.

[Moliere]

:foilhat:

Is this new? Please tell me it's new.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is this new? Please tell me it's new.

Sorry. It's not new. It has been there quite a while. Use the tag "foilhat"

[Northwestcoug]

Let keep the facts separated away from speculation:

We know for a fact that the CIA has been involved in throwing elections at least 81 times. Maybe if we want to Russians to stop messing with other countries' elections we should stop messing with them ourselves.

We know for a fact that the CIA likes to feed us, the taxpayers, bullsh*t for whatever (evil) motives they have but won't disclose. Yeah, yeah, yeah, national security reasons and other BS.

We know for a fact that the CIA can mask their hacking attacks and make it look like anyone, including the Russians. So if the FBI ever digs up any proof that the Russians were involved with hacking our election how do we know it was actually the Russians? If the CIA can cover up the JFK Assassination then they can certainly hack our elections.

Those are facts?!?

Man, you libertarians need to lighten up. Maybe you'll start winning elections if you stop obsessing over those uncomfortable facts.

[Moliere]

Sorry. It's not new. It has been there quite a while. Use the tag "foilhat"

It's beautiful, regardless


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uncle Ted]

Those are facts?!?

Yes, they are the facts... Please try to keep up.