When is Enough ,Enough?

[CRedskinsRule]

I wanted to hit some highlights from that article, because it is so on target for me.

Trump is not a Russian agent, and we have no reason to believe he's being blackmailed; the psychological truth is probably that Trump cannot accept that Moscow played a role in the election victory he is so proud of -- with or without the Trump campaign's knowledge -- and so he prefers to believe that his own nation's agencies are in error.

The Trump administration is perfectly tough on Russia. It has expelled Russian diplomats, attacked Moscow's ally in Syria (the US military also killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria in February), raised US defense spending and given arms to Ukraine.

And if Trump's meeting with Putin truly shocks you, I urge you to Google photos of Jimmy Carter meeting the Shah of Iran. Or Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Both these tyrants were once considered friends or partners with the United States, much as Reagan once described the Contras -- who were accused of kidnap, rape and torture in the Nicaraguan civil war -- as "the moral equal of our founding fathers."

When Barack Obama was in charge, we were told that everything he did was a "first." Now that Trump runs things, everything he does is the "worst." And finally, with that Helsinki, Finland, press conference with Vladimir Putin, he seems to have provoked the GOP to join the hyperbole.

Now we know what constitutes a step too far for Republicans. Not banning most trans people from the military nor splitting up families at the border nor cutting taxes for the super rich. No, it's being nice to Russia.

Honestly, I should just repost the whole article, but I've given the link twice if anyone is so inclined.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I wanted to hit some highlights from that article, because it is so on target for me.

Honestly, I should just repost the whole article, but I've given the link twice if anyone is so inclined.

.......of course it is ,you're one of them.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

.......of course it is ,you're one of them.

Would you kindly answer one of these 2 questions then:

1) What policy or policies has Trump enacted that has presented a softer/weaker stance then Pres. Obama?

or

2) What policy or policies should Trump have enacted that are tougher than our current policy?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Would you kindly answer one of these 2 questions then:

1) What policy or policies has Trump enacted that has presented a softer/weaker stance then Pres. Obama?

or

2) What policy or policies should Trump have enacted that are tougher than our current policy?

What do you call it when a sitting President of the United States of America openly backs the leader of an enemy foreign goverment over his own Security and Defense agency's ? Again the cult tries to spin with out admission of their presidents wrong doing.



https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...anctions-syria


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1FI2V7


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2c6c92487f11

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

What do you call it when a sitting President of the United States of America openly backs the leader of an enemy foreign goverment over his own Security and Defense agency's ? Again the cult tries to spin with out admission of their presidents wrong doing.



https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...anctions-syria


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1FI2V7


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2c6c92487f11

I really asked a simple question.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/wash...htmlstory.html

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I really asked a simple question.

No, you are trying to control the narrative away from the purpose of the conversation.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

No, you are trying to control the narrative away from the purpose of the conversation.

If the purpose is to spew hyperbole and vent then yes. If the purpose is to look at rational discussions, no. If you claim that trump is trying to destroy the US you ought to be able to give answers to those questions with ease. But that is so far beyond your capabilities you are only able to regurgitate talking points that have no basis in facts.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I wanted to hit some highlights from that article, because it is so on target for me.

Trump is not a Russian agent, and we have no reason to believe he's being blackmailed; the psychological truth is probably that Trump cannot accept that Moscow played a role in the election victory he is so proud of -- with or without the Trump campaign's knowledge -- and so he prefers to believe that his own nation's agencies are in error. Quote:
The Trump administration is perfectly tough on Russia. It has expelled Russian diplomats, attacked Moscow's ally in Syria (the US military also killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria in February), raised US defense spending and given arms to Ukraine.
Quote:
And if Trump's meeting with Putin truly shocks you, I urge you to Google photos of Jimmy Carter meeting the Shah of Iran. Or Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Both these tyrants were once considered friends or partners with the United States, much as Reagan once described the Contras -- who were accused of kidnap, rape and torture in the Nicaraguan civil war -- as "the moral equal of our founding fathers."
Quote:
When Barack Obama was in charge, we were told that everything he did was a "first." Now that Trump runs things, everything he does is the "worst." And finally, with that Helsinki, Finland, press conference with Vladimir Putin, he seems to have provoked the GOP to join the hyperbole.

Now we know what constitutes a step too far for Republicans. Not banning most trans people from the military nor splitting up families at the border nor cutting taxes for the super rich. No, it's being nice to Russia.







Honestly, I should just repost the whole article, but I've given the link twice if anyone is so inclined.

Apologies for passing this over, I think the bolded line at the top is a plausible scenario. Trump doesn't seem like the type to give anyone else any credit for any of his victories.
And the last paragraph gave me a good laugh. There's so many things I could harp on Republicans for, but this makes a good point. The one bone I have to pick is he's not just being nice to Russia, he's hanging out with one of our enemies several days after we brought indictments against 12 people who were acting under his command. The timing couldn't be worse. And it's his continued refusal to say Russia means us no harm after we brought charges alleging they meant to cause us harm (and are probably still doing so to this day).

Also if you want to switch gears we can discuss the role Maria Butina played/facilitated in Russian money laundering via the NRA. Hard to see the gov't bringing charges if they didn't have evidence to back up their case. Also serious question for you: Do you think the NRA has the moral fortitude to not take donations/work with any country willing to help the cause? Even if that country was our enemy and was still doing everything possible to undermine our position?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Apologies for passing this over, I think the bolded line at the top is a plausible scenario. Trump doesn't seem like the type to give anyone else any credit for any of his victories.
And the last paragraph gave me a good laugh. There's so many things I could harp on Republicans for, but this makes a good point. The one bone I have to pick is he's not just being nice to Russia, he's hanging out with one of our enemies several days after we brought indictments against 12 people who were acting under his command. The timing couldn't be worse. And it's his continued refusal to say Russia means us no harm after we brought charges alleging they meant to cause us harm (and are probably still doing so to this day).

Also if you want to switch gears we can discuss the role Maria Butina played/facilitated in Russian money laundering via the NRA. Hard to see the gov't bringing charges if they didn't have evidence to back up their case. Also serious question for you: Do you think the NRA has the moral fortitude to not take donations/work with any country willing to help the cause? Even if that country was our enemy and was still doing everything possible to undermine our position?

I don't know much about the NRA. I would like to hope they would have the moral fortitude, but I tend to see groups that live and die around politics as money grubbers of the worst sort, and if they can maintain a semblance of deniability they probably would take money from anyone thats willing to give it to them.

One thing I think we have seen, and the depths of it is pretty amazing, is how deep Russia was willing to go to sow discord in our political environment. They were funnelling money and trolls to both sides simply to polarize the country, and it was/is a pretty effective strategy. But I do think the world has always underestimated how united this country can become if the circumstances of the international arena require it. Even as polarized as we are, our ability to function as a nation-state is pretty amazing when you think about it. With a near 50/50 split most european countries would have disbanded their parliaments and been forced into political chaos as the parties held continual referendums and alliances shifted under foot.

Our federal/local structure and our constitution allows us to disagree vehemently, yet have a functioning government with no real hint of collapse or uprising. At worst we get congressional inaction and paralysis, which isn't necessarily the worst thing.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

...The one bone I have to pick is he's not just being nice to Russia, he's hanging out with one of our enemies several days after we brought indictments against 12 people who were acting under his command. The timing couldn't be worse. And it's his continued refusal to say Russia means us no harm after we brought charges alleging they meant to cause us harm (and are probably still doing so to this day).

...

I agree that the timing was terrible. In retrospect, while I think the indictment timing was politically motivated, Trump could have done a YUGE step in putting all of this to bed by taking the step of cancelling the summit with Russia after they were announced. It would have shown tacit support for the intelligence agencies and looked "tough" against Russia.

That said, the 25 indictments against Russian operatives and agents are truly laughable. Could you imagine how many spies/kgb undercover agents we could have indicted during the cold war? I know people think that us Trumpeteers are overblowing the partisan nature of the ongoing investigations, but it's really hard to imagine, that when as many top FBI/DOJ personnel have been fired/reassigned as trump associates have been indicted, that there isn't a bias at play.

One last thing, and I know this is also a Trumpeteer talking point, but everyone does realize that these Russian infiltrations into the Democratic servers took place under Pres Obama's watch, right? Does it absolve the Russians, no not at all, but IF they had the knowledge that these foreign agents were working overtime, and all indications are that they did, then I would have thought that would have been pretty important to bring up in the full brief daily briefings Clinton and Trump received, AND pretty important for the US political class to resolve a way to bring to the US citizens in a unified way, instead of the purely partisan approach BOTH sides took. Just points to more failures of our political upper echelons class.