U.S. Politics: Russian Around

[All-for-Joffrey]

The whole point here is that a Trump campaign NSA is now saying that this came from Trump himself. Are you saying that the campaign adopted a laissez-faire stance towards everything in that program, except one item of distinct interest to the Russians, which Manafort then asked Trump himself to go in and get involved with? 

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying -- except technically everything officially "comes from Trump himself." Trump after all does officially have to sign off on any major policy positions that his staffers take under his campaign. So basically you're making way too much hay out of the fact that his national security adviser said that it came from Trump himself. 

I mean, how much can you possibly want to believe that there's nothing here?

I think the question is rather how much can you possibly want to believe that there's a grand unified conspiracy here beyond the scandals we already have. 

So yea, the language changed to Obama's policy but none of this makes sense for Trump to do. Fine, you don't see the connections and it's all hysteria but that timeline looks really fucking weird to me and I'm sure it does to investigators. Now, will it amount to anything? Is there any actual proof? I don't know. Bu constantly bringing up the point that Trump's policy change which was singular and came out of nowhere, that benefited Russia in a Republican platform that previously did not is no big deal because the prior President, who he was not running against (Clinton was more pro-hawk on Russia), believed in a similar policy, does not pass the logic test to me.

 

Yes, it doesn't make sense for Trump to do, as I already pointed out ad.fucking.nauseum. And that's because of Paul.fucking.Manafort and his ties to Yanukovych (and via Yanukovych, the Kremlin.) And yes conflicts of interest are always a big deal. 

And again, I was not saying that the fact that it brought Trump's position in line with Obama makes it any more acceptable. I was pointing out the actual fucking policy in question because MSNBC decided not to report it and most outlets have left the impression that this was actual language that the Trump camp inserted in the GOP platform instead of language they didn't like that they killed. Omitting what the actual policy was makes the story out to be even more damning than it actually is because if reinforces the "Putin's puppet" narrative which isn't really holding water based on the lack of actual pro-Russia policy shifts since Trump took office. 

[Mexal]

For the record, Maddow did report it. It was highlighted on the screen on her show last night when she went through it. She talked about what language was softened. No idea why that isn't in the article but it was in her show.

Aldo, given there are multiple investigations going on, do you really think Trump is going to make more pro-Russian policy shifts now? I mean, that makes so little sense logically that I'm surprised it's in your brain.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

And again, I was not saying that the fact that it brought Trump's position in line with Obama makes it any more acceptable. I was pointing out the actual fucking policy in question because MSNBC decided not to report it and most outlets have left the impression that this was actual language that the Trump camp inserted in the GOP platform instead of language they didn't like that they killed. Omitting what the actual policy was makes the story out to be even more damning than it actually is because if reinforces the "Putin's puppet" narrative which isn't really holding water based on the lack of actual pro-Russia policy shifts since Trump took office. 

The Trump administration has been really weird about Russia since he took office. On the one hand, Tillerson and Mattis both came out and explicitly said that the Crimea needs to be given back to the Ukraine, but there was also that weird-ass document about removing sanctions that came from Cohen. Trump still is almost insanely positive about Putin to the point of slagging the US to Bill O'Reilly. He's been completely mum on the Russians breaking their treaty. And he's still not 100% on the Russian hacking story, and changes that whenever he gets a chance to. 

He certainly hasn't been 100% pro-Russia, but he's been far more pro-Russia than Obama was with far less actual reason, as Russia has been either completely doing jack-all or actively breaking the treaties with the US. 

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Aldo, given there are multiple investigations going on, do you really think Trump is going to make more pro-Russian policy shifts now? I mean, that makes so little sense logically that I'm surprised it's in your brain.

Between McMaster as NSA and now Huntsman as the ambassador to Russia, it seems like Trump's realized he needs to follow mainstream Russia-skeptic policy. The early public reports from Moscow are that they aren't happy at all about Huntsman.

[James Arryn]

A4J-

re: conspiracy beyond the scandals we already have, er...those are kind of the point with regards to the conspiracy. Trump guys keep having contacts with Russians and lying about it. Every intel agency has stated that the Russians were putting a lot of money and effort into rigging the election for Trump.

