(06-30-2017 07:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I asked for dots to be connected to show,they don't connect. Even your strained effort had to rely on a bad assumption. There just is no logical or reasonable narrative that supports collusion. But it is not fair to make Lad shoulder the burden of the collusion conspiracy alone. Does anybody have a logical and reasonable narrative of this collusion?

Agree 100%. We've got a lot of dots, but no lines that connect them in any sort of coherent manner. Can anybody connect the dots in any reasonably plausible manner?

In olden days, the ancients would look up at the sky, and draw imaginary lines between the points of light they saw, creating pictures called constellations, and then they would make up up stories based on the pictures, called mythology.


Same as now.

Putin and Trump

(06-30-2017 07:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I feel your pain. Some people have thought I approve of everything Trump. Very frustrating.

I see lots of smoke, but most of it is smoke blown by the people hollering "smoke" or hollering "fire". When casual meetings in public become smoke, then people are just looking for smoke.

I met a Russian woman a few months ago. A Russian meeting with a conservative? Clearly, I need to be investigated.

I asked for dots to be connected to show,they don't connect. Even your strained effort had to rely on a bad assumption. There just is no logical or reasonable narrative that supports collusion. But it is not fair to make Lad shoulder the burden of the collusion conspiracy alone. Does anybody have a logical and reasonable narrative of this collusion?

1) Presumably, if you were required to disclose your meeting prior to accepting your cabinet or advisory position, you would do so. If you didn't, yes, you might be investigated.

2) The reason you're not getting your answers here is that, as far as I can tell, nobody on this board has concluded that Trump actively colluded with anyone. Lad has made perfectly clear that he doesn't necessarily believe that there is concrete (public) evidence of collusion. So he, like me, and like pretty much everyone else I know, is waiting for the end of the investigation. Eventually, Bob Mueller will come out and say no, there's no evidence or narrative indicating collusion, or yes, there is. You'll have your answer then.

3) Frankly, whether or not Trump (or his people) actively colluded with Russia is only of secondary concern to me. It's abundantly clear to me, regardless of any finding of collusion, that Trump and his people have no concept of how to properly approach, conduct, or report meetings with foreign officials, no respect for most presidential norms involving transparency and respect for the investigative process, and (most disturbingly) no real respect for the awesome power and responsibility of the office. These issues, while obviously not criminal in nature, already render him unfit to serve in my mind. You might paint this as a partisan opinion, but I'll disagree. Trump is unique among presidents in his juvenile proclivities and his refusal to reign them in. If we ever elect a comparable Democrat, I promise my opinions would remain the same.

(07-04-2017 08:24 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 07:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I feel your pain. Some people have thought I approve of everything Trump. Very frustrating.

I see lots of smoke, but most of it is smoke blown by the people hollering "smoke" or hollering "fire". When casual meetings in public become smoke, then people are just looking for smoke.

I met a Russian woman a few months ago. A Russian meeting with a conservative? Clearly, I need to be investigated.

I asked for dots to be connected to show,they don't connect. Even your strained effort had to rely on a bad assumption. There just is no logical or reasonable narrative that supports collusion. But it is not fair to make Lad shoulder the burden of the collusion conspiracy alone. Does anybody have a logical and reasonable narrative of this collusion?

1) Presumably, if you were required to disclose your meeting prior to accepting your cabinet or advisory position, you would do so. If you didn't, yes, you might be investigated.

2) The reason you're not getting your answers here is that, as far as I can tell, nobody on this board has concluded that Trump actively colluded with anyone. Lad has made perfectly clear that he doesn't necessarily believe that there is concrete (public) evidence of collusion. So he, like me, and like pretty much everyone else I know, is waiting for the end of the investigation. Eventually, Bob Mueller will come out and say no, there's no evidence or narrative indicating collusion, or yes, there is. You'll have your answer then.

3) Frankly, whether or not Trump (or his people) actively colluded with Russia is only of secondary concern to me. It's abundantly clear to me, regardless of any finding of collusion, that Trump and his people have no concept of how to properly approach, conduct, or report meetings with foreign officials, no respect for most presidential norms involving transparency and respect for the investigative process, and (most disturbingly) no real respect for the awesome power and responsibility of the office. These issues, while obviously not criminal in nature, already render him unfit to serve in my mind. You might paint this as a partisan opinion, but I'll disagree. Trump is unique among presidents in his juvenile proclivities and his refusal to reign them in. If we ever elect a comparable Democrat, I promise my opinions would remain the same.

1. if the "meeting" was a casual handshake at an open function, I might not consider it worthy. Saying hello to somebody at a Washington dinner is not a meeting. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13...ony-239503

2. Lad has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't think TRUMP himself has actively colluded, while leaving all his associates in doubt. But while Lad may be a bit rational on this, the vast majority of the left are not - they want Trump frog-marched straight to Leavenworth. We get this "there is so much smoke, we must investigate to find out the truth." Well my meeting with the Russian woman was just such a puff of smoke, and where there is smoke, there is need for an investigation.

3. If he is unfit, vote against him. I thought Hillary was unfit. Still do. Yes, i will be happier when at least one party nominates somebody who is Presidential.

But don't conflate Trump's manners (or lack of them) with collusion. Collusion makes no sense, and I don't need to wait a year to figure that one out. Common sense should do it. Now once Trump is cleared of collusion, he will still be a boor. See - not related.

My argument is that the collusion hysteria is just that. Has zero to do with manners.

before the next election, we need to pass some decorum requirements to be president. Right now all it takes to be qualified is a certain age and to be a natural born citizen. We need to add a manners test.
\
I asked for somebody to give me a reasonable and logical narrative for collusion. Got one?

I asked for somebody to give me a reasonable and logical narrative for collusion. Got one?

(07-05-2017 09:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I asked for somebody to give me a reasonable and logical narrative for collusion. Got one?

