Putin Personally Involved in Hack - Page 3

NoahFence · 16th December 2016, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Shiner

I think I'm beginning to understand the narrative. It's Trump’s fault that Putin (allegedly) hacked White House comms. It's Putin's fault that Trump was elected.

The current administration are not to be held accountable for this (alleged) massive security breach on their watch. They're just victims like all the whiners who arrogantly lost an election.

That about it?

Aside from being totally wrong with virtually every syllable, you're pretty well spot on.

Quote:

It's Trump’s fault that Putin (allegedly) hacked White House comms.

No, that would be Putin's fault.

Quote:

It's Putin's fault that Trump was elected.

That one sure appears to be right. Well done!

Quote:

The current administration are not to be held accountable for this (alleged) massive security breach on their watch.

They should be held to account more than is currently happening.

Quote:

They're just victims like all the whiners who arrogantly lost an election.

Hyperbole much?

Do you think Russia/Putin had ZERO to do with the election results here?

shuize · 16th December 2016, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

No, your joy at the likely disaster and cheering foreign attacks on the US for the sake of your own profit is what makes it like treason. Did you thank Bin Laden after 9/11 because you had stock in coffin makers? Simply making 'a profit' is not enough to draw that criticism.

"joy at the likely disaster" -- What disaster? You mean when hacks like Paul Krugman hysterically announced that the markets would "never" recover and now we're at all time highs? Yeah, that was terrible.

"cheering foreign attacks" -- I'm not cheering foreign attacks. I was laughing at people like Krugman getting his ass handed to him for his idiotic markets will "never" recover prediction. Now I'm laughing at crybabies on the left equating losing an election with actual terrorism.

"like treason" -- For an ideology that's constantly crying about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings," you folks on the left sure are free with your insults.

Shiner · 16th December 2016, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

.
Hyperbole much?

Do you think Russia/Putin had ZERO to do with the election results here?

I have expressed my suspicions already in this thread. I'm prepared to believe it with proof. Is there any? The point I made in my first post in this thread, was about the source of this latest information. Anonymous. Are there documents in evidence to support the allegations?

I can see how things might all lead to the conspiracy being true, but at this point I fail to see how my 'wait and see' attitude is wrong.

My "hyperbole" was both my commentary on how I read the general consensus of this thread, and also a mocking of same.

"It's Putin's fault that Trump was elected" You agree, yet I'm "virtually" "totally wrong".

To say this, is to excuse the current administration, including the secretary of state and the intelligence network, of their failings to protect the integrity of their national security. It's a systematic failure. I speak from a politically agnostic p.o.v.

If it turns out that the Exxon connection and Putin's meddling, and Trump's compliancy (puppet status?) are proven to be connected and factual, I'll be right there with you, condemning it all. But I won't be any less critical of the current administration for allowing it to happen. As well as the obvious national security issues, there is the question of failure to protect self interests there. It's what I meant about whining and arrogance. If this stuff is all true? They dropped the ball. Obama, Biden, Hillary, et al.

The Clinton emails. Nothing incriminating was found. No fault was found in using the private server. Yet I think it's fair to say that the whole thing did insurmountable damage to her campaign. She knew she was on Putin's list. She always has known. She was advised to use secure gov servers, but she didn't.

It all feels like arrogance to me. And I don't single out Hillary Clinton either. I put it down to the administration, and the Democratic Party. They got too comfortable. Too confident.

tyr_13 · 16th December 2016, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by shuize

"joy at the likely disaster" -- What disaster? You mean when hacks like Paul Krugman hysterically announced that the markets would "never" recover and now we're at all time highs? Yeah, that was terrible.

"cheering foreign attacks" -- I'm not cheering foreign attacks. I was laughing at people like Krugman getting his ass handed to him for his idiotic markets will "never" recover prediction. Now I'm laughing at crybabies on the left equating losing an election with actual terrorism.

"like treason" -- For an ideology that's constantly crying about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings," you folks on the left sure are free with your insults.

You explicitly said you wanted to thank you to Putin for his attack on the US resulting in you making money.

And I equated an attack on the US with an attack on the US. Even if Putin's favorite candidate had not won, it would be worth discussing and countering.

This is the new right wing. Go ahead and attack our democracy as long as I make money in the short term. I was right, you'll pick up the brown shirt as soon as they tell you to.

plague311 · 16th December 2016, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Dude, you have been duped. The same people who told you on the day of election that Killary had a 98% chance of winning are now running these stories. You have to man up and realize that.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take advice from a Putin apologist.

Ziggurat · 16th December 2016, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Oh, so now you're actually defending Obama, because the nuke deal has done more to address that than anything anyone else has proposed that could actually be done successfully. What was that about Obama not doing anything?

No, tyr. This is delusional. Obama has given Iran billions of dollars. He has enabled their nuclear program. The deal is a sham, and anyone who swallows Ben Rhodes' propaganda about it is a rube.

Quote:

Is there any reason at all to believe that Trump would do either of those?

I think Mattis might.

Quote:

Clinton was the one who was going to be harder on Russia.

Sure. She just needs a second reset.

Quote:

Guess it's time to formally address this specific fallacious reasoning that's been repeated incessantly, often in the form of 'stage of grief'.

It's just an ad hom. That's all it is.

Wrong as usual. It's not an ad hom, it's gloating.

Quote:

What exactly do you think you're arguing here? That the EPA is harmful? That we would be better without it? That business would do it better? No, you're just providing a knee-jerk reaction strike rather than deal with the actual criticism.

And what does that actual criticism consist of? Chicken little proclamations about what would happen if there was no EPA at all. But that's not what's going to happen. The real issue is about balance. The EPA has in fact been very harmful on many occasions. It really does need to be reigned in. But Trump won't abolish it. The knee-jerk reaction here is your own position. I'm just mocking it, because it rightly deserves to be mocked.

Quote:

Wow, the irony meters better be turned off. You criticisms apply more to Trump than anyone else yet you constantly fight against the (absolutely true) narrative that Trump's ideas and appointees are going to be disastrous, 'because Obama'.

Obama has been disastrous on a number of fronts. That you not only didn't see it beforehand but can't even recognize it afterwards indicates that your predictions about what will happen under Trump are not to be taken seriously.

Quote:

But attacking the left is more important than country or even your own ideas.

You are in no position to lecture me about partisanship. You're just a more polite version of Tony Stark.

Ziggurat · 16th December 2016, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

You explicitly said you wanted to thank you to Putin for his attack on the US resulting in you making money.

No he didn't. He asked who to thank. And it was obviously a joke, intended to point out how silly it is to assign responsibility for everything to just one person.

logger · 16th December 2016, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No he didn't. He asked who to thank. And it was obviously a joke, intended to point out how silly it is to assign responsibility for everything to just one person.

Tyr doesn't seem to get it, one of those grief stages. They're all running together now.

shuize · 16th December 2016, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

You explicitly said you wanted to thank you to Putin for his attack on the US resulting in you making money.

And I equated an attack on the US with an attack on the US. Even if Putin's favorite candidate had not won, it would be worth discussing and countering.

This is the new right wing. Go ahead and attack our democracy as long as I make money in the short term. I was right, you'll pick up the brown shirt as soon as they tell you to.

Jokingly asking if I should thank Trump or Putin for sending markets to all time highs after left-wing shills like Krugman tried to panic the market with claims that it would "never" recover is something akin to "treason"?

Brace yourselves, folks. Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet.

Ziggurat · 16th December 2016, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by shuize

Brace yourselves, folks. Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet.

They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.

ChrisBFRPKY · 16th December 2016, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Why would Anthony Wiener want to get Donald Trump elected?

Weiner would be drawn to a "deal" with prosecutors to help his current situation more than just being supportive of Trump. There could be some personal stuff going on as well since Huma and Hillary were so close. Chris B.

NoahFence · 16th December 2016, 06:37 PM

Well Trump's biggest sycophant, Kaley whatever on CNN just said putin DID hack us, and that it was "an act of war"

So....

Can we please dispense with the "he didn't do it" crap?

Giz · 16th December 2016, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Well Trump's biggest sycophant, Kaley whatever on CNN just said putin DID hack us, and that it was "an act of war"

So....

Can we please dispense with the "he didn't do it" crap?

Wait, you want us to trust the word of the trumpistas?

NoahFence · 16th December 2016, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Giz

Wait, you want us to trust the word of the trumpistas?

