(02-16-2017 06:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, pulling back the hysteria in this thread that really, only you are pushing, let's drill down to the most basic question about this situation. Do you not think there are enough coincidences/occurrences that have either taken place between the Trump organization and Russia (not a true ally at the moment) or that connect the two, for there to be any inkling of concern?

If not, why not? If so, would you support what are starting to be some bipartisan calls for investigation to evaluate if they are coincidences or something more?

No. I think a lot of the "coincidences" are manufactured and/or overblown. I think the left didn't like Hillary's emails revealed and they didn't like the FBI investigating (Why isn't Comey been labeled a Russian agent. he has been blamed). when Hillatry lost, they could not believe she lost on her own lack of merit, bad messaging and poor campaigning, it has to be more sinister than that. They settled on the russians, and Obama lent legitimacy to the conspiracy theory with his sanctions. A lot less has been "proven" than you think. Now it has just become another tool for the Democrats to unlose the election.

Mega businessmen will have business ties in many places around the world. Nothing sinister there.

National Security advisors will talk to foreign governments. Nothing sinister there. Was Flynn breaking a law? Only if he conducted diplomacy, and we have no evidence of that yet. To me diplomacy means working out the details of a treaty, not noting that that month there would be a new sheriff in town. Duh. That's a national secret?

Something more. Define that. Sounds like you think Trump is a russian agent.

If, repeat, IF Russia was behind the hacking of the servers, and THEN gave the info to Wikileaks, there are lots of possibilities more likely than they wanted Donald, Trump, specifically Donald Trump, in office. This conspiracy theory would make Machiavelli look like a Boy Scout. My personal thoughts are that IF they did this, it was just because they hated Clinton. Not feared her, she would be the easiest to deal with, but hated her. Personally. If they can put the electoral system here into doubt, that's just a plus, one both Trump and the Democrats are gleefully cooperating with for their own short term political gain. Coincidence? You tell me why the Democrats are trying to make our electoral process look like it elected a Russian agent.

(02-16-2017 09:13 AM)JSA Wrote:  For me, there's at least a prima facie case that Trump is hundreds of millions of dollars
in debt to Russian banks and investors. Which to one degree or another means Putin.
If not, he could/should dispel it.

OO, I was in kindergarten across the Red River from Barksdale AFB (SAC) during the Missile Crisis .
The skies were busy.

He may well owe money in Russia, to the tune of say, 5% of his net worth. You really think that means Putin has him by the ying-yang, and he will do anything to save it? I don't. What is Putin going to do, threaten to call his debt? Confiscate his hotels? Then what?

Lad, in an earlier post, you mentioned the public's right to know, in regard to the leak to the press about Flynn's call(s).

What is this right? Where do I find it? Is it something that every citizen decides for himself? How does this work?

The rest of y'all, feel free to chime in. It's a real question, not a gotcha.

(02-16-2017 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 09:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I grew up when we had to form the Wolverines to fight against the Soviet occupiers.

I grew up when I thought we would have to.

and is that from Red Dawn? I thought they fought the Japanese.

I think the recent remake had North Korea invading us, but the Reagan-era original was definitely the Soviets.

I remember we did watch "The Day After" in school, and later the much grittier "Threads" in case we weren't getting just how horrible nuclear war would be. Had to get a permission slip signed for Threads.

In any case, I was joking about my experience and that of my fellow children of the late 70s and 80s, since we didn't have a Cuban missle crisis or Berlin air lift. There was actually a pretty odd sort of sense of stability with MAD.

(02-16-2017 06:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, pulling back the hysteria in this thread that really, only you are pushing, let's drill down to the most basic question about this situation. Do you not think there are enough coincidences/occurrences that have either taken place between the Trump organization and Russia (not a true ally at the moment) or that connect the two, for there to be any inkling of concern?

An inkling, absolutely. There should always be at least an inkling of concern about any of our leaders' connections to all sorts of things. When I was doing expert witnessing, one of the other side's favorite cross-examination questions usually went something like, "Well is it possible that your opinion could be wrong because of la-dee-da?" I frequently responded, "Do you mean some sort of theoretical possibility in some kind of world where the laws of nature don't operate as we understand them, or do you mean some realistic possibility that it could occur in the actual world as we know it?" Lawyers didn't like it when I asked them that question.

Quote:If not, why not? If so, would you support what are starting to be some bipartisan calls for investigation to evaluate if they are coincidences or something more?

