Not actually technically possible due the their density. — raza

They were hacked.

There was indubitably Russian interference in the US Presidential election - cannot be credibly denied. As to collusion on the part of the Trump campaign, numerous indictments have now been made as a consequence of this inverstigation. Trump has been seen to have lied numerous times about his ties with Russia, but Trump utters such blizzards of lies every time he opens his mouth, that any particular lie is buried in a snowdrift of mendacity. But the ‘Russia, if you’re listening’ line, spoken on national television, AND his son’s meeting with Russian operatives in the Trump Hotel, are reasonable grounds for establishing collusion.

numerous indictments have now been made as a consequence of this inverstigation — Wayfarer

Please do not accept jury duty for the sake of justice.

An accusation does not automatically equal guilt.

An example of the danger of stupidity.

They were hacked. — Jeremiah

Is this a case that if you repeat it enough it will become true?

I understand the phenomena of emotional investment in this belief.

It started with someone you didn't want to win winning.

Along with you came millions of others supported by the presstitutes.


Such a shame it is, and will continue to, unravel. Well, a shame for you.

Mueller is tasked with investigating the Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 elections. — Jeremiah

It became diluted to that when the "collusion" conspiracy theory began disintegrating.

AND his son’s meeting with Russian operatives in the Trump Hote — Wayfarer

That was set up. Typical entrapment attempt by opposition which had, and was only designed to be, for media optics.

Couldn't care less. — frank

I guess that says it all. The grandest fallacy of all human reasoning: I don't know; I don't need to know; you can't tell me; therefore I must be right; go away and don't bother me. QED. — tim wood

Yep, this shows the utter ignorance and naivety of many Trump supporters. Why, they haven't anything against Russia, so why bother, why not be in good terms with them? So Trump is doing just fine trying to improve the relations!

The utter inability to see that Russia especially under Putin sees the US as it's main enemy and is trying weaken the power of the US in the World is evident with these people. Russia clearly understands that Trump is a passing moment, and is trying to get the most of it. And Americans believe the lies. Why, it's just the American "Deep State", the military-industrial establishment, fooling the people and making everything up. Russia and Putin would just want better relations.

The lack of understanding the motives and the agenda of foreigners can be very detrimental.

Are you a Russian cyber troll?

Good question.

Yep, this shows the utter ignorance and naivety of many Trump supporters — ssu

I would vote for Trump 2020, but I can't get past the way he flirts with racists.

Isn't Finland already part of Russia? Kind of like Idaho is part of the US?

Trump will only resign if he can feel like he can go down a winner.

He never believed he could win and almost certainly never wanted to be president, and he'll do what he thinks is best for his ratings 100% of the time, which is the only thing keeping him from resigning at present.

If someone can pitch him the right angle he might resign (especially if someone can convince him Mueller is closing in), something like "These are levels of obstruction never seen before folks..." "Because of constant fake news and anti-American actions by crooked Hillary and the lying democrats, I am choosing to step down a winner and leave this country in the capable hands of vice president Pence", "It's really a shame folks, but in the time that I have been president I've done more for this country than any other president. At least that's what people are telling me. *grins cheekily and emits a spastic shrug*". It's really sad folks, I really had a lot of great things, tremendous things, in store for this country, and now the democrats are going to have to live with the fact that they might be responsible for making America un-great again".

:lol: Hilarious! You got him down to a “T”. (Well, maybe tragi-comic is a better term than hilarious, or maybe it is gallows humor. Whatever). You nailed it. I think that is pretty much what he would say. America first... well actually ME first! It’s the Me Generation!

And what is this thing with the right-wing and Trump using the word “folks” so damn much? I hear it on talk radio, which I listen to out of morbid curiosity and can stand for about 5 minutes. I think Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to popularize the term in the recent past. “Folks” is just so... folksy. So chummy and buddy buddy. Just good honest hard workin’, salt-of-the-Earth people. (No welfare queens or drug dealin’ pimps here. No sir!)

AND his son’s meeting with Russian operatives in the Trump Hote — Wayfarer


That was set up. Typical entrapment attempt by opposition which had, and was only designed to be, for media optics. — raza

How does this make sense? The meeting was not arranged by the Democrats, so who is it that was trying to entrap him? For that matter, what's the relevance to guilt/innocence?

I'd love to believe that, but I don't think it's realistic. Trump does not like to be pushed around. I expect he'll use every tool imaginable: challenging a subpoena in the Supreme Court, pardoning the folks who might testify against him, and even pardoning himself. All this in the name of terminating the "witch hunt."

The lack of understanding the motives and the agenda of foreigners can be very detrimental. — ssu

Enlighten us on the motives and agenda of Russia. While you're at it, do the same thing with the ostensibly selfless motives and agenda of the United States. Tell us why our military spending should be so high relative to other nations; why others should welcome our effort to impose our agenda around the world; why we should be encouraged to meddle in the affairs of others while complaining when they do the same to us; etc.

This sort of American exceptionalism - I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) this is the angle you'll take - is pushed by neocons (ooh!) and others in order to justify continued American global dominance. All the while our own country languishes with massive discrepancies in wealth, in access to quality education, in healthcare, in racial and cultural divisiveness, in a pervasive cynicism regarding politics, etc.

This sort of American exceptionalism - I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) this is the angle you'll take - is pushed by neocons (ooh!) and others in order to justify continued American global dominance. All the while our own country languishes with massive discrepancies in wealth, in access to quality education, in healthcare, in racial and cultural divisiveness, in a pervasive cynicism regarding politics, etc. — Erik

I think the assumption is erroneous. There's a differences between disparaging and alienating allies and deluding yourself Russia is benign on the one hand and the issues resulting from the military - industrial complex, a political system hostage to two malt identical parties and other social ills on the other. So, you can not care about international relations up to a point but being chummy with the guy that probably orchestrated a lot of influence on the last USA election is not not caring, it's wilful ignorance at best and bad faith at worst.

I don't think the two things are incompatible; in fact that seems the most reasonable position to take at the moment: Russia may represent a genuine danger for us and our allies and yet we may need to prioritize our very serious domestic issues for the time being, and part of that may involve scaling back the empire.

What I mainly took issue with was the mocking tone ssu took (I generally appreciate his contributions btw) towards those who feel there's been a significant divergence of interests between the political/economic powers within the United States and normal working class people. This is something that's been commented on for a long time now, and it should be pointed out that it's mainly been by those who identify with the Left (Zinn, Chomsky, et al).

Just seemed both condescending and contradictory. On the one hand, we're to dismiss the idea that a group of citizens within the United States - those with wealth and power no less - have conspired to advance their interests at the expense of average citizens through various forms of manipulation. This was associated with crackpot conspiracy theories, e.g. "deep state", military-industrial complex, etc.

On the other hand, there's no similar dismissal of the alleged conspiracy undertaken by Putin and the Russians to advance their interests through any means necessary. In fact, he's accused of pursuing just such an agenda through collaboration with Trump as well as other clandestine measures, like fomenting racial discord within the country, undercutting our relationships with traditional allies, etc.

Anyhow, best to be suspicious of Putin's Russia and the manipulative powers within the United States - whether these be Trump and his lackeys or the previous and largely bipartisan "establishment".

The meeting was not arranged by the Democrats, so who is it that was trying to entrap him? — Relativist

The Hillary's pedocrat party paid Fusion GPS for a "dossier". The Russian he met, Natalia Veselnitskaya, worked for Fusion.

For that matter, what's the relevance to guilt/innocence? — Relativist

Guilt of what?

I would vote for Trump 2020, but I can't get past the way he flirts with racists.

Isn't Finland already part of Russia? — frank

Is Finland racist?

(Trying to post again - for some reason it didn't show up when originally sent)

I would also add that our concern with the affairs of others around the world is something that's not always been honorable. Do you guys support our readiness to prop up nondemocratic regimes when it serves our (whose?) interests? Launching wars under false pretext in the Middle East and elsewhere? Giving China most favored nation trading status despite blatant human rights violations? How about the near unchallenged support our politicians give Israel against Palestinians? Or how about our politicians wearing American flag pins and appealing to the patriotic sentiments of the masses while gladly outsourcing their jobs for the sake of cheaper labor costs and lower environmental standards?

