• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump-Russia behaviors

Notice that I haven't stated a premise such as "Trump is justified."

Sure you did. See #5

Question you bolded:

What is it? Why does Trump always consider Russia and the US as morally/ethically equitable?
Your answer in full:

Because we are. We've done bad things; Russia has done bad things.

Russia interferes in our elections (allegedly); we actually interfere with dozens of elections.

That is because no one was making an argument. Merely a statement why most people don't really care about what you seem to care about.

The point is no one cares. You are acting hysterical for nothing.

I'm not hysterical - just asking you to clarify your point, which you can't do. Noted, and thanks. I guess it is a dumb talking point repeated by lemmings who can't explain the point they're making, which is what I have suspected since it first appeared.
 
You would have saved more energy by simply just showing me.



I'm not interested in anything you have to say. In that post in question, I say "where is the evidence?"

Is there evidence or not?

Russia used the same excuse that Hitler used when he annexed the Sudetenland. His claim was that territory was mostly German and they wanted to be part of Germany.

But Hitler at least got the Sudetenland after a negotiation and Chamberlain is forever remembered for that failed attempt at appeasement.

Russia had no agreement. They just moved in and Trump is the new appeaser but he doesn't even have an agreement. He's just allowing Russia to forcefully annex.

Here's the evidence...

There’s actually lots of evidence of Trump-Russia collusion

But just like flat earth believers just deny evidence, you'll deny the mountain of evidence of Trump's involvement with Russians.
 
Sure you did. See #5

Question you bolded:


Your answer in full:





I'm not hysterical - just asking you to clarify your point, which you can't do. Noted, and thanks. I guess it is a dumb talking point repeated by lemmings who can't explain the point they're making, which is what I have suspected since it first appeared.

My point is we don't care. No one is justifying what Trump is doing because we don't care what Trump is doing.
 
So there is no evidence.

Intelligence agencies lied to the DOJ in 2002 and 2003 regarding the efficacy own torture program; intelligence agencies lied about it's threats in Iraq; it's even lied about the evidence of future threats.

But it's definitely telling the truth about election meddling...

You've made your point, the President can't trust the his own intelligence agencies, the GOP led Senate, or the independent Mueller investigation, all of them coming to the same definitive conclusion about Russia hacking.

And when there are no facts on which anyone can rely, then we're in a post-truth world where all facts are merely alleged, and anyone's version of the facts is just as legitimate as any other. That's the state of affairs in NK or in the former Soviet Union, not in a free society with thinking people. Good to know what kind of world you are supporting.
 
My point is we don't care. No one is justifying what Trump is doing because we don't care what Trump is doing.

Right, you took a position and when called out, lied about that.

And who is this "we" you're referring to? You can speak for yourself, comrade, not for me and others. Thanks.
 
Russia used the same excuse that Hitler used when he annexed the Sudetenland. His claim was that territory was mostly German and they wanted to be part of Germany.

But Hitler at least got the Sudetenland after a negotiation and Chamberlain is forever remembered for that failed attempt at appeasement.

Russia had no agreement. They just moved in and Trump is the new appeaser but he doesn't even have an agreement. He's just allowing Russia to forcefully annex.

Not sure what this has to do with anything I have said...

Here's the evidence...

There’s actually lots of evidence of Trump-Russia collusion

But just like flat earth believers just deny evidence, you'll deny the mountain of evidence of Trump's involvement with Russians.

You didn't read your own article, did you. If you did, you would know their best example of Trump-Russia election meddling is that Trump begged Russia to release more emails from Clinton.

Your source even says that this isn't evidence in of itself.

I would not necessarily call any of this “evidence” of collusion, but it’s certainly grounds for suspicion. It gave the impression that Trump was on some level coordinating his campaign messaging with the Russian hackers, and that either he was taking a pro-Putin line in exchange for Russian help or he sincerely believed in the pro-Putin line and therefore saw nothing wrong with accepting Russian assistance.

So, you haven't read your own source, and I can't even count on you to read things before you post them.
 
You've made your point, the President can't trust the his own intelligence agencies, the GOP led Senate, or the independent Mueller investigation, all of them coming to the same definitive conclusion about Russia hacking.

The intelligence community has a terrible track record.

And when there are no facts on which anyone can rely, then we're in a post-truth world where all facts are merely alleged, and anyone's version of the facts is just as legitimate as any other. That's the state of affairs in NK or in the former Soviet Union, not in a free society with thinking people. Good to know what kind of world you are supporting.

You're not saying anything of value.
 
The trusty "Trump doesn't want to scold/insult/embarrass Russia" excuse doesn't wash either because Trump doesn't hesitate to scold/insult/embarrass everyone else.

What is it? Why does Trump always consider Russia and the US as morally/ethically equitable?

