This sounds like 4chan/reddit trolling to be honest…
And normally that would make me think about it, but we have a shitposter in chief as POTUS, so I’m not so sure anymore.
Maybe I’m confusing my “but Russia” theories here, but didn’t WikiLeaks say it wasn’t the Russians? Are my facts wrong here?
Yes, and paying a brit to go get help from the Russians = A-Okay, but a personal meeting with the Russians = colluding
(At least that’s what I’m getting from some in this thread.)
To throw your own phrase back at you: your (hyper?) partisanship is on display here.
It should be pretty dang clear by now, from Junior’s (and Manafort, Kushner, etc.) meeting with the Russian lawyer, that they were clearly interested in dirt on Hillary from, again, a government that is an adversary of the US. A statement from that attorney, Veselnitskay, today confirms that Junior said they would review the Maginsky act “if we come to power” (interesting choice of words there). This certainly has the “shape” of a quid pro quo arrangement.
So while that exchange, by itself, might not be a crime as of now, if it’s determined that the Trump campaign did in fact offer anything in exchange for dirt on his political opponent, that would constitute a crime.
And that’s exactly what it is. It also produces extremely surreal moments when a suit-and-tie wearing presenter on Russian State TV’s most watched show matter-of-factly narrates over 4chan Pepe the Frog memes and reddit posts from /r/TheDonald quoting them as irrefutable proofs of various conspiracy theories.
Interestingly, Trump is still regularly addressed in Russian media as a “muzhik” which roughly translates as “manly man” or a “man’s man”.
Never once said they meddled with voting machines. You sir, have won strawman king of the day.
Everything else, I’ve reached agree to disagree territory. The climb is really rough when we’re starting with “did Russia interfere with our election.” Have a good day.
Awesome reading. Keep posting things like this.
But literally paying a Brit to do it for you, A-Okay!!!
I’m not saying colluding with russia is A-Okay, I’m saying it’s only A-Okay when your (proverbial) team does it
It should be pretty dang clear by now, from paying a brit, that the Dem’s were clearly interested in dirt on trump from, again, a government that is an adversary of the US.
You okay with that?
While not to this degree, can’t say I haven’t seen similarly surreal things come out of American media.
Well, I take that back, all the identity politics are that surreal.
And I’m confused. Can we or can’t we believe what the russians say?
Do we get to cherry pick to suit our bias?
I’m really confused as to what you’re even trying to say with this. From the article at the top of this thread:
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community
But that’s ok, I’m sure more evidence will surface soon so you can bust our your “But Hillary…” defense again.
Yes you’re confused, but I may not be communicating properly either.
My stance:
Colluding with a foreign adversary is bad.
My observation:
It appears that some collusion with a foreign adversary is A-Okay and some is the opposite of A-Okay, and how many intermediaries one pays seems to be the defining criteria.
IE: if done directly well it’s the gulag for them, but if they hire a brit to do it, well that’s cool man, that brit was paid by a DC FRIM, HA!
I’ll also note, you don’t seem to have this issue as much as the sycophants that frantically like your posts do.
Also, please answer the question re: when it’s okay and not okay to believe what the Russians say. Honestly need to know when I’m allowed to do that without being falsely labeled as playing whataboutism.
Christopher Steele, who was hired by Fusion and not HRC directly, is a former MI-6 agent who worked undercover in Moscow and had established Russian sources. I’m not sure why it would be surprising that he would utilize sources that proved to be reliable in the past.
I don’t trust a damn thing that comes out of the mouths of anyone working for the Kremlin. But what’s telling here is the fact that the first time Junior was asked about this meeting, he said it was regarding adoption of Russian children by Americans. It seemed pretty obvious that what was actually of interest to Veselnitskaya was the Magnitsky Act, since Putin’s retaliation for implementation of it was to prohibit American adoption of Russians. I haven’t seen Junior dispute what Veselnitskaya told Bloomberg Sunday, so I’m inclined to believe it’s true (especially since he hinted at it initially).