Let's let the professional fact-finders figure it out first, before we turn it into a media circus. If the FBI says there may be a problem, then by all means let's investigate at the congressional level. But so far the FBI is saying no laws were broken, as I understand it, and there are no indications of a smoking gun coming from anywhere else. If that continues to be the case, I don't see what is added by some sort of dog and pony show before congress.

(02-16-2017 10:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 09:13 AM)JSA Wrote:  For me, there's at least a prima facie case that Trump is hundreds of millions of dollars
in debt to Russian banks and investors. Which to one degree or another means Putin.
If not, he could/should dispel it.

OO, I was in kindergarten across the Red River from Barksdale AFB (SAC) during the Missile Crisis .
The skies were busy.

He may well owe money in Russia, to the tune of say, 5% of his net worth. You really think that means Putin has him by the ying-yang, and he will do anything to save it? I don't. What is Putin going to do, threaten to call his debt? Confiscate his hotels? Then what?

Trump's net worth is subject to guess, as are his debts to Russia. The most common figure I've seen for the former is $3 billion and for the latter is $600 million, so theoretically his debt is a lot more than 5%. And $600 million is a lot of money no matter what the denominator is.

I also don't know what his liquidity is like. And there are reports the Russians are the only ones who would lend to him.

As for falling behind in his payments, what if it's more like Goodfellas? "**** you, where's my money?"

(02-16-2017 12:19 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 10:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 09:13 AM)JSA Wrote:  For me, there's at least a prima facie case that Trump is hundreds of millions of dollars
in debt to Russian banks and investors. Which to one degree or another means Putin.
If not, he could/should dispel it.

OO, I was in kindergarten across the Red River from Barksdale AFB (SAC) during the Missile Crisis .
The skies were busy.

He may well owe money in Russia, to the tune of say, 5% of his net worth. You really think that means Putin has him by the ying-yang, and he will do anything to save it? I don't. What is Putin going to do, threaten to call his debt? Confiscate his hotels? Then what?

Trump's net worth is subject to guess, as are his debts to Russia. The most common figure I've seen for the former is $3 billion and for the latter is $600 million, so theoretically his debt is a lot more than 5%. And $600 million is a lot of money no matter what the denominator is.

There are reports the Russians are the only ones who would loan to him. I also don't know what his liquidity is like.

As for falling behind in his payments, what if it's more like Goodfellas? "**** you, where's my money?"

So now we are reaching for Trump being in fear for his life, or family's lives, or of broken knees if he doesn't dance to Putin's tune? Seems very unTrumplike to me. First he won't back off and will get us into war, now he is a limp strand of spaghetti that can be pushed around easily for fear of bodily injury.

Your numbers are on the extreme range, but even at 20% the whole idea that he would be so fearful of loss that he would cave is ludicrous.

Let me see if I can recap this and the other conspiracy theories.

First, years ago, Putin, a genius like we have never seen before, crafted this plan and put it into place.

First, he loaned Trump money, thus setting the hook. He knew that Trump was deathly afraid of declaring bankruptcy. Never would do that.
Once he had Trump on the hook, he set about making him President, first by suborning the Republican nomination, then by easily stealing Clinton's emails and seeing that they were published without modification. When it looked like it might be getting away, he made the FBI director, another Russian asset, make an announcement. Putin must be Machiavelli to the tenth power.

Then, once he had his guy elected, he made him hire all the other assets Putin had been cultivating, a veritable bevy of retired generals, CEOs, and rich people, all obviously working for Russia. Then, unable to contain himself any longer, he instructed his guy Flynn to call his ambassador and tell him things might be different once Trump was in office, something Putin should know already since he gives Trump his instructions. He sent planes to buzz a US ship and a ship to international waters along our coast, because this would help Trump by...well, I don't know how this helps Trump, but we know if Putin did it, it must be genius.

Well, I have government work to do - my 1040. Amazing how they require my help against my will and make me pay for it. what a concept.

I would defy any of you to look at my 1040 and come up with a reasonable estimate estimate of my net worth, or the sources of any significant portion of my net worth. Even the CPAs.

Not the most important thing, but why does Trump keep saying (at least two times today) that he had one of the biggest electoral wins in history? I mean it's patently false. And it doesn't really matter other than that he keeps lying about it. He's weirdly obsessed with this particular "alternative fact". Makes me wonder about his overall mental state.