For everyone's information:

Putin, who has ruled Russia since 2000, has created a regime under which his opponents are murdered; political prisoners are sent to Siberia for decades behind bars; minority rights are suppressed; opposition is quashed; foreign territory is forcefully annexed; and Syria’s bloodthirsty president, Bashar Assad, enjoys direct military support for his massacres.

Here’s a non-exhaustive list of examples of Putin’s abusive rule in Russia.

Murdering enemies
The list of people suspected murdered on orders from the Russian leader or people close to him is long. It includes several of Putin’s early critics (paywall), among them liberal politician Boris Nemtsov, investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya, and exiled former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. A UK government report showed that Litvinenko’s death—he was poisoned using polonium in London—while was “probably” approved by Putin.

Both Politkovskaya and Litvinenko had tried to investigate a series of bombings in 1999, when Putin was prime minister, that killed some 300 people in four Russian cities. The authorities blamed the bombings on Chechen rebels and used them as a pretext to unleash a war on Chechnya, but there are strong suspicions 1 that they were a “false-flag” attack by Russia’s own own security services.

When confronted with Putin’s record of killings on a TV show last year, Trump answered, “Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe.” He added, “I’ve always felt fine about Putin. He’s a strong leader. He’s a powerful leader.”

Imprisoning dissenters
According to a list from Russian human-rights group Memorial, there are now 102 people held in Russian prisons for their political beliefs. In this, Putin’s Russia is continuing Tsarist and Soviet traditions: Political dissenters are still being sent to Siberia or to work camps as in Stalinist days. Famous past prisoners have included oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, feminist punk collective ***** Riot, and Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko. Still confined is Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov, who was sentenced to 20 years in a strict penal colony in Siberia on trumped-up terrorism charges. 2

Occupying foreign territory
Sentsov is one of at least 10 Ukrainian nationals serving long sentences in Russia who were arrested after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and started sponsoring rebels in eastern Ukraine. The Kremlin-backed protracted conflict, Europe’s “forgotten war,” is is in its third year, and has claimed nearly 10,000 lives.

On Dec. 14, German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president François Hollande said that they favored continuing sanctions on Russia, after the peace talks on Ukraine failed to produce tangible results. However, a day earlier, Trump’s chief-of-staff pick, Reince Priebus, said he would not rule out lifting US sanctions on Russia.

Quashing opposition
Uses the corrupt to convict opponents of embezzlement or tax fraud, to straightforward police intimidation, as well as murder. Prominent opponents have been forced into silence or exile.

Putin’s biggest challenger right now is Alexei Navalny, a lawyer and anti-corruption activist who announced on Dec. 13 that he would run for president in 2018. He has faced several criminal charges and received a suspended sentence for embezzlement, overturned after international outcry. He is due for a re-trial, however, and if found guilty, won’t be able to run for office. His brother Oleg is in prison after being sentenced in the same trial.

Masha Gessen pointed out in The New Yorker that Trump’s threat to imprison Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign was reminiscent of how political opponents are most often silenced in Russia: not through outlawing them, but “abusing or misusing criminal laws.”

Abetting some of the world’s worst bloodshed
Seeking to gain influence, in the Middle East, Putin has supported the murderous regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, in what has become the deadliest war of the 21st century so far. Russia’s military help has been priceless to Assad.

In the recent siege and recapture of Aleppo by Assad and his allies, reports from the ground indicated Syrian forces were slaughtering civilian families. US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said that Russia bears responsibility for the carnage along with the Assad regime and Iran: “Is there literally nothing that can shame you?,” she asked.

Meanwhile, according to an interview released by the Syrian government, Assad is hopeful about the next US administration. He called Donald Trump a “natural ally.”

Is this also fake news?
 
Right, you took a position and when called out, lied about that.

No one lied about their position; you don't even understand what the position is.

And who is this "we" you're referring to? You can speak for yourself, comrade, not for me and others. Thanks.

I'm speaking for most rational-thinking people. I will happily exclude you from that category.
 
Dan Coats just let Trump have it right across the chops....entirely justified.

Yes, Coats is a Trump appointment as are all the Intelligence and Investigative heads that disagree with the President.

Trump continues to behave inappropriately, unable to parse his duties as Chief Executive from his self aggrandizing, self absorbed desires as a Candidate. He is I repeat, an unpatriotic American. There can simply be no excuses nor any doubt. He does not represent this government. That is as bad as it gets from the office of the President.
 
The intelligence was incorrect in relation to Iraq.

Things are different this time?

Yes, they gave a very detailed account of the activities the Russian military personnel was engaged in. The indictments included the accounts, tools, and servers they used.

There is no longer any rational doubt that Russian military hacked into our election databases and attempted to incite hostility between races. Trump who is critical of our allies had not a single word of criticism and even doubted our intelligence services.