No, it's just clear that if even his sycophants can admit it, we're finally on the same page.

tyr_13 · 16th December 2016, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, tyr. This is delusional. Obama has given Iran billions of dollars. He has enabled their nuclear program. The deal is a sham, and anyone who swallows Ben Rhodes' propaganda about it is a rube.

You're simply wrong. There wasn't a single good alternatives to the deal, which was actually a lot better than we could have realistically hoped for. This has been pointed out to you over and over in other threads, but this thread isn't really about that anyway. 'Don't look at the hacking, it's the Iran nukes!'

Quote:

I think Mattis might.

Oh I think he might want to, but will be limited by Trump's own conflicts, and those of his other appointees.

Quote:

Sure. She just needs a second reset.

You have a quip, not an argument. Putin obviously thought she was a more dangerous foe for him.

Quote:

Wrong as usual. It's not an ad hom, it's gloating.

It can be gloating, but it's been used as an ad hom here as well. A lot.

Quote:

And what does that actual criticism consist of? Chicken little proclamations about what would happen if there was no EPA at all. But that's not what's going to happen. The real issue is about balance. The EPA has in fact been very harmful on many occasions. It really does need to be reigned in. But Trump won't abolish it. The knee-jerk reaction here is your own position. I'm just mocking it, because it rightly deserves to be mocked.

Balance? By appointing someone who has said they want to do exactly what my 'chicken little proclamation' said to head it?

I've seen you make this kind of pedantic argument before, but an EPA that doesn't do anything isn't any better than an abolished EPA. It can in fact be much worse. Selective enforcement against those not in the government's (Trump's) pocket, while looking the other way for the friends can encourage responsible actors out of industry.

You want knee-jerk? That would be your constant deflection and hand-waving from all criticisms of Trump. The crazy thing is I know you have criticisms of him, but it's so much more important to you to be attack 'the left', that you will go out of your way to not understand what is meant in a criticism and apply this much harsher reading to every point made against the right. You think Trump's appointments will 'balance' the EPA? That's more wrong than saying it will literally be abolished.

Quote:

Obama has been disastrous on a number of fronts. That you not only didn't see it beforehand but can't even recognize it afterwards indicates that your predictions about what will happen under Trump are not to be taken seriously.

That you keep asserting that Obama has been disastrous has more to do with your agenda and beliefs than with reality. It really burns you up that he's been as popular and successful as he has been, otherwise why apply this weird standard of holding him to doing great on everything? He's done better than I expected, especially with Republicans dispensing with civic duty and good faith efforts.

And what does this have to do with what we can and should do about Putin's attacks? Your cry of 'Obama hasn't fixed it!' is Captain Obvious useless.

Quote:

You are in no position to lecture me about partisanship. You're just a more polite version of Tony Stark.

Oh, thank you for saying I'm more polite than Tony Stark, but your assessment of such things has long since ceased being something I put weight in. It actually upsets me a great deal that I have to admit that Tony and Travis have been more right about so many on the right than I have been. I still hold out hope for the independents though.

You've given up your science and critical thinking advocacy to make room for political tribalism on climate and pollution issues. You've given up on making good faith arguments on politics because gloating and lecturing about lying in threads you lied to everyone in. So don't be surprised that I no longer believe it won't go down as it has with so many cult of personality demagogues in so many other cases. Unless Putin's favorite loses power, he'll drag people into doing abhorrent things. Well, more abhorrent. Already got you to try deflecting from interference in our elections.

tyr_13 · 16th December 2016, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by shuize

Jokingly asking if I should thank Trump or Putin for sending markets to all time highs after left-wing shills like Krugman tried to panic the market with claims that it would "never" recover is something akin to "treason"?

Brace yourselves, folks. Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet.

I know you were joking, but you were joking on the square. You really do care more about making a quick buck than the integrity of our elections.

It's also poor form to use hyperbole then bitch about someone using your own hyperbole back at you.

But yes, brace yourself. Trump's going to either flame out fast, or take your portfolio down with the rest of the country's influence.

Minoosh · 16th December 2016, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

What do you think should be done about this foreign attack on the US?

The current CNN story says Obama is vowing retaliation, then includes no quote from Obama saying anything like that.

This is very irresponsible IMO.

Link in case someone can find something I missed.

WilliamSeger · 16th December 2016, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

The current CNN story says Obama is vowing retaliation, then includes no quote from Obama saying anything like that.

This is very irresponsible IMO.

Link in case someone can find something I missed.

I saw a clip of him saying there would be retaliation at "a time of our choosing." He said some would be made public after the fact, but some would be a "direct" message to Russia that wouldn't be public.

psionl0 · 16th December 2016, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

The same people who told you on the day of election that Killary had a 98% chance of winning are now running these stories.

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

http://i.imgur.com/R9GpjSs.jpg

The only true polls are the bookies. Just prior to the election, most appear to have offered odds of about 1:5 on a Clinton win suggesting that they believed that they believed there was a greater than 80% chance of a Clinton win. (http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/07/us-ele...trump-6241099/).

Either way, the pollsters were way off though the bookies would have cleaned up if most bettors put their money on Hillary.

Giz · 16th December 2016, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

You're simply wrong. There wasn't a single good alternatives to the deal, which was actually a lot better than we could have realistically hoped for. This has been pointed out to you over and over in other threads, but this thread isn't really about that anyway. 'Don't look at the hacking, it's the Iran nukes!'

Oh I think he might want to, but will be limited by Trump's own conflicts, and those of his other appointees.

You have a quip, not an argument. Putin obviously thought she was a more dangerous foe for him.

It can be gloating, but it's been used as an ad hom here as well. A lot.

Balance? By appointing someone who has said they want to do exactly what my 'chicken little proclamation' said to head it?

I've seen you make this kind of pedantic argument before, but an EPA that doesn't do anything isn't any better than an abolished EPA. It can in fact be much worse. Selective enforcement against those not in the government's (Trump's) pocket, while looking the other way for the friends can encourage responsible actors out of industry.

You want knee-jerk? That would be your constant deflection and hand-waving from all criticisms of Trump. The crazy thing is I know you have criticisms of him, but it's so much more important to you to be attack 'the left', that you will go out of your way to not understand what is meant in a criticism and apply this much harsher reading to every point made against the right. You think Trump's appointments will 'balance' the EPA? That's more wrong than saying it will literally be abolished.

That you keep asserting that Obama has been disastrous has more to do with your agenda and beliefs than with reality. It really burns you up that he's been as popular and successful as he has been, otherwise why apply this weird standard of holding him to doing great on everything? He's done better than I expected, especially with Republicans dispensing with civic duty and good faith efforts.

And what does this have to do with what we can and should do about Putin's attacks? Your cry of 'Obama hasn't fixed it!' is Captain Obvious useless.

Oh, thank you for saying I'm more polite than Tony Stark, but your assessment of such things has long since ceased being something I put weight in. It actually upsets me a great deal that I have to admit that Tony and Travis have been more right about so many on the right than I have been. I still hold out hope for the independents though.

You've given up your science and critical thinking advocacy to make room for political tribalism on climate and pollution issues. You've given up on making good faith arguments on politics because gloating and lecturing about lying in threads you lied to everyone in. So don't be surprised that I no longer believe it won't go down as it has with so many cult of personality demagogues in so many other cases. Unless Putin's favorite loses power, he'll drag people into doing abhorrent things. Well, more abhorrent. Already got you to try deflecting from interference in our elections.

That's one of the more ridiculous posts I've read.

tyr_13 · 16th December 2016, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

I saw a clip of him saying there would be retaliation at "a time of our choosing." He said some would be made public after the fact, but some would be a "direct" message to Russia that wouldn't be public.

Yes, but Obama, so obviously he's 'just talking' or even if people agree it happens, that it's 'because Trump made him' or some such nonsense.

tyr_13 · 16th December 2016, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Giz

That's one of the more ridiculous posts I've read.

But you did read it.

Cain · 16th December 2016, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That was only part of it. Tyr specifically claimed that Trump got "bent over" in the deal. Maybe other people did, but not Trump.

A distinction without a meaningful difference here. If Trump knew what he was doing, even if it was acting in a wholly self-interested manner to the detriment of others, then it's not really ignorant, is it?

The narrative can't tolerate Trump not being stupid or ignorant.

