PDA

View Full Version : Trump campaign collusion with Russia



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Wounded Ronin
7/13/2017 10:39am,
So, multiple news sources, now including the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449384/donald-trump-jr-meeting-russian-lawyer-email-revelations), have now reported that Donald Trump Jr. self-admittedly colluded with the Kremlin to try and undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.

However, in spite of this, some voters continue to support Donald Trump: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/13/trump-country-russia-scandal/474789001/

I am having difficulty understanding this. My hunch is that if, say, Bernie Sanders had been proven to have been collaborating with the Kremlin in order to take down HRC, there would be a lot more condemnation from the individuals that continue to support Trump. I read the USA Today article to try and understand the thinking behind the continued Trump support, but came up with more questions than answers.



The region, filled with rolling hills and woods near the Alabama border, is still proud of Trump, said Wayne County Republican Party Chairwoman Stephanie Pearson.

“I probably am a bigger supporter of him. I have a greater respect and admiration for him and his office,” said Pearson.

Pearson, who works down the road from Waynesboro as city clerk of Collinwood, said Trump should tone down the personal attacks on Twitter.

But she’s more ashamed of the way Democrats, the media and opponents have attacked her president, and she is disappointed in congressional Republicans for not doing more to help Trump.

She applauded Donald Trump Jr. for releasing his emails about a meeting with a Russian attorney in the midst of the campaign against Clinton.

There’s very little that would change her mind about Trump.

“I don’t know what he would have to do … I guess maybe kill someone. Just in cold blood,” Pearson said.


I have difficulty understanding statements like the above. How can anyone support a politician unconditionally? Almost by definition, that means that the politician doesn't need to keep any promises made to you in order to get your vote and donations.

Speaking of promises, another thing I don't understand is why some people seemed to think that Trump would be more trustworthy than Clinton regarding campaign promises, when he made inherently nonsensical promises. For example, he simultaneously promised to restore US manufacturing, but also to kick off a tariff trade war. These would be mutually antagonistic policy positions. I would think that logically, one would hear these promises, and then immediately decide that at least one of them would be nonsense, since you couldn't do both at once. The statements themselves, being self-contradictory, are already a lie of sorts, since at most only one can be acted on in a meaningful way. How does someone making both statements generate enthusiasm, rather than confusion and disengagement?



Jackson voted for Trump, the first Republican he’s ever voted for, not because he disliked President Barack Obama, but because he thinks the Democratic Party did not do enough to improve the economy.

“I saw (Trump) as a person I could relate to. In business, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican or Democrat. You’ve got to make it,” Jackson said.


This one's interesting to me. It does make sense that small business owners might relate to Trump if they see him as a business man. I believe that in his home town of New York City, Trump is not seen as a businessman. Rather, he is seen as a flamboyant con man who skated by on his father's money. Witness his portrayal on the old Simpsons episode where his presidency is presented as a comedic hypothetical. This could explain why small business owners who don't have ties to New York City might relate to Trump on some level, since they don't necessarily know of his past reputation.



But her friend and former county Democratic Party Chairwoman Peggy Monroe said Republican support won’t wane. Monroe, 68, said there’s an old story about Collinwood: In the early 1900s, a Baptist preacher rode through town telling everyone to vote Republican, and they have ever since.

“They are born and raised Republican here. They are taught from the time they can talk that’s the way they’re going to vote. They bring their children to the polls … and they better vote Republican.”


Again, this is bizarre to me. Why wouldn't people try to think from the framework of negotiating with their politicians, instead of blind "free" support?



Mike Mitchell agrees the president probably won’t lose support from many in the county, noting Trump’s background in business, not politics.

“Whatever he does salesman-wise or crooked-wise is nothing compared to what the politicians have done,” Mitchell said. “I don’t know anybody that would change their mind.”

Mitchell voted for Trump because Obama’s changes to health care didn’t help him.

Talk of Russia, special prosecutors and election tampering won’t change his mind. But he might support someone else in the next election if Trump can’t deliver on health care.

Looking down at a notebook filled with numbers, Mike’s wife, Debbie, said it’s tough to care about Russian collusion when your husband needs new knees.