I happen to agree with a ton of what those “sycophants” have to say. I also agree with some of the things you and others here have to say. This can be a pretty contentious place and me, being someone who doesn’t care for conflict too much (just not in my DNA man), I generally will stay out of the more heated topics of guns and abortion (also because I am conflicted about both).
I think there are probably a lot of people on T-Nation who would like to venture into this sub but don’t because they’re afraid they’ll get attacked for their views and I think that’s probably a valid concern. There can be respectful discussion and debate here, but a lot of people will come at you hard. And, no offense, but you can be one cantankerous SOB. lol
Personally, I’m glad they’re here as it makes this place more balanced and I give them kudos for sticking it out because they’re outnumbered. I stayed out of here for years largely because it was so one sided. I jumped back in once Trump came around because I was pleased to see people like USMC, someone whose politics I might disagree with, stick to his values rather than his “side”.
So don’t give me too much credit. I probably have views that would make you want to throw your laptop out the window. 
Right. Obviously he would.
My point is, when is it okay to get dirt from your opponent from Russia and when isn’t it? Forget legality here, just ethically. Does “paying a firm” vs “sending a low level intern” make a difference in that answer?
That is all I’m busting chops about.
This is fair.
Most people should be conflicted about both. There is both practical and philosophical issues related to both, that are at times at odds with each other. Both also invoke broader issues as well.
I mean this is true of any political forum that isn’t an echo chamber. Gun pages are particularly brutal.
The truth will never offend me. So no worries. I’m pretty well aware of my shortcomings, not to add pompous to the list or anything, but I know myself pretty well.
You certainly deserve all the credit I give you man, stop shorting yourself.
Nah, I doubt that.
There’s a sub on Reddit called Political Discussion and they have very strict rules about civility. It’s comical to watch posters be very careful with their wording so as not to get banned. I’m guessing the typical post there takes three times as long to write as on any other.
The easiest way to survive in a place like that is to talk about ideas, not people. Refuting ideas without insulting is easy as hell. Much less satisfying if you’re personally invested in it though.
I am not doubting you, but do you have a link??
I was using hyperbole to effect to make a point. “Meddling” has, apparently a broad definition and I was speaking to that. We’ve broadened the definition so much it hardly resembles any sort of concreteness. Meddling apparently means anything between taking facebook ads, to assassination.
I think we disagree on effect. When I think of ‘meddling with elections’ I think of South America, where it’s a normal practice and we ourselves have meddled, to the point of deposing leaders.
Ads and bogus news articles that are obviously bogus, don’t measure up to any major act in my book; especially given Russia’s recent history. We don’t have any evidence to suggest it moved the needle enough to deny HRC the WH. Hacking the DNC is worse, but it was technically caught in time, the DNC didn’t take it seriously enough. Cyber espionage, however, is completely unsurprising to me. It’s more surprising they got caught then the fact that they did it. Sloppy work.
And given the new facts about the dossier and the finger pointing going everywhere, it looks like they were playing both sides.
You consider this a major event, I see it as business as usual. Most countries including us, interfere with the affairs of other countries. Heck, just a year ago, we were trying to convince the Brits out of Brexit. Now most of it appears above board, but nobody asked the question if we interfered on a more nefarious level. Maybe we did, maybe we didn’t… We take the 5th.
When would a foreign hostile country buying and producing intentional fake news to sway the national election of its enemy not be considered “meddling?” Serious question.
No it wasn’t? By the time the DNC realized they were hacked, the hack was over. They didn’t catch someone “mid hack.”
As I keep saying, we’re about 3 light years beyond “agree to disagree” territory. As you don’t even care that Russia interfered with our election, there’s really not much else for us to go over.
I wasn’t referring to Steele.
“But a high-ranking former Obama administration official served up a reminder Wednesday that Democrats were caught up in all of this, too — and said they could have done more to stop it.”
“Johnson explained that the DHS had actually helped other departments with suspected hacks, and had been able to stem the damage — but the DNC just wasn’t interested.”