I'm sorry that words have meaning, and I'm sorry I'm not going to say much more. I'm rapidly losing interest in this one-sided discussion. At best you can argue that Trump is rationally ignorant.

Quote:

And that effect was... nothing.

This is just ignorance, and not the rational kind. Clinton's comments fueled anti-Putin protests after his sham elections. Autocrats are sensitive to those things because they can get out of hand, and the penalty is not nature walks in New York.

Someone shoots at you -- misses. Was it nothing? Suppose Clinton won the election despite Putin's meddling. Was the effect... nothing?

Quote:

Tu quoque much?

Who do you think you're fooling? This is pathetic and goes back to the party hack sophistry. Trump lies, brokers a bad deal -- it's good optics. Obama is naive, Bush has "balls."

Quote:

It shouldn't have been close. It should have been Clinton in a blow-out. But it wasn't, in large part because of the insular world view of Clinton and the rest of the Democratic machine.

And a clear majority of Americans believe in angels when it shouldn't be close. Or a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. People are stupid.

In terms of the probable outcome of the election, you're again trying to re-write the narrative. It was always close, especially after Comey's announcement. Close but relatively safe, so much so even the fantastically narcissistic Orange One thought he was going down in defeat.

Quote:

Because of trade, China has far less intrinsic conflict of interest with the US than Russia does. China benefits enormously from good relations with us, and wants global energy prices to be low. Russia, not so much. She gets by on her oil exports to Europe, and benefits when oil prices skyrocket. China is likely to be stronger than Russia, and there are certainly areas of conflict with Russia, but it isn't implacably hostile in anything close to the same manner.

So, wrong again.

Again, this is like playing chess against a pigeon. You're going to **** all over the board and then strut around like you won.

Trade with China is a good thing, but dependency goes both ways (and it's no secret whose economy is ascendant). Reliance on oil is a reflection of Russian weakness. Speaking of economies, Russia's is smaller than Canada's. Welcome to the last thirty years.

shuize · 16th December 2016, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

But yes, brace yourself. Trump's going to either flame out fast, or take your portfolio down with the rest of the country's influence.

Actually, I should be fine either way. But thanks for your concern.

By the way, what do you think about this quote? I'm thinking of making it my new signature.

"If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never."

-- Paul Krugman, Nov. 9, 2016

Venom · 16th December 2016, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Old but trusty hardware.

http://i.imgur.com/4KhsHpt.jpg

Putin's way ahead of the US in that regard, don't worry.

Suspect the FSB in the 1999 bombings? "Western provocation"
Protest Ukraine intrusion? "Western provocation"
Alexsander Litvinenko? Anna Politkovskaya? Boris Nemtsov... "Western provocation"

Putin's been playing this game for 16 years now and you and every other RT watcher keep falling for it.

Ziggurat · 17th December 2016, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I know you were joking, but you were joking on the square. You really do care more about making a quick buck than the integrity of our elections.

It's also poor form to use hyperbole then bitch about someone using your own hyperbole back at you.

But yes, brace yourself. Trump's going to either flame out fast, or take your portfolio down with the rest of the country's influence.

First, you can't read minds. Second, you don't know what the word "hyperbole" means. His joke wasn't hyperbole. Third, your stock predictions aren't any more reliable than Krugman's.

applecorped · 17th December 2016, 05:46 AM

Who knew Joe McCarthy was a liberal.

3point14 · 17th December 2016, 05:52 AM

Read the title and though 'Dacre and Putin in torrid love affair'

Hlafordlaes · 17th December 2016, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by shuize

Jokingly asking if I should thank Trump or Putin for sending markets to all time highs after left-wing shills like Krugman tried to panic the market with claims that it would "never" recover is something akin to "treason"?

Brace yourselves, folks. Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet.

Let's see. Promise to deregulate further and lower taxes on the wealthy. This translates into higher returns, so boom! Stock market was really booming last time, fueled by deregulation and Greenspan's belief that rational libertarians would self-regulate (Ha, mega ha!) before it tanked. Careful what you celebrate. Too bad no other factors are taken into account, such as this is the umpteenth time Republicans try to sell this as a government revenue enhancer, trickle-down whatever. Apparently, the deficit is only a problem when a darkie is in there messing with white man's money. We've gone from Cheney's "deficits don't matter, and no, I won't fess up to how much the war costs" added to BushII's Medicare-financed mega-vote-purchase, to "Obama is ruining your wife's and daughter's chances at living a decent life by trashing the joint," and now back to Trump's magic formulae.

So let me ask the value-driven, meet-your-commitments (if poor) Republicans: what would it take for you to apply such notions to all the tax havens around the world, stuffed with tax scam money, and funds from human, animal and drug trafficking? Oh, I see, some pals have cash in there, riiiight. Let's just stick to criticizing poor blacks.

Hlafordlaes · 17th December 2016, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by IIIClovisIII

... Putin's been playing this game for 16 years now and you and every other RT watcher keep falling for it.

Amen. I wonder just how many international borders he has to violate, from Georgia to Moldova to the Ukraine, before people realize this is like Sudetenland, then Poland... Putin is a crass authoritarian bent on reestablishing empire, the constant Russia obsession from Czar to Commissar.

Meanwhile, Trump, basically saying "Latvia? Who needs freaking Latvia?" This, while Russia and Iran, that old US buddy, are getting really chummy. Ever heard them, Russia and Iran, discuss pricing oil in dollars as a step toward displacing the dollar as reserve currency? Yup, that was around a decade ago. Current events are part of a long-term strategy, being faced by mostly short-term minds in the West. Be nice if someone in the GOP picked up a history book once in a while, sheesh. And Condi Rice, so silent these days? And I thought she had some brains; must've gone to a highest bidder.

tyr_13 · 17th December 2016, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

First, you can't read minds. Second, you don't know what the word "hyperbole" means. His joke wasn't hyperbole. Third, your stock predictions aren't any more reliable than Krugman's.

First, I only need to read the posts. The dismissal of an attack on the US election because 'I made money', is consistent with that poster's political posts and in the context of this discussion with the 'stage of grief' hand-wave (such a versatile accusation that grief thing) means yes, they are trying to dismiss the entire issue. They are joking on the square.

Second, yes, it's hyperbole. The only way it isn't hyperbole (an over statement) is if they really do think the money they make off the stock fluctuations is more important, and they really do want to know if they should thank Putin for his interference in the US election. It's over-stating the importance of their money and over stating their reaction to the interference.

Lastly, my stock predictions aren't exactly stock as they are overall economic ones, which the stock market may or may not reflect. Shuize seems to believe they'll do well no matter what, because stocks. It's both selfish and incorrect. What did deregulation help last time? Oh right, it's always led to bubbles and crashes.

But because it distracts from the issue at hand, Putin's interference in the US election and his preference for Trump, you can't defend it strongly enough. Putin thinks he'll get away with more with a Trump administration, and he appears correct. Trump has talked about walking away from NATO allies, under the false accusation that the ones around Russia aren't paying their fair share. Trump has business interests in Russia, and his appointees have even more. He'll let them take and keep oil fields, ally with Iran, and at the same time talk about opposing Iran. Trump's ignorant ego-driven choices will damage the US influence abroad, and this can only help Russia. Trump's (more importantly his appointee's) opposition to moves away from fossil fuels will keep them more important for longer, keeping Russia's oil and gas economy salient longer. Hopefully Trump and Putin will get some real pushback from Congress, but as it's in the hands of the Republicans right now, I don't see that happening unless Trump does flame out and get removed from office.

Mycroft · 17th December 2016, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

Amen. I wonder just how many international borders he has to violate, from Georgia to Moldova to the Ukraine, before people realize this is like Sudetenland, then Poland... Putin is a crass authoritarian bent on reestablishing empire, the constant Russia obsession from Czar to Commissar.

Meanwhile, Trump, basically saying "Latvia? Who needs freaking Latvia?" This, while Russia and Iran, that old US buddy, are getting really chummy. Ever heard them, Russia and Iran, discuss pricing oil in dollars as a step toward displacing the dollar as reserve currency? Yup, that was around a decade ago. Current events are part of a long-term strategy, being faced by mostly short-term minds in the West. Be nice if someone in the GOP picked up a history book once in a while, sheesh. And Condi Rice, so silent these days? And I thought she had some brains; must've gone to a highest bidder.

This.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

First, I only need to read the posts. The dismissal of an attack on the US election because 'I made money', is consistent with that poster's political posts and in the context of this discussion with the 'stage of grief' hand-wave (such a versatile accusation that grief thing) means yes, they are trying to dismiss the entire issue. They are joking on the square.

Second, yes, it's hyperbole. The only way it isn't hyperbole (an over statement) is if they really do think the money they make off the stock fluctuations is more important, and they really do want to know if they should thank Putin for his interference in the US election. It's over-stating the importance of their money and over stating their reaction to the interference.

Lastly, my stock predictions aren't exactly stock as they are overall economic ones, which the stock market may or may not reflect. Shuize seems to believe they'll do well no matter what, because stocks. It's both selfish and incorrect. What did deregulation help last time? Oh right, it's always led to bubbles and crashes.

But because it distracts from the issue at hand, Putin's interference in the US election and his preference for Trump, you can't defend it strongly enough. Putin thinks he'll get away with more with a Trump administration, and he appears correct. Trump has talked about walking away from NATO allies, under the false accusation that the ones around Russia aren't paying their fair share. Trump has business interests in Russia, and his appointees have even more. He'll let them take and keep oil fields, ally with Iran, and at the same time talk about opposing Iran. Trump's ignorant ego-driven choices will damage the US influence abroad, and this can only help Russia. Trump's (more importantly his appointee's) opposition to moves away from fossil fuels will keep them more important for longer, keeping Russia's oil and gas economy salient longer. Hopefully Trump and Putin will get some real pushback from Congress, but as it's in the hands of the Republicans right now, I don't see that happening unless Trump does flame out and get removed from office.

And also this.

LSSBB · 17th December 2016, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

The only true polls are the bookies. Just prior to the election, most appear to have offered odds of about 1:5 on a Clinton win suggesting that they believed that they believed there was a greater than 80% chance of a Clinton win. (http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/07/us-ele...trump-6241099/).

Either way, the pollsters were way off though the bookies would have cleaned up if most bettors put their money on Hillary.

Yeah, but what was the spread?

Skeptic Ginger · 17th December 2016, 05:42 PM

Is there a different thread, Trump personally involved?

Just going to put some evidence down here, not claiming proof or certainty:

Fortune: What We Actually Know About Trump's Relationship with Putin and Russia

We know about Trump's comments during the campaign. We know about Manafort and Tillerson. We know about the hacking.

But this detail has been lost in the wind:

Quote:

In August, The New York Times reported that a hand-written ledger of cash payments made by Ukraine’s ousted government listed Manafort as being paid $12.7 million. Ukrainian prosecutors said the payments detailed in the ledger were an effort to obscure bribes.

A few days later, The Associated Press reported that Manafort and Gates had orchestrated a secret Ukrainian lobbying campaign in Washington. Participants said the men had sought to obscure the true backer of the work — Ukraine’s pro-Russian ruling party — by routing lobbying funds through a nonprofit front group.

Manafort and Gates denied having been involved in the lobbying. But emails obtained by the AP explicitly showed Gates giving orders to the lobbyists.

Manafort departed the campaign the following day.

Time: Donald Trump’s Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia

Quote:

The truth, as several columnists and reporters have painstakingly shown since the first hack of a Clinton-affiliated group took place in late May or early June, is that several of Trump’s businesses outside of Russia are entangled with Russian financiers inside Putin’s circle.

So, yes, it’s true that Trump has failed to land a business venture inside Russia. But the real truth is that, as major banks in America stopped lending him money following his many bankruptcies, the Trump organization was forced to seek financing from non-traditional institutions. Several had direct ties to Russian financial interests in ways that have raised eyebrows. What’s more, several of Trump’s senior advisors have business ties to Russia or its satellite politicians.

“The Trump-Russia links beneath the surface are even more extensive,” Max Boot wrote in the Los Angeles Times. “Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies.”

Again, we know about the bank connections, Manafort and Tillerson. How about these others?

Quote:

What’s more, three of Trump’s top advisors all have extensive financial and business ties to Russian financiers, wrote Boot, the former editor of the Op Ed page of the Wall Street Journal and now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations....

Trump’s foreign policy advisor Carter Page has his own business ties to the state-controlled Russian oil giant Gazprom. … Another Trump foreign policy advisor, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, flew to Moscow last year to attend a gala banquet celebrating Russia Today, the Kremlin’s propaganda channel, and was seated at the head table near Putin.

It gets more complicated everywhere you look.

Quote:

The most obvious example is Trump Soho, a complicated web of financial intrigue that has played out in court. A lawsuit claimed that the business group, Bayrock, underpinning Trump Soho was supported by criminal Russian financial interests. While its initial claim absolved Trump of knowledge of those activities, Trump himself later took on the group’s principal partner as a senior advisor in the Trump organization.

“Tax evasion and money-laundering are the core of Bayrock’s business model,” the lawsuit said of the financiers behind Trump Soho. The financing came from Russian-affiliated business interests that engaged in criminal activities, it said. “(But) there is no evidence Trump took any part in, or knew of, their racketeering.”...

But Bayrock wasn’t just involved with Trump Soho. It financed multiple Trump projects around the world, Foer wrote. “(Trump) didn’t just partner with Bayrock; the company embedded with him. Bayrock put together deals for mammoth Trump-named, Trump-managed projects—two in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a resort in Phoenix, the Trump SoHo in New York.”

But, as The New York Times has reported, that was only the beginning of the Trump organization’s entanglement with Russian financiers. Trump was quite taken with Bayrock’s founder, Tevfik Arif, a former Soviet-era commerce official originally from Kazakhstan.

“Bayrock, which was developing commercial properties in Brooklyn, proposed that Mr. Trump license his name to hotel projects in Florida, Arizona and New York, including Trump SoHo,” the Times reported. “The other development partner for Trump SoHo was the Sapir Organization, whose founder, Tamir Sapir, was from the former Soviet republic of Georgia.”

The web's tangles go on and on.

Quote:

The Times also reported that federal court records recently released showed yet another link to Russian financial interests in Trump businesses. A Bayrock official “brokered a $50 million investment in Trump SoHo and three other Bayrock projects by an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians ‘in favor with’ President Vladimir V. Putin,’” the Times reported. “The Icelandic company, FL Group, was identified in a Bayrock investor presentation as a ‘strategic partner,’ along with Alexander Mashkevich, a billionaire once charged in a corruption case involving fees paid by a Belgian company seeking business in Kazakhstan; that case was settled with no admission of guilt.”

Trump Soho was so complicated that Bayrock’s finance chief, Jody Kriss, sued it for fraud.

LSSBB · 17th December 2016, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Is there a different thread, Trump personally involved?

Just going to put some evidence down here, not claiming proof or certainty:

Fortune: What We Actually Know About Trump's Relationship with Putin and Russia

We know about Trump's comments during the campaign. We know about Manafort and Tillerson. We know about the hacking.

But this detail has been lost in the wind:

Time: Donald Trump’s Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia
Again, we know about the bank connections, Manafort and Tillerson. How about these others?

It gets more complicated everywhere you look.The web's tangles go on and on.

I read all that. Trump and followers/apologists would just say "conspiracy theories" or just attack the messenger.

psionl0 · 17th December 2016, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Yeah, but what was the spread?

It is hard to find line-odds now that the election is over. The only thing I can find is this:

Quote:

The chalk has Clinton at +135 to get in between 47-49.99% of the popular vote. There is more value on betting on the one-time First Lady to get 50-52.99%, which holds a +210 prop.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/trump-...ines-favorite/

LSSBB · 18th December 2016, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

It is hard to find line-odds now that the election is over. The only thing I can find is this:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/trump-...ines-favorite/

Come to think of it, a spread by state would be a better way to look at the odds.

shuize · 18th December 2016, 04:26 PM

Why do I suspect the left's newfound love for "integrity of our elections" won't actually translate into support for voter ID laws?

WilliamSeger · 18th December 2016, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by shuize

Why do I suspect the left's newfound love for "integrity of our elections" won't actually translate into support for voter ID laws?

Why do I suspect that you aren't actually interested in valid arguments against voter ID laws?

logger · 18th December 2016, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Why do I suspect that you aren't actually interested in valid arguments against voter ID laws?

Because they aren't valid?
No one on the right thinks leftist voters are too dumb to get an ID, especially when they already have ID's.

