AdamSmith Posted July 9, 2018 Posted July 9, 2018 Long read, but about the most comprehensive -- also the most comprehensible -- account I've yet seen of all the manifold Trump-Russia tie-iups. Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart — Or His Handler? A plausible theory of mind-boggling collusion. By Jonathan Chait http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html Quote
Members RA1 Posted July 10, 2018 Members Posted July 10, 2018 Could not make it through this "conspiracy" piece. What is a shady Russian investment? Different from or the same as a shady US or other investment? There are a lot of theories regarding every President being handled. Let me know if you agree that BO was handled and by whom. Obviously every pol is pushed one way or another by various contributors (mainly) but also by PR and other considerations. It seems that some are worse than others but all are under the limelight. (As they should be.) Best regards, RA1 Quote
TotallyOz Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Of course they have something on him. Of course they will use it when needed. Quote
Members RA1 Posted July 10, 2018 Members Posted July 10, 2018 So everyone is a victim? OTOH no one is immune to being vulnerable or at fault? I love conspiracies but do not subscribe to them. Best regards, RA1 Quote
TotallyOz Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 RA1, no conspiracy on my part. Russia helped Trump win the election. He cozies up to Putin. I guess it is all just coincidence? LOL AdamSmith and Lucky 1 1 Quote
AdamSmith Posted July 10, 2018 Author Posted July 10, 2018 Look, Trump Jr. has said so about Russkie meddling, and The Trump clan's welcome of it, right out in public. A yuuuge lie in plain sight is just not something we idealistic Americans are accustomed to recognizing. Look how long it took us to finally vomit Tricky Dick out of our system. Quote
Guest leakyleaks Posted July 17, 2018 Posted July 17, 2018 When Trump and Putin meet, could one give orders to the other? Could Putin tell Trump "Crimea is ours" and make it stick? - Probably not. Could Trump tell Putin "have more respect for human rights"? and make it stick - probably not. They are probably equal. Subordination would mean that one has to do the other's bidding. Quote
Members RA1 Posted July 17, 2018 Members Posted July 17, 2018 Are the only choices in dealing with a bully to kow tow or crush him? I thought most liberals believed in negotiation. How silly of me. Best regards, RA1 Quote
TotallyOz Posted July 17, 2018 Posted July 17, 2018 Negotiations are a good thing. When you have smart people working for you to do those negotiations. When you have a moron who is beholden to Putin doing anything, there is a sign of trouble. AdamSmith 1 Quote
Members Latbear4blk Posted July 17, 2018 Members Posted July 17, 2018 I am surprise no newspapers has headlined its report this morning with "TREASON". AdamSmith 1 Quote
TotallyOz Posted July 17, 2018 Posted July 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said: I am surprise no newspapers has headlined its report this morning with "TREASON". I have not jumped to treason yet. I know Michael Moore called him out on that. I do think he is being leveraged by Putin. I really do. Is that treasonous? Quote
Members Latbear4blk Posted July 17, 2018 Members Posted July 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, TotallyOz said: I have not jumped to treason yet. I know Michael Moore called him out on that. I do think he is being leveraged by Putin. I really do. Is that treasonous? Well, questioning American intelligence agencies that are denouncing the Russian continuos aggression and threat, in foreign soil, standing next to the accused foe leader, would qualify as treason in my dictionary. Imagine Obama doing that. TotallyOz and AdamSmith 1 1 Quote
TotallyOz Posted July 17, 2018 Posted July 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said: Well, questioning American intelligence agencies that are denouncing the Russian continuos aggression and threat, in foreign soil, standing next to the accused foe leader, would qualify as treason in my dictionary. Imagine Obama doing that. Oh, I agree if it was Obama, the right-wing press and the Republican-controlled Congress would be calling for impeachment. Latbear4blk 1 Quote
Members RA1 Posted July 17, 2018 Members Posted July 17, 2018 Obama was much more subtle when giving away the US and abandoning our allies. Best regards, RA1 Quote
AdamSmith Posted July 18, 2018 Author Posted July 18, 2018 12 hours ago, TotallyOz said: I have not jumped to treason yet. I know Michael Moore called him out on that. I do think he is being leveraged by Putin. I really do. Is that treasonous? COOPERATING (in broad daylight!) with that action by Putin is treasonous absolutely. Quote
AdamSmith Posted July 18, 2018 Author Posted July 18, 2018 10 hours ago, RA1 said: Obama was much more subtle when giving away the US and abandoning our allies. Best regards, RA1 Exactly how many rubles did BO accept into his campaigns? That language 'high crimes and misdemeanors' was set a very high bar by the Framers deliberately so. Likewise the identification and definition of treason as the only specifically enumerated crime within the text of the Constitution. They ruled out simple 'misgovernance' from being anything impeachable -- explicitly recognizing the acceptability, indeed inevitability, of mere political-opinion differences such as yours with BO that you very legitimately express here. Your diminishment and apparent excusal of DJT's late public conciliatory actions in re: Putin/Russia truly shock me. Latbear4blk 1 Quote
Members RA1 Posted July 18, 2018 Members Posted July 18, 2018 Whether Trump is right or wrong, I am willing to wait a bit to see what happens. Although I disagree with how this tactic is playing at the moment I can see that DT might think that nothing positive has happened in our relations with Russia any time lately and therefore he should act. With the "instant" communications we now have, whether on purpose or by accident, the public and the Congress have abandoned one main feature of our republic and that is elected officials have the time and authority to act, sometimes regardless of public sentiment. I am not in favor of "instant" referendums and therefore am willing to give some time for the actual results to appear. Best regards, RA1 Quote
AdamSmith Posted July 18, 2018 Author Posted July 18, 2018 2 hours ago, RA1 said: Whether Trump is right or wrong, I am willing to wait a bit to see what happens. Although I disagree with how this tactic is playing at the moment I can see that DT might think that nothing positive has happened in our relations with Russia any time lately and therefore he should act. With the "instant" communications we now have, whether on purpose or by accident, the public and the Congress have abandoned one main feature of our republic and that is elected officials have the time and authority to act, sometimes regardless of public sentiment. I am not in favor of "instant" referendums and therefore am willing to give some time for the actual results to appear. Best regards, RA1 I absolutely agree that an Executive possessing the patience and subtlety and persistence of either a Roosevelt or an Eisenhower could master the moment. How you can possibly see any of that in Trump is beyond me. Quote
Members RA1 Posted July 18, 2018 Members Posted July 18, 2018 I see neither patience or subtlety in DT. I am merely hoping that I have some patience. Best regards. RA1 Quote
Members Bucknaway1614502762 Posted July 18, 2018 Members Posted July 18, 2018 And here we are. The Liberals are crying day in and day out. Sorry... Hilliary could not cut it. She rigged the Primary, Bernie would win the vote and Hilliary already had the superdelagates locked up. Hilliary was the woman behind the curtain running the DNC and telling Bernie that he is mistaken thinking she has a insider relationship with them. Hilliary was given the questions and answers to the debates. Hilliary was propped up and dragged around like a weekend at bernies episode and still caughes herself to near collapse. Hilliary lost. Trump Won. Quote
AdamSmith Posted July 19, 2018 Author Posted July 19, 2018 2 hours ago, Bucknaway1614502762 said: And here we are. The Liberals are crying day in and day out. Sorry... Hilliary could not cut it. She rigged the Primary, Bernie would win the vote and Hilliary already had the superdelagates locked up. Hilliary was the woman behind the curtain running the DNC and telling Bernie that he is mistaken thinking she has a insider relationship with them. Hilliary was given the questions and answers to the debates. Hilliary was propped up and dragged around like a weekend at bernies episode and still caughes herself to near collapse. Hilliary lost. Trump Won. More Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than any other losing presidential candidate in US history. The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Clinton's 2.1% margin ranks third among defeated candidates, according to statistics from US Elections Atlas. Andrew Jackson won by more than 10% in 1824 but was denied the presidency, which went to John Quincy Adams. In 1876, Samuel Tilden received 3% more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes, who eventually triumphed by one electoral vote. Though the legitimacy of his victory has never come into serious doubt, Trump has repeatedly argued, usually via Twitter, that he would have won the popular vote, too, if that had been his focus. "I would have done even better in the election, if that is possible, if the winner was based on popular vote -- but would campaign differently," he tweeted as recently as Wednesday morning, more than six weeks after the election. In late November, Trump also falsely claimed that "millions" of Clinton voters had cast ballots "illegally." Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally 4:30 PM - Nov 27, 2016 153K 98.4K people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy Meanwhile, high-profile Clinton supporters have held up the dissonant results as an argument for fundamentally changing the system. A week after the election, retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat and vocal Clinton backer, introduced a bill to abolish the Electoral College. "This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency," Boxer said in a statement. "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately." Two days later, New York Congressman Charlie Rangel put forth companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Measuring the electoral margin In the final count, Clinton surpassed President Barack Obama's 2012 total by 389,944 votes, but narrow losses in key battleground states meant Obama won 100 more electoral votes on Election Day. Trump's victories in swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida -- all carried by Obama four years ago -- gave him a comfortable edge in the Electoral College. Still, Trump's claims of a "massive landslide victory" are belied by past statistics, which place his win among the narrowest. If all the electors had voted in accordance with their states' results during meetings on Monday, Trump would have garnered 56.9% -- or 306 -- of the 538 available electoral votes. Two defections lowered his final share to 56.5%. Clinton won 232 electoral votes on November 8, but "faithless electors" also brought down her total. The 2016 electoral votes will be counted on January 6 by a Joint Session of Congress, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding over the largely symbolic meeting. Trump will be inaugurated on January 20 in Washington. https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html PAID CONTENT Quote