There's also a pattern emerging of 'look over there!' whenever these guys are caught lying. As people always say about conspiracies that do get pulled into the light, it's always the cover-up attempt that sets off alarms for the investigators and leads to getting caught. Same thing happened with Watergate; no one originally thought the break-in was connected to the Ovsl Office or that this was just the top of the iceberg. Investigators really started to pay attention because of the way the WH handled the situation, ie lying, launching counter-attacks on the press/intelligence community/judiciary and throwing up all kinds of distractions/smokescreens and calling it all partisan politics. Sound familiar?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

And again, I was not saying that the fact that it brought Trump's position in line with Obama makes it any more acptable. I was pointing out the actual fucking policy in question because MSNBC decided not to report it and most outlets have left the impression that this was actual language that the Trump camp inserted in the GOP platform instead of language they didn't like that they killed. Omitting what the actual policy was makes the story out to be even more damning than it actually is because if reinforces the "Putin's puppet" narrative which isn't really holding water based on the lack of actual pro-Russia policy shifts since Trump took office. 

These aren't the droids we're looking for, clearly...

https://media.giphy.com/media/l2JJKs3I69qfaQleE/giphy.gif

[All-for-Joffrey]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We have a report that says that Trump personally ordered the change, per one of his aides. That would be the evidence. 

Except the accusation is that Trump was/is colluding with Russia and this is not evidence that proves that. All this is evidence of is the fact that the GOP nominee who knows very little about foreign policy or how the world fucking works ordered a policy change at the behest of his pro-Russia campaign manager. Not exactly shocking here. For the record, the whole "Putin's puppet" narrative also completely ignores the fact that Trump was constantly bashing Russia in 2015 and early 2016 over the Iran deal -- before Manafort became his campaign manager and before he hired people like Roger Stone, Carter Page, etc. Gee, I wonder what the connection is there? 

Either  Trump doesn't care that much and is easily manipulated by people who are actively working for Russian interests or Trump does care, but neither is a good look.

Yes, both these things are true but that also goes for things on any other foreign policy issue, not just Russia. (IE: China and his call to the President of Taiwan which was in line with hard line China hawks working for him like Preibus or his chest-thumping on Iran thanks to Flynn, Mattis and basically the entire DC foreign policy establishment.) This is different than saying that Trump was actively colluding with the Russians and/or Russia has compromising information to blackmail Trump. 

1. Hillary Clinton doesn't exist anymore so emails/Benghazi aren't a crutch. 

Not a crutch to deflect Trump's own misdeeds and shortcoming, no, but that obviously was not my point for drawing the Benghazi/email comparison. The point is that you're mimicking what the GOP did by taking the kernel of an issue and drawing ridiculous claims out of it to target a politician. Again, read the Russia Conspiracy Trap article -- I can't recommend it highly enough. This is time, energy, and media space that's better used on discussing substantive policy issues that actually affect people's lives. It's also not a winning electoral strategy going into 2018 and 2020. 

2. There isn't a million different Trump scandals to talk about

Uh....I don't know what planet you're living on, but yes, yes there are a million different Trump scandals to talk about. Yet all anyone wants to talk about these days seem to be Russia, Russia, Russia. Hell, I came into this thread to post about the Yemen shit show and instead I get drawn into another absurd discussion about whether or not Trump is Putin's puppet. 

 

3. The former NSA resigned after 28 days for lying about conversations with Russian officials and the sitting Attorney General recused himself after lying to Congress about conversations with Russian officials

4. More information has been investigated and more information has been reported on to add to the connections like Manafort's protege with Russian intelligence connections flying to the US twice to talk with Manafort and claiming to help soften the language in the Republican platform

Investigations take time. One piece leads to another which leads to another. The financial picture takes a long time to work through when you have shell companies and offshore accounts and more shell companies. This shit takes time and each day we learn another piece of the puzzle. You might think it's irrelevant and adds up to nothing but it doesn't seem that way. Coincidences happen.

Yes. And these are all part of the millions of aforementioned Trump scandals. But they don't warrant ignoring things like Pruitt's or Pence's use of private email, or Mnuchin's illegal home foreclosures. Or the actual policy issues at hand. 