16th December 2016, 02:54 PM	#82
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,989	Originally Posted by tyr_13 No, your joy at the likely disaster and cheering foreign attacks on the US for the sake of your own profit is what makes it like treason. Did you thank Bin Laden after 9/11 because you had stock in coffin makers? Simply making 'a profit' is not enough to draw that criticism. "joy at the likely disaster" -- What disaster? You mean when hacks like Paul Krugman hysterically announced that the markets would "never" recover and now we're at all time highs? Yeah, that was terrible. "cheering foreign attacks" -- I'm not cheering foreign attacks. I was laughing at people like Krugman getting his ass handed to him for his idiotic markets will "never" recover prediction. Now I'm laughing at crybabies on the left equating losing an election with actual terrorism. "like treason" -- For an ideology that's constantly crying about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings," you folks on the left sure are free with your insults.
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,989

16th December 2016, 02:57 PM	#83
Shiner Motor Mouth Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 2,796	Originally Posted by NoahFence . Hyperbole much? Do you think Russia/Putin had ZERO to do with the election results here? I have expressed my suspicions already in this thread. I'm prepared to believe it with proof. Is there any? The point I made in my first post in this thread, was about the source of this latest information. Anonymous. Are there documents in evidence to support the allegations? I can see how things might all lead to the conspiracy being true, but at this point I fail to see how my 'wait and see' attitude is wrong. My "hyperbole" was both my commentary on how I read the general consensus of this thread, and also a mocking of same. "It's Putin's fault that Trump was elected" You agree, yet I'm "virtually" "totally wrong". To say this, is to excuse the current administration, including the secretary of state and the intelligence network, of their failings to protect the integrity of their national security. It's a systematic failure. I speak from a politically agnostic p.o.v. If it turns out that the Exxon connection and Putin's meddling, and Trump's compliancy (puppet status?) are proven to be connected and factual, I'll be right there with you, condemning it all. But I won't be any less critical of the current administration for allowing it to happen. As well as the obvious national security issues, there is the question of failure to protect self interests there. It's what I meant about whining and arrogance. If this stuff is all true? They dropped the ball. Obama, Biden, Hillary, et al. The Clinton emails. Nothing incriminating was found. No fault was found in using the private server. Yet I think it's fair to say that the whole thing did insurmountable damage to her campaign. She knew she was on Putin's list. She always has known. She was advised to use secure gov servers, but she didn't. It all feels like arrogance to me. And I don't single out Hillary Clinton either. I put it down to the administration, and the Democratic Party. They got too comfortable. Too confident.
Shiner Motor Mouth Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 2,796	Last edited by Shiner; 16th December 2016 at 03:01 PM.

16th December 2016, 03:18 PM	#84
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,433	Originally Posted by shuize "joy at the likely disaster" -- What disaster? You mean when hacks like Paul Krugman hysterically announced that the markets would "never" recover and now we're at all time highs? Yeah, that was terrible. "cheering foreign attacks" -- I'm not cheering foreign attacks. I was laughing at people like Krugman getting his ass handed to him for his idiotic markets will "never" recover prediction. Now I'm laughing at crybabies on the left equating losing an election with actual terrorism. "like treason" -- For an ideology that's constantly crying about "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings," you folks on the left sure are free with your insults. You explicitly said you wanted to thank you to Putin for his attack on the US resulting in you making money. And I equated an attack on the US with an attack on the US. Even if Putin's favorite candidate had not won, it would be worth discussing and countering. This is the new right wing. Go ahead and attack our democracy as long as I make money in the short term. I was right, you'll pick up the brown shirt as soon as they tell you to.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

16th December 2016, 03:43 PM	#85
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 8,478	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Dude, you have been duped. The same people who told you on the day of election that Killary had a 98% chance of winning are now running these stories. You have to man up and realize that. You'll have to excuse me if I don't take advice from a Putin apologist.
	__________________ "Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

16th December 2016, 04:46 PM	#86
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by tyr_13 Oh, so now you're actually defending Obama, because the nuke deal has done more to address that than anything anyone else has proposed that could actually be done successfully. What was that about Obama not doing anything? No, tyr. This is delusional. Obama has given Iran billions of dollars. He has enabled their nuclear program. The deal is a sham, and anyone who swallows Ben Rhodes' propaganda about it is a rube. Quote: Is there any reason at all to believe that Trump would do either of those? I think Mattis might. Quote: Clinton was the one who was going to be harder on Russia. Sure. She just needs a second reset. Quote: Guess it's time to formally address this specific fallacious reasoning that's been repeated incessantly, often in the form of 'stage of grief'. It's just an ad hom. That's all it is. Wrong as usual. It's not an ad hom, it's gloating. Quote: What exactly do you think you're arguing here? That the EPA is harmful? That we would be better without it? That business would do it better? No, you're just providing a knee-jerk reaction strike rather than deal with the actual criticism. And what does that actual criticism consist of? Chicken little proclamations about what would happen if there was no EPA at all. But that's not what's going to happen. The real issue is about balance. The EPA has in fact been very harmful on many occasions. It really does need to be reigned in. But Trump won't abolish it. The knee-jerk reaction here is your own position. I'm just mocking it, because it rightly deserves to be mocked. Quote: Wow, the irony meters better be turned off. You criticisms apply more to Trump than anyone else yet you constantly fight against the (absolutely true) narrative that Trump's ideas and appointees are going to be disastrous, 'because Obama'. Obama has been disastrous on a number of fronts. That you not only didn't see it beforehand but can't even recognize it afterwards indicates that your predictions about what will happen under Trump are not to be taken seriously. Quote: But attacking the left is more important than country or even your own ideas. You are in no position to lecture me about partisanship. You're just a more polite version of Tony Stark.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

16th December 2016, 02:02 PM	#81
NoahFence Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 22,131	Originally Posted by Shiner I think I'm beginning to understand the narrative. It's Trump’s fault that Putin (allegedly) hacked White House comms. It's Putin's fault that Trump was elected. The current administration are not to be held accountable for this (alleged) massive security breach on their watch. They're just victims like all the whiners who arrogantly lost an election. That about it? Aside from being totally wrong with virtually every syllable, you're pretty well spot on. Quote: It's Trump’s fault that Putin (allegedly) hacked White House comms. No, that would be Putin's fault. Quote: It's Putin's fault that Trump was elected. That one sure appears to be right. Well done! Quote: The current administration are not to be held accountable for this (alleged) massive security breach on their watch. They should be held to account more than is currently happening. Quote: They're just victims like all the whiners who arrogantly lost an election. Hyperbole much? Do you think Russia/Putin had ZERO to do with the election results here?

16th December 2016, 04:49 PM	#87
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by tyr_13 You explicitly said you wanted to thank you to Putin for his attack on the US resulting in you making money. No he didn't. He asked who to thank. And it was obviously a joke, intended to point out how silly it is to assign responsibility for everything to just one person.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

16th December 2016, 05:05 PM	#88
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by Ziggurat No he didn't. He asked who to thank. And it was obviously a joke, intended to point out how silly it is to assign responsibility for everything to just one person. Tyr doesn't seem to get it, one of those grief stages. They're all running together now.
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

16th December 2016, 05:22 PM	#89
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,989	Originally Posted by tyr_13 You explicitly said you wanted to thank you to Putin for his attack on the US resulting in you making money. And I equated an attack on the US with an attack on the US. Even if Putin's favorite candidate had not won, it would be worth discussing and countering. This is the new right wing. Go ahead and attack our democracy as long as I make money in the short term. I was right, you'll pick up the brown shirt as soon as they tell you to. Jokingly asking if I should thank Trump or Putin for sending markets to all time highs after left-wing shills like Krugman tried to panic the market with claims that it would "never" recover is something akin to "treason"? Brace yourselves, folks. Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet.
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,989	Last edited by shuize; 16th December 2016 at 05:34 PM.

16th December 2016, 05:31 PM	#90
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by shuize Brace yourselves, folks. Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet. They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

16th December 2016, 05:47 PM	#91
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,667	Originally Posted by NoahFence Why would Anthony Wiener want to get Donald Trump elected? Weiner would be drawn to a "deal" with prosecutors to help his current situation more than just being supportive of Trump. There could be some personal stuff going on as well since Huma and Hillary were so close. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,667

16th December 2016, 06:37 PM	#92
NoahFence Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 22,131	Well Trump's biggest sycophant, Kaley whatever on CNN just said putin DID hack us, and that it was "an act of war" So.... Can we please dispense with the "he didn't do it" crap?