You can't defend this. Trump has sold his country out for a pocketful of Rubles.
 
Yes, they gave a very detailed account of the activities the Russian military personnel was engaged in. The indictments included the accounts, tools, and servers they used.

Where? Please don't link me to that vox article again. It refutes your notions.

There is no longer any rational doubt that Russian military hacked into our election databases and attempted to incite hostility between races. Trump who is critical of our allies had not a single word of criticism and even doubted our intelligence services.

I can assure you that there is plenty of rational doubt; the fact that you can't show one piece of tangible evidence is all that anyone needs to rationally doubt your theories.
 
Last edited:
He is I repeat, an unpatriotic American. There can simply be no excuses nor any doubt. He does not represent this government. That is as bad as it gets from the office of the President.

+1

Trump has betrayed his country. But we're so partisan that we can't agree on the obvious.
 
I can assure you that there is plenty of doubt.

You can't just deny everything. That's irrational. This is what our intelligence services said...

The deputy attorney general said the conspirators used fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0", to release thousands of stolen emails beginning in June 2016.

They also plotted to hack into the computers of state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and voter software, according to the indictment.

Mr Rosenstein said: "We know that the goal of the conspirators was to have an impact on the election."

The deputy attorney general said all 12 defendants were in the Russian intelligence service, the GRU.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44825345

Your argument is that because our intelligence services have made mistakes in the past, that you can ignore everything they say even when they have very detailed evidence?
 
Listening to Trump take questions from reporters after his pal-up with Putin in Helsinki, it strikes me that Trump takes great pains in his answers to never elevate the US above Russia and to never denigrate Russia. In Trumps world (at least in his public mutterings) there is a strict equivalency between the US and Russia. If Russia is bad, the US is also bad. This is not the principle Trump operates by in relations with for example China, the EU, or the NATO alliance. In such cases the Trump US is always in the right and the others are always in the wrong. But this viewpoint of moral and ideological superiority is never vocalized in regards to Russia despite Putin's Russia being an authoritarian dictatorship that suppresses domestic freedoms and works tirelessly to suppress democracy around the world. Russia is also guilty of violating international treaties and trampling on national sovereignty (Georgia - Crimea/eastern Ukraine), and committing war crimes (carpet/cluster bombing of populated cities) in Syria. Putin's Russian state also extensively meddled in the 2016 US election (12 Russian GRU officers indicted) and is meddling/attacking on a far larger scale now according to Trumps own Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

Trump never-ever scolds Russia for any of this and always drags the US down to Moscow's level. Trump never uses any "Reaganesque" language concerning Putin.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" -- "Mr. Putin, stop the cyber attacks and election meddling!." Never. Ever.

The trusty "Trump doesn't want to scold/insult/embarrass Russia" excuse doesn't wash either because Trump doesn't hesitate to scold/insult/embarrass everyone else.

What is it? Why does Trump always consider Russia and the US as morally/ethically equitable?

To me and since he was first asked about Russia a couple of years ago, Putin has something on Trump. I would venture to say that Trump owes a lot of money to Putin's oligarch banks and that if he does not do as he is told, they will pull the rug out. Many people say that Putin has some dirt on Trump and probably sexual but I think it is a noose made of money that Trump cannot get out of.

Today's meeting just reinforces that idea, given that we have Putin by the bal*s regarding his meddling on the elections and Trump says "Putin says strongly that he is not guilty, and I believe him". Trump doesn't believe anyone else in the world. He has called everyone liars and witch hunters, but he believes Putin is telling the truth. That is so laughable that it makes me puke.

The worst thing is that his trolls (his base) believes anything he says even if it is crystal clear that he is lying through his teeth and bending over for Putin.

It is sickening to see this man as President and then see his lemmings following him blindly. Have the Republicans become suddenly dumb?
 
Last edited:
The intelligence community has a terrible track record.

I'd like to see your analysis of that. Thanks.

Also, too, more whataboutism. Is that all you have? The way this works is simple, and I have a good example. On another thread you tried twice to solve a simple equation and failed twice. So you have a demonstrably terrible record. With whataboutism, I can dismiss anything you find on any other question by saying, "You have a terrible track record. Wrong twice, means wrong this time." But that's stupid - whether you are right or wrong in this case has nothing to do with your demonstrated inability to solve simple equations Y = 0.53X - 0.04, X=1, solve for Y.

You're not saying anything of value.

Not to you, but the rest of us understand the danger of a post-truth world.
 
You can't just deny everything. That's irrational. This is what our intelligence services said...

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44825345

Your argument is that because our intelligence services have made mistakes in the past, that you can ignore everything they say even when they have very detailed evidence?

