Summit with Putin

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Locked
ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Summit with Putin

Post by ThisDinosaur »

@Clarice
Good find. Also, this one that was linked in your article was good:

http://jackmatlock.com/2018/06/musings- ... diligence/

So the "Intelligence community consensus" story is probably very misleading.

I'm open to changing my opinion on the collusion thing, but I still have some sticking points.

First, Trump changing the party platform on Ukraine coinciding with Sessions meetings with Russians. I dont see why candidate Trump would care, since this is not something that would get him any votes. But it may have gotten him Russian support.

Second, multiple incidences of high ranking campaign officials "forgetting" to disclose Russian connections.

Third, multiple alleged attempts at establishing "back channels" between the campaign and Russia.

Fourth, the left field choice of Rex Tillerson for State Dept. Who's idea was that? Or Mike Flynn for that matter, after the campaign was repeatedly warned that this guy was likely compromised by the Russians. Or Carter Paige, same question.

Fifth, Maria Butina funneling money through the NRA, and the Russian-based social media account stories all show Russia has a preference for who won and were taking action about it.

I dont blame Putin for having a preference of Trump over Clinton. He had every reason to. He also has a history of using propaganda to influence elections in his own country and others. Motive and opportunity for influence.

Sixth, I'm not convinced either candidate was above conspiring with a foreign power to sabotage their opponent. And the Trump campaign had multiple opportunities to *try* to do so given all the connected Russians trying to get to them. Motive and opportunity for conspiracy.

Take those apart, I would cautiously consider eating crow.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3926
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Summit with Putin

Post by IlliniDave »

When you start with evidence of a crime/conspiracy, motive and opportunity can then be used to fill in a void of suspects. But if you start with a suspect, is it legitimate to use motive and opportunity to fill the void in evidence of a crime/conspiracy?

Ukraine is a complicated topic

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukrain ... -election/

So far DT has not supported Putin's offer of some sort of "referendum" there, which would presumably work in Putin's favor, and would be a shoe-in to get Trump's by-in on if Trump were his stooge (can be added to sanctions, expulsions, Syria, etc., where behavior does not support the motive+opportunity theory).

ZAFCorrection
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: Summit with Putin

Post by ZAFCorrection »

Disclaimer: Trump is an uncouth travesty demonstrating just how low the political process is, and I didn't vote for him.

That being said, I'm really not buying the collusion narrative. At worst the evidence indicates Russia had an opinion that it executed on and the Trump camp was pretty bad at staying out of it. Team Trump also borked the transition process and have been generally lacking in discipline since then, so it's not exactly the revelation of the century that people with other agendas were able to infiltrate it. As IlliniDave pointed out, Clinton had her own share of suspicious Russia activity, so a lot of this just seems like sour grapes that she lost. Third, it's been standard practice since always for the United States to interfere in local politics, and in ways much more spectacular than even the wildest allegations here. So, again, unless your name is Noam Chomsky, it sounds a lot like sour grapes.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Summit with Putin

Post by ThisDinosaur »

IlliniDave wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:16 pm
When you start with evidence of a crime/conspiracy, motive and opportunity can then be used to fill in a void of suspects. But if you start with a suspect, is it legitimate to use motive and opportunity to fill the void in evidence of a crime/conspiracy?
The DNC was hacked. That was a crime. Three suspects have been publicly discussed: GRU, Seth Rich, Fat Guy in Basement.

I concede the following:

What was revealed publicly by the hack was the dishonesty of the DNC's sausage-making. Its good that we all got to see it.

HRC also collaborated with a foreign nation to discredit her opponent. She also used a "firewall" of plausible deniability ("it was the DNC, not HRC's campaign", compared to "it was (members of) the Trump campaign, not the candidate").

The US has spent the last 70 years using foreign elections as a proxy war with Russia. Ukraine was just the most recent example. So, the US (and Secretary Clinton) had it coming when our election was a proxy war between Russia and pro-EU/pro-west Ukraine.


None of this changes the fact that our election was hacked. I don't want to leave that precedent unchallenged. It is an act of war, and if any Americans knowningly assisted them, then they should be caught and punished. Not because I believe in punishment, or because I think we should go to war, but because I think it is important for national security to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen so easily again.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3926
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Summit with Putin

Post by IlliniDave »

ThisD, yes, the DNC servers were hacked (reportedly the RNC's were attacked as well, and numerous others), as were Clinton's, (presumably Russia was one of the ~5 foreign entities Comey alluded to), and there have been more since then ("power grid" for one). No dispute there. Russia is essentially known to be the perpetrator. The missing crime/conspiracy would be actual evidence that a US person was involved in the activities, rather than speculation. As far as I know no one in the intelligence community has stated that they have evidence that a US person was involved in any of that or otherwise illegally entangled with Russia concerning the election (Steele dossier aside). Maybe they'll find it, maybe they won't, but until then there's really nothing to pin on any US person is all I'm saying.

Jason

Re: Summit with Putin

Post by Jason »

https://jmp.princeton.edu/events/politi ... n-founding

This book has been getting a lot of press. I haven't read it but plan too. The author was run over by a cement mixer before it was released.

As I understand her thesis through reviews, conservative/liberal theory has expanded way beyond the founders' intention who's view of governance was based on a more middle of the road, civic minded, practical methodology. Although much more learned than the current average American, they would most likely not be familiar with much of what is discussed today on that front.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Summit with Putin

Post by Riggerjack »

None of this changes the fact that our election was hacked. I don't want to leave that precedent unchallenged. It is an act of war, and if any Americans knowningly assisted them, then they should be caught and punished. Not because I believe in punishment, or because I think we should go to war, but because I think it is important for national security to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen so easily again.
Maybe spending a bit of time looking at the history of voting, fraud, and electioneering would help you move past this. Our election was hacked. Yup. So what? Which one wasn't?

Our current system just tried to ensure the "winner" has some popular support. It only takes 23% of the popular vote to take the electoral college. Lincoln did it with less than 40%, though J Q Adams pulled it off with 30.92%.

We have had 19 presidents elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. And only one civil war. The system seems to be working.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Summit with Putin

Post by ThisDinosaur »

Image

Clarice
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:45 pm
Location: California

Re: Summit with Putin

Post by Clarice »

Let me bear witness to this state of affairs:

https://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html

Jason

Re: Summit with Putin

Post by Jason »

From a geo-political perspective, national sovereignty is generally considered to be the doctrine of the utmost significance. It explains why despite having laws against genocide for 50 years, it wasn't until 1998 that actual prosecution was enacted against Rwanda, meaning Cambodia, Uganda and Bosnia were not-prosecuted. Foreign intervention into domestic affairs sets a precedent that no one wants. That is why foreign interference into election results has to be treated differently than normal domestic originating election shenanigans. It threatens the doctrine of national sovereignty.

Locked