16th December 2016, 06:45 PM	#93
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709	Originally Posted by NoahFence Well Trump's biggest sycophant, Kaley whatever on CNN just said putin DID hack us, and that it was "an act of war" So.... Can we please dispense with the "he didn't do it" crap? Wait, you want us to trust the word of the trumpistas?
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709

16th December 2016, 06:54 PM	#94
NoahFence Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 22,131	Originally Posted by Giz Wait, you want us to trust the word of the trumpistas? No, it's just clear that if even his sycophants can admit it, we're finally on the same page.

16th December 2016, 07:32 PM	#95
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,433	Originally Posted by Ziggurat No, tyr. This is delusional. Obama has given Iran billions of dollars. He has enabled their nuclear program. The deal is a sham, and anyone who swallows Ben Rhodes' propaganda about it is a rube. You're simply wrong. There wasn't a single good alternatives to the deal, which was actually a lot better than we could have realistically hoped for. This has been pointed out to you over and over in other threads, but this thread isn't really about that anyway. 'Don't look at the hacking, it's the Iran nukes!' Quote: I think Mattis might. Oh I think he might want to, but will be limited by Trump's own conflicts, and those of his other appointees. Quote: Sure. She just needs a second reset. You have a quip, not an argument. Putin obviously thought she was a more dangerous foe for him. Quote: Wrong as usual. It's not an ad hom, it's gloating. It can be gloating, but it's been used as an ad hom here as well. A lot. Quote: And what does that actual criticism consist of? Chicken little proclamations about what would happen if there was no EPA at all. But that's not what's going to happen. The real issue is about balance. The EPA has in fact been very harmful on many occasions. It really does need to be reigned in. But Trump won't abolish it. The knee-jerk reaction here is your own position. I'm just mocking it, because it rightly deserves to be mocked. Balance? By appointing someone who has said they want to do exactly what my 'chicken little proclamation' said to head it? I've seen you make this kind of pedantic argument before, but an EPA that doesn't do anything isn't any better than an abolished EPA. It can in fact be much worse. Selective enforcement against those not in the government's (Trump's) pocket, while looking the other way for the friends can encourage responsible actors out of industry. You want knee-jerk? That would be your constant deflection and hand-waving from all criticisms of Trump. The crazy thing is I know you have criticisms of him, but it's so much more important to you to be attack 'the left', that you will go out of your way to not understand what is meant in a criticism and apply this much harsher reading to every point made against the right. You think Trump's appointments will 'balance' the EPA? That's more wrong than saying it will literally be abolished. Quote: Obama has been disastrous on a number of fronts. That you not only didn't see it beforehand but can't even recognize it afterwards indicates that your predictions about what will happen under Trump are not to be taken seriously. That you keep asserting that Obama has been disastrous has more to do with your agenda and beliefs than with reality. It really burns you up that he's been as popular and successful as he has been, otherwise why apply this weird standard of holding him to doing great on everything? He's done better than I expected, especially with Republicans dispensing with civic duty and good faith efforts. And what does this have to do with what we can and should do about Putin's attacks? Your cry of 'Obama hasn't fixed it!' is Captain Obvious useless. Quote: You are in no position to lecture me about partisanship. You're just a more polite version of Tony Stark. Oh, thank you for saying I'm more polite than Tony Stark, but your assessment of such things has long since ceased being something I put weight in. It actually upsets me a great deal that I have to admit that Tony and Travis have been more right about so many on the right than I have been. I still hold out hope for the independents though. You've given up your science and critical thinking advocacy to make room for political tribalism on climate and pollution issues. You've given up on making good faith arguments on politics because gloating and lecturing about lying in threads you lied to everyone in. So don't be surprised that I no longer believe it won't go down as it has with so many cult of personality demagogues in so many other cases. Unless Putin's favorite loses power, he'll drag people into doing abhorrent things. Well, more abhorrent. Already got you to try deflecting from interference in our elections.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

16th December 2016, 07:35 PM	#96
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,433	Originally Posted by shuize Jokingly asking if I should thank Trump or Putin for sending markets to all time highs after left-wing shills like Krugman tried to panic the market with claims that it would "never" recover is something akin to "treason"? Brace yourselves, folks. Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet. I know you were joking, but you were joking on the square. You really do care more about making a quick buck than the integrity of our elections. It's also poor form to use hyperbole then bitch about someone using your own hyperbole back at you. But yes, brace yourself. Trump's going to either flame out fast, or take your portfolio down with the rest of the country's influence.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

16th December 2016, 08:07 PM	#97
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,239	Originally Posted by tyr_13 What do you think should be done about this foreign attack on the US? The current CNN story says Obama is vowing retaliation, then includes no quote from Obama saying anything like that. This is very irresponsible IMO. Link in case someone can find something I missed.

16th December 2016, 08:11 PM	#98
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,092	Originally Posted by Minoosh The current CNN story says Obama is vowing retaliation, then includes no quote from Obama saying anything like that. This is very irresponsible IMO. Link in case someone can find something I missed. I saw a clip of him saying there would be retaliation at "a time of our choosing." He said some would be made public after the fact, but some would be a "direct" message to Russia that wouldn't be public.

16th December 2016, 08:11 PM	#99
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 17,010	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress The same people who told you on the day of election that Killary had a 98% chance of winning are now running these stories. Originally Posted by Childlike Empress http://i.imgur.com/R9GpjSs.jpg The only true polls are the bookies. Just prior to the election, most appear to have offered odds of about 1:5 on a Clinton win suggesting that they believed that they believed there was a greater than 80% chance of a Clinton win. (http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/07/us-ele...trump-6241099/). Either way, the pollsters were way off though the bookies would have cleaned up if most bettors put their money on Hillary.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

16th December 2016, 09:01 PM	#100
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709	Originally Posted by tyr_13 You're simply wrong. There wasn't a single good alternatives to the deal, which was actually a lot better than we could have realistically hoped for. This has been pointed out to you over and over in other threads, but this thread isn't really about that anyway. 'Don't look at the hacking, it's the Iran nukes!' Oh I think he might want to, but will be limited by Trump's own conflicts, and those of his other appointees. You have a quip, not an argument. Putin obviously thought she was a more dangerous foe for him. It can be gloating, but it's been used as an ad hom here as well. A lot. Balance? By appointing someone who has said they want to do exactly what my 'chicken little proclamation' said to head it? I've seen you make this kind of pedantic argument before, but an EPA that doesn't do anything isn't any better than an abolished EPA. It can in fact be much worse. Selective enforcement against those not in the government's (Trump's) pocket, while looking the other way for the friends can encourage responsible actors out of industry. You want knee-jerk? That would be your constant deflection and hand-waving from all criticisms of Trump. The crazy thing is I know you have criticisms of him, but it's so much more important to you to be attack 'the left', that you will go out of your way to not understand what is meant in a criticism and apply this much harsher reading to every point made against the right. You think Trump's appointments will 'balance' the EPA? That's more wrong than saying it will literally be abolished. That you keep asserting that Obama has been disastrous has more to do with your agenda and beliefs than with reality. It really burns you up that he's been as popular and successful as he has been, otherwise why apply this weird standard of holding him to doing great on everything? He's done better than I expected, especially with Republicans dispensing with civic duty and good faith efforts. And what does this have to do with what we can and should do about Putin's attacks? Your cry of 'Obama hasn't fixed it!' is Captain Obvious useless. Oh, thank you for saying I'm more polite than Tony Stark, but your assessment of such things has long since ceased being something I put weight in. It actually upsets me a great deal that I have to admit that Tony and Travis have been more right about so many on the right than I have been. I still hold out hope for the independents though. You've given up your science and critical thinking advocacy to make room for political tribalism on climate and pollution issues. You've given up on making good faith arguments on politics because gloating and lecturing about lying in threads you lied to everyone in. So don't be surprised that I no longer believe it won't go down as it has with so many cult of personality demagogues in so many other cases. Unless Putin's favorite loses power, he'll drag people into doing abhorrent things. Well, more abhorrent. Already got you to try deflecting from interference in our elections. That's one of the more ridiculous posts I've read.
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709