“We’ve lost everything, pretty much,” said Debbie Mitchell. “We can’t afford health care, period. We didn’t qualify for Obamacare, we didn’t qualify for (Medicaid), and we can’t afford to buy health insurance. We’re the ones that fall through the cracks.”

Asked if the situation made her nervous, she laughed.

“Nervous? We’ve been doing it for years. We passed nervous awhile back.”


Health care has been a big challenge in the US for a long time and I think the people quoted are right to want health care reform. The part that I don't understand is why they believe that Donald Trump, who hasn't really dealt with healthcare before, would do a better job than HRC, who has been involved with healthcare since the 90s. Considering the complexity of the US healthcare system, the idea that an amateur (let alone an amateur known for not doing his homework or conscientious preparation for anything of importance) could jump in and do a good job seems counter intuitive.


In conclusion, it seems like the Trump Jr. collusion with the Kremlin is one of the most clear cut cases in US history of a campaign colluding with a foreign power to upset a major US election.

And yet, the response seems muted from the electorate. When I try to find out why by reading interviews and articles, there is no clear answer, or at least no answer that seems to make logical sense.

In US politics, people often like to talk about patriotism. People have said things like "I think Donald Trump loves his country". And yet, when there is proof of collusion with a foreign power, there is no emotional response. There is no urge to protect democracy and no concern about the stability of democratic institutions.

Does anyone have any commentary or explanation? A narrative to make sense of it all?

BKR
7/13/2017 10:48am,
So, multiple news sources, now including the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449384/donald-trump-jr-meeting-russian-lawyer-email-revelations), have now reported that Donald Trump Jr. self-admittedly colluded with the Kremlin to try and undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.

However, in spite of this, some voters continue to support Donald Trump: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/13/trump-country-russia-scandal/474789001/

I am having difficulty understanding this. My hunch is that if, say, Bernie Sanders had been proven to have been collaborating with the Kremlin in order to take down HRC, there would be a lot more condemnation from the individuals that continue to support Trump. I read the USA Today article to try and understand the thinking behind the continued Trump support, but came up with more questions than answers.



I have difficulty understanding statements like the above. How can anyone support a politician unconditionally? Almost by definition, that means that the politician doesn't need to keep any promises made to you in order to get your vote and donations.

Speaking of promises, another thing I don't understand is why some people seemed to think that Trump would be more trustworthy than Clinton regarding campaign promises, when he made inherently nonsensical promises. For example, he simultaneously promised to restore US manufacturing, but also to kick off a tariff trade war. These would be mutually antagonistic policy positions. I would think that logically, one would hear these promises, and then immediately decide that at least one of them would be nonsense, since you couldn't do both at once. The statements themselves, being self-contradictory, are already a lie of sorts, since at most only one can be acted on in a meaningful way. How does someone making both statements generate enthusiasm, rather than confusion and disengagement?



This one's interesting to me. It does make sense that small business owners might relate to Trump if they see him as a business man. I believe that in his home town of New York City, Trump is not seen as a businessman. Rather, he is seen as a flamboyant con man who skated by on his father's money. Witness his portrayal on the old Simpsons episode where his presidency is presented as a comedic hypothetical. This could explain why small business owners who don't have ties to New York City might relate to Trump on some level, since they don't necessarily know of his past reputation.



Again, this is bizarre to me. Why wouldn't people try to think from the framework of negotiating with their politicians, instead of blind "free" support?



Health care has been a big challenge in the US for a long time and I think the people quoted are right to want health care reform. The part that I don't understand is why they believe that Donald Trump, who hasn't really dealt with healthcare before, would do a better job than HRC, who has been involved with healthcare since the 90s. Considering the complexity of the US healthcare system, the idea that an amateur (let alone an amateur known for not doing his homework or conscientious preparation for anything of importance) could jump in and do a good job seems counter intuitive.


In conclusion, it seems like the Trump Jr. collusion with the Kremlin is one of the most clear cut cases in US history of a campaign colluding with a foreign power to upset a major US election.

And yet, the response seems muted from the electorate. When I try to find out why by reading interviews and articles, there is no clear answer, or at least no answer that seems to make logical sense.

In US politics, people often like to talk about patriotism. People have said things like "I think Donald Trump loves his country". And yet, when there is proof of collusion with a foreign power, there is no emotional response. There is no urge to protect democracy and no concern about the stability of democratic institutions.

Does anyone have any commentary or explanation? A narrative to make sense of it all?

There are plenty of commentaries on line regarding the situation.

From what I can tell, Trump Jr. was a naive idiot to get sucked into that situation, and for not coming out sooner with the incident.

Further, it doesn't look like he committed any crimes in having the meeting.

In fact, there is a whole 'nother narrative developing regarding context for the meeting. True or not, or how much true, I don't know at this point. Probably never will, either....

1bad65
7/13/2017 10:56am,
There are plenty of commentaries on line regarding the situation.

From what I can tell, Trump Jr. was a naive idiot to get sucked into that situation, and for not coming out sooner with the incident.

Further, it doesn't look like he committed any crimes in having the meeting.

In fact, there is a whole 'nother narrative developing regarding context for the meeting. True or not, or how much true, I don't know at this point. Probably never will, either....

This is my feelings on it so far.

Remember, it's been an almost weekly/daily occurrence since the inauguration that the Democrats/press have came out with the latest supposed smoking gun saying 'We got Trump this time!' only to look like Wile E Coyote endlessly chasing the Trump roadrunner.

I take all these conspiracy theories with a grain of salt, until I see actual proof of collusion.

Which brings me to this.....


So, multiple news sources, now including the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449384/donald-trump-jr-meeting-russian-lawyer-email-revelations), have now reported that Donald Trump Jr. self-admittedly colluded with the Kremlin to try and undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.

I believe he's admitted to meeting an attorney who once represented a Russian in a tax case, but where did 'Trump Jr admit to colluding with the Kremlin'?

That's a serious charge, and one that's VERY bad if true.

So please source where he did exactly as was charged above. Thx

BKR
7/13/2017 11:06am,
All this talk of "colluding"....as if it's some sort of crime to talk to people, even, gasp, foreigners.

I was thinking about this last night while trying to lift my arm to eat my dinner after BJJ practice...why, I don't know...oh, yeah, OCD...

I imagined a situation in which Putin just came out and said, during the last presidential campaign "I personally endorse Donald Trump (or HRC, or Bernie) for President", and then gave reasons.

Then lets say he made personal campaign contributions, and let's say even came over and campaigned. Imagine that Trump (or whomever) welcomed the support, and made campaign promises regarding new, positive cooperation with Russia, etc., on Ukraine, Syria, etc. Then, lo and behold, Putin releases info on other candidates that is negative...

So, collusion? Any crimes committed ? All above-board and in the open...

Anyway, I think there may be some sort of law against that sort of behavior, but who would be prosecuted, Putin?

This whole thing is about the Democrats (and probably some Republicans) stymieing Trump and his "agenda", to make gains in 2018 mid-terms and then 2020 elections.

Politics as usual...

BackFistMonkey
7/13/2017 11:07am,
You guys are about to see some magical **** out in the wilds of real life mediaworld and the interland.

Just remember "collusion" is not a crime. Treason, witness intimidation, sexual assault, fraud, money laundering, lying on government documents, financial transactions with sanctioned entities, and lying under oath are crimes.

BackFistMonkey
7/13/2017 11:08am,
All this talk of "colluding"....as if it's some sort of crime to talk to people, even, gasp, foreigners.

I was thinking about this last night while trying to lift my arm to eat my dinner after BJJ practice...why, I don't know...oh, yeah, OCD...

I imagined a situation in which Putin just came out and said, during the last presidential campaign "I personally endorse Donald Trump (or HRC, or Bernie) for President", and then gave reasons.

Then lets say he made personal campaign contributions, and let's say even came over and campaigned. Imagine that Trump (or whomever) welcomed the support, and made campaign promises regarding new, positive cooperation with Russia, etc., on Ukraine, Syria, etc. Then, lo and behold, Putin releases info on other candidates that is negative...

So, collusion? Any crimes committed ? All above-board and in the open...

Anyway, I think there may be some sort of law against that sort of behavior, but who would be prosecuted, Putin?

This whole thing is about the Democrats (and probably some Republicans) stymieing Trump and his "agenda", to make gains in 2018 mid-terms and then 2020 elections.

Politics as usual...

