Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Oh, I assume that his motives are at least primarily capitalistic. My operating assumption is that he wants to appease Putin and Russian oligarchs so that his company/family can obtain special access to the Russian real estate market, and perhaps other Russian markets, to further enrich himself and his family.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 13:55:27
jasper76 wrote: I'd be especially interested if those conflicts involved Russian interests. The fascination with Putin, the policy to weaken NATO, appearances on Russian state TV to put down the United States and our President, Paul Manafort's association with the Russians, all of these things are deeply troubling to me.
And of course a bunch of Russian hacking. It's astonishing to me how this stuff isn't a bigger story and doesn't weigh more on people's minds.
I mean it is easy to see, look at some of the posters in this thread they ignore it just and rage post grrr clinton grrr instead
'm
Dude.
*I'm* upset of the DNC hack, as ALL AMERICANS ought to be really concern over possible foreign power influence over our election process.
If it *is* the Russians doing this, I don't think it's simply they're wanting Trump (or generic Republicans) to win. They'd be doing this to erode voter's confidence in our election process.
...and that's a very, VERY bad thing imo.
First order of business is to affirm that it is, indeed, the Russia. Then, the public needs to be informed.
For the life of me, I don't know what we can do?
Build a NATO base in Ukraine? (no)
So... what's the appropriate response?
First, I'm highly amused at your typo. We must determine if it was "the Russia". The Russia did it! New meme?
Second, exactly how much more do you think confidence in the election process be eroded? Isn't the whole reason behind Trump's rise because of a lack of confidence in the system?
As far as retaliation, the proper response is prevention of future hacks. Clearly we have problems with cyber security and need to improve on it, and it probably didn't help that we keep electing politicians who spent the first half of their lives using typewriters because the PC hadn't been invented yet.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 14:46:32
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
The pervasive influence of corporate cash in the democratic process, and the extraordinary lengths to which politicians, lobbyists and even judges go to solicit money, are laid bare in sealed court documents leaked to the Guardian.
The John Doe files amount to 1,500 pages of largely unseen material gathered in evidence by prosecutors investigating alleged irregularities in political fundraising. Last year the Wisconsin supreme court ordered that all the documents should be destroyed, though a set survived that has now been obtained by the news organisation.
The files open a window on a world that is very rarely glimpsed by the public, in which millions of dollars are secretly donated by major corporations and super-wealthy individuals to third-party groups in an attempt to sway elections. They speak to a visceral theme of the 2016 presidential cycle: the distortion of American democracy by big business that has been slammed by both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
In a case that is the subject of a petition currently in front of the US supreme court, five Wisconsin prosecutors carried out a deep investigation into what they suspected were criminal campaign-finance violations by the campaign committee of Scott Walker, Wisconsin governor and former Republican presidential candidate. Known as the “John Doe investigation”, the inquiry has been a lightning rod for bitter disputes between conservatives and progressives for years.
In July 2015 the state’s supreme court halted the investigation, saying the prosecutors had misunderstood campaign finance law and as a result had picked on people and groups “wholly innocent of any wrongdoing”. Highly unusually, the court also ordered that all the evidence assembled by the prosecutors be destroyed and later held under seal.
Among the documents are several court filings from the case, as well as hundreds of pages of email exchanges obtained by the prosecutors under subpoena. The emails involve conversations concerning Walker, his top aides, conservative lobbyists, and leading Republican figures such as Karl Rove and the chair of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus.
Trump also appears in the files, making a donation of $15,000 following a personal visit from Walker to the Republican nominee’s Fifth Avenue headquarters.
In addition to Trump, many of the most powerful and wealthy rightwing figures in the nation crop up in the files: from Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, hedge-fund manager Paul Singer and Las Vegas casino giant Sheldon Adelson, to magnate Carl Icahn. “I got $1m from John Menard today,” Walker says in one email, referring to the billionaire owner of the home improvement chain, Menards.
Among the new material contained in the documents are donations amounting to $750,000 to a third-party group closely aligned to Walker from the owner of NL Industries, a company that historically produced lead paint. Within the same timeframe as the donations, the Republican-controlled legislature passed new laws making it much more difficult for victims of lead paint poisoning to sue NL Industries and other former lead paint manufacturers (the laws were later overturned in the federal courts).
The John Doe files also provide new insight into the extensive efforts made by allies of Scott Walker to help a conservative member of the Wisconsin supreme court, David Prosser, hang onto his seat in a 2011 re-election. A network of like-minded groups and campaigners channeled $3.5m in undisclosed corporate funds to pay for TV and radio ads backing the judge.
The push was seen as vital, the documents disclose, as a means of retaining the rightwing majority of the court and thereby preserving the anti-union measures introduced by Walker. “If we lose [Justice Prosser], the Walker agenda is toast,” one ally writes in an email sent around to the governor’s chief of staff and several conservative lobbyists.
In 2015, Justice Prosser refused to recuse himself from a case in which the state supreme court sat in judgment over the John Doe investigation, despite the fact that the investigation focused on precisely the same network of lobbying groups and donors that had helped him hang onto his seat. The judge joined a majority of four conservative justices who voted to terminate the investigation and destroy all the documents now leaked to the Guardian.
Prosser told the Guardian that four years had passed since his re-election before he joined the decision to close the John Doe investigation, over which time any potential conflict of interest had faded.
The John Doe investigation was launched in 2012 after a set of recall elections that were forced on Walker and six Republican state senators in the wake of their hyper-partisan anti-union measure, Act 10. The prosecutors alleged that the governor’s campaign committee had operated a coordinated network involving outside lobby groups through which unlimited amounts of corporate money could be channeled without public disclosure.
Walker and the other parties who were the subjects of the John Doe investigation have all protested that they were unfairly accused of legal violations. They point out that no charges have been brought in the case, and that a succession of Wisconsin courts, including the state’s highest, have cleared them of wrongdoing.
Walker’s campaign told the Guardian that the John Doe investigation was “baseless” and had been shut down multiple times by the state courts. “There is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing,” a spokesman said.
The third-party lobbying groups that were the subject of the investigation said the prosecutors had accused wholly innocent individuals of crimes that did not exist under state law. They insisted they had a right to comment about public officials and policy and to protect the confidentiality of their donors.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The pervasive influence of corporate cash in the democratic process, and the extraordinary lengths to which politicians, lobbyists and even judges go to solicit money, are laid bare in sealed court documents leaked to the Guardian.
The John Doe files amount to 1,500 pages of largely unseen material gathered in evidence by prosecutors investigating alleged irregularities in political fundraising. Last year the Wisconsin supreme court ordered that all the documents should be destroyed, though a set survived that has now been obtained by the news organisation.
The files open a window on a world that is very rarely glimpsed by the public, in which millions of dollars are secretly donated by major corporations and super-wealthy individuals to third-party groups in an attempt to sway elections. They speak to a visceral theme of the 2016 presidential cycle: the distortion of American democracy by big business that has been slammed by both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
In a case that is the subject of a petition currently in front of the US supreme court, five Wisconsin prosecutors carried out a deep investigation into what they suspected were criminal campaign-finance violations by the campaign committee of Scott Walker, Wisconsin governor and former Republican presidential candidate. Known as the “John Doe investigation”, the inquiry has been a lightning rod for bitter disputes between conservatives and progressives for years.
In July 2015 the state’s supreme court halted the investigation, saying the prosecutors had misunderstood campaign finance law and as a result had picked on people and groups “wholly innocent of any wrongdoing”. Highly unusually, the court also ordered that all the evidence assembled by the prosecutors be destroyed and later held under seal.
Among the documents are several court filings from the case, as well as hundreds of pages of email exchanges obtained by the prosecutors under subpoena. The emails involve conversations concerning Walker, his top aides, conservative lobbyists, and leading Republican figures such as Karl Rove and the chair of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus.
Trump also appears in the files, making a donation of $15,000 following a personal visit from Walker to the Republican nominee’s Fifth Avenue headquarters.
In addition to Trump, many of the most powerful and wealthy rightwing figures in the nation crop up in the files: from Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, hedge-fund manager Paul Singer and Las Vegas casino giant Sheldon Adelson, to magnate Carl Icahn. “I got $1m from John Menard today,” Walker says in one email, referring to the billionaire owner of the home improvement chain, Menards.
Among the new material contained in the documents are donations amounting to $750,000 to a third-party group closely aligned to Walker from the owner of NL Industries, a company that historically produced lead paint. Within the same timeframe as the donations, the Republican-controlled legislature passed new laws making it much more difficult for victims of lead paint poisoning to sue NL Industries and other former lead paint manufacturers (the laws were later overturned in the federal courts).
The John Doe files also provide new insight into the extensive efforts made by allies of Scott Walker to help a conservative member of the Wisconsin supreme court, David Prosser, hang onto his seat in a 2011 re-election. A network of like-minded groups and campaigners channeled $3.5m in undisclosed corporate funds to pay for TV and radio ads backing the judge.
The push was seen as vital, the documents disclose, as a means of retaining the rightwing majority of the court and thereby preserving the anti-union measures introduced by Walker. “If we lose [Justice Prosser], the Walker agenda is toast,” one ally writes in an email sent around to the governor’s chief of staff and several conservative lobbyists.
In 2015, Justice Prosser refused to recuse himself from a case in which the state supreme court sat in judgment over the John Doe investigation, despite the fact that the investigation focused on precisely the same network of lobbying groups and donors that had helped him hang onto his seat. The judge joined a majority of four conservative justices who voted to terminate the investigation and destroy all the documents now leaked to the Guardian.
Prosser told the Guardian that four years had passed since his re-election before he joined the decision to close the John Doe investigation, over which time any potential conflict of interest had faded.
The John Doe investigation was launched in 2012 after a set of recall elections that were forced on Walker and six Republican state senators in the wake of their hyper-partisan anti-union measure, Act 10. The prosecutors alleged that the governor’s campaign committee had operated a coordinated network involving outside lobby groups through which unlimited amounts of corporate money could be channeled without public disclosure.
Walker and the other parties who were the subjects of the John Doe investigation have all protested that they were unfairly accused of legal violations. They point out that no charges have been brought in the case, and that a succession of Wisconsin courts, including the state’s highest, have cleared them of wrongdoing.
Walker’s campaign told the Guardian that the John Doe investigation was “baseless” and had been shut down multiple times by the state courts. “There is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing,” a spokesman said.
The third-party lobbying groups that were the subject of the investigation said the prosecutors had accused wholly innocent individuals of crimes that did not exist under state law. They insisted they had a right to comment about public officials and policy and to protect the confidentiality of their donors.
If you want to see a political witchhunt/fishing expedition. That is exhibit Numero Uno.
whembly wrote: If it *is* the Russians doing this, I don't think it's simply they're wanting Trump (or generic Republicans) to win. They'd be doing this to erode voter's confidence in our election process.
...and that's a very, VERY bad thing imo.
I don't buy it. I mean, I'm sure it's Russia. The part I don't buy is that "they want to erode confidence in our elections" vs "they want Trump". They very obviously want Trump. He spends a ton of free time speaking highly of Putin and has said repeatedly he would consider lifting sanctions and consider recognize Crimea as a Russian territory. We don't really need any extra pieces to realize it was Professor Plum with the candlestick in the library, here.
That's a really good question. I don't have a great answer, but they clearly don't like the sanctions. My gut instinct is to go tit-for-tat and up the ante in terms of information warfare with them, but that's not really a great idea either. Ultimately I'd like to see the US smooth over relations with Russia at some future point - without rolling over in the here and now, mind you, I mean long term - and that would make that very difficult. We don't need another 30 year grudge match like we had with Iran.
whembly wrote: If it *is* the Russians doing this, I don't think it's simply they're wanting Trump (or generic Republicans) to win. They'd be doing this to erode voter's confidence in our election process.
...and that's a very, VERY bad thing imo.
