Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[Popeman38]

16 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

I don't think that the Founding Fathers imagined that a political partyies in the future would gerrymander the heck out of Congressional districts.

Fixed

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Election fodder, go after these traitors and vote them out.

[twa]

5 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Election fodder, go after these traitors and vote them out.

 

That wasn't already the plan? 

 

 

[Jumbo]

Yeah, I been iffy about Pompeo sliding more into the bag for don than is good for the country, and i'm losing faith...man, the FBI has sure been another messy business for awhile.

 

[FanboyOf91]

 

[skinny21]

So, I've been thinking that a there needs to be a change in the narrative to some degree.  Given the fairly wide swath of moderate Republicans/Democrats and undecideds and nonvoters, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to frame some of these issues (particularly the ones involved in this thread - Russian interference/connections, Nationalism, etc.) as Republican vs Democratic.  

 

You won't move as many moderate Republicans if you are on the offensive/defensive vs all things Republican.  The undecideds (while they may be concerned over Trump's 'missteps') will too easily see things as they often have in the past - a fight between the two parties.  The nonvoters are more likely to stay home if they see this mess as purely political.  

 

While yes, it's come up, I think these issues need to be more frequently and forcefully pushed as American vs unAmerican, and we (and the media) need to step back and discuss these things as such from a broader perspective.  It's easy to get bogged down in the weeds, but it's dangerous to do so.  

 

Immigrants play a huge huge role in the country's wellbeing, but fighting reform every step of the way can make some lose sight of that bigger picture.  

 

Russia wants the US, EU, NATO destabilized.  That's obviously a problem - we don't want to slide back to a Cold War type scenario.  

 

Global trade keeps us far safer.  Nationalism, protectionism and "deconstructionism" are all dangerous for our future.   

 

Anyway, gotta go, so I'm going to forego a more coherent conclusion.  One last thing I'll add though, is perhaps "a portion of the government" should substitute for "Republicans/GOP".  Not that I think there isn't a great deal of blame to go around, but using the latter term focuses on party lines and (presumably) loses some people.  

 

 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, FanboyOf91 said:

 

 

Why a special prosecutor is not inevitable:  

 

1)  Republican President

2)  Republican Congress.

3)  No demand from Republican voters for one.  

 

I will also note that, as far as I'm aware, a decent reason for #3 is because at present, the only "scandal" we've got, here, is that the incoming administration, after being elected, began mentioning what their foreign policy might be, before actually taking office.  

 

I'm not even sure that I think there ought to be much outrage, over this.  OK, he discussed foreign policy, with foreign officials, a few weeks early.  I'd list this as about as scandalous as Hillary operating her own email server.  Probably even less.  

 

 

---

 

Now, if there's evidence that this happened, before the election, or, worse yet, before Russia decided to interfere in our election?  Then, I think there's a scandal.  

 

But I haven't seen that alleged, let alone proven.    

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by Larry

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I think we need to spend at least the next 45 months investigating this. Maybe longer if Trump gets reelected. Potentially less if we actually find something.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[DogofWar1]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

Now, if there's evidence that this happened, before the election, or, worse yet, before Russia decided to interfere in our election?  Then, I think there's a scandal.  

 

But I haven't seen that alleged, let alone proven.    

That has definitely been alleged, and there's enough smoke to at least warrant a basic investigation (hence why FBI apparently has 3 of them).

 

This guy: https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur has been looking into connections of Trump and people close to Trump with Russians/others.

 

The short summation?  It is likely that Trump, Kushner, and a variety of others owe Russian oligarchs (that is, people Putin allows to be rich because they help him) and other foreign individuals tons and tons of money.

 

The hypothetical tie in?  The whole Russia situation, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, etc., is Trump and Co's creditors figuring out ways to collect.

[FanboyOf91]

 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

[dfitzo53]

Funny to hear the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" line pointed at the president.

[Going Commando]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war

 

Long but worthy read.  I'm working through it right now.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by visionary

[Bang]

Look at all those idiots holding those trump flags from CPAC.

 

OK, i will excuse myself.

 

~..

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by visionary

[No Excuses]

I just wanted to drop by to comment on how hilarious it was watching a bunch of idiots wave the Russian flag at CPAC. 

 

If there was ever any evidence needed on how dumb the voting base for this party is, there you have it.

[Going Commando]

I strongly suggest everyone read that New Yorker article about Russia's offensive cyber operations that I linked to: 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war

 

It's depressing but essential reading.  It illuminates the history and scope of Russia's operations to disrupt and influence Western alliances and elections.  After reading it, I no longer feel confident that American capacity to wage cyber warfare is far greater than Russia's.  We've been very slow to realize the threat that Russia has posed and they've been successful in destabilizing the entirety of the West.  The article doesn't really make the connection between Russia's interests in Syria and Lybia and their goal of destabilizing the West.  I think it's clear that Russia's goal in Syria is both to support their puppet Assad and simultaneously sustain the humanitarian crisis that's causing the refugee outpouring that's destabilizing Western governments.  It's ****ing diabolical.

 

Anyway, we need to accept that Russia is our geopolitical rival, that they have been engaging in acts of aggression against our government and society, and that we are engaged in a second Cold War.

 

And Trump has wholly served to weaken the United States, weaken Western alliances, and promote Russia's interests.  To support Trump is, at this point, a profoundly unpatriotic act.  We can't afford to ignore this reality any more, because doing so will lead to an ascendant Russia and a decline of America's status as a superpower.

[No Excuses]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

simultaneously sustain the humanitarian crisis that's causing the refugee outpouring that's destabilizing Western governments.  It's ****ing diabolical.

 

This is something I've suspected for quite some time. 

 

Russia also infiltrated far right wing circles in the US and Europe a long time ago with targeted online misinformation campaigns. They are using the freedom of information access in the West to wage a full on asymmetric information warfare campaign. 

 

Literally ever single far right extremist party in Europe is licking Putin's ass. This is a coordinated takedown of the Western world order that was built after WW2. Russia recognized how many ignorant morons live in the West and they've found their proxy actors in hyper-nationalist right wing parties.