I present evidence A.1

Permalost
7/13/2017 11:12am,
I think its a bit naive to think that a national election of a powerful nation will have no outside influence. Not to say that collusion isn't real or bad, but that the idea of a modern insular democracy is a myth.

Wounded Ronin
7/13/2017 11:40am,
I believe he's admitted to meeting an attorney who once represented a Russian in a tax case, but where did 'Trump Jr admit to colluding with the Kremlin'?

That's a serious charge, and one that's VERY bad if true.

So please source where he did exactly as was charged above. Thx

Oh, what I meant by that was his release of emails in which he wanted to meet with a "Russian government attorney" in order to get damaging information on HRC.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-russia-politics/index.html



The President's son and namesake, in a sensational revelation that significantly escalated the drama over alleged Russian election meddling incessantly battering the White House, may have provided the flames by releasing an email chain that detailed his expectations of getting Kremlin dirt on Hillary Clinton in a meeting he had with a Russian lawyer last year.

Donald Trump Jr.'s shocking move is more than another lurch in the storyline of alleged election interference that has utterly consumed American politics. The emails appear to add important context to the question at the center of the entire controversy: Was the Trump campaign willing to cooperate with Russia to use and highlight information damaging to the Democratic presidential nominee? What did the President know? What did his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, know?

The documents revealed that Trump Jr. agreed to meet a "Russian government attorney" last summer after receiving an email offering him "very high level and sensitive information" that would "incriminate" Clinton.

An email from publicist Rob Goldstone offered Trump Jr. a sit down that promised the handover of information as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

Shawarma
7/13/2017 12:05pm,
I'm not sure if "collusion" is American legalse for "something you can actually be penalised for", but as far as the actual meaning of the word is concerned I frankly don't believe that anyone can deny that yes, the Trump campaign cooperated with the Russian government for the purpose of winning the US election.

I'm also not sure why Republicans do not seem to have any kind of problem with this.

Actually, scratch that, it's actually hilariously obvious why.

Bneterasedmynam
7/13/2017 12:08pm,
So, multiple news sources, now including the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449384/donald-trump-jr-meeting-russian-lawyer-email-revelations), have now reported that Donald Trump Jr. self-admittedly colluded with the Kremlin to try and undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.

However, in spite of this, some voters continue to support Donald Trump: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/13/trump-country-russia-scandal/474789001/

I am having difficulty understanding this. My hunch is that if, say, Bernie Sanders had been proven to have been collaborating with the Kremlin in order to take down HRC, there would be a lot more condemnation from the individuals that continue to support Trump. I read the USA Today article to try and understand the thinking behind the continued Trump support, but came up with more questions than answers.



I have difficulty understanding statements like the above. How can anyone support a politician unconditionally? Almost by definition, that means that the politician doesn't need to keep any promises made to you in order to get your vote and donations.

Speaking of promises, another thing I don't understand is why some people seemed to think that Trump would be more trustworthy than Clinton regarding campaign promises, when he made inherently nonsensical promises. For example, he simultaneously promised to restore US manufacturing, but also to kick off a tariff trade war. These would be mutually antagonistic policy positions. I would think that logically, one would hear these promises, and then immediately decide that at least one of them would be nonsense, since you couldn't do both at once. The statements themselves, being self-contradictory, are already a lie of sorts, since at most only one can be acted on in a meaningful way. How does someone making both statements generate enthusiasm, rather than confusion and disengagement?



This one's interesting to me. It does make sense that small business owners might relate to Trump if they see him as a business man. I believe that in his home town of New York City, Trump is not seen as a businessman. Rather, he is seen as a flamboyant con man who skated by on his father's money. Witness his portrayal on the old Simpsons episode where his presidency is presented as a comedic hypothetical. This could explain why small business owners who don't have ties to New York City might relate to Trump on some level, since they don't necessarily know of his past reputation.



Again, this is bizarre to me. Why wouldn't people try to think from the framework of negotiating with their politicians, instead of blind "free" support?



Health care has been a big challenge in the US for a long time and I think the people quoted are right to want health care reform. The part that I don't understand is why they believe that Donald Trump, who hasn't really dealt with healthcare before, would do a better job than HRC, who has been involved with healthcare since the 90s. Considering the complexity of the US healthcare system, the idea that an amateur (let alone an amateur known for not doing his homework or conscientious preparation for anything of importance) could jump in and do a good job seems counter intuitive.


In conclusion, it seems like the Trump Jr. collusion with the Kremlin is one of the most clear cut cases in US history of a campaign colluding with a foreign power to upset a major US election.

And yet, the response seems muted from the electorate. When I try to find out why by reading interviews and articles, there is no clear answer, or at least no answer that seems to make logical sense.

In US politics, people often like to talk about patriotism. People have said things like "I think Donald Trump loves his country". And yet, when there is proof of collusion with a foreign power, there is no emotional response. There is no urge to protect democracy and no concern about the stability of democratic institutions.

Does anyone have any commentary or explanation? A narrative to make sense of it all?

Haven't you been keeping up with the Trump threads?? His supporters will back him NO MATTER WHAT. As I said once before he could stomp a puppy to death on live tv and his supporters would just deflect with something about Hilary.

MisterMR
7/13/2017 12:12pm,
In the period when Berlusconi was the italian premier, or in the periods when he wasn't the premier but still was the chief of the opposition, the other side (the center left coalition) spent a lot of time speaking bad of Berlusconi, and B. himself was the subject of various investigations, many of wich he dodged by slowing down the process until it exceded the time limitations so that B. was aquitted.

This had no apparent effect on B. voters.

In the case of Italy, I have these explanations, that I think apply also to Trump:

1) A lot of people are very partisan, more than they realize, so they really couldn't bring themselves to vote for "the left", no matter what. (I might fit this description but in reverse).

2) A lot of people specifically on the right believe that all politicians are corrupt: this is an integral part of the "small government" mantra, which in turn was essential for the right as a way to dismantle the new deal/social democracy regime.
For this reason, they don't think that corruption in one of their politicians is bad, because they assume the others are the same or worse.

3) People in the left generally think of corruption as "politician should make just laws, but he is lobbied by evil capitalist and makes a bad law. Corruption!". From this point of view voting the evil capitalist directly into office is just plain stupid.
People in the right generally have a different idea of corruption, which is: "politician uses state power to suck money from private citiziens, he then uses this money to live life of luxury, and gives some to some undeserving poor to get elected again. Corruption!". From this point of view what Berlusconi and Trump are doing isn't really corruption, from the point of view of the people who vote them.

4) It's collusion with bad guys when the other side does it, it's realpolitik when your side does it.

EDIT:

and also, importantly, it's true that each side has a mudsliding machine, don't assume that there is always something beyond the smoke, sometimes it really is just smoke.

BKR
7/13/2017 12:35pm,
You guys are about to see some magical **** out in the wilds of real life mediaworld and the interland.

Just remember "collusion" is not a crime. Treason, witness intimidation, sexual assault, fraud, money laundering, lying on government documents, financial transactions with sanctioned entities, and lying under oath are crimes.

You left out obstruction of justice...

1bad65
7/13/2017 12:49pm,
Oh, what I meant by that was his release of emails in which he wanted to meet with a "Russian government attorney" in order to get damaging information on HRC.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-russia-politics/index.html

Thanks much.

She has denied she was an employee of the Russian Gov't, as per that link.

So far imo, Trump Jr did something stupid, but not illegal.

Time will tell, but as I said earlier, history shows so far that all the other times they thought they had Trump nailed turned out to be a big "nothing burger".

1bad65
7/13/2017 12:53pm,
4) It's collusion with bad guys when the other side does it, it's realpolitik when your side does it.

You hit the nail on the head. Who can forget this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mgQaFlo_p8

I'm curious. To those on this thread, was that an example of collusion with Russia?

BKR
7/13/2017 12:53pm,
Thanks much.

She has denied she was an employee of the Russian Gov't, as per that link.

So far imo, Trump Jr did something stupid, but not illegal.

Time will tell, but as I said earlier, history shows so far that all the other times they thought they had Trump nailed turned out to be a big "nothing burger".

IMO, it's all about stopping Trump and the Republicans from getting anything constructive done.

However, those two don't need a lot of help to fail...

Think of it as attrition trolling on all fronts.

First we had the pornification of the world, now it trollification...

DCS
7/13/2017 12:59pm,
Does anyone have any commentary or explanation? A narrative to make sense of it all?
People have the government they deserve.