(02-16-2017 03:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important thing, but why does Trump keep saying (at least two times today) that he had one of the biggest electoral wins in history? I mean it's patently false. And it doesn't really matter other than that he keeps lying about it. He's weirdly obsessed with this particular "alternative fact". Makes me wonder about his overall mental state.

Talk to OO. Sounds like he has it all figured out.

(02-16-2017 03:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important thing, but why does Trump keep saying (at least two times today) that he had one of the biggest electoral wins in history? I mean it's patently false. And it doesn't really matter other than that he keeps lying about it. He's weirdly obsessed with this particular "alternative fact". Makes me wonder about his overall mental state.

I've said this a number of times. My best guess is that Trump is an ESFJ on a Myers Briggs personality type indicator.

F ('feeler') vs. T ('thinker' or 'truth-based' on decisions, if that makes more sense)

He may be extreme in some of these preferences.

At any rate. Feelers react to their emotions and how they feel. At some point they have faith in what they believe to be true. While it may or may not be fact based, any reasonable (or unreasonable) rationalization that supports their belief is adequate. If I'm accurate in this assessment, he is not alone in this preference, although he may be one of the most extreme cases out there.

Continuing to fixate on what is, in this case, an inconsequential statement/belief, distracts from more serious issues.

At this point, people bring this particular issue up if they particularly want to irritate him, and to keep the non-relevant issue active.

Pick your battles. His personality may annoy you, but his actions, good/bad, right/wrong, are much more important.

Someone may firmly believe the moon landings were 'staged'. If they are donating $2,000,000 to your favorite charity, who cares? By the same token, if they are a serial killer, also, who cares?

(02-16-2017 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I would defy any of you to look at my 1040 and come up with a reasonable estimate estimate of my net worth, or the sources of any significant portion of my net worth. Even the CPAs.

And I would say the same for mine.

(02-16-2017 04:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 03:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important thing, but why does Trump keep saying (at least two times today) that he had one of the biggest electoral wins in history? I mean it's patently false. And it doesn't really matter other than that he keeps lying about it. He's weirdly obsessed with this particular "alternative fact". Makes me wonder about his overall mental state.

I've said this a number of times. My best guess is that Trump is an ESFJ on a Myers Briggs personality type indicator.

F ('feeler') vs. T ('thinker' or 'truth-based' on decisions, if that makes more sense)

He may be extreme in some of these preferences.

At any rate. Feelers react to their emotions and how they feel. At some point they have faith in what they believe to be true. While it may or may not be fact based, any reasonable (or unreasonable) rationalization that supports their belief is adequate. If I'm accurate in this assessment, he is not alone in this preference, although he may be one of the most extreme cases out there.

Continuing to fixate on what is, in this case, an inconsequential statement/belief, distracts from more serious issues.

At this point, people bring this particular issue up if they particularly want to irritate him, and to keep the non-relevant issue active.

Pick your battles. His personality may annoy you, but his actions, good/bad, right/wrong, are much more important.

Someone may firmly believe the moon landings were 'staged'. If they are donating $2,000,000 to your favorite charity, who cares? By the same token, if they are a serial killer, also, who cares?

This analogy is far too narrow. The reason it's important when Trump lies out of his you know what is that a not-insignificant portion of the electorate actually believes him. That, in turn, has real consequences. When he tweets blatant lies like "any negative polls are fake news," or that millions of illegal immigrants voted in Hillary's favor, etc., it affects public sentiment and, at least in his mind, gives him carte blanche to pursue the "real" issues people care about. Contrary to your moon-landing skeptic, Trump has real power and can take actions that affect millions of people.

It's almost like words have power!

(02-16-2017 06:28 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 03:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important thing, but why does Trump keep saying (at least two times today) that he had one of the biggest electoral wins in history? I mean it's patently false. And it doesn't really matter other than that he keeps lying about it. He's weirdly obsessed with this particular "alternative fact". Makes me wonder about his overall mental state.

I've said this a number of times. My best guess is that Trump is an ESFJ on a Myers Briggs personality type indicator.

F ('feeler') vs. T ('thinker' or 'truth-based' on decisions, if that makes more sense)

He may be extreme in some of these preferences.

At any rate. Feelers react to their emotions and how they feel. At some point they have faith in what they believe to be true. While it may or may not be fact based, any reasonable (or unreasonable) rationalization that supports their belief is adequate. If I'm accurate in this assessment, he is not alone in this preference, although he may be one of the most extreme cases out there.

Continuing to fixate on what is, in this case, an inconsequential statement/belief, distracts from more serious issues.

At this point, people bring this particular issue up if they particularly want to irritate him, and to keep the non-relevant issue active.

Pick your battles. His personality may annoy you, but his actions, good/bad, right/wrong, are much more important.

Someone may firmly believe the moon landings were 'staged'. If they are donating $2,000,000 to your favorite charity, who cares? By the same token, if they are a serial killer, also, who cares?

This analogy is far too narrow. The reason it's important when Trump lies out of his you know what is that a not-insignificant portion of the electorate actually believes him. That, in turn, has real consequences. When he tweets blatant lies like "any negative polls are fake news," or that millions of illegal immigrants voted in Hillary's favor, etc., it affects public sentiment and, at least in his mind, gives him carte blanche to pursue the "real" issues people care about. Contrary to your moon-landing skeptic, Trump has real power and can take actions that affect millions of people.

I have no idea of what percentage of the electorate believe him when he makes erroneous statements.

I suspect it's smaller than you fear.

I suspect that a lot of Trump's supporters understand when he is speaking off the cuff and based on what he believes, as opposed to facts (in some cases minor, often major) and frankly they don't care.

In either case, arguing to the ground stuff like this won't change either group's support for Trump.

One knows he 'exaggerates' and doesn't care.

The other group believes him and explicitly won't believe those who oppose him no matter how often CNN or ABC or anyone else verbally calls him on his gross inaccuracies, since they also believe the press is out to get him (and, let's face it, . . . . . . ).

Focusing on the popular vote versus electoral vote issue (or the 'how much he won California by' issue) will never change anything.

At some point, the press is only fighting to try and force a backtracking that will never happen, or more likely, just to continue to antagonize him, because they know it bothers him.

Since it won't change anything, it becomes like poking a bear with a stick to see how much you can antagonize him, and make him behave foolishly. While that may be satisfying because he clearly was unqualified to hold this position . . . . . it is not in the best interests of the country. At some point it becomes childish.

That's not to say that there aren't real issues that need to be bird-dogged and that close scrutiny applied. But could we be smarter about it?

I'm sick of the soap opera quality of everything coming out of Washington. It would be difficult to deal with at times anyway, but it would be easier if it didn't feel like EVERYTHING the Administration does is going to be criticized roundly.

The administration has done plenty that hasn't been criticized though. They have passed a number of EOs that haven't generated a peep or rebuke. They have gotten a number of Cabinet member confirmed that also haven't caused waves. They can avoid controversy.

However, it seems like they are hell bent on being one of the most dishonest administrations in history, for a reason I can't quite figure out.

(02-16-2017 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's almost like words have power!

Yeah, but that's true of EVERYONE in this reality TV show at the capital.

Those who most strongly oppose Trump are using words in the most damaging way possible as well. (You've alluded to obstructionist behavior and their characterizations of some of the nominees).

Exaggerations and fear-mongering abound on both sides of the aisle.

(02-16-2017 03:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 03:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important thing, but why does Trump keep saying (at least two times today) that he had one of the biggest electoral wins in history? I mean it's patently false. And it doesn't really matter other than that he keeps lying about it. He's weirdly obsessed with this particular "alternative fact". Makes me wonder about his overall mental state.

Talk to OO. Sounds like he has it all figured out.

Yes, I do, apparently, since nobody has found any fault with my synopsis of the history of the Russian coronation of Trump or answered my question about the public's right to know.

(02-16-2017 07:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The administration has done plenty that hasn't been criticized though. They have passed a number of EOs that haven't generated a peep or rebuke. They have gotten a number of Cabinet member confirmed that also haven't caused waves. They can avoid controversy.

However, it seems like they are hell bent on being one of the most dishonest administrations in history, for a reason I can't quite figure out.

I think a better characterization is that they seem intent on ignoring every common sense rule for getting along with the other side of the aisle, and are tone deaf to media relations.

This is not uncommon, but it is uncommon to America.

I read about Maduro's (Venezuela) response to CNN investigating visa corruption in Venezuela, and the recent rebuke of their VP's involvement in drug dealing.

There are a lot of world leaders completely divorced from reality.

Venezuela 'ELECTED' themselves into the mess they're in back in 1998.