Coincidences happen. But if you believe this many connections are just coincidence, I'd love to sell you the moon.

You do realize this is a classic argument that conspiracy theory proponents use, right? (IE: Look at all these people who are dead in connection to the Clintons -- it must all be part of a grand Clinton conspiracy to assassinate them = look at all these dead Russians in mysterious circumstances -- it must be related to the election.) 

And just to tie this all to actual substantive policy, how about someone tell me one actual policy change that Trump has made that's favorable to Putin so far? Obviously he's ruled out providing lethal aid to Ukraine, but that's hardly a negative and he hasn't done anything proactively to make US policy more favorable to Russia (IE: he hasn't abandoned support for Ukraine, hasn't cozied up to Assad, hasn't backed down from trying to provoke a war with Iran.) 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Uh....I don't know what planet you're living on, but yes, yes there are a million different Trump scandals to talk about. Yet all anyone wants to talk about these days seem to be Russia, Russia, Russia. Hell, I came into this thread to post about the Yemen shit show and instead I get drawn into another absurd discussion about whether or not Trump is Putin's puppet. 

Why do you think that is? Do you think any aspect of the "Yemen Shitshow" is likely to get Trump impeached?

[All-for-Joffrey]

Kalbear, you need to look at the actual policies, which are still in line with the Obama status quo. Not the rhetoric. 
 

Quote

The Trump administration has been really weird about Russia since he took office. On the one hand, Tillerson and Mattis both came out and explicitly said that the Crimea needs to be given back to the Ukraine, but there was also that weird-ass document about removing sanctions that came from Cohen

A sanctions removal proposal from another aide with Russia conflicts of interest which Trump did not put into effect. His administration has also made it clear -- both from the White House press secretary and Nikki Haley -- that they will not remove sanctions on Russia until Russia complies with the Minsk Agreement. I was wary that Trump would remove sanctions in January and early February as much as the next person, but at this point it's pretty clear that that likely won't happen unless Russia pulls out of Ukraine. 

Quote

Trump still is almost insanely positive about Putin to the point of slagging the US to Bill O'Reilly.

Again, more rhetoric, not actual policy. But that wasn't so much about being "positive about Putin" as using Putin-esque rhetoric to point out that the US also commits war crimes/human rights abuses and deflect from the allegations against him/the fact that Russia disclosed DNC documents to aide Trump in the election. 

 

Quote

 He's been completely mum on the Russians breaking their treaty.

He's mum on far too many foreign policy issues, including North Korea. That doesn't mean he's a North Korea puppet. He's just an inept commander in chief. And anyway, his Vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just told Congress that the missile deployment is a clear violation of the treaty. 

Quote

And he's still not 100% on the Russian hacking story, and changes that whenever he gets a chance to.

Yeah, but that would have to do with the fact that Russia disclosed the hacks to benefit him in an election where he couldn't even win the popular vote. That means he has too much of an ego to acknowledge the basic fact that he's not the "winner" he makes himself out to be, not that he's Putin's puppet. 

 

[denstorebog]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Why do you think that is? Do you think any aspect of the "Yemen Shitshow" is likely to get Trump impeached?

To be fair, pretty much the only thing that's likely to get Trump impeached is low poll numbers. Whatever happens with this, someone else will be sacrificed.

[All-for-Joffrey]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Why do you think that is? Do you think any aspect of the "Yemen Shitshow" is likely to get Trump impeached?

Ding ding ding. 

So clearly we must devote 100% of our attention all to Russia, all the time. Fuck everything else -- no matter how egregious it is. And if you dare to discuss any policy issues that affect people's lives, you're either a Putin apologist or "hand waiving" the Trump campaign's ties to the Kremlin and/or Russian attempts to sway the election. Glad to see the "resistance" is alive and well. Again, if you haven't read the whole thing, please go back and read the Russia Conspiracy Trap. It's one of the most important editorials I've read all month. It explicitly addresses your mentality. 

P.S. You don't have the votes to impeach Trump. But sure, keep riding on that dream -- I'm sure that's a great campaign strategy going into 2018 and 2020 to get the votes to actually get rid of Trump. 

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Why do you think that is? Do you think any aspect of the "Yemen Shitshow" is likely to get Trump impeached?

The yemen shitshow is also a lot less of a direct criticism of Trump.  It's not like he is, or is expected to be, a military strategist.

If he's taking a direct hand in some of these other items, it's only natural that they are higher visibility topics.

We have plenty of dead civilians due to drone strikes over the last 15 or so years.  Disregard for civilians lives in the middle east is hardly a Trump specific concern.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Kalbear, you need to look at the actual policies, which are still in line with the Obama status quo. Not the rhetoric. 
 

A sanctions removal proposal from another aide with Russia conflicts of interest which Trump did not put into effect. His administration has also made it clear -- both from the White House press secretary and Nikki Haley -- that they will not remove sanctions on Russia until Russia complies with the Minsk Agreement. I was wary that Trump would remove sanctions in January and early February as much as the next person, but at this point it's pretty clear that that likely won't happen unless Russia pulls out of Ukraine. 

Again, more rhetoric, not actual policy. But that wasn't so much about being "positive about Putin" as using Putin-esque rhetoric to point out that the US also commits war crimes/human rights abuses and deflect from the allegations against him/the fact that Russia disclosed DNC documents to aide Trump in the election. 

 

He's mum on far too many foreign policy issues, including North Korea. That doesn't mean he's a North Korea puppet. He's just an inept commander in chief. And anyway, his Vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just told Congress that the missile deployment is a clear violation of the treaty. 

Yeah, but that would have to do with the fact that Russia disclosed the hacks to benefit him in an election where he couldn't even win the popular vote. That means he has too much of an ego to acknowledge the basic fact that he's not the "winner" he makes himself out to be, not that he's Putin puppets. 

 

 You can make the argument that the Obama status quo has been maintained because of the controversy though. If all of this was occurring in the absence of a controversy, you'd have a point.

[All-for-Joffrey]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

The yemen shitshow is also a lot less of a direct criticism of Trump.  It's not like he is, or is expected to be, a military strategist.

If he's taking a direct hand in some of these other items, it's only natural that they are higher visibility topics.

We have plenty of dead civilians due to drone strikes over the last 15 or so years.  Disregard for civilians lives in the middle east is hardly a Trump specific concern.

 

True but part of the story is that Obama at least had token guidelines to purportedly avoid civilian casualties (even if they expanded the definition of combatant to anyone over the age of 16 regardless of whether or not they were actually civilians) and the Trump administration seems to have completely ditched even those modest guidelines. It's also a basic question of aptitude, knowledge, and competence from both Trump and top-level officials in his administration. The President had to sign off on this particular raid -- for good reason. Nobody thought about the fact that they the actual targets might not be with AQAP and even if they were, they were sending ground troops into a village that has seen repeated Houthi-pro-Hadi clashes with Emirati troops who are also bombing Yemen ensuring that the soldiers they sent in were pretty much fighting against the entire fucking village. 

Oh, and then they lied about the intent of the raid, saying that it was to get intelligence -- even though it seems like there wasn't any actual actionable intelligence they found. 

[All-for-Joffrey]

You can make the argument that the Obama status quo has been maintained because of the controversy though. If all of this was occurring in the absence of a controversy, you'd have a point.

This is fair. Again, as The Russia Conspiracy Trap points out, if it weren't for this we wouldn't have gotten rid of Flynn and gotten McMaster and Fiona Hill instead. But that doesn't mean everything has to be about Russia 100% of the time at the expense of everything else and that we should overreach by hurling baseless accusations when what's already there (IE: perjury, Kremlin-linked conflicts of interest) among campaign staffers and cabinet members) is damaging enough. 

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

True but part of the story is that Obama at least had token guidelines to purportedly avoid civilian casualties (even if they expanded the definition of combatant to anyone over the age of 16 regardless of whether or not they were actually civilians) . 

I'm sure that's a great comfort to all the relatives of the dead civilians, including the parents of the children.

 

Quote

and the Trump administration seems to have completely ditched even those modest guidelines.

Is there evidence of this?

Quote

It's also a basic question of aptitude, knowledge, and competence from both Trump and top-level officials in his administration. The President had to sign off on this particular raid -- for good reason. Nobody thought about the fact that they the actual targets might not be with AQAP and even if they were, they were sending ground troops into a village that has seen repeated Houthi-pro-Hadi clashes with Emirati troops who are also bombing Yemen ensuring that the soldiers they sent in were pretty much fighting against the entire fucking village

Again, from where I'm sitting those are military questions that he isn't really as directly accountable for, assuming it's even true.  No offense, but you seem to be using a bit of a double standard here when it comes to what constitutes evidence.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Ding ding ding. 

So clearly we must devote 100% of our attention all to Russia, all the time. Fuck everything else -- no matter how egregious it is. And if you dare to discuss any policy issues that affect people's lives, you're either a Putin apologist or "hand waiving" the Trump campaign's ties to the Kremlin and/or Russian attempts to sway the election. Glad to see the "resistance" is alive and well. Again, if you haven't read the whole thing, please go back and read the Russia Conspiracy Trap. It's one of the most important editorials I've read all month. It explicitly addresses your mentality. 

P.S. You don't have the votes to impeach Trump. But sure, keep riding on that dream -- I'm sure that's a great campaign strategy going into 2018 and 2020 to get the votes to actually get rid of Trump. 

I read your article. It was as large an an example of hand waving as any you've provided. What makes you think we can't follow more than one story at a time? How is giving this story attention a "Fuck everything else" equation? 

Sure, Impeachment may be a pipe dream, but who can say how this will play out? A man can dream.

[Mexal]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I read your article. It was as large an an example of hand waving as any you've provided. What makes you think we can't follow more than one story at a time? How is giving this story attention a "Fuck everything else" equation? 

Sure, Impeachment may be a pipe dream, but who can say how this will play out? A man can dream.

Especially when the investigation finds something new every day.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Quote

Is there evidence of this?

Circumstantial -- the executive branch never discloses this stuff even though it should. Aside from Trump's campaign comments where he literally called on killing the families and friends of terrorists and his bemoaning that we're apparently fighting a "politically correct" war, watchdog NGOs have found that the US has killed more civilians in January/February than the Russians -- the first time this has happened since Russian entry into the conflict. (Part of that story is also a decrease in Russian activity now that they've taken Aleppo though -- but it's still a very damning figure.) The increase in attacks in Yemen over the last few weeks is also an indicator that they're launching more missions that Obama would have permitted.  

Quote

Again, from where I'm sitting those are military questions that he isn't really as directly accountable for, assuming it's even true.

The President literally had to sign off on the raid. I would expect the President to have a basic amount of knowledge about the geopolitical context and their risk implications and then grill his advisers for more specifics to fill in any knowledge gaps he has before you sign off on the raid. Otherwise you get the result we saw in January. 

Quote

No offense, but you seem to be using a bit of a double standard here when it comes to what constitutes evidence.

How is it a double standard? I'm not "hand waving" (to use a ManholeEnuuchsbane term) Obama's war crimes -- I'm merely pointing out that they're poised to get a lot worse under Trump. The evidence is the increased rate of civilian casualties. 

 

Quote

I read your article. It was as large an an example of hand waving as any you've provided. What makes you think we can't follow more than one story at a time? How is giving this story attention a "Fuck everything else" equation? 

Sure, Impeachment may be a pipe dream, but who can say how this will play out? A man can dream

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's your tendency to dismiss any rational debunking of your BS grand conspiracy claims that no serious reporter have actually suggested or any non-hawkish approaches to Russia on certain issues as "hand waving" or the fact that you literally just implied we should only talk about Russia because Russia is the only thing likely to get Trump impeached. Or maybe just the fact that you're accusing a Russian dissident journalist who's living in the US least she gets killed by Putin -- someone who clearly knows her shit and has presumably much more expertise than you or I about this topic -- as "hand waving." Or the fact that US cable news (minus Fox obviously) devotes ~80% of its coverage to Russia now as opposed to everything else that's going on -- which I think is where you're getting a lot of your cues from. 

[All-for-Joffrey]

Especially when the investigation finds something new every day.

So did the Clinton email investigations.