My argument is that they have terrible track records and there is no reason to trust that there is "very detailed evidence" simply because they say they have "very detailed evidence". I have nothing to gain or lose from the election interference; it's pretty clear that you have something to gain or lose, and this is making you behave irrationally. How long have intelligence communities have used the guises of "national security" for keeping information out of the public, and it's not the first time political hacks use it for their own political gain.
 
I'm not sure what makes you more Patriotic than me, other than your opinion.

No one is questioning your patriotism comrade.
Poster105.jpg
 
I'd like to see your analysis of that. Thanks.

1) The CIA lied about it's torture program: confirm or deny?

Also, too, more whataboutism. Is that all you have? The way this works is simple, and I have a good example. On another thread you tried twice to solve a simple equation and failed twice. So you have a demonstrably terrible record. With whataboutism, I can dismiss anything you find on any other question by saying, "You have a terrible track record. Wrong twice, means wrong this time."

You can try but that is irrelevant. Again, I am not trying to justify anything Trump is doing.

But that's stupid - whether you are right or wrong in this case has nothing to do with your demonstrated inability to solve simple equations Y = 0.53X - 0.04, X=1, solve for Y.

Don't bring examples of your rage quitting into a different topic. It makes you sound bitter.

Not to you, but the rest of us understand the danger of a post-truth world.

I asked for evidence of election interference and you failed to provide it. I'm not sure you understand the danger of a post-truth world.
 
I can assure you that there is plenty of rational doubt; the fact that you can't show one piece of tangible evidence is all that anyone needs to rationally doubt your theories.

Rational doubt about Putin meddling in the election?

Are you really serious? What kind of proof do you need? 25 Russians have been indicted. Do you have any idea how much those Russians could get in defamations suits if they sued the government and won? Indictments only come out after a group of jurors is shown enough evidence to prove that the accused committed a crime. 93% of all indictments have resulted in convictions and many of the 7% that were not convicted got out on technicalities.

and you are saying that there is "PLENTY" of RATIONAL doubt?

How old are you? a teenager perhaps?
 
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.



My argument is that they have terrible track records and there is no reason to trust that there is "very detailed evidence" simply because they say they have "very detailed evidence". I have nothing to gain or lose from the election interference; it's pretty clear that you have something to gain or lose, and this is making you behave irrationally. How long have intelligence communities have used the guises of "national security" for keeping information out of the public, and it's not the first time political hacks use it for their own political gain.

The job of the President is to represent this government with all its foibles and all its failings. Sorry, you can continue "your" line of reasoning all you want to. It crashes against the wall of the job of the President. Ultimately, at least in my mind, you are simply running yourself down the same rathole that Trump is running himself down.

I will say it again and will likely continue saying it until it sinks in across the expanse of at least this web site. We are no longer dealing with ambiguities, the foggy grey areas of law or politics and are down to the clean clear lines of patriotism as an American. Trump is an un-patriotic American. It now only matters who continues to side with him and support him in his unpatriotic ventures and who does not.
 
Rational doubt about Putin meddling in the election?

Are you really serious? What kind of proof do you need? 25 Russians have been indicted.

If you're using an indictment as a substitution for tangible evidence, your evidence is probably not very good.

Do you have any idea how much those Russians could get in defamations suits if they sued the government and won? Indictments only come out after a group of jurors is shown enough evidence to prove that the accused committed a crime. 93% of all indictments have resulted in convictions and that many of the 7% that were not convicted got out on technicalities.

So if someone goes to trial, they are most likely guilty? LMAO. Are you serious?

and you are saying that there is "PLENTY" of RATIONAL doubt?

How old are you? a teenager perhaps?

You haven't said a rational thing! You're arguing that only guilty people go to trial FFS...

I'll even ignore that slight you did at the end because I want you to reflect on how dumb your argument is...
 
Where? Please don't link me to that vox article again. It refutes your notions.

I can assure you that there is plenty of rational doubt; the fact that you can't show one piece of tangible evidence is all that anyone needs to rationally doubt your theories.

The indictment contains many of the details. If you want the actual logs, etc. you'll have to get a job with the Mueller team.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/russia-indictment-20-what-make-muellers-hacking-indictment
 

The correct answer is "irrelevant."

You can try but that is irrelevant. Again, I am not trying to justify anything Trump is doing.

I quoted you, you're lying.

Don't bring examples of your rage quitting into a different topic. It makes you sound bitter.

I didn't quit, and the point is whataboutism is stupid, what people who can't make rational arguments resort to in desperation.

I asked for evidence of election interference and you failed to provide it. I'm not sure you understand the danger of a post-truth world.

No, that's not correct. We've provided evidence, such as multiple agencies, the Senate and an independent investigator all coming to the same conclusion. You just are determined to ignore it. There's a difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom