Putin has shown his hand. Putin has very clearly thrown his support behind Trump. There is a blooming bromance going on right before our eyes. Trump scratches Putin's back and Putin scratches Trump's back. Putin releases hacked emails from the Democratic National Party in the hope of stirring up trouble for Democrats and Trump removes language which supports the legally elected government of Ukraine from the Republican Party's platform; it's funny how that works. That's a dramatic reversal of position. Prior to Trump's intervention at the platform committee meeting, the Republican Party's position on Ukraine was to support the Ukrainian government with lethal weapons. Now, it's not. Wow....that's a turnaround! And then there is the matter of Trump's financial and business connections with Russia and his recent flip flops. A few years ago Trump has stated he met with Putin and now he says the exact opposite. It seems to me if you met a head of state and talked with him as Trump has said, you wouldn't forget that a few years later unless you suffered from dementia in which case you shouldn't be running for POTUS. It is known that Trump has long had Russian aspirations. It is also known that he held the Ms. Universe pageant in Russia and has Russian investors in his various projects. The full truth about and the extent of Trump's Russian financial connections could be revealed if Trump disclosed his tax returns as American candidates traditionally have done. But Trump has steadfastly refused to disclose his tax returns claiming that he is under audit by the IRS. In private industry corporations are routinely audited by the IRS, but those audits don't prevent those companies from disclosing their financial materials and their tax returns. So one has to wonder, why Trump thinks disclosing his financial information would be damaging to his campaign. Because in the end, that is the only reason for not disclosing his tax returns as candidates for high office traditionally do. Trump knows disclosing his tax returns would reveal something which would be damaging to his presidential ambitions. That's why he has refused to release them. http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/0...ls-donald-trump-touting-a-trump-putin-ticket/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-donald-trump-ties-to-russia-go-back-years-dnc-email-hack/ And then there is the fact that several of Trump's closest advisers have strong Russian connections. Trump's campaign manager has a more than decade long tie supporting Russian state actors and vassals i.e. Putin's friends and that tie continues to this day. Trump's campaign adviser has a long history of advising dictators that goes back decades. That's the man running Trump's campaign. Based on the evidence, Trump has deep Russian connections. So it is not surprising to see Putin use state hackers in an attempt to fracture Trump's opposition. Nor is it surprising to hear Trump publicly cry for help from his Russian backers e.g. the call for Russians to release Hillary Clinton's private emails. http://www.politico.eu/article/dona...ections-foreign-policy-presidential-campaign/ Trump could be the first Russian elected president of the United States. What do you think? Will Trump become the first Russian president of the United States of America?
Putins no dummy... an the Presidential election is just an unexpected dessert... an for as long as posible he will play Trumpet like a fiddle.!!!
The Donald isn't bothered by Putin's jailing and executions of journalists. "Well, I mean, it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?" Scarborough asked. "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader," Trump replied. "Unlike what we have in this country." "But again: He kills journalists that don't agree with him," Scarborough said. The Republican presidential front-runner said there was "a lot of killing going on" around the world and then suggested that Scarborough had asked him a different question. "I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know," Trump replied. "There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that's the way it is. But you didn't ask me [that] question, you asked me a different question. So that's fine." http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-joe-scarborough-2015-12 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...der-jealous-hell-s-not-complimenting-too.html It's pretty easy to manipulate Trump, just call him brilliant and he is your forever lap dog. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...der-jealous-hell-s-not-complimenting-too.html
'While discussing the GOP nominee’s recent remarks about Putin on CNN Sunday, campaign surrogate Boris Epshteyn said, “First of all, Russia did not seize Crimea.” http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/boris-epshteyn-russia-crimea-trump That's Putin's party line.
From the conservative Redstate.com: "And yet. And yet. Trump is probably tied to the Kremlin and the oligarchs who run the Kremlin more credibly than any Presidential candidate since Eugene McCarthy. The guy in charge of Trump's campaign has a well known history of working for the more unsavory elements of Russian society. Trump's main foreign policy advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, was fired for (in part) allegedly leaking secrets to the Kremlin and is still dogged by rumors of potentially being on the Kremlin payroll. This much is widely known. What's less known is that Trump, many of his companies, and many of his campaign operatives have very long standing ties to Russia, both in the business community and in the government. As The Hill chronicled earlier this week, the extent of Trump's ties to Russia would be troubling for any Presidential candidate even in the absence of the DNC story. Courting business from Russian oligarchs has long been part of Trump's business plan: Is Russia playing in the U.S. like it has been in Europe? Russian investment has been a major target of the Trump organization. The Republican nominee’s son, Donald Jr, told a 2008 real estate conference, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” According to the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication, he added: “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Investors have included Alexander Mashkevich, a Kazakh who in 2011 was investigated by Turkish prosecutors for organizing a sex party on a luxurious yacht involving underage girls. Mashkevich denied any wrongdoing. He was also at the heart of one of the longest-running cases in Belgian history involving allegations of money-laundering. The case was eventually settled after he and two associates agreed to pay an undisclosed fine in return for the dropping of the case. Another investor is former Soviet official Tevik Arif, who has been investigated off-and-on for organized-crime links. Has the Russian money and Moscow ties had consequences and does it shape candidate Trump’s foreign-policy thinking or that of the advice he receives from his aides? It is certainly a question that would be asked — and rightly so — of Hillary Clinton, if the shoe was on the other foot. Saudi donations to the Clinton Global Initiative have come under scrutiny, as well they should." http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/07/27/exactly-bed-russians-donald-trump/ Even the so called conservative intelligentsia are concerned with Trump's Russian connections and the possibility he could be a Manchurian-candidate or has been compromised by the Russian state i.e. Putin.
