skinny21

As best as I can tell, holding the stance that is no big deal requires a few things: 1) denial that Russia is working very hard to destabilize Europe - from Ukraine, Montenegro and Brexit to elections in Norway, Denmark, France, Germany and the US (along with our relations with Europe). 2) denial that Russia has a hand in the Syrian crisis which is also helping to cause this destabilization. 3) denial of the belief that Putin has turned against the West. 4) denial that this information our President gave to the Russians is reported to be intel that we were not given permission to share. 5) denial that this latest story compounds the leaking we've already seen from the intelligence community as well as the WH. 6) denial that other countries (that we share intel with) would deserve to be highly alarmed... at minimum, over the conduct of this administration wrt intelligence 7) denial that this (unprecedented) situation is very likely to cause intelligence partners to likely alter the amount/type of info they share. 8) denial of the numerous reports of former and current intelligence official (Republican/Democrat/non partisan) that think this situation is essentially insane and possibly (very) damaging to the efforts of our our intelligence community (and therefore, possibly our military and law enforcement). All the while cleaving to the belief that this unbelievably narcissistic, ignorant, petty man surely can't be taking us down the road we appear to be on. If you want to step to the speculative side of things, throw in the Ukraine platform shift, the numerous dead Russian officials, Trump meeting Kisleyev and Lavrov (at Putin's request, and in the Oval Office). The treatment of our State Department (one of Putin's nemesis'), and the Russian ties to Trump via banking, real estate, and to Tillerson with the massive Exxon interests. Trump's tactics following the Russian script - delegitimizate the media, question Judges, Investigators, etc. aren't endearing either. And on and on... It all leads back to major (again, unprecedented) conflicts of interest with a country that most experts deem extremely hostile to our interests, and those of our top allies.

^ I'd like to see a pitchfork rally in response.

Pretty sure they're shooting for a second win... BTW, I thought for sure that was a joke... I guess I haven't learned my lesson yet. Edit: Ok, so this is a different law firm I believe. But I thought this was interesting... Jones Day Law Firm has a Moscow office now. Oh, and they're listed as the contact info on this beauty... http://www.jonesday.com/new-russian-legislation-on-massive-telecoms-surveillance-07-12-2016/ It's also the firm Don McGann and others have left to join the administration. Nothing inappropriate there of course... but they sure do like to make everything looks shady.

Am I right in assuming large loans from Russian banks would not fall under "income"?

Definitely some good points here. Lets say that Russian influence has (in part) led to Brexit and Trump's election. This has led to a less robust EU, a change in our Ukraine platform, the appointment of a very pro-Russian Flynn, and a weakened State Department. Seems the lifting of sanctions was on tap as well until the **** hit the fan. Russia attempted involvement in other countries as well (a few at least), and now France is next in line. If Russia pushes countries to become less proactive internationally (i.e. Isolationist), it opens up the possibility of further Russian aggression in terms of remaking the USSR. Lastly, it's possible that Russia has had a hand in destabilization in the M.E. and has potentially aided NK with their missile program. All in all, it's very different situation from the 30's (and it's a very different goal than Germany's), but... it's a concerning trend. And again, I fear that the response has been less effective than a slap on the wrist.

I mean, I'd sure hope that's the case... and I admit this is far from an apples to apples comparison. Yet here we are - Russia knows they can attempt to influence any election they desire with essentially no consequences. It's a big problem, and all that's been done is an attempt at mitigating the damage in future instances. They're a dangerous game and we're (the West) relegated to defense only.

Lot of crossover between this thread and Brexit (obviously). So... what are the chances anything gets done to stop Russia going forward? What could be done effectually? Personally, I'd like their teeth kicked in. Reminds me too much of the West ****footing around while Germany began to roll.

That Inhumans pic looks like an advert for a futuristic version of the Adams Family.

Was watching 10 moments that meant more than you knew (was kind of neat actually). One was from Iron Man - when he's meeting with Fury, there's a Shield map in the background with three red dots. One was in Africa (can't remember the 2nd) and one was in the middle of the ocean. They presumed it was location of superheroes (and speculated Namor).

Going really general here with a broad brush... I wonder if this ties into the findings of the polls regarding Russia and bombing Syria - that R's are seemingly much more prone to massive stance swings based off... whatever (right wing media, their leaders, etc.). Easier to play on their emotions is my guess. Actually, it could also be that right wing media/leadership is more likely to play to the emotions. Trump is the epitome of this. As my brother in law says - anyone appealing to your emotions is trying to sell you something. Anyway... makes sense to me that they'd be far more vocal about 'scandals', more harsh in terms of judgement, and more likely to want to fast forward to the end verdict.

That. Looks. Awesome. Happy to hear the wait for the Defenders won't be too long. GOTG II, Spider-Man, Thor and the Defenders... looks to be a good time for SH/comic fans.

Maybe not too relative, but I was just listening to Andy Borowitz talking about how it's tricky to satirize Trump because nothing seems outside of the realm of possibility. Edit: regarding the arrested programmer... for a second I was like "why didn't he just stay in Russia?", and then I thought "oh, right... Russia (and their loose ends)".

Not entirely sure about the voracity, but I heard that 10,000 have died in Ukraine so far. The other Baltic states/Eastern Bloc are lined up like dominos for Russia and given the lack of any substantive reaction from other countries, I understand their fear.

This is also the Flynn 'protege' that McMaster wanted to fire.

Has anyone responded to Trump "Well, yes... you are a suspect in a treason plot after all" Seriously though, remember how the WH has the ability to get to the bottom of the whole surveillance thing, and then Trump said there would be something coming out on it soon? Well, out came Nunes and we find out that the WH essentially has nothing (except incidental collection). Tempted to to sign on the twitter just so I can retweet his crap with #FakePresident

I have some pity for the people of Kansas. Hopefully it opens people's eyes.

Yeah, Obama was in a tough spot. The more I listen to Pod Save America, the more I see how often he was put into this position - no good options, you just have to hope you pick the least damaging one. Wonder what the reaction would be if Obama were to come out (now) and say "I let the American people down. I discouraged Comey and others from letting you, the people, know about the concerted effort from Russia to get Trump elected as well as the high level involvement his campaign had with Russian officials, Russian Intelligence and Russian oligarchs. I thought I was taking the principled path, but instead, I'm afraid my actions have lead to Russia winning in their attempts to sway the election."

It's so freakin' subversive Springfield - this is the exact kind of thing we should want the government to protect us from, 'cause there's just about ****-all we can do about it. The entire philosophy surrounding this idea should be repugnant to Americans (and mostly is, if we're being honest) - that unfettered big business is good for us. Unfortunately, a segment of the population has been hornswaggled into thinking abortions, gays and democrats are the paramount opponent to their way of life, even as they ***** about big Pharma, see the big banks cause ruin, loathe Wall Street's influence and hate that big corps send their jobs oversees. Meanwhile, the Republicans roll back any checks they can to big business. The rich get richer and the little guy (aka 99% of us) hopefully get some scraps. Trickle down economics... yippee.

Saw an interview with a Latino (out of Fort Worth) construction company exec putting together a bid for the wall. 1. His reasoning was interesting - he was concerned about those offering electric fences and the like, and he thought that securing the border could lend itself to comprehensive immigration reform including a path to citizenship. The flip side is that he seemingly supports Trump and feels like the guy telling ICE to go nuts, calling Mexicans all manner of things, and establishing the illegal immigrant crime thingie... will push that reform.

It's been pretty amazing to hear all of these Watergate experts and such talk about how the similarity in behavior - denials, talking in circles, etc. - and yet the WH (et al) just carries on with it. I can't decide if they're just really, really bad at this sort of thing or they honestly don't see anything wrong with it (which is troubling in a whole 'nother way)

Didn't notice this one posted. My wife told me the Honesty Act passed today, but I'm not sure she had her info right. It doesn't sound too bad until you hear the objections... Anyway, that bill and another are talked about in here. Pretty shameful how purposefully some repubs are denying the science/consensus. It's fine to question things and want to research more, but geez... https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/how-to-gut-the-epa-in-the-name-of-honesty/519462/

I'm wondering if/when Trump is forced to relinquish his tax info. Seems fairly germane to the case. I suppose that since both Intelligence Committees are run by Repubs (both involved in Trump transition), it would take a special prosecutor to get that info. Edit - I wonder how the FBI feels about the issue... as I said, it seems like a (perhaps significant) piece of the investigatory puzzle.

Absolutely agree with your first point - and it's already lead to the FHC losing a member. Generally agree with the 2nd point. I was pleased to hear that some reps seemed to flip to 'no's' in places where there were strong showings by citizens at their offices.

Wouldn't the FC be the last ones to support single payer? I was happy to see the tweets about Kipzinger - ala needing to work with Dems and outing the FC.

Maybe I'm being obtuse here, but you still have to pay all the doctor's, nurses, lab techs etc., right (under single payer)? And those people will turn around and spend that money in the economy just as they do now. So, what exactly would be the economic changes entailed with the government taking a larger role in healthcare?