I don’t think I ask for irrefutable evidence; however, the kind of evidence I do ask for exists in abundance in the present case. I have arrayed it twice already, once here and once in the pres. debate thread. To that already compelling case can now be added the formal, explicit conclusion of the most sophisticated intelligence community in the history of the world.
In other words, we don’t have to guess at which candidate the Kremlin prefers: we know with certainty.
Aside: I owe a couple people posts and hope to get them out today. Depends on whether or not I can finish up what I need to do.
Relax man, enjoy your Sunday. I was poking a little fun in my post, I just wish that some people here reciprocate the sentiment when others allude to certain things when trying to make a point. It’s just that I find shit like this more startling than Trump’s praise of Putin…
[Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.]
Deadlines are often Sunday night so I haven’t enjoyed a Sunday in years haha. But hey, I’m all for evidence-based argument regardless of the arguer’s political position.
Anyway, I’m aware of and have criticized the CF/Uranium connection. In any other election it would make Clinton the candidate with shady Kremlin ties. In this one, however, it doesn’t come even a little close. This is so because “Trump’s praise of Putin” doesn’t even begin to scratch at the surface of the literally unprecedented, utterly disqualifying body of evidence linking Trump to Kremlin interests. I have summarized this body of evidence before, but I’ll do it again if you didn’t catch those earlier posts.
Who here currently supports Trump on the basis of his positions?
Cause, at this point, I see people saying bad things about Clinton moreso than why Trump is a better candidate than Clinton/why Trump has superior positions on things.
I really cannot imagine a single reason why the pro-Trump folks here support Trump besides his nativist positions.
In the same way Hillary Clinton couldn’t win an election in 1970s US demographics, a pure small government conservative could never win in 2016 demographics.
You want to stay home on election day because you don’t like Trump? That’s fine but then also accept you’ll never see a true small government conservative in power ever again if he’s not elected. A Trump presidency keeps a path to victory open for the Republican party assuming he’s able to execute his immigration policy
If we don’t elect a populist now, we will never be able to elect a small government conservative? How does moving farther from our principles bring us closer to our principles? It doesn’t make sense.
There needs to be a clear difference in the parties or it doesn’t matter. Your insistence that we elect a quasi-Democrat doesn’t move us to the right. Republicans don’t need to adopt liberal positions to win elections. If a voter wants progressivism they will go to the source, not the impostor, the Democrat party.
1- Obama was supposed to be the Democrat’s version of the “flush”. That didn’t turn out very well. I suppose you can argue that Obama, being a politician, couldn’t have flushed the system anyhow. However, I still think voting for people on the basis that they’re going to change the system in any relevant fashion is too much idealism.
2- Does it have to be Trump who does this? Or do you mean that only a personality as extreme as Trump’s can achieve this?
Yeah, you know you’re on the wrong side of American history when you are cheering on the imprisonment of a political opponent beyond the rule of law. It’s no wonder that the Russian intelligence services have attempted to bolster the closest thing America would have to a tyrant.
And now, the cherry on top of the vodka-beet sundae: Trump is directly lying about Russian intervention in the election despite his having been unambiguously apprised of the facts by the intelligence community:
Edit: this isn’t just any old lie. The reality it attempts to hide, the constellation of villains to which it offers political cover – these are uncharted waters. Thank God we aren’t actually going to allow ourselves to sink in them.
This presents a catch 22 though. If he divulged having knowledge of something he was privy to via an intelligence briefing he would be ostracized for that. Saying he doesn’t know anything about it makes him a liar.
So how could he resolve that without being either a liar or a leaker?
Even if they can’t divulge specific details to which they’re privy from classified briefings, we ought to expect public figures not to for no reason (or, as the case may be, for incredibly nefarious reasons) lie about those details by falsely claiming the exact opposite in public.
But in this particular case the point is moot, because the intelligence community has been open about Russia’s being behind the attack since mid-summer – and made the official, explicit accusation last week. So Trump was lying about something that A. He’s been apprised of in specific detail and B. Is a matter of public record. I’m not saying he ought to have played a recording of his intelligence briefing; he simply shouldn’t have deceived millions of credulous Americans about a matter immense national concern.