16th December 2016, 09:20 PM	#101
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,433	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger I saw a clip of him saying there would be retaliation at "a time of our choosing." He said some would be made public after the fact, but some would be a "direct" message to Russia that wouldn't be public. Yes, but Obama, so obviously he's 'just talking' or even if people agree it happens, that it's 'because Trump made him' or some such nonsense.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

16th December 2016, 09:21 PM	#102
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,433	Originally Posted by Giz That's one of the more ridiculous posts I've read. But you did read it.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

16th December 2016, 09:24 PM	#103
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 14,278	Originally Posted by Ziggurat That was only part of it. Tyr specifically claimed that Trump got "bent over" in the deal. Maybe other people did, but not Trump. A distinction without a meaningful difference here. If Trump knew what he was doing, even if it was acting in a wholly self-interested manner to the detriment of others, then it's not really ignorant, is it? The narrative can't tolerate Trump not being stupid or ignorant. I'm sorry that words have meaning, and I'm sorry I'm not going to say much more. I'm rapidly losing interest in this one-sided discussion. At best you can argue that Trump is rationally ignorant. Quote: And that effect was... nothing. This is just ignorance, and not the rational kind. Clinton's comments fueled anti-Putin protests after his sham elections. Autocrats are sensitive to those things because they can get out of hand, and the penalty is not nature walks in New York. Someone shoots at you -- misses. Was it nothing? Suppose Clinton won the election despite Putin's meddling. Was the effect... nothing? Quote: Tu quoque much? Who do you think you're fooling? This is pathetic and goes back to the party hack sophistry. Trump lies, brokers a bad deal -- it's good optics. Obama is naive, Bush has "balls." Quote: It shouldn't have been close. It should have been Clinton in a blow-out. But it wasn't, in large part because of the insular world view of Clinton and the rest of the Democratic machine. And a clear majority of Americans believe in angels when it shouldn't be close. Or a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. People are stupid. In terms of the probable outcome of the election, you're again trying to re-write the narrative. It was always close, especially after Comey's announcement. Close but relatively safe, so much so even the fantastically narcissistic Orange One thought he was going down in defeat. Quote: Because of trade, China has far less intrinsic conflict of interest with the US than Russia does. China benefits enormously from good relations with us, and wants global energy prices to be low. Russia, not so much. She gets by on her oil exports to Europe, and benefits when oil prices skyrocket. China is likely to be stronger than Russia, and there are certainly areas of conflict with Russia, but it isn't implacably hostile in anything close to the same manner. So, wrong again. Again, this is like playing chess against a pigeon. You're going to **** all over the board and then strut around like you won. Trade with China is a good thing, but dependency goes both ways (and it's no secret whose economy is ascendant). Reliance on oil is a reflection of Russian weakness. Speaking of economies, Russia's is smaller than Canada's. Welcome to the last thirty years.
	__________________ April 13th, 2018: Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

16th December 2016, 11:18 PM	#104
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,989	Originally Posted by tyr_13 But yes, brace yourself. Trump's going to either flame out fast, or take your portfolio down with the rest of the country's influence. Actually, I should be fine either way. But thanks for your concern. By the way, what do you think about this quote? I'm thinking of making it my new signature. "If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never." -- Paul Krugman, Nov. 9, 2016
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,989

16th December 2016, 11:50 PM	#105
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,901	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Old but trusty hardware. http://i.imgur.com/4KhsHpt.jpg Putin's way ahead of the US in that regard, don't worry. Suspect the FSB in the 1999 bombings? "Western provocation" Protest Ukraine intrusion? "Western provocation" Alexsander Litvinenko? Anna Politkovskaya? Boris Nemtsov... "Western provocation" Putin's been playing this game for 16 years now and you and every other RT watcher keep falling for it.

17th December 2016, 12:25 AM	#106
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,353	Originally Posted by tyr_13 I know you were joking, but you were joking on the square. You really do care more about making a quick buck than the integrity of our elections. It's also poor form to use hyperbole then bitch about someone using your own hyperbole back at you. But yes, brace yourself. Trump's going to either flame out fast, or take your portfolio down with the rest of the country's influence. First, you can't read minds. Second, you don't know what the word "hyperbole" means. His joke wasn't hyperbole. Third, your stock predictions aren't any more reliable than Krugman's.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

17th December 2016, 05:46 AM	#107
applecorped Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 20,145	Who knew Joe McCarthy was a liberal.
applecorped Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 20,145

17th December 2016, 05:52 AM	#108
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20,616	Read the title and though 'Dacre and Putin in torrid love affair'
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20,616	__________________ Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

17th December 2016, 06:00 AM	#109
Hlafordlaes Disorder of Kilopi Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: State of Flux Posts: 14,678	Originally Posted by shuize Jokingly asking if I should thank Trump or Putin for sending markets to all time highs after left-wing shills like Krugman tried to panic the market with claims that it would "never" recover is something akin to "treason"? Brace yourselves, folks. Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet. Let's see. Promise to deregulate further and lower taxes on the wealthy. This translates into higher returns, so boom! Stock market was really booming last time, fueled by deregulation and Greenspan's belief that rational libertarians would self-regulate (Ha, mega ha!) before it tanked. Careful what you celebrate. Too bad no other factors are taken into account, such as this is the umpteenth time Republicans try to sell this as a government revenue enhancer, trickle-down whatever. Apparently, the deficit is only a problem when a darkie is in there messing with white man's money. We've gone from Cheney's "deficits don't matter, and no, I won't fess up to how much the war costs" added to BushII's Medicare-financed mega-vote-purchase, to "Obama is ruining your wife's and daughter's chances at living a decent life by trashing the joint," and now back to Trump's magic formulae. So let me ask the value-driven, meet-your-commitments (if poor) Republicans: what would it take for you to apply such notions to all the tax havens around the world, stuffed with tax scam money, and funds from human, animal and drug trafficking? Oh, I see, some pals have cash in there, riiiight. Let's just stick to criticizing poor blacks.

17th December 2016, 06:09 AM	#110
Hlafordlaes Disorder of Kilopi Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: State of Flux Posts: 14,678	Originally Posted by IIIClovisIII ... Putin's been playing this game for 16 years now and you and every other RT watcher keep falling for it. Amen. I wonder just how many international borders he has to violate, from Georgia to Moldova to the Ukraine, before people realize this is like Sudetenland, then Poland... Putin is a crass authoritarian bent on reestablishing empire, the constant Russia obsession from Czar to Commissar. Meanwhile, Trump, basically saying "Latvia? Who needs freaking Latvia?" This, while Russia and Iran, that old US buddy, are getting really chummy. Ever heard them, Russia and Iran, discuss pricing oil in dollars as a step toward displacing the dollar as reserve currency? Yup, that was around a decade ago. Current events are part of a long-term strategy, being faced by mostly short-term minds in the West. Be nice if someone in the GOP picked up a history book once in a while, sheesh. And Condi Rice, so silent these days? And I thought she had some brains; must've gone to a highest bidder.

17th December 2016, 10:49 AM	#111
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,433	Originally Posted by Ziggurat First, you can't read minds. Second, you don't know what the word "hyperbole" means. His joke wasn't hyperbole. Third, your stock predictions aren't any more reliable than Krugman's. First, I only need to read the posts. The dismissal of an attack on the US election because 'I made money', is consistent with that poster's political posts and in the context of this discussion with the 'stage of grief' hand-wave (such a versatile accusation that grief thing) means yes, they are trying to dismiss the entire issue. They are joking on the square. Second, yes, it's hyperbole. The only way it isn't hyperbole (an over statement) is if they really do think the money they make off the stock fluctuations is more important, and they really do want to know if they should thank Putin for his interference in the US election. It's over-stating the importance of their money and over stating their reaction to the interference. Lastly, my stock predictions aren't exactly stock as they are overall economic ones, which the stock market may or may not reflect. Shuize seems to believe they'll do well no matter what, because stocks. It's both selfish and incorrect. What did deregulation help last time? Oh right, it's always led to bubbles and crashes. But because it distracts from the issue at hand, Putin's interference in the US election and his preference for Trump, you can't defend it strongly enough. Putin thinks he'll get away with more with a Trump administration, and he appears correct. Trump has talked about walking away from NATO allies, under the false accusation that the ones around Russia aren't paying their fair share. Trump has business interests in Russia, and his appointees have even more. He'll let them take and keep oil fields, ally with Iran, and at the same time talk about opposing Iran. Trump's ignorant ego-driven choices will damage the US influence abroad, and this can only help Russia. Trump's (more importantly his appointee's) opposition to moves away from fossil fuels will keep them more important for longer, keeping Russia's oil and gas economy salient longer. Hopefully Trump and Putin will get some real pushback from Congress, but as it's in the hands of the Republicans right now, I don't see that happening unless Trump does flame out and get removed from office.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