Democracy works with a majority middle class. The American public voted Trump in, partly on the hopes he would restore the middle class to a higher percentage of the population than it has fallen to (and while I agree Obama did some good things, and some things that aren't working, he did NOT halt the slide in standard of living here).

I don't know if he can do that, and and I certainly wouldn't bet on it. But I do know that the answer is not to open ourselves to unlimited increases of lower-income level and poverty level populations and trust democracy will be the answer, at least not while the trend is toward globalization. (job/opportunities moving elsewhere, while we encourage increases in population, and accompanying demand for social/governmental services)

Tocqueville?

Democracy works until the people figure out they can vote themselves money?

See Venezuela for potential outcomes. They are an oil-based state that was the oldest South American democracy.

(02-16-2017 07:08 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 06:28 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 03:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important thing, but why does Trump keep saying (at least two times today) that he had one of the biggest electoral wins in history? I mean it's patently false. And it doesn't really matter other than that he keeps lying about it. He's weirdly obsessed with this particular "alternative fact". Makes me wonder about his overall mental state.

I've said this a number of times. My best guess is that Trump is an ESFJ on a Myers Briggs personality type indicator.

F ('feeler') vs. T ('thinker' or 'truth-based' on decisions, if that makes more sense)

He may be extreme in some of these preferences.

At any rate. Feelers react to their emotions and how they feel. At some point they have faith in what they believe to be true. While it may or may not be fact based, any reasonable (or unreasonable) rationalization that supports their belief is adequate. If I'm accurate in this assessment, he is not alone in this preference, although he may be one of the most extreme cases out there.

Continuing to fixate on what is, in this case, an inconsequential statement/belief, distracts from more serious issues.

At this point, people bring this particular issue up if they particularly want to irritate him, and to keep the non-relevant issue active.

Pick your battles. His personality may annoy you, but his actions, good/bad, right/wrong, are much more important.

Someone may firmly believe the moon landings were 'staged'. If they are donating $2,000,000 to your favorite charity, who cares? By the same token, if they are a serial killer, also, who cares?

This analogy is far too narrow. The reason it's important when Trump lies out of his you know what is that a not-insignificant portion of the electorate actually believes him. That, in turn, has real consequences. When he tweets blatant lies like "any negative polls are fake news," or that millions of illegal immigrants voted in Hillary's favor, etc., it affects public sentiment and, at least in his mind, gives him carte blanche to pursue the "real" issues people care about. Contrary to your moon-landing skeptic, Trump has real power and can take actions that affect millions of people.

I have no idea of what percentage of the electorate believe him when he makes erroneous statements.

I suspect it's smaller than you fear.

I suspect that a lot of Trump's supporters understand when he is speaking off the cuff and based on what he believes, as opposed to facts (in some cases minor, often major) and frankly they don't care.

In either case, arguing to the ground stuff like this won't change either group's support for Trump.

One knows he 'exaggerates' and doesn't care.

The other group believes him and explicitly won't believe those who oppose him no matter how often CNN or ABC or anyone else verbally calls him on his gross inaccuracies, since they also believe the press is out to get him (and, let's face it, . . . . . . ).

Focusing on the popular vote versus electoral vote issue (or the 'how much he won California by' issue) will never change anything.

At some point, the press is only fighting to try and force a backtracking that will never happen, or more likely, just to continue to antagonize him, because they know it bothers him.

Since it won't change anything, it becomes like poking a bear with a stick to see how much you can antagonize him, and make him behave foolishly. While that may be satisfying because he clearly was unqualified to hold this position . . . . . it is not in the best interests of the country. At some point it becomes childish.

That's not to say that there aren't real issues that need to be bird-dogged and that close scrutiny applied. But could we be smarter about it?

I'm sick of the soap opera quality of everything coming out of Washington. It would be difficult to deal with at times anyway, but it would be easier if it didn't feel like EVERYTHING the Administration does is going to be criticized roundly.

Read someone yesterday that said 1/3 will always dismiss his claims, and 1/3 will accept them. The remaining 1/3 will split the difference. "He says there were 3 million fraudulent votes cast. The other side says there were none. Maybe it was a 1.5 million."

I think I thought was OO that asked about my assertion of the american people's right to know what was going on between the Trump org and Russia. Turns out at least one Fox News reporter agrees with me.

This clip of Sharp Smith is a pretty good summary of my current feelings on the matter.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fysSDYkhHlU