I don't buy it. I mean, I'm sure it's Russia. The part I don't buy is that "they want to erode confidence in our elections" vs "they want Trump". They very obviously want Trump. He spends a ton of free time speaking highly of Putin and has said repeatedly he would consider lifting sanctions and consider recognize Crimea as a Russian territory. We don't really need any extra pieces to realize it was Professor Plum with the candlestick in the library, here.
Well... I don't buy that either.
Seriously, what has Clinton (or Obama for that matter) done to mitigate any Russian Realpolitik-ing? The sanctions sucks I'm sure, but I get the feeling it's more of a nuisance than a major adverse bugaboo.
I look at this as being our adversarial geo-poltical foe (man... Romney was right eh?) simply trying to create chaos on the homefront... possibly designed to shield any authentic RU intelligence activities on American soil
That's a really good question. I don't have a great answer, but they clearly don't like the sanctions. My gut instinct is to go tit-for-tat and up the ante in terms of information warfare with them, but that's not really a great idea either. Ultimately I'd like to see the US smooth over relations with Russia at some future point - without rolling over in the here and now, mind you, I mean long term - and that would make that very difficult. We don't need another 30 year grudge match like we had with Iran.
So, I guess "I don't know" is my answer.
That's where I'm at.... maybe the "best" answer is to invest in longterm strategic intelligence assets to counteract these sorts of shenanigans.
Or... maybe we go to old school paper ballot voting. Geopolitical foes won't be able to hack "paper".
Buzzfeed also has another post about what Powell has written about HRC:
Spoiler:
... “I told her staff three times not to try that gambit. I had to throw a mini tantrum at a Hampton’s party to get their attention. She keeps tripping into these ‘character’ minefields,” he wrote. He also had tried to settle the matter in a meeting with Clinton aide Cheryl Mills in August.
In a separate email, Powell said he “warned her staff three times over the past two years not to try to connect it to me. I am not sure HRC even knew or understood what was going on in the basement.”
The Clinton campaign’s attempt to try to say Powell had encouraged the use of a private server left him deeply troubled.
“They are going to dick up the legitimate and necessary use of emails with friggin (sic) record rules. I saw email more like a telephone than a cable machine,” Powell wrote to business partner Jeffrey Leeds. “As long as the stuff is unclassified. I had a secure State.gov machine. Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris.” ...
Yup... he dislikes both candidates, and that last statement is pretty spot on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 15:37:53
jasper76 wrote: I'd be especially interested if those conflicts involved Russian interests. The fascination with Putin, the policy to weaken NATO, appearances on Russian state TV to put down the United States and our President, Paul Manafort's association with the Russians, all of these things are deeply troubling to me.
And of course a bunch of Russian hacking. It's astonishing to me how this stuff isn't a bigger story and doesn't weigh more on people's minds.
I mean it is easy to see, look at some of the posters in this thread they ignore it just and rage post grrr clinton grrr instead
See, I don't get responses like this. Several anti-Clinton posters, notably whembly and frazzled, have been quite vocal in criticism of Trump. They also dislike Clinton.
jasper76 wrote: I'd be especially interested if those conflicts involved Russian interests. The fascination with Putin, the policy to weaken NATO, appearances on Russian state TV to put down the United States and our President, Paul Manafort's association with the Russians, all of these things are deeply troubling to me.
And of course a bunch of Russian hacking. It's astonishing to me how this stuff isn't a bigger story and doesn't weigh more on people's minds.
I mean it is easy to see, look at some of the posters in this thread they ignore it just and rage post grrr clinton grrr instead
See, I don't get responses like this. Several anti-Clinton posters, notably whembly and frazzled, have been quite vocal in criticism of Trump. They also dislike Clinton.
Indeed. I've not actually seen any pro-Trump persons on this thread. Anti-Clinton does not mean pro-Trump. It means anti-Clinton.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jasper76 wrote: I'd be especially interested if those conflicts involved Russian interests. The fascination with Putin, the policy to weaken NATO, appearances on Russian state TV to put down the United States and our President, Paul Manafort's association with the Russians, all of these things are deeply troubling to me.
And of course a bunch of Russian hacking. It's astonishing to me how this stuff isn't a bigger story and doesn't weigh more on people's minds.
I mean it is easy to see, look at some of the posters in this thread they ignore it just and rage post grrr clinton grrr instead
See, I don't get responses like this. Several anti-Clinton posters, notably whembly and frazzled, have been quite vocal in criticism of Trump. They also dislike Clinton.
Indeed. I've not actually seen any pro-Trump persons on this thread. Anti-Clinton does not mean pro-Trump. It means anti-Clinton.
Folks just keep ignoring it. I've stated it repeatedly. There is not a single Trump supporter that I can think of on this forum, yet people keep acting like there are.
jasper76 wrote: I'd be especially interested if those conflicts involved Russian interests. The fascination with Putin, the policy to weaken NATO, appearances on Russian state TV to put down the United States and our President, Paul Manafort's association with the Russians, all of these things are deeply troubling to me.
And of course a bunch of Russian hacking. It's astonishing to me how this stuff isn't a bigger story and doesn't weigh more on people's minds.
I mean it is easy to see, look at some of the posters in this thread they ignore it just and rage post grrr clinton grrr instead
See, I don't get responses like this. Several anti-Clinton posters, notably whembly and frazzled, have been quite vocal in criticism of Trump. They also dislike Clinton.
Indeed. I've not actually seen any pro-Trump persons on this thread. Anti-Clinton does not mean pro-Trump. It means anti-Clinton.
I've seen one, but he hasn't been around in a while...
I think the major disagreement comes in with the degrees of upset - the people who really hate Clinton like to paint her as just as bad as Trump, whereas the people who don't particularly care about her or like her circle back around to point out all of Trump's glaring flaws that she doesn't have. Everyone might agree on one thing in principle, but we've still got to find something to fight about.
I fall firmly into the second camp, myself. What it comes down to is a fairly bog-standard politician vs. the ravenous swarm of hatefully babbling locusts that emerges every time Trump opens his mouth. Didn't vote for her in the primary, but I'll take a little shady stuff and blown-up controversy over hungry insects, their numbers swollen beyond mortal reckoning, descending upon the nation and chewing away the very soil itself so that the continent forms a colossal 'T'.
"You're either with us or against us!" -Said every party loyalist ever.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 16:12:43
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Unless we would have otherwise voted for Trump of course.
Its funny thats what the Trumpsters tell me too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 16:37:10
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
djones520 wrote: Folks just keep ignoring it. I've stated it repeatedly. There is not a single Trump supporter that I can think of on this forum, yet people keep acting like there are.
Seaward has openly supported Tump, Asterios (possibly banned from the OT) and Traditio (possible permaban?) did as well, but they haven't been around lately. I'm pretty sure Jihadin has said he was voting for him. There was also those two guys that were clueless about pretty much everything a few pages ago that both supported Trump.
Those are who I can think of off the top of my head while I eat my lunch.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Frazzled wrote: "You're either with us or against us!"
-Said every party loyalist ever.
"You're either with us or you're dog chow."
-said Frazzled
Anyway, we'll still know how the third party votes impact the presidential race, just by doing the math and analyzing the numbers from the down ballot votes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 17:58:37
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
whembly wrote: If it *is* the Russians doing this, I don't think it's simply they're wanting Trump (or generic Republicans) to win. They'd be doing this to erode voter's confidence in our election process.
...and that's a very, VERY bad thing imo.
I don't buy it. I mean, I'm sure it's Russia. The part I don't buy is that "they want to erode confidence in our elections" vs "they want Trump". They very obviously want Trump. He spends a ton of free time speaking highly of Putin and has said repeatedly he would consider lifting sanctions and consider recognize Crimea as a Russian territory. We don't really need any extra pieces to realize it was Professor Plum with the candlestick in the library, here.
Well... I don't buy that either.
Seriously, what has Clinton (or Obama for that matter) done to mitigate any Russian Realpolitik-ing? The sanctions sucks I'm sure, but I get the feeling it's more of a nuisance than a major adverse bugaboo.
... ...
That is because you have trusted your feelings instead of facts. The sanctions have arse fethed the Russian economy, as shown by the history of the Rouble exchange rate.
Why on Earth do you imagine Putin is supporting a pro-Putin candidate for President?
whembly wrote: If it *is* the Russians doing this, I don't think it's simply they're wanting Trump (or generic Republicans) to win. They'd be doing this to erode voter's confidence in our election process.
...and that's a very, VERY bad thing imo.
I don't buy it. I mean, I'm sure it's Russia. The part I don't buy is that "they want to erode confidence in our elections" vs "they want Trump". They very obviously want Trump. He spends a ton of free time speaking highly of Putin and has said repeatedly he would consider lifting sanctions and consider recognize Crimea as a Russian territory. We don't really need any extra pieces to realize it was Professor Plum with the candlestick in the library, here.
Well... I don't buy that either.
Seriously, what has Clinton (or Obama for that matter) done to mitigate any Russian Realpolitik-ing? The sanctions sucks I'm sure, but I get the feeling it's more of a nuisance than a major adverse bugaboo.
... ...
That is because you have trusted your feelings instead of facts. The sanctions have arse fethed the Russian economy, as shown by the history of the Rouble exchange rate.
Sanctions hardly ever work. All it does is feths the plebs. The rich and powerful get dinged... but, they're still rich and powerful.
Furthermore, everyone knows you can donate to the Clinton Foundation to gain favorable treatment.
Why on Earth do you imagine Putin is supporting a pro-Putin candidate for President?
whembly wrote: If it *is* the Russians doing this, I don't think it's simply they're wanting Trump (or generic Republicans) to win. They'd be doing this to erode voter's confidence in our election process.
...and that's a very, VERY bad thing imo.
I don't buy it. I mean, I'm sure it's Russia. The part I don't buy is that "they want to erode confidence in our elections" vs "they want Trump". They very obviously want Trump. He spends a ton of free time speaking highly of Putin and has said repeatedly he would consider lifting sanctions and consider recognize Crimea as a Russian territory. We don't really need any extra pieces to realize it was Professor Plum with the candlestick in the library, here.
Well... I don't buy that either.
Seriously, what has Clinton (or Obama for that matter) done to mitigate any Russian Realpolitik-ing? The sanctions sucks I'm sure, but I get the feeling it's more of a nuisance than a major adverse bugaboo.
... ...
That is because you have trusted your feelings instead of facts. The sanctions have arse fethed the Russian economy, as shown by the history of the Rouble exchange rate.
Why on Earth do you imagine Putin is supporting a pro-Putin candidate for President?
To turn this a bit, many here say the Cuban sanctions did nothing useful and what a wonderful thing it is to lift them.
Well, Cuba didn't need to fund a massive military and hadn't been invading its neighbours.
The reason that people called for the lifting of sanctions in Cuba was because they went on for a long time and were completely ineffective at what they were trying to do. Add in that Russia has sanctions from more than just the USA and they are likely to be more effective than the US-only trade embargo was.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 20:37:36
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Well, Cuba didn't need to fund a massive military and hadn't been invading its neighbours.
The reason that people called for the lifting of sanctions in Cuba was because they went on for a long time and were completely ineffective at what they were trying to do. Add in that Russia has sanctions from more than just the USA and they are likely to be more effective than the US-only trade embargo was.
Cuba also had sanctions from more than just the USA.
Russians are damn tough people and know how to pull together in hard times, as history has proven time and again. The sanctions may sting, but all I think they will do in the end is piss Russians off against the west.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Well, Cuba didn't need to fund a massive military and hadn't been invading its neighbours.
You mean other than sending troops to Angola, Venezuela and a host of other countries...
The reason that people called for the lifting of sanctions in Cuba was because they went on for a long time and were completely ineffective at what they were trying to do. Add in that Russia has sanctions from more than just the USA and they are likely to be more effective than the US-only trade embargo was.
FOr the record I am down with removing the sanctions if for no other reason than we have trade with China (we shouldn't have trade with China).
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