17th December 2016, 11:13 AM	#112
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 19,819	Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes Amen. I wonder just how many international borders he has to violate, from Georgia to Moldova to the Ukraine, before people realize this is like Sudetenland, then Poland... Putin is a crass authoritarian bent on reestablishing empire, the constant Russia obsession from Czar to Commissar. Meanwhile, Trump, basically saying "Latvia? Who needs freaking Latvia?" This, while Russia and Iran, that old US buddy, are getting really chummy. Ever heard them, Russia and Iran, discuss pricing oil in dollars as a step toward displacing the dollar as reserve currency? Yup, that was around a decade ago. Current events are part of a long-term strategy, being faced by mostly short-term minds in the West. Be nice if someone in the GOP picked up a history book once in a while, sheesh. And Condi Rice, so silent these days? And I thought she had some brains; must've gone to a highest bidder. This. Originally Posted by tyr_13 First, I only need to read the posts. The dismissal of an attack on the US election because 'I made money', is consistent with that poster's political posts and in the context of this discussion with the 'stage of grief' hand-wave (such a versatile accusation that grief thing) means yes, they are trying to dismiss the entire issue. They are joking on the square. Second, yes, it's hyperbole. The only way it isn't hyperbole (an over statement) is if they really do think the money they make off the stock fluctuations is more important, and they really do want to know if they should thank Putin for his interference in the US election. It's over-stating the importance of their money and over stating their reaction to the interference. Lastly, my stock predictions aren't exactly stock as they are overall economic ones, which the stock market may or may not reflect. Shuize seems to believe they'll do well no matter what, because stocks. It's both selfish and incorrect. What did deregulation help last time? Oh right, it's always led to bubbles and crashes. But because it distracts from the issue at hand, Putin's interference in the US election and his preference for Trump, you can't defend it strongly enough. Putin thinks he'll get away with more with a Trump administration, and he appears correct. Trump has talked about walking away from NATO allies, under the false accusation that the ones around Russia aren't paying their fair share. Trump has business interests in Russia, and his appointees have even more. He'll let them take and keep oil fields, ally with Iran, and at the same time talk about opposing Iran. Trump's ignorant ego-driven choices will damage the US influence abroad, and this can only help Russia. Trump's (more importantly his appointee's) opposition to moves away from fossil fuels will keep them more important for longer, keeping Russia's oil and gas economy salient longer. Hopefully Trump and Putin will get some real pushback from Congress, but as it's in the hands of the Republicans right now, I don't see that happening unless Trump does flame out and get removed from office. And also this.
	__________________ Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda

17th December 2016, 01:10 PM	#113
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by psionl0 The only true polls are the bookies. Just prior to the election, most appear to have offered odds of about 1:5 on a Clinton win suggesting that they believed that they believed there was a greater than 80% chance of a Clinton win. (http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/07/us-ele...trump-6241099/). Either way, the pollsters were way off though the bookies would have cleaned up if most bettors put their money on Hillary. Yeah, but what was the spread?
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

17th December 2016, 05:42 PM	#114
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,998	Is there a different thread, Trump personally involved? Just going to put some evidence down here, not claiming proof or certainty: Fortune: What We Actually Know About Trump's Relationship with Putin and Russia We know about Trump's comments during the campaign. We know about Manafort and Tillerson. We know about the hacking. But this detail has been lost in the wind: Quote: In August, The New York Times reported that a hand-written ledger of cash payments made by Ukraine’s ousted government listed Manafort as being paid $12.7 million. Ukrainian prosecutors said the payments detailed in the ledger were an effort to obscure bribes. A few days later, The Associated Press reported that Manafort and Gates had orchestrated a secret Ukrainian lobbying campaign in Washington. Participants said the men had sought to obscure the true backer of the work — Ukraine’s pro-Russian ruling party — by routing lobbying funds through a nonprofit front group. Manafort and Gates denied having been involved in the lobbying. But emails obtained by the AP explicitly showed Gates giving orders to the lobbyists. Manafort departed the campaign the following day. Time: Donald Trump’s Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia Quote: The truth, as several columnists and reporters have painstakingly shown since the first hack of a Clinton-affiliated group took place in late May or early June, is that several of Trump’s businesses outside of Russia are entangled with Russian financiers inside Putin’s circle. So, yes, it’s true that Trump has failed to land a business venture inside Russia. But the real truth is that, as major banks in America stopped lending him money following his many bankruptcies, the Trump organization was forced to seek financing from non-traditional institutions. Several had direct ties to Russian financial interests in ways that have raised eyebrows. What’s more, several of Trump’s senior advisors have business ties to Russia or its satellite politicians. “The Trump-Russia links beneath the surface are even more extensive,” Max Boot wrote in the Los Angeles Times. “Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies.” Again, we know about the bank connections, Manafort and Tillerson. How about these others? Quote: What’s more, three of Trump’s top advisors all have extensive financial and business ties to Russian financiers, wrote Boot, the former editor of the Op Ed page of the Wall Street Journal and now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.... Trump’s foreign policy advisor Carter Page has his own business ties to the state-controlled Russian oil giant Gazprom. … Another Trump foreign policy advisor, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, flew to Moscow last year to attend a gala banquet celebrating Russia Today, the Kremlin’s propaganda channel, and was seated at the head table near Putin. It gets more complicated everywhere you look. Quote: The most obvious example is Trump Soho, a complicated web of financial intrigue that has played out in court. A lawsuit claimed that the business group, Bayrock, underpinning Trump Soho was supported by criminal Russian financial interests. While its initial claim absolved Trump of knowledge of those activities, Trump himself later took on the group’s principal partner as a senior advisor in the Trump organization. “Tax evasion and money-laundering are the core of Bayrock’s business model,” the lawsuit said of the financiers behind Trump Soho. The financing came from Russian-affiliated business interests that engaged in criminal activities, it said. “(But) there is no evidence Trump took any part in, or knew of, their racketeering.”... But Bayrock wasn’t just involved with Trump Soho. It financed multiple Trump projects around the world, Foer wrote. “(Trump) didn’t just partner with Bayrock; the company embedded with him. Bayrock put together deals for mammoth Trump-named, Trump-managed projects—two in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a resort in Phoenix, the Trump SoHo in New York.” But, as The New York Times has reported, that was only the beginning of the Trump organization’s entanglement with Russian financiers. Trump was quite taken with Bayrock’s founder, Tevfik Arif, a former Soviet-era commerce official originally from Kazakhstan. “Bayrock, which was developing commercial properties in Brooklyn, proposed that Mr. Trump license his name to hotel projects in Florida, Arizona and New York, including Trump SoHo,” the Times reported. “The other development partner for Trump SoHo was the Sapir Organization, whose founder, Tamir Sapir, was from the former Soviet republic of Georgia.” The web's tangles go on and on. Quote: The Times also reported that federal court records recently released showed yet another link to Russian financial interests in Trump businesses. A Bayrock official “brokered a $50 million investment in Trump SoHo and three other Bayrock projects by an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians ‘in favor with’ President Vladimir V. Putin,’” the Times reported. “The Icelandic company, FL Group, was identified in a Bayrock investor presentation as a ‘strategic partner,’ along with Alexander Mashkevich, a billionaire once charged in a corruption case involving fees paid by a Belgian company seeking business in Kazakhstan; that case was settled with no admission of guilt.” Trump Soho was so complicated that Bayrock’s finance chief, Jody Kriss, sued it for fraud.

17th December 2016, 07:02 PM	#115
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Is there a different thread, Trump personally involved? Just going to put some evidence down here, not claiming proof or certainty: Fortune: What We Actually Know About Trump's Relationship with Putin and Russia We know about Trump's comments during the campaign. We know about Manafort and Tillerson. We know about the hacking. But this detail has been lost in the wind: Time: Donald Trump’s Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia Again, we know about the bank connections, Manafort and Tillerson. How about these others? It gets more complicated everywhere you look.The web's tangles go on and on. I read all that. Trump and followers/apologists would just say "conspiracy theories" or just attack the messenger.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles