Here's the text.

It's been about 9 months since HIllary spouted her accusations about 17 agencies agreeing that Russia hacked the election. Since then we've seen no evidence of such hacking and found out the "17 agencies" story was a lie, leaving an oversight org. and three agencies who have all proven themselves to be treacherous liars. We really need more than that before we can say Russia interfered with the election or Putin's "got" Trump.

It's been about 9 months since HIllary spouted her accusations about 17 agencies agreeing that Russia hacked the election. — Thanatos Sand

Clinton wasn't 'spouting accusations', she was quoting a media story, and her statement was rated 'true' by politifact at the time (although subject to later clarification by the NY Times).

And after today's developments, it is impossible to deny collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government agencies - it's there in black and white.

Of course she was spouting accusations since she didn't check to see if that story was true. All she had to do was check the New York Times who printed the lie. And Politifact is a Clinton-biased rag whose opinion means almost less than the publications whose stories they "rate."

And of course you can deny collusion since all we have is proof little idiot Trump Jr. accepting contact from a lawyer claiming to have info. There was no proof of any info being passed on and certainly no proof of the Russians actually interfering in the election

If it's not obvious to you that the scale of duplicity involving Trump far outweighs everything that Clinton was accused of during the campaign, then I think your judgement is questionable.

...within hours of the latest story breaking, Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer, at its heart was on U.S. television taunting the younger Trump and his colleagues for seeming to be “longing” for damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

This behavior reminds us yet again that Russia’s primary goal was not to get Trump elected. It was to weaken the United States. Now with Trump in office, the best way to weaken our country is to fan the flames of the scandal enveloping the president. Putin and Russia benefit from the paralysis that a protracted series of investigations into Trump will cause. Trump, or at least some of those close to him, must be starting to see what happens to useful idiots when they are no longer seen to be useful.

Putin backed Trump purely and simply because he knows it will be a disaster for the US. It is, and has been all along. Superb strategic victory by Putin, but then, he didn't have to do much.

If it's not obvious to you that you haven't shown any of Trump's duplicity and only Trump Jr's apparently harmless duplicity, then your judgment is atrocious. Mine, however, is excellent.

And the fact you post some unfounded opinion someone made that doesn't in any way show Russia actually tampering with the election shows your thinking is subpar as well. And you've shown no game plan of Putin's, nor how it affected the election. More proof of what I just wrote.

But feel free to go ahead and show any proof of Putin actually tampering with the election. We both know you can't.

I think she did just say it, and she said it more than once, she knew what she was doing...she did a Trump. They are both despicable from my viewpoint. She's a cheat and she is in Wall Street's pocket, and he is a bore, an ignoramus, a "pussy grabbing" misogynist.

Yeah, I would agree with that. She's also a warmonger who helped kill hundreds of thousands with her Iraq War vote, and tens of thousands more with her horrid coups in Honduras and Libya while she was SOS.

We really need more than that before we can say Russia interfered with the election or Putin's "got" Trump. — Thanatos Sand

You think that cartoon is about the election? No. It's about what happened at the G19.

Oh, so you agree Putin didn't tamper with the election. Very smart of you.

:-|

A neat example pf pro-Trump logic.

I'm not Pro-Trump. But you corrected me on assuming your position was Putin had tampered with the election, which would be silly if you thought he had tampered with it. So, you do think Putin tampered with the election, of which there is no evidence, and you were being silly, too. That's fine.

You're serious? Sounds like your head is a bit too full.

That was a nothing comeback that didn't address anything I said. Feel free to do so at any time. Until you do, I'm happy to let my post stand.

That was a nothing comeback that didn't address anything I said. — Thanatos Sand

:-|

Your reply was garbled nonsense. A nothing reply was only appropriate.

No, it wasn't and you clearly can't show it was as you have failed twice to do so. So, the only garbled nonsense is what you call "thought" running through your head. You and I are done, kid. I won't read or respond to any more of your posts.

So what you did here was to misunderstand a cartoon, then make an invalid inference, and add an ad hom attack.

Rationality not thought of biggly where you come from?

hard to tell whether russia or alt-right trolll; best not to feed, regardless.

I have no idea what Banno said, but I'm amazed at how you Brock trolls are simply unable to conceive of progressives like myself not buying into your Russia conspiracy theories, particularly when you have provided no evidence of it. And please cease from feeding me your paranoia and nonsense. I have no time for it.

Feel free to leave any time.

You said it was best not to "feed" me, and yet you can't even follow your own advice. Adorable.

troll quality is on the way down. Time was they at least could hold one side of a discussion.

I think the answer to my question is yes. The US should be irrelevant.

Which is exactly what others from around the world want, have wished for and is now their temporary reality.


If it's not it's because some gruesome threat is on the scene from within or without said nation.

And that is the rub. It's only in a crisis when the USA is viewed as the leader and depended upon.

The one question I have for Banno is: when the world calls in the middle of the night with a crisis, is China going to answer?

Which is exactly what others from around the world want, have wished for and is now their temporary reality. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Some yes, some no. Both the British and the French repeatedly pressed the US to take a leading role in the Cold War. I don't agree with Trump on much, but to the extent that he sent out isolationist fumes during his campaign, I'm with him. I also agree with Merkel that Europe should not think of the US as a reliable ally. That's simply the emergence of the truth into the light of day. Or a re-emergence. :)

And that is the rub. It's only in a crisis when the USA is viewed as the leader and depended upon. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

To the extent that this is true, it has the potential to be a horrific mistake (the recent demolition of Syria wants to testify.) I've made a 180 in recent years. I do not support the emergence of a global government. I think it's every country for itself. Dog eat dog. The little countries already know that. It's time for the bigger ones to put aside sentimental pipe dreams.

Some yes, some no. Both the British and the French repeatedly pressed the US to take a leading role in the Cold War. I don't agree with Trump on much, but to the extent that he sent out isolationist fumes during his campaign, I'm with him. I also agree with Merkel that Europe should not think of the US as a reliable ally. That's simply the emergence of the truth into the light of day. Or a re-emergence. — Mongrel

I guess I was speaking purely from my experience in the last decade, most prominently with those who I consider close friends from here in the "thinkers" sandbox. From Tobias to Benkei, to Banno and unenlightened, all of them made it perfectly clear that the USA has done more bad than good on the world stage and so I say, like Trump, turn our efforts inward, taking care of our own home first and let someone else "Step Up" and lead this world in times of crisis. When it came down to it, there were only two countries that could possibly lead the way we had and that was either Russia or China. Is it possible that they got their wish? Is Russia now the world leader? And does it matter to us, the USA?

To the extent that this is true, it has the potential to be a horrific mistake (the recent demolition of Syria wants to testify.) I've made a 180 in recent years. I do not support the emergence of a global government. I think it's every country for itself. Dog eat dog. The little countries already know that. It's time for the bigger ones to put aside sentimental pipe dreams. — Mongrel

The other countries have never lost sight of taking care of themselves first. It is only the USA that has been the fool here. It is said that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I have great disdain for that idea and refuse to let it shape my choices in life all the same.

When it came down to it, there were only two countries that could possibly lead the way we had and that was either Russia or China. Is it possible that they got their wish? Is Russia now the world leader? And does it matter to us, the USA? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Those who want a world leader are looking for a country that can maintain peace. Russia doesn't have the ability to do that. I think China probably could. It would be in its interest to do that because its on-going development requires peace. It doesn't have any experience acting as a global leader. If it steps into that role, it will be following an American guidebook in the same way Americans looked to the British example and on and on backward.

I've been reading a lot of history lately. I'm presently reading a book about the so-called Solutrean hypothesis. Archaeologists, geneticists, historic geographers all commune to try to understand what a few bones and stone tools mean. Whatever burning issues those ancient people worried over are lost in time as our worries will be also. There's a sort of sweet melancholy in that.. don't you think?

The other countries have never lost sight of taking care of themselves first. It is only the USA that has been the fool here. It is said that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I have great disdain for that idea and refuse to let it shape my choices in life all the same. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

There's nothing stopping you from exercising your good intentions and joining with others in doing that. I usually resort to giving money to groups I trust. But I think there's some wisdom in backing off of a governmental role in that.

A prime example is the story of Hoover's efforts to feed starving Russians in the 1920s. Lenin looked on and laughed. He didn't want those Russians to survive. He wanted them to starve to death. It's harsh, but it's a mistake to think the US government is supposed to save the Russians from their own insane leader. That's comic-book logic. The real USA is not superhuman. Agree?

The Washington Post indicates that

The United Arab Emirates orchestrated the hacking of Qatari government news and social media sites in order to post incendiary false quotes attributed to Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad al-Thani, in late May that sparked the ongoing upheaval between Qatar and its neighbors, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

UAE denies the story.

Fake news working, effectively causing the disruption it was meant to cause.

The Washington Post should know about fake news as they wrongly reported that Russia hacked a Vermont power grid and wrote an unfounded story that Leftist publications were Russian propaganda sites, based on the unfounded claims of a sketchy organization called ProporNot. Considering their owner Bezos made a 100 million deal with the CIA, it's not surprising WaPo spreads propaganda--including pro-War-in Syria articles--all the time.