Trump's status as an un-recruited Russian asset has not gone unnoticed. "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." Michael Morell, former CIA Director http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/o...ia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
And Russia's i.e. Putin's support of Trump continues be grow. The Donald is definitely Putin's man. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-russia-idUSKCN0WQ1FA
Now the question is how far will Putin go with his support of The Donald? Will Putin cause an October surprise? Will Putin manufacture an October surprise in order to get The Donald elected, and will it work? I think Putin is getting desperate. I wouldn't put anything beyond him. Two megalomaniac world leaders with their fingers on thousands of nuclear weapons, what could go wrong? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yeah, it would be funny were it not so serious and so possible.
Hey, Joe, where you goin' with ... er ... ah ... sorry, wrong Joe. Anyway, maybe we should go back to the ... er ... ah ... sorry, wrong past, no future. I don't know, you recall the Republicans I remember, so it just seems worth the nostalgic moment to tease you for being so down on America. After all, we're Americans, and too damn smart to let some dumb Russkie con us. Of course, we need not even reach so far back to recall when the idea of making American great again would destroy a Democrat for being so down on America as to suggest America wasn't great. I confess that part does actually amaze me a little; it's nearly unbelievable how quickly conservatives and the Republican Party turned on their country. I mean, I can remember that once upon a time; I'm pretty sure you can, too. But it turns out it wasn't just a few bad seeds. Apparently this "greatness" America has somehow lost really was its bigoted supremacism. And that's the thing. You can remember the day when we would have looked at each other and shrugged, because we both knew those people needed someone to vote for, and it was unreasonable to ask you to beat the shit out of all of them for the rest of us. But that's the thing; even then, y'all were the capitalists, and if votes are the effective currency, why would you not want those votes. Or, you know, something like that. We both know the narrative describing the fundamental temerity of conservative politicians and pundits pretending they are surprised at the "alt-right" ejaculation. Actually, it cracks me up like this really godawful rap I can't stop listening to because it's so damn hilarious, but one of LJ's lines describes the paradox of recent conservative decades so brilliantly I'm having trouble continuing this post: "Eyes wides shut, mask on the face; when I say time's up, then blast on the face." And, yeah, we get it, but LJ is known for really stupid lines, and I adore the thought that this trash-talking tough guy doesn't understand how a moneyshot actually works. Which, in turn, reminds me of the RNC. Things have just gotten that damn stupid. Still, though, it's always been a nearly literary-mythic tension between the arguments presented and the advocates presenting them, as once upon a time they actually did have some clue what they were actually saying in their cynical play for votes. Just out of curiosity, the first time you heard someone suggest that the First Lady would inevitably return to the White House as our first female president―was Bill even finished in office, yet?―had the GOP yet so departed reality that it was possible to conceive of yourself voting for her? It just seems that the virulent anti-Clinton strain of the GOP has helped pave the way. I mean, by the time she gets around to declaring that she will do this or that, her detractors have already launched dozens of trial balloons, and she's smart enough to calculate a reasonable model from the results. Give a politician enough time with people saying, "Oh my God! she's gonna ...!" and everyone else saying, "Well, actually that might be a good idea," and the smart ones will figure out what that means compared to actually, you know, running for Senate, or president, and so on.
I don't think I'm down on Americans per se. I'm however concerned. I'm concerned about how "smart" some of us were to nominate someone like The Donald for the highest office in the land. And some of us were "smart" enough to let The Donald con them. That kind of "smartness" concerns me. If some of us are "smart" enough to elect The Donald, they are "smart" enough to be conned by a some "dumb" megalomaniacal Russkie.
Well, right. But before Donald Trump? If some politician came out and made that joke, how bad would the damage have been? Was a time when it could have ended a career to imply the American people were dumb enough to be conned by the Russians. I'm quite certain you remember those days. I guess it's not as funny to you as it is to me. Sorry.
Those were the days before Republican entertainment, e.g. Fox News, right wing radio, when conservatives were tethered to reality with facts and reason. Those were the days before Republicans terminated the Fairness Doctrine. Those days are gone. What once was unthinkable is now a very real possibility. Many folks, including myself, had once thought the Electoral College is an institution whose time had past. Trump clearly demonstrates that isn't the case. Democracies need well informed electors. Regrettably, thanks to the Republican entertainment industry, that's not what we have today.
I'm not certain how to deal with the irony of Republicans so frequently complaining about the fundamental nature of republican government so poignantly demonstrating the merits of a republic by rendering its absence so observably, functionally dangerous. I've made a number of predictions, but the two that stand out as important seem nearly trivial: What will it sound like when they tell us the Trump disaster was actually the plan? (And what, at midterm or the next presidential, depending on how soon we hear that excuse, will it mean in terms of whether identifying the bigot wing has resulted in excising it from the Party?) And there is also the question of whether Republicans, in their effort to delegitimize the Clinton presidency, will actually get around to complaining that the RNC process denied the voice of Republican voters. And, you know, the thing is that such notions usually sound a bit like a stretch, and the joke would be that the silenced voter argument is simply the manner of thing I would be unwise to predict against because reality will eventually hand me an example to the other. The part where congressional Republicans started complaining that President Obama didn't explain clearly enough what Congress was doing wrong↱, however, really warps that disclaimer about how such notions usually sound like a bit of the stretch. For me it's been going on a long time, probably back to the '94 Revolution, at least. But it's during President Obama's term that Republicans have finally become so absolutely craven. I mean, every time you might think Republicans "won't go there"―you know, expect them to be smart enough to not attempt this or that particular low-yield, broad scale indignity―conservatives will find a way to defy our expectations. Remember when the prospect of refusing to pay our bills was shocking? Thanks, GOP. How about the time when the prospect of a president lying so determinedly to the nation and the international community in an attempt to start a world war was actually kind of shocking, the sort of accusation that was beyond the pale? With this, though, we're into punch line territory, like the old bit about democracy and voting for "no taxes, free beer, and vagina trees". I'm extraordinarily disappointed with Senate Democrats. Republicans, however, managed to give them cover by spiking the Stupid Index. My only comfort is that most of my state's House Democrats said no to override. Republicans? They're actually complaining that President Obama didn't tell them what they refused to talk about every time he told them. I know Trump supporters are going to be an interesting experience when he loses, but what about the rest of the GOP? And when the Republic survives, Republicans will want credit for putting us through it in the first place; after all, what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger, right? I believe the post-electoral psyche is coming into view: (1) Donald Trump's destruction of the GOP was the plan the whole time: The Party needed to get rid of those rabble rousers, and drawing them out like this was the only way. You should thank us. Oh, and don't bother checking the middle term to see if we actually succeeded in getting rid of those rabble rousers, because that would just be unfair of you to keep living in the past, Marge, why are you always living in the past? (2) Republican voters were denied their voice, thus a conspiracy raised Trump to the nomination: It's the media's fault. If the media hadn't conspired against sixteen other Republicans, one of them would have won. I can't wait to see how this one works; I haven't figured out what conspiracy theory will address the fact of Republican voters, but do keep an eye on how they construe a conspiracy theory about the DNC and secret crossover liberals tampering with the Republican primary that functionally and inherently suggests Democrats have a large standing majority, anyway ... and, you know, trying to look six moves ahead, or whatever that chess metaphor is, I think the way around that last is to argue that Republicans got overrun by Democratic agents tampering with the primary because Republicans are too goddamn lazy to vote in a primary. Seriously, start playing with the numbers and see if you can figure out how this one works before we hear it from Republicans. (3) Republicans deserve everyone's gratitude: See point one. The Republicans not only saved their Party, they saved American society and made the Republic stronger, too, so pucker up. The thing is that I know what I'm saying sounds like bullflop, but Donald Trump is the nominee, and Congressional Republicans just tried to blame President Obama for, I don't know, not explaining it with a truncheon, or something. The stupid is strong with these people, right now. And this excremental poe-field―how is what I'm describing not satire, except for the fact of the GOP? (you say "potato", I say, "poe-tata", let's ... er ... ah ... let's never mind)―is the sort of thing I really, really need to be wrong about because what does it mean if I'm not? Compared to the GOP line on JASTA? I don't know, the conservative prospect of Life After Trump glitters sickly with myriad fascinating possibilities. The JASTA line is one of those threshold stupidities; they really, really tried this. No, really: "You know, that was a good example of―it seems to be a failure to communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation was obviously very popular." ―Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)____________________ Notes: Linkins, Jason. "Senators Blame Obama For Not Helping Them Understand Their Own Bill". The Huffington Post. 30 September 2016. HuffingtonPost.com. 1 October 2016. http://huff.to/2dkRhFo