The reason nobody will do this is they cannot. Waiting for the results of the investigation is a cop-out - there is no basis to have an investigation. Now I have no doubt they won't find something to indict somebody on - somebody will be this investigation's Scooter Libby, most likely Flynn - but they won't find collusion. And if they did, what is the crime that somebody will be indicted for?

Don't take my word for it

So, IMO, an investigation into a non-crime for political purposes = witch hunt.

In no way is my position on the collusion to be taken, again, as a defense of Trump's manners, tweeting, or his agenda. He is doing some things I like, he is doing some things I don't like, and he is mostly doing them in a way I don't like. Just don't try and sell me the collusion story.

(07-04-2017 10:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 08:24 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 07:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I feel your pain. Some people have thought I approve of everything Trump. Very frustrating.

I see lots of smoke, but most of it is smoke blown by the people hollering "smoke" or hollering "fire". When casual meetings in public become smoke, then people are just looking for smoke.

I met a Russian woman a few months ago. A Russian meeting with a conservative? Clearly, I need to be investigated.

I asked for dots to be connected to show,they don't connect. Even your strained effort had to rely on a bad assumption. There just is no logical or reasonable narrative that supports collusion. But it is not fair to make Lad shoulder the burden of the collusion conspiracy alone. Does anybody have a logical and reasonable narrative of this collusion?

1) Presumably, if you were required to disclose your meeting prior to accepting your cabinet or advisory position, you would do so. If you didn't, yes, you might be investigated.

2) The reason you're not getting your answers here is that, as far as I can tell, nobody on this board has concluded that Trump actively colluded with anyone. Lad has made perfectly clear that he doesn't necessarily believe that there is concrete (public) evidence of collusion. So he, like me, and like pretty much everyone else I know, is waiting for the end of the investigation. Eventually, Bob Mueller will come out and say no, there's no evidence or narrative indicating collusion, or yes, there is. You'll have your answer then.

3) Frankly, whether or not Trump (or his people) actively colluded with Russia is only of secondary concern to me. It's abundantly clear to me, regardless of any finding of collusion, that Trump and his people have no concept of how to properly approach, conduct, or report meetings with foreign officials, no respect for most presidential norms involving transparency and respect for the investigative process, and (most disturbingly) no real respect for the awesome power and responsibility of the office. These issues, while obviously not criminal in nature, already render him unfit to serve in my mind. You might paint this as a partisan opinion, but I'll disagree. Trump is unique among presidents in his juvenile proclivities and his refusal to reign them in. If we ever elect a comparable Democrat, I promise my opinions would remain the same.

1. if the "meeting" was a casual handshake at an open function, I might not consider it worthy. Saying hello to somebody at a Washington dinner is not a meeting. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13...ony-239503

2. Lad has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't think TRUMP himself has actively colluded, while leaving all his associates in doubt. But while Lad may be a bit rational on this, the vast majority of the left are not - they want Trump frog-marched straight to Leavenworth. We get this "there is so much smoke, we must investigate to find out the truth." Well my meeting with the Russian woman was just such a puff of smoke, and where there is smoke, there is need for an investigation.

3. If he is unfit, vote against him. I thought Hillary was unfit. Still do. Yes, i will be happier when at least one party nominates somebody who is Presidential.

But don't conflate Trump's manners (or lack of them) with collusion. Collusion makes no sense, and I don't need to wait a year to figure that one out. Common sense should do it. Now once Trump is cleared of collusion, he will still be a boor. See - not related.

My argument is that the collusion hysteria is just that. Has zero to do with manners.

before the next election, we need to pass some decorum requirements to be president. Right now all it takes to be qualified is a certain age and to be a natural born citizen. We need to add a manners test.
\
I asked for somebody to give me a reasonable and logical narrative for collusion. Got one?

Can't a guy go 24 hours without responding to a thread? It's not like we're having a phone conversation here.

1) Well, it's too bad Sessions didn't feel like fully explaining this until he got called in front of Congress. Might have avoided the issue entirely.

2) The FBI investigation isn't solely directed towards Trump and his potential collusion. The scope involves the extent of Russian interference in the first place, as well as the (contradictory) reasons for Trump's remarkably strange decision to fire Comey. Given that I'm not an FBI special prosecutor, I can't tell you which of these things Mueller thinks is the most important, which of them he's spending the most time on, or which of them will bear the most fruit. Consequently, I can't say either way whether there's a "witchhunt" going on. Now, if Mueller were to come out and say that Trump committed no criminal acts, and I were to demand another, and another, and another investigation, then you might have a point. I suppose we'll disagree until then. Also, the FBI and congressional investigations are important not only in a legal sense, but in a political one. A key premise of a representative democracy is that elected officials are answerable to the people, who can demand investigations of whatever they want. Moreover, the outcome of these investigations are important in getting the story straight and allowing people to properly exercise their political judgment. As you pointed out, and as today's NPR/Marist survey demonstrates, current opinions on collusion are driven largely by party affiliation. After a definitive investigation and pronouncement, those party distinctions should (in theory) fade away, since we'll have a definitive answer. There is value in that.

*As a side question - who exactly is the "political" actor driving the FBI investigation? Sessions? Rosenstein? Mueller?

3) I think there's a marked difference between voting against a candidate because you think he or she might be unfit, and discovering after the fact that the person you elected actually is unfit. Trump's "manners" are the least of my concerns. I was referring mostly to his ignorance of basic domestic and foreign policy facts (and his apparent unwillingness to remedy his lack of knowledge), his constant undermining of his own administration, his unwillingness to cease his inflammatory social media habits, and his abdication of key executive responsibilities, like appointing people to run the government.

(07-06-2017 10:04 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Can't a guy go 24 hours without responding to a thread? It's not like we're having a phone conversation here.

Sure. I just wasn't expecting any response at all to my request, and still don't have one.

Quote:1) Well, it's too bad Sessions didn't feel like fully explaining this until he got called in front of Congress. Might have avoided the issue entirely.

Didn't he? Or was it just that the lead dogs would not accept "No, I didn't" without an oath and a chance to cross-examine?

Quote:2) The FBI investigation isn't solely directed towards Trump and his potential collusion. The scope involves the extent of Russian interference in the first place, as well as the (contradictory) reasons for Trump's remarkably strange decision to fire Comey. Given that I'm not an FBI special prosecutor, I can't tell you which of these things Mueller thinks is the most important, which of them he's spending the most time on, or which of them will bear the most fruit. Consequently, I can't say either way whether there's a "witchhunt" going on. Now, if Mueller were to come out and say that Trump committed no criminal acts, and I were to demand another, and another, and another investigation, then you might have a point. I suppose we'll disagree until then. Also, the FBI and congressional investigations are important not only in a legal sense, but in a political one. A key premise of a representative democracy is that elected officials are answerable to the people, who can demand investigations of whatever they want. Moreover, the outcome of these investigations are important in getting the story straight and allowing people to properly exercise their political judgment. As you pointed out, and as today's NPR/Marist survey demonstrates, current opinions on collusion are driven largely by party affiliation. After a definitive investigation and pronouncement, those party distinctions should (in theory) fade away, since we'll have a definitive answer. There is value in that.

*As a side question - who exactly is the "political" actor driving the FBI investigation? Sessions? Rosenstein? Mueller?

A lot here, but I will try to cover everything.
The original intent was the collusion. As these investigations do, they have grown tentacles, but there would be no tentacles to grow if the collusion was not being investigated. The collusion was a madeup fairy tale, part of the excuses the Hillary camp put forward, to wit, Hillary lost because the Russians published her emails, and if it hurt Hillary, it must have been done for Trump, at his behest, so let's investigate and show the world what an ass he is to have stolen this election. The "political actor" is the Democratic Party, or as Hillary calls them, the Resistance. The political actor blows the smoke, then cites the smoke to prove the need for an investigation I think the whole thing is to enhance the Party's chances in 2018 and 2020. As for the political differences in who likes/dislikes the investigation, it depends, as my late Dad would say, on "whose ox is getting gored". No different than the benghazi stuff.

Quote:3) I think there's a marked difference between voting against a candidate because you think he or she might be unfit, and discovering after the fact that the person you elected actually is unfit. Trump's "manners" are the least of my concerns. I was referring mostly to his ignorance of basic domestic and foreign policy facts (and his apparent unwillingness to remedy his lack of knowledge), his constant undermining of his own administration, his unwillingness to cease his inflammatory social media habits, and his abdication of key executive responsibilities, like appointing people to run the government.

I would not, could not vote for Hillary because she is reprehensible. I would have welcomed the chance to vote for a number of Republicans against her, but none of them were nominated. Pesky democratic system.

But for the rest of it, you will have to define "fit". Our constitution has a very short list of qualifications, and both Trump and Hillary "fit" them. Otherwise, it seems to be subjective to each individual. I think Hillary would also be unfit, although I have little doubt that she would be more decorous in her manner. After all, she was the "more of the same" candidate running against the "change" candidate, and the people said they didn't want more of the same. I likewise think Sanders is unfit, although he is the most honest candidate out there. I think the most fit of the original 21 people vying for one of the nominations was, and remains, John Kasich. A new face that intrigues me is Sasse. I might be a Sasse guy in 2020.

You will have to be more precise on "ignorance of basic domestic and foreign policy facts". What facts are these? I tend to think that you are referring to his way of doing things differently than they have been done before, of allying with different peoples than were allied with in the previous Administration. Isn't that what people voted him into office to do? To not be just a rubber stamp for Obama?

"his constant undermining of his own administration, his unwillingness to cease his inflammatory social media habits," - agreed. I don't like these either. I don't think they are criteria of fitness, though.

his abdication of key executive responsibilities, like appointing people to run the government. - need more info. Every president has delegated.

(07-06-2017 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 10:04 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Can't a guy go 24 hours without responding to a thread? It's not like we're having a phone conversation here.

Sure. I just wasn't expecting any response at all to my request, and still don't have one.

Quote:1) Well, it's too bad Sessions didn't feel like fully explaining this until he got called in front of Congress. Might have avoided the issue entirely.

Didn't he? Or was it just that the lead dogs would not accept "No, I didn't" without an oath and a chance to cross-examine?

Quote:2) The FBI investigation isn't solely directed towards Trump and his potential collusion. The scope involves the extent of Russian interference in the first place, as well as the (contradictory) reasons for Trump's remarkably strange decision to fire Comey. Given that I'm not an FBI special prosecutor, I can't tell you which of these things Mueller thinks is the most important, which of them he's spending the most time on, or which of them will bear the most fruit. Consequently, I can't say either way whether there's a "witchhunt" going on. Now, if Mueller were to come out and say that Trump committed no criminal acts, and I were to demand another, and another, and another investigation, then you might have a point. I suppose we'll disagree until then. Also, the FBI and congressional investigations are important not only in a legal sense, but in a political one. A key premise of a representative democracy is that elected officials are answerable to the people, who can demand investigations of whatever they want. Moreover, the outcome of these investigations are important in getting the story straight and allowing people to properly exercise their political judgment. As you pointed out, and as today's NPR/Marist survey demonstrates, current opinions on collusion are driven largely by party affiliation. After a definitive investigation and pronouncement, those party distinctions should (in theory) fade away, since we'll have a definitive answer. There is value in that.

*As a side question - who exactly is the "political" actor driving the FBI investigation? Sessions? Rosenstein? Mueller?

A lot here, but I will try to cover everything.
The original intent was the collusion. As these investigations do, they have grown tentacles, but there would be no tentacles to grow if the collusion was not being investigated. The collusion was a madeup fairy tale, part of the excuses the Hillary camp put forward, to wit, Hillary lost because the Russians published her emails, and if it hurt Hillary, it must have been done for Trump, at his behest, so let's investigate and show the world what an ass he is to have stolen this election. The "political actor" is the Democratic Party, or as Hillary calls them, the Resistance. The political actor blows the smoke, then cites the smoke to prove the need for an investigation I think the whole thing is to enhance the Party's chances in 2018 and 2020. As for the political differences in who likes/dislikes the investigation, it depends, as my late Dad would say, on "whose ox is getting gored". No different than the benghazi stuff.

Quote:3) I think there's a marked difference between voting against a candidate because you think he or she might be unfit, and discovering after the fact that the person you elected actually is unfit. Trump's "manners" are the least of my concerns. I was referring mostly to his ignorance of basic domestic and foreign policy facts (and his apparent unwillingness to remedy his lack of knowledge), his constant undermining of his own administration, his unwillingness to cease his inflammatory social media habits, and his abdication of key executive responsibilities, like appointing people to run the government.

I would not, could not vote for Hillary because she is reprehensible. I would have welcomed the chance to vote for a number of Republicans against her, but none of them were nominated. Pesky democratic system.

But for the rest of it, you will have to define "fit". Our constitution has a very short list of qualifications, and both Trump and Hillary "fit" them. Otherwise, it seems to be subjective to each individual. I think Hillary would also be unfit, although I have little doubt that she would be more decorous in her manner. After all, she was the "more of the same" candidate running against the "change" candidate, and the people said they didn't want more of the same. I likewise think Sanders is unfit, although he is the most honest candidate out there. I think the most fit of the original 21 people vying for one of the nominations was, and remains, John Kasich. A new face that intrigues me is Sasse. I might be a Sasse guy in 2020.

You will have to be more precise on "ignorance of basic domestic and foreign policy facts". What facts are these? I tend to think that you are referring to his way of doing things differently than they have been done before, of allying with different peoples than were allied with in the previous Administration. Isn't that what people voted him into office to do? To not be just a rubber stamp for Obama?

"his constant undermining of his own administration, his unwillingness to cease his inflammatory social media habits," - agreed. I don't like these either. I don't think they are criteria of fitness, though.

his abdication of key executive responsibilities, like appointing people to run the government. - need more info. Every president has delegated.

These are pretty much all fair points, to which I would like to respond, but, alas, work and family call. It did occur to me to recommend this podcast episode from the Ezra Klein Show. He talks with Russian journalist Masha Gessen about the whole Trump-Russia thing and she has a fairly coherent theory about it that fits largely with my own suspicions. Spoiler alert: She doesn't think there was active collusion, either.

I know that Vox Media (Klein is the editor in chief) doesn't get much love from conservatives, but I find Klein's personal podcast to be quite informative and fair. Klein himself holds mostly liberal policy views, but he's no partisan hack. He tends to avoid spinning the news and instead focuses on deeper policy discussions. I would really encourage anyone to give it a listen.

Also, if you're interested in the current health care debate, his most recent episode features Avik Roy, a conservative health care wonk who has been supporting the senate bill in various news publications.

The idea that Russian collusion only grew out of Hillary's lose is a complete and utter farce and distortion of reality. Do you not remember the whole "puppet? no puppet. you're thenpuppet." line from the debate!?!?

Questions about Trump's campaign and their questionable associations with Russia were established well before Election Day. And it was only after Flynn was caught lying that things really ramped up. And that was because he was caught lying about talking to a Russian diplomat about possibly easing sanctions. This is NOT an entirely fabricated concern.

(07-06-2017 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea that Russian collusion only grew out of Hillary's lose is a complete and utter farce and distortion of reality. Do you not remember the whole "puppet? no puppet. you're thenpuppet." line from the debate!?!?

No. I didn't watch the debates because I knew I was not going to vote for either of them, and Hillary had it in the bag anyway. All the polls and electoral vote projections said so. You got a YouTube link?

I do remember Trump urging whoever to keep showing her emails. But what does that prove? A couple of weeks ago, I was saying, Go Florida, beat TCU. Then a little later, I was saying, Go Florida, beat LSU. Sure doesn't mean I am a Florida fan or that I have a deal with them.

Quote:Questions about Trump's campaign and their questionable associations with Russia were established well before Election Day. And it was only after Flynn was caught lying that things really ramped up. And that was because he was caught lying about talking to a Russian diplomat about possibly easing sanctions. This is NOT an entirely fabricated concern.

Questions came up because the Russians were rumored to be the hackers and the revelations of the truth were not helping Hillary's campaign. Still the same thing - Russians hurt Hillary, Hillary lost, must be some collusion there. Hillary doesn't lose, this dies a quick death.. Like Trump said today, Obama did nothing about because he thought Hillary was going to win. This is like Secretariat being passed in the stretch by a milk wagon horse. Got to be something illegal - this just doesn't happen naturally.

Re: the bolded. Has it been established that this is what the discussions were about?

Today I understand that Trump talked about replacing in Poland the missile defenses that Obama took out as part of his hard line toward Russia. Sanctions have not been repealed, and we are no longer rolling over in Syria. Putin sure got the worst end of that (rumored) deal.

(07-06-2017 05:44 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 10:04 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Can't a guy go 24 hours without responding to a thread? It's not like we're having a phone conversation here.

Sure. I just wasn't expecting any response at all to my request, and still don't have one.

Quote:1) Well, it's too bad Sessions didn't feel like fully explaining this until he got called in front of Congress. Might have avoided the issue entirely.

Didn't he? Or was it just that the lead dogs would not accept "No, I didn't" without an oath and a chance to cross-examine?

Quote:2) The FBI investigation isn't solely directed towards Trump and his potential collusion. The scope involves the extent of Russian interference in the first place, as well as the (contradictory) reasons for Trump's remarkably strange decision to fire Comey. Given that I'm not an FBI special prosecutor, I can't tell you which of these things Mueller thinks is the most important, which of them he's spending the most time on, or which of them will bear the most fruit. Consequently, I can't say either way whether there's a "witchhunt" going on. Now, if Mueller were to come out and say that Trump committed no criminal acts, and I were to demand another, and another, and another investigation, then you might have a point. I suppose we'll disagree until then. Also, the FBI and congressional investigations are important not only in a legal sense, but in a political one. A key premise of a representative democracy is that elected officials are answerable to the people, who can demand investigations of whatever they want. Moreover, the outcome of these investigations are important in getting the story straight and allowing people to properly exercise their political judgment. As you pointed out, and as today's NPR/Marist survey demonstrates, current opinions on collusion are driven largely by party affiliation. After a definitive investigation and pronouncement, those party distinctions should (in theory) fade away, since we'll have a definitive answer. There is value in that.

*As a side question - who exactly is the "political" actor driving the FBI investigation? Sessions? Rosenstein? Mueller?

A lot here, but I will try to cover everything.
The original intent was the collusion. As these investigations do, they have grown tentacles, but there would be no tentacles to grow if the collusion was not being investigated. The collusion was a madeup fairy tale, part of the excuses the Hillary camp put forward, to wit, Hillary lost because the Russians published her emails, and if it hurt Hillary, it must have been done for Trump, at his behest, so let's investigate and show the world what an ass he is to have stolen this election. The "political actor" is the Democratic Party, or as Hillary calls them, the Resistance. The political actor blows the smoke, then cites the smoke to prove the need for an investigation I think the whole thing is to enhance the Party's chances in 2018 and 2020. As for the political differences in who likes/dislikes the investigation, it depends, as my late Dad would say, on "whose ox is getting gored". No different than the benghazi stuff.

Quote:3) I think there's a marked difference between voting against a candidate because you think he or she might be unfit, and discovering after the fact that the person you elected actually is unfit. Trump's "manners" are the least of my concerns. I was referring mostly to his ignorance of basic domestic and foreign policy facts (and his apparent unwillingness to remedy his lack of knowledge), his constant undermining of his own administration, his unwillingness to cease his inflammatory social media habits, and his abdication of key executive responsibilities, like appointing people to run the government.

I would not, could not vote for Hillary because she is reprehensible. I would have welcomed the chance to vote for a number of Republicans against her, but none of them were nominated. Pesky democratic system.

But for the rest of it, you will have to define "fit". Our constitution has a very short list of qualifications, and both Trump and Hillary "fit" them. Otherwise, it seems to be subjective to each individual. I think Hillary would also be unfit, although I have little doubt that she would be more decorous in her manner. After all, she was the "more of the same" candidate running against the "change" candidate, and the people said they didn't want more of the same. I likewise think Sanders is unfit, although he is the most honest candidate out there. I think the most fit of the original 21 people vying for one of the nominations was, and remains, John Kasich. A new face that intrigues me is Sasse. I might be a Sasse guy in 2020.

You will have to be more precise on "ignorance of basic domestic and foreign policy facts". What facts are these? I tend to think that you are referring to his way of doing things differently than they have been done before, of allying with different peoples than were allied with in the previous Administration. Isn't that what people voted him into office to do? To not be just a rubber stamp for Obama?

"his constant undermining of his own administration, his unwillingness to cease his inflammatory social media habits," - agreed. I don't like these either. I don't think they are criteria of fitness, though.

his abdication of key executive responsibilities, like appointing people to run the government. - need more info. Every president has delegated.

These are pretty much all fair points, to which I would like to respond, but, alas, work and family call. It did occur to me to recommend this podcast episode from the Ezra Klein Show. He talks with Russian journalist Masha Gessen about the whole Trump-Russia thing and she has a fairly coherent theory about it that fits largely with my own suspicions. Spoiler alert: She doesn't think there was active collusion, either.

I know that Vox Media (Klein is the editor in chief) doesn't get much love from conservatives, but I find Klein's personal podcast to be quite informative and fair. Klein himself holds mostly liberal policy views, but he's no partisan hack. He tends to avoid spinning the news and instead focuses on deeper policy discussions. I would really encourage anyone to give it a listen.

Also, if you're interested in the current health care debate, his most recent episode features Avik Roy, a conservative health care wonk who has been supporting the senate bill in various news publications.

thanks. I have listened to 42 of the 66 minutes, and probably will have to listen again. Warning: make coffee before starting. But I agree, they both make some interesting points.

(07-06-2017 09:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea that Russian collusion only grew out of Hillary's lose is a complete and utter farce and distortion of reality. Do you not remember the whole "puppet? no puppet. you're thenpuppet." line from the debate!?!?

No. I didn't watch the debates because I knew I was not going to vote for either of them, and Hillary had it in the bag anyway. All the polls and electoral vote projections said so. You got a YouTube link?

I do remember Trump urging whoever to keep showing her emails. But what does that prove? A couple of weeks ago, I was saying, Go Florida, beat TCU. Then a little later, I was saying, Go Florida, beat LSU. Sure doesn't mean I am a Florida fan or that I have a deal with them.

Quote:Questions about Trump's campaign and their questionable associations with Russia were established well before Election Day. And it was only after Flynn was caught lying that things really ramped up. And that was because he was caught lying about talking to a Russian diplomat about possibly easing sanctions. This is NOT an entirely fabricated concern.

Questions came up because the Russians were rumored to be the hackers and the revelations of the truth were not helping Hillary's campaign. Still the same thing - Russians hurt Hillary, Hillary lost, must be some collusion there. Hillary doesn't lose, this dies a quick death.. Like Trump said today, Obama did nothing about because he thought Hillary was going to win. This is like Secretariat being passed in the stretch by a milk wagon horse. Got to be something illegal - this just doesn't happen naturally.

Re: the bolded. Has it been established that this is what the discussions were about?

Today I understand that Trump talked about replacing in Poland the missile defenses that Obama took out as part of his hard line toward Russia. Sanctions have not been repealed, and we are no longer rolling over in Syria. Putin sure got the worst end of that (rumored) deal.

Why did you bring up Obama's response to the intelligence about Russia?

And also, why did you portray it in the manner you did? You left out the most important aspect - Obama did not act because if he had, it could (and would have, per reporting) been played as a partisan act designed to help one candidate and hurt another. Obama was in a very tough spot because of how close to the elections that this occurred.

Regardless, what a strange bit of logic. I state that the Trump campaign-Russia connections started well before the election, and you counter with that it must have been fabricated because it would support Clinton, right? Is this just all some grand conspiracy that required multiple forgotten meetings, strange bank communications, a mysterious dossier, and so on. Boy, was that a lot of work just to support someone who was supposed to win!

In short, all I was trying to prove was the these concerns were voiced well before the election and were thus NOT solely a reaction to the lose as you have incorrectly stated previously.

Rice Lad:

did you read the recent insider-sourced book on the Hillary campaign ('Shattered') yet? While the 'facts' were all in existence, it was the 'Clinton council' in the 24 hours after election night that decided to run full bore with the 'it was collusion' angle.

Quote: That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

(07-06-2017 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Rice Lad:

did you read the recent insider-sourced book on the Hillary campaign ('Shattered') yet? While the 'facts' were all in existence, it was the 'Clinton council' in the 24 hours after election night that decided to run full bore with the 'it was collusion' angle.

Quote: That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

I have not, but on this topic it isn't relevant. I have no qualms with the statement that Clinton blamed Russian hacking as the central reason for her loss (which isn't correct, IMO). I have issues that it was only after the election that the issue was brought up. Trump campaign-Russia was topical well before that (go back and check some posts on this very message board for evidence).

The only way those two situations are connected is if you think it's reasonable that the Clinton camp decided to have a backup excuse in case they lost to Trump. Other than that, it's someone trying to make connections between statements to stay on the right side of an argument.

(07-06-2017 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 09:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea that Russian collusion only grew out of Hillary's lose is a complete and utter farce and distortion of reality. Do you not remember the whole "puppet? no puppet. you're thenpuppet." line from the debate!?!?

No. I didn't watch the debates because I knew I was not going to vote for either of them, and Hillary had it in the bag anyway. All the polls and electoral vote projections said so. You got a YouTube link?

I do remember Trump urging whoever to keep showing her emails. But what does that prove? A couple of weeks ago, I was saying, Go Florida, beat TCU. Then a little later, I was saying, Go Florida, beat LSU. Sure doesn't mean I am a Florida fan or that I have a deal with them.

Quote:Questions about Trump's campaign and their questionable associations with Russia were established well before Election Day. And it was only after Flynn was caught lying that things really ramped up. And that was because he was caught lying about talking to a Russian diplomat about possibly easing sanctions. This is NOT an entirely fabricated concern.

Questions came up because the Russians were rumored to be the hackers and the revelations of the truth were not helping Hillary's campaign. Still the same thing - Russians hurt Hillary, Hillary lost, must be some collusion there. Hillary doesn't lose, this dies a quick death.. Like Trump said today, Obama did nothing about because he thought Hillary was going to win. This is like Secretariat being passed in the stretch by a milk wagon horse. Got to be something illegal - this just doesn't happen naturally.

Re: the bolded. Has it been established that this is what the discussions were about?

Today I understand that Trump talked about replacing in Poland the missile defenses that Obama took out as part of his hard line toward Russia. Sanctions have not been repealed, and we are no longer rolling over in Syria. Putin sure got the worst end of that (rumored) deal.

Why did you bring up Obama's response to the intelligence about Russia?

And also, why did you portray it in the manner you did? You left out the most important aspect - Obama did not act because if he had, it could (and would have, per reporting) been played as a partisan act designed to help one candidate and hurt another. Obama was in a very tough spot because of how close to the elections that this occurred.

Regardless, what a strange bit of logic. I state that the Trump campaign-Russia connections started well before the election, and you counter with that it must have been fabricated because it would support Clinton, right? Is this just all some grand conspiracy that required multiple forgotten meetings, strange bank communications, a mysterious dossier, and so on. Boy, was that a lot of work just to support someone who was supposed to win!

In short, all I was trying to prove was the these concerns were voiced well before the election and were thus NOT solely a reaction to the lose as you have incorrectly stated previously.

is every mention of Obama out of bounds?

Lots of spin about this - Trump has his spin and Obama has his, which you apparently take hook, line, and sinker as gospel. But it is not gospel - it is the excuse for not acting from the guy who didn't act.

BTW, how do you get this: "you counter with that it must have been fabricated because it would support Clinton" from what I said?

(07-07-2017 12:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 09:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea that Russian collusion only grew out of Hillary's lose is a complete and utter farce and distortion of reality. Do you not remember the whole "puppet? no puppet. you're thenpuppet." line from the debate!?!?

No. I didn't watch the debates because I knew I was not going to vote for either of them, and Hillary had it in the bag anyway. All the polls and electoral vote projections said so. You got a YouTube link?

I do remember Trump urging whoever to keep showing her emails. But what does that prove? A couple of weeks ago, I was saying, Go Florida, beat TCU. Then a little later, I was saying, Go Florida, beat LSU. Sure doesn't mean I am a Florida fan or that I have a deal with them.

Quote:Questions about Trump's campaign and their questionable associations with Russia were established well before Election Day. And it was only after Flynn was caught lying that things really ramped up. And that was because he was caught lying about talking to a Russian diplomat about possibly easing sanctions. This is NOT an entirely fabricated concern.

Questions came up because the Russians were rumored to be the hackers and the revelations of the truth were not helping Hillary's campaign. Still the same thing - Russians hurt Hillary, Hillary lost, must be some collusion there. Hillary doesn't lose, this dies a quick death.. Like Trump said today, Obama did nothing about because he thought Hillary was going to win. This is like Secretariat being passed in the stretch by a milk wagon horse. Got to be something illegal - this just doesn't happen naturally.

Re: the bolded. Has it been established that this is what the discussions were about?

Today I understand that Trump talked about replacing in Poland the missile defenses that Obama took out as part of his hard line toward Russia. Sanctions have not been repealed, and we are no longer rolling over in Syria. Putin sure got the worst end of that (rumored) deal.

Why did you bring up Obama's response to the intelligence about Russia?

And also, why did you portray it in the manner you did? You left out the most important aspect - Obama did not act because if he had, it could (and would have, per reporting) been played as a partisan act designed to help one candidate and hurt another. Obama was in a very tough spot because of how close to the elections that this occurred.

Regardless, what a strange bit of logic. I state that the Trump campaign-Russia connections started well before the election, and you counter with that it must have been fabricated because it would support Clinton, right? Is this just all some grand conspiracy that required multiple forgotten meetings, strange bank communications, a mysterious dossier, and so on. Boy, was that a lot of work just to support someone who was supposed to win!

In short, all I was trying to prove was the these concerns were voiced well before the election and were thus NOT solely a reaction to the lose as you have incorrectly stated previously.

is every mention of Obama out of bounds?

Lots of spin about this - Trump has his spin and Obama has his, which you apparently take hook, line, and sinker as gospel. But it is not gospel - it is the excuse for not acting from the guy who didn't act.

BTW, how do you get this: "you counter with that it must have been fabricated because it would support Clinton" from what I said?

I never suggested you couldn't not bring up Obama, I asked why you did. It didn't seem relevant to the conversation about when the possible Russian connections became public.

And I'm confused - you're one of the people who constantly pushed back on the idea that it was Russia who led these hacking actions, yet you seem to be critical of Obama because he didn't act. Please square those two away for me - how can you be critical of someone not acting about made up actions? Also, pease explain why you're criticizing Obama for not acting, and do you not believe the explanation that he was worried about politicizing the situation (a la Comey and Clinton's emails)?

Finally, I got the last line because that's what I thought you were saying (see your bit about "there must be collusion"). If you aren't suggesting that these concerns were completely fabricated, then you must believe they were not fabricated and are relevant to the conversation and worth investigating. And if you think these charges aren't completely made up, then what is your criticism about real concerns being brought forward during the campaign?

(07-07-2017 05:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 12:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 09:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea that Russian collusion only grew out of Hillary's lose is a complete and utter farce and distortion of reality. Do you not remember the whole "puppet? no puppet. you're thenpuppet." line from the debate!?!?

No. I didn't watch the debates because I knew I was not going to vote for either of them, and Hillary had it in the bag anyway. All the polls and electoral vote projections said so. You got a YouTube link?

I do remember Trump urging whoever to keep showing her emails. But what does that prove? A couple of weeks ago, I was saying, Go Florida, beat TCU. Then a little later, I was saying, Go Florida, beat LSU. Sure doesn't mean I am a Florida fan or that I have a deal with them.

Quote:Questions about Trump's campaign and their questionable associations with Russia were established well before Election Day. And it was only after Flynn was caught lying that things really ramped up. And that was because he was caught lying about talking to a Russian diplomat about possibly easing sanctions. This is NOT an entirely fabricated concern.

Questions came up because the Russians were rumored to be the hackers and the revelations of the truth were not helping Hillary's campaign. Still the same thing - Russians hurt Hillary, Hillary lost, must be some collusion there. Hillary doesn't lose, this dies a quick death.. Like Trump said today, Obama did nothing about because he thought Hillary was going to win. This is like Secretariat being passed in the stretch by a milk wagon horse. Got to be something illegal - this just doesn't happen naturally.

Re: the bolded. Has it been established that this is what the discussions were about?

Today I understand that Trump talked about replacing in Poland the missile defenses that Obama took out as part of his hard line toward Russia. Sanctions have not been repealed, and we are no longer rolling over in Syria. Putin sure got the worst end of that (rumored) deal.

Why did you bring up Obama's response to the intelligence about Russia?

And also, why did you portray it in the manner you did? You left out the most important aspect - Obama did not act because if he had, it could (and would have, per reporting) been played as a partisan act designed to help one candidate and hurt another. Obama was in a very tough spot because of how close to the elections that this occurred.

Regardless, what a strange bit of logic. I state that the Trump campaign-Russia connections started well before the election, and you counter with that it must have been fabricated because it would support Clinton, right? Is this just all some grand conspiracy that required multiple forgotten meetings, strange bank communications, a mysterious dossier, and so on. Boy, was that a lot of work just to support someone who was supposed to win!

In short, all I was trying to prove was the these concerns were voiced well before the election and were thus NOT solely a reaction to the lose as you have incorrectly stated previously.

is every mention of Obama out of bounds?

Lots of spin about this - Trump has his spin and Obama has his, which you apparently take hook, line, and sinker as gospel. But it is not gospel - it is the excuse for not acting from the guy who didn't act.

BTW, how do you get this: "you counter with that it must have been fabricated because it would support Clinton" from what I said?

I never suggested you couldn't not bring up Obama, I asked why you did. It didn't seem relevant to the conversation about when the possible Russian connections became public.

And I'm confused - you're one of the people who constantly pushed back on the idea that it was Russia who led these hacking actions, yet you seem to be critical of Obama because he didn't act. Please square those two away for me - how can you be critical of someone not acting about made up actions? Also, pease explain why you're criticizing Obama for not acting, and do you not believe the explanation that he was worried about politicizing the situation (a la Comey and Clinton's emails)?

Finally, I got the last line because that's what I thought you were saying (see your bit about "there must be collusion"). If you aren't suggesting that these concerns were completely fabricated, then you must believe they were not fabricated and are relevant to the conversation and worth investigating. And if you think these charges aren't completely made up, then what is your criticism about real concerns being brought forward during the campaign?

I guess i will have have to start from square one again.

Yes, when the emails were being published there was lots of speculation about how they went from private to public. some people speculated Russia stole them and wondered aloud why? And of course, they were not favorable to Hillary - the truth rarely is favorable to her - so some people jumped to the conclusion that the Russians were doing it for a quid pro quo from the Trump campaign. But the hardening of this into a witch hunt came in the shocked aftermath of her loss. Nobody thought this was much more than a nuisance. had Hillary won, it still would be in the nuisance category, because then the story would be the Russians tried to influence the election and failed.

But she lost, and in the horror of losing a race that could not lose, the democrats decided that among other things, it must be that the election was stolen by the Russians on behalf of Trump and they must have had a reason to act on his behalf.

I find this ridiculous for a lot of reasons. One glaring one is that the emails were not tampered with - no editing, no additional information inserted. If two parties set out to work together for a nefarious end, publishing the truth is hardly the best way to get it done. Why not throw in a fake email or two, showing bribery? But no, the truth was deemed enough.

Second, I think it hardly had much of an effect on voters. Hillary blamed Comey and misogyny. The latter is,, i think, very telling of the Democratic mindset. Cannot vote against a woman without being a misogynist, just like it was claimed the only reason anybody would oppose Obama in any way was racism. Lots of post mortems on the campaign, and most blame the campaign and its lack of a message.

Obama may or may not not have acted then because he didn't want to step in and have an influence, but I think he also considered that the hacking would have no influence on the results. I cited this to show that everybody from me to Obama thought the election was in the bag, and that is to explain why the great search for a reason has been launched.

I think what is completely made up is that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the campaign in Trump's favor by stealing and providing the truth to the press. What is taken as fact is that the Russians did it, although this is not a 100% sure thing. What is inferred is that they did it to help Trump, rather than to hurt Hillary or just to mess with us as much as they could. I think it started as a convenient way to explain the inexplicable loss and has morphed into a part of the Resistance with a target of winning back the House in 2018.

You seem to be hung up over the timing of thefirst appearance of allegations the Russians were behind it. I presume those started as soon as the we knew that emails were stolen and would be published.

So, questions. let's say, hypothetically, that hackers, maybe working for Iran or China, or the Mafia, or Planned Parenthood, maybe not, break into a poorly protected computer and steal emails showing the owner, an officeholder, is a pedophile. They give those emails to wikileaks. Wikileaks publishes them, and the truth is made known. Is this a conspiracy? Is this something that should have been left private?

The more I hear on the 2016 election, the more I think there was an agency working to manipulate the elections to achieve a result they wanted. I think that agency is the DNC, though.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories I don't believe in, and a few I wonder about. I am not buying this one without proof.

I think another part of this is that Democrats see Trump as the antiObama, and take an almost religious objection to him changing anything Obama did. Not just healthcare, but the ways Obama dealt with the world. Russia was one of the beneficiaries of Obama's foreign policy. So far, not so much from Trump. But the story is that Trump doesn't know what he is doing because he is not dealing with Russia, or China, or Iran, or Israel, or NATO, or anybody in the same way as Obama did - IOW, Trump is not Obama's third term. Well, maybe that is why he got so much support.

My expectation is that this stuff will die down after the 2018 midterms. Flynn will be convicted for failing to properly disclose some pre-existing conditions. Nothing much else will happen. A rerun of the Valerie Plame investigation.

My hope is that Trump declines to run again, and in 2020 we get two new candidates. I fear the Democrats will once again put up somebody terrible, but one that can win. Back to the same ol', same ol'. Which does seem to be the Democratic goal.

I hope I covered your points. If not, say so, and I will try again.

(07-06-2017 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Rice Lad:

did you read the recent insider-sourced book on the Hillary campaign ('Shattered') yet? While the 'facts' were all in existence, it was the 'Clinton council' in the 24 hours after election night that decided to run full bore with the 'it was collusion' angle.

Quote: That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

I have not, but on this topic it isn't relevant. I have no qualms with the statement that Clinton blamed Russian hacking as the central reason for her loss (which isn't correct, IMO). I have issues that it was only after the election that the issue was brought up. Trump campaign-Russia was topical well before that (go back and check some posts on this very message board for evidence).

The only way those two situations are connected is if you think it's reasonable that the Clinton camp decided to have a backup excuse in case they lost to Trump. Other than that, it's someone trying to make connections between statements to stay on the right side of an argument.

It would be relevant as it goes to how much the topic was inflamed. I'll grant you the predicate acts occurred before the election (well before), and I will grant you the predicate acts were made known.

But it was only 'post-election' that the flames got turned up onto the focus of not the predicate acts of the hack, but of the collusion. And to the generation of a 'crap ton' of 'smoke'. Seems to me that the renewed focus and smoke generation (post-election) were due in large part to the explicit decision by Team Hillary.

And I would disagree with the term 'back up' excuse. Looks to me to be an ad hoc ex post facto excuse, based on both the sourced book and other sources.

No offense, but Team Hillary had to have a 'good excuse' to lose that was not Hillary's fault. Simply put, do you think that Hillary privately thinks her actions vis a vis the server were wrong? I doubt it, I think that she and Nixon share a huge amount of personality traits, including heavy paranoia and a refusal to see crimes committed as a result of that paranoia as wrong. To this end, and to the end of giving a 'saving face' to a *major* component of the Democratic Party, a face saving explanation had to be found. Ergo lets gin up the collusion aspect.

So I personally do see connection with the actions of Team Hillary at that point in time and the huge, sudden upsurge of smoke about collusion post election. I mean, the only other avenue available is to say that Hillary realizes how much she ****** up by running a server in an illegal fashion and how grossly negligent she was in handling classified information. I doubt that would ever happen with Hillary. Jmo, of course.