Russiagate

Discussion in 'Politics' started by billvon, Mar 23, 2017.

  1. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Just par for the course for this golf obsessed First Family. Look how many times senior has had to “adjust” the details of a given issue, so it’s not surprising to see junior follow daddy’s lead.

    The Russian lawyer was actually in the country to address the adoption/sanction issue at the behest of the son of a Russian government official, but that’s not what Dufus Jr. stated was his motivation for meeting her, he was there specifically for dirt on Hillary that was advertised as coming from the Russian government. The adoption/sanction story would’ve been an acceptable cover for the meeting except for the fact that NY Times was in possession of an e-mail that said otherwise, and that’s what forced the Trump’s into hyper spin mode in this case.

    Here’s Dufus Sr. repeating Jr.’s lies.



    Could the NSA have intercepted the Trump Jr. e-mail and alerted the FBI? Who in turn obtained a FISA warrant and bugged the meeting? Or are these various Russian players active targets of US intelligence regardless of who they intend to meet?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It isn't applicable in the first place. It governs information, not cheating and bribing and so forth.

    The notion that bribery and corruption is a form of speech is yet another American fascist propaganda meme you have now posted on this forum.
    It shows he wasn't working for a private company, but for the campaign - in honor of dumbasses like you, who need proof of such things.
    Foreign government bribery and collusion is forbidden to American politicians. They are supposed to represent legitimate American interests - it's a contract. You like those, remember?
    For which opportunity to betray their country and its citizenry the Trump campaign was willing to pay - cut a deal of some kind, in addition to of course putting up blackmail opportunity as security.

    What did they pay? We saw the Republican platform modified mysteriously, and favor toward Putin spread in the media (strong leader stuff, as impresses Trump voters and similar low-information types), some cooperation in Syria, and so forth, but little concrete at first.

    Now more is showing up - that lawyer gets around:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/why-was-russian-money-laundering-case-dismissed-house-dems-2017-7
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    I am unable to extract from the emails a case of cheating or bribing, so that this is irrelevant.
    Except that I have not posted such nonsense. I simply see no evidence for bribery and corruption in the emails.
    I don't need a proof of such things, because I have never doubted them. Working for a campaign is so horribly evil, that art. 19 is no longer applicable? Ok, only if it is for Trump, I would guess.
    Which contract has Trump Jr. signed? Ok, I would have no problem if Trump Jr. would have signed a contract forbidding him to use his rights of art. 19. In this case, we have a case of contract violation.
    ROTFL. Trump jr. pays the Russian government by settling with a firm which has helped money laundering of money stolen from the Russian treasury. YMMD.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Simple stuff you refuse to comprehend does not become irrelevant on that account.
    So you're stupid on purpose. Is that supposed to be an argument?
    You are posting it now, still - you hadn't noticed?
    Article 19 applies to information. Bribery and corruption and influence peddling is not information.
    Yep. Is that somehow surprising to you? It's standard operating procedure of fascist governance. That's one of the reasons it doesn't work very well.

    That's kind of basic political knowledge, btw. If Trump consolidates his hold on power he and his crew will steal from the US treasury, and launder the money. We saw a lot of that under W, of course - especially in the Iraq War contracting and supply. So one more reason for Trump to launch some kind of war.
     
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Ok. again. What is relevant is what is in the emails. Because this was the starting point of the discussion about Trump Jr., hurray, Trump Jr. was so stupid to give all the evidence against himself, and my point of participating.

    Here is my thesis: If what was visible in the emails was sufficient to see that he has violated a law, then this law violates art. 19 UDHR. So, your choice: Or what is in the emails is not sufficient. Or the law violates art. 19. Or the emails contain something which proves Trump Jr. has done some additional evil, beyond seeking information through any media and regardless of frontiers.
    Stealing money from the government is, of course, standard behavior of politicians, in fascism as well as in democracies, it is standard for politicians in general, as well as for firms having government contracts and so on.

    But if Trump cooperates with guys who steel from the Russian government, how would this be evidence for collusion with the Russian government? It would be evidence for collusion with these guys against Russian government.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    #surrendertherepublic | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click for general distraction.

    Maybe if you showed some comprehension of what you criticize, your appeal to one-world governance wouldn't seem so strange. Nonetheless, if you actually had some comprehension of what you criticize, you would at least be able to acknowledge the facts in their proper context.

    The thing about Iceaura's question↑ is that it's relevant, so naturally you don't want to answer. And this one is pretty straightforward, Schmelzer. Your argument circumstantially requiring that societies have no right to elect their own leaders—that they must let hostile other nations participate, as well—seems utterly ridiculous, even farcical trolling, until one remembers your separatist advocacy↗, which, even in its own context, is one of those things that can evoke the question of whether or not the advocate actually believes his own words.

    Please remember, Schmelzer, other people are often trying to discuss factors a little more realistic and a little less individually particular than your self-contradictory utopiate fantasies.

    The simple fact is that people from other nations are prohibited from participating in our elections, which in turn you seem to regard as some manner of human rights violation, such that you would invoke for support of your argument a document your own political theses find illegitimate: You denounce worldwide governance, but appeal to it. You advocate separatism that will dissolve nations, so neither, by your political theses, are the signatories to the UNDHR legitimate.

    And part of the problem is that your argumentative structure generally starts with anti-Americanism, and seeks to construct rhetoric to abide that hunger regardless of truth, accuracy, or even basic consistency. Furthermore, you do, in fact, keep coming back to undermine yourself, like your explanation↑ why it doesn't matter if you accurately identify what you're criticizing; and when you rely on some notion of the merits of critique from ignorance, people might notice.

    And you did it again: That your "point is a completely different one" is a meaningless response. You have claimed that aiding and abetting crime—in this case, theft, at the very least—"is fine". And while this would seem problematic on its face, that particular sense of conflict—advocacy of crime—evaporates amid your generally antisocial political theses.

    In the end, this general weakness is what makes your three-part retort at #340↑ exemplary:

    It's actually illegal under our statutes, and you have yet to explain how reserving a nation's elections to the people of that nation is a human rights violation. Maybe the real question isn't whether or not you believe what you say, but whether or not you're capable of justifying what you say. So, yeah, we get it, you argue that reserving a nation's elections to that nation's people is a violation of internationally-agreed human rights; now, are you capable of explaining why?

    While not all foreign governments are Russian, the Russian government is foreign to the United States. Trying to make this about your identity obsessions doesn't really help your argument.

    You would probably make more sense if your arguments actually attended facts, but even taking that bit as sarcasm or cynicism, it still relies on your advocacy of crime.

    You advocate crime, Schmelzer, so think about your anti-American, Russian propagandist routine: Yeah, advocating crime is what it takes to be you and achieve the work you have set yourself about.

    One could, I suppose, have worse goals, but that starts to sound like a bad joke.

    But, really, one need not advocate crime in order to criticize the United States, Schmelzer.

    Nor does one need to play make-believe.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Which were not sent or received by a sixteenth century Chinese woman from the Court in Beijing. Meaning is from context.
    We know what your "thesis" is. You're a willful dumbass who refuses to see the nature of either the law or the morality involved, despite being told over and over and over.
    Junior's basic crime has nothing to do with information. Nothing.
    Living and learning about fascist governance. You have a blind spot. How badly do you need it?
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Again, I would ask you to please explain why reserving a nation's electoral process to that nation's people is a human rights violation.
     
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    From the emails:
    It seems that Rob Goldstone has quite an active imagination.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Didn't he declare himself, at some point, in a committed relationship with bread?

    One of the things I find striking about the emails, though, is the possibility that while we're all talking about blackmail possibility, those emails would appear to be some manner of hook except for their astounding simplisticity. Simplisticness. Simplisticality. Something like that. Their breathtaking state of being simplistic.

    And yet, as bizarre as it all reads to so many people, apparently it all makes sense to, well, at least Donald the Younger.
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Goldstone's claims as to who the people were(their connections and knowledge) and the expected context of the "meeting" was pure promoters bullshit.
    IMHO This guy would try to sell you a formula 1 race car and deliver a VW bug.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It was good enough to draw in Kushner and Manafort.

    The Russians seem to have delivered, on their end - and late in the summer, too, as requested. What do you suppose the Trump folks delivered, on their end?
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Meanwhile, in the fake news category: https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2017/07/theres-beef.html

     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    As no doubt you have considered, the worlds trend towards globalization, it is inevitable that what happens politically in the USA is important to other nations more so than ever before. Even in this recent USA POTUS election I recall news of a team of Aussies door knocking on behalf of Hillary's campaign. Welcomed with open arms they were. I am sure there were other teams from other nations doing similar, however when these teams turn out to be pro-Trump instead of pro Hillary we can see an inconsistency develop.

    "Organized teams from other nations assisting in a political campaign"

    A dilemma it currently is and the future will only see this sort of issue gain momentum. As the world becomes more cloud based and interconnected you may find that (for example: reverse) President Erdogan's desire to campaign in Europe for his referendum being held in Turkey type activity, become more common place and more problematic.

    A perfect storm is on the horizon. How the world copes with this transition as we venture down the globalization path will be interesting but no doubt traumatic as well.

    Australia => Chinese influence in Aussie politics is currently a hot potato here... and no doubt all round the globe this issue is getting more and more oxygen.

    Just thoughts...
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, we can't actually see that. We can guess.

    We haven't seen anything like that in the pro-Trump camp. There has been no such team "turning out to be pro-Trump". Speculation as to how they would be received is just that. (Trump ran his entire campaign on TV and social media).

    Meanwhile, bribery and influence and secret dealmaking is being peddled as legitimate campaigning on the Republican side - as if publicly promising to do this or that in hopes of winning votes in a secret ballot were somehow on an ethical par with secretly promising favorable handling of concerns in return for cash in pocket or other private benefits. This has become explicit - the Democrats supposedly "buying votes" by publicly promising government benefits to poor people is now often described by mainstream pundits as equivalent to Republicans obtaining campaign contributions from wealthy businessmen by secretly promising favorable legislation.

    And this Russian dealing is then folded into that - just another powerful interest cutting deals behind closed doors, completely normal.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    More fake news from the blogs, and fake reminders of how far back this goes and how many people in the Trump camp are fake involved:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...2d00a47778f_story.html?utm_term=.7a843916f074
    http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2017/7/15/12503/2372?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: boomantribune/Svpw (Booman Tribune)
    references to the names: http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/04/02/trump-felix-sater-and-the-fbi/
    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a53134/trump-administration-russia-ties/
    http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/05/21/who-is-michael-caputo-and-what-can-he-tell-us/
    And so forth and so on and on and on.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    First of all it is ridiculous, given that I have not made it. One is morally obliged to do things if one signs contracts. The US has signed the UDHR. Blame the stupidity of your leaders to sign such a document, but not me for deriving conclusions from the text of that contract about what the US is obliged now.

    In fact, I agree that taking this paper seriously makes no sense. It is obvious that it is only a propaganda paper without real force.
    No, I support contract law. You are obliged to do what you accept by signing contracts. Contract law can be enforced by reputation, and does not require any world government. Has the US signed the UDHR or not? If yes, it is obliged to follow it. If they don't, they are contract breakers.
    Whatever they are does not matter. One can sign contracts with the mafia too. And one would be obliged to follow them even in this case - with the penalty of losing reputation. Even if you have broken a contract with some evil force, I would be stupid to believe you are not ready to break a contract with me too. And the same holds for the mafia. If a mafia gang is known to hold contracts, it will have advantages from this.
    I reject distortions from the main arguments. If some point is irrelevant for the basic argument, it makes no sense to discuss it, but only diverts.
    No.
    Because all what has been proven is that Trump Jr. has sought information regardless of frontiers. The US was so stupid to sign the UDHR, thus, has (for whatever reason) obliged itself not to forbid such things. If what can be seen from the emails is already criminal, then the law which criminalizes this violates the UDHR.
    My argument does not need help, given that art. 19 even explicitly excludes this, and allows to seek information regardless of frontiers.
    Cheap attempt. Whenever somebody argues that the UDHR, or the constitution or so forbids to make X a crime, this can be defamed as "advocacy of crime".

    Let's see what iceaura wrote. After disposing the usual ..., there remains:
    Quantum Quack has, instead, a good point. In a global world, at least as long as there is something remembering the free internet of the past, you have no chance to prevent governments from influencing foreign elections. I would like to add that, with the end of the unipolar world order, the US has no longer a monopoly of influencing foreign elections. Tit for tat becomes unavoidable. What makes it possible for citizens to distribute their opinion for free, helps other states too. They do not have to own or control worldwide media empires to influence elections in other states.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That is false. It has been proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Junior was accepting stuff and making deals with a foreign government, and acting as an agent of Trump's campaign when he did that.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Junior committed the crime - and Kushner, Manafort, probably others, possibly Trump himself.
    That Russia will try to influence elections is taken for granted, and has been for a long time in the US. That's not new.
    It never did. Russia, for one, has been manipulating other people's elections since before WWII. England, France, Spain, as well.

    Why are you trying to post fictional history?
     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Seriously?
    Where?
    When?
     

Share This Page