For those of you implying some deficiency in morals and/or knowledge of those who disagree with your view that the US should take on the role of protector against Russian aggression, do YOU have a problem with your country receiving money and other benefits from such an unjust and immoral country as the United States? Is that really who you want as an ally? Or could you "not care less" how these funds have been acquired and how the US behaves towards other (esp non-European) nations? Seems extremely hypocritical tbh to call out Americans for ignorance or a lack of concern while looking the other way when it benefits you to do so.

Yeah, I'm suspicious of attempts to frame things in moral terms. We need to get our own house in order before we start lecturing others on how to conduct their affairs. And that position does not preclude a genuine concern for others around the globe, but rather demands it. Especially if we'd like to take a leading role in world affairs moving forward. As usual, none of this should be taken as even tacit approval of Trump - he's a symptom of much larger issues that he may be exploiting to his advantage but that he did not create.

Indeed. And so if the US must be somehow compared to Russia, it is not as though American is not an oligarchy.

Russians may actually feel quite free in their own country. I haven't heard of a demand for Russians to immigrate to the US. They may not even be subject to vaccination regimes and propaganda there.

Is the US more free than Russia? I don't know. Maybe not.

I don't think the two things are incompatible; in fact that seems the most reasonable position to take at the moment: Russia may represent a genuine danger for us and our allies and yet we may need to prioritize our very serious domestic issues for the time being, and part of that may involve scaling back the empire. — Erik

I agree but perhaps my paragraph wasn't as clear as I thought it was. :up:

This sort of American exceptionalism - I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) this is the angle you'll take — Erik

Wrong it was indeed. But many think that only neocons are in favour of NATO etc.

IN FACT American unilateralism and especially the extreme hubris of the neocons is the total opposite here. If you noticed, neocon policies were not so loved in Europe (remember Freedom Fries?).

The basic fact, despite all the critique you can justifiably have toward US foreign policy, is that other Western countries accept and are quite OK with the whole international system that the US itself created for itself after WW2. NATO, CENTO, SEATO were all American ideas at the end. NATO brings not only stability, but basically puts the US in the position of a superpower, just as all the other international organizations like the IMF or the role of the US dollar does (again something done after WW2). Hubris would be to think that the US has such a leading role just because it has the strongest military and the largest economy.

The Superpower status comes from the role that the US plays through organizations like NATO. One has to remember that the US had a very large economy before WW2, but it was a smaller player on the World. Hence there isn't a reason why economic and military power would go automatically hand in hand with the nations position in the World.

Somehow many Americans don't see any reason for these complex alliances, think (as Trump) that these organizations and alliances are just a burden to the US, a lousy deal. The fact is without them, the US wouldn't be a Superpower, it wouldn't get other countries to send troops to it's wars and likely would lose it's position, which indeed has made it's own position better. Just think about the role of the US dollar. Futhermore, other countries would make their security arrangements then without the US. Basically they would turn their back on the US in these issues and make their own policy. If you the Americans would be OK with that, well, president Trump said the EU was a "foe" of the US.

Enlighten us on the motives and agenda of Russia — Erik

Now that a is big subject. Perhaps in a nutshell it is that Putin needs an sinister enemy to justify his crackdown on the opposition and to stay in power for life. After all, first it was Napoleon, then Hitler, so don't trust the West. And offence is the best defence.

Anyhow, best to be suspicious of Putin's Russia and the manipulative powers within the United States - whether these be Trump and his lackeys or the previous and largely bipartisan "establishment". — Erik

One has to be critical of the criticisms and statements on both sides, which one can only be with truly learning about the issues oneself. Occams razor is a good method here.

Best propaganda is made by only referring to facts. Hence you have to know what facts are then left out in order to notice the subtle propaganda/agenda.

Mueller was the Director of the FBI, when the US made that Uranium deal with the Russians, and when Putin donated $25M to the Clinton Foundation; kickback. During the deal, the Russian players had been accused of bribery and racketeering. This information was withheld from Congress by Mueller, so the deal would go through. Mueller is protecting himself as well as two former presidents. Mueller was more involved in Russian collusion than even Manafort, who did his dealings under the watch of the Obama Administration.

Mueller's investigation team is composed of lawyers who are all Democrat donors. His chief investigator is a slime ball who has, on several occasions, sent people to jail who were later released in Appeals courts. The slime ball withheld evidence which would have cleared these men in the first place, but he sent them to jail anyway, until appeal. He should have been disbarred. This is the type of slime ball Democrat, the Democrats use to rail road people.

The entire Mueller investigation is based on the saying, the best defense is a good offense. As long as Mueller appears to be on the offense, and Trump on the defense, Mueller can delay the investigation into his own shady dealings with the Russians. Trump knows this, but he is not stopping it, because they have nothing. It makes Trump look like the underdog which is creating sympathetic support for Trump. It is also putting the spot light on the radial side of the Democrat party and the media, who are both showing their true colors. This will allow Trump to win the midterms for the Republicans, then the tide turns.

Are you a Russian cyber troll? — Jeremiah

This is merely an expression of insecurity. What it is saying is that you FEEL trolled.

Your feelings are not going to be, however, a reflection of reality. Of what is actually real or true. Of what is actually happening.

The other clue as to insecure feelings expressed is this us vs them dialectic. It is as though "Russian" is some mysterious alien and therefore foreboding shadowy creature thing while one's own assumed identity must always be on the side of right merely for being familiar and customary.

It is this type of typical insecurity which buys easily into media and authoritarian narratives which are essentially designed to accentuate the split mindedness of sheeples for the greater ease of political/militaristic actors toward manipulation and society engineering of such plastic subjects.

Of course.

Mueller is the current face of a protection racket. To protect "business as usual".

The "business" does not like anything too unpredictable.

They are not so able to predict the Trump character, whether he be either good or bad for the average, everyday American

But "business as usual" is, in my view, definitely not good for the everyday American. "Swamp" is an accurate term whoever uses it.

For those of you implying some deficiency in morals and/or knowledge of those who disagree with your view that the US should take on the role of protector against Russian aggression, do YOU have a problem with your country receiving money and other benefits from such an unjust and immoral country as the United States? Is that really who you want as an ally? Or could you "not care less" how these funds have been acquired and how the US behaves towards other (esp non-European) nations? Seems extremely hypocritical tbh to call out Americans for ignorance or a lack of concern while looking the other way when it benefits you to do so. — Erik

There's plenty of criticism levelled by the Dutch press on Dutch issues or European issues. In the USA you have bipartisan cheerleaders masquerading as news outlets dominating the news. The level of distrust is incomparable. I can cite any Dutch newspaper in the Netherlands or refer any news program for facts and whether the person is a communist or a right-wing xenophobe, he'll accept those facts. If I cite the NYT to Republicans, half of the time I have to find corroborating evidence before we can talk about what those facts mean. It's sad really that there's apparently such a dissonance within the population.

So certainly, I also take issue with the USA's foreign policy and definitely have an opinion about a lot of its domestic issues. You're welcome to take issue with the Netherlands as well. In practice nobody cares about the Netherlands because it's not in the same position as the USA, which is still a superpower and a potential elephant in the chinashop.

Do we want the US to be an ally? Of course, if only because it beats having it as an enemy. The same is true for China and Russia for that matter, which have horrible human rights records domestically where the USA reserves that for refugee children. The USA though, pretends to be a democracy based on the rule of law so I do hold it at a higher standard than despotic regimes. And morality does come into play when money is better represented than people and it's clear as daylight. The Netherlands shows tendencies to develop the same problem the US has in that respect. As does Europe as a whole. We kind of benefit from being a fragmented cooperation of different States here as it makes it much harder to influence every country at once.

I also believe the US should not take the role of protector against Russian aggression (or any type of aggression for that matter). In fact, I think it should do far less and when it does act, to do so for the right reasons and based on actual evidence (Iraq anyone?). What is a problem, I think, is having Trump fawn over Putin and downplaying the rather serious implications of Russian meddling in the US elections (and other Western countries including the Netherlands). You'd expect we have common ground to work together to combat these cyber attacks but you wouldn't be able to tell based on Trump's performance at NATO, in the UK and today again in Helsinki.

We need to get our own house in order before we start lecturing others on how to conduct their affairs. — Erik

The world would be a very quiet place. But at least we know that your house is in order.