Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'World Events' started by Dabob2, Mar 21, 2017.
Where have you heard this? This is the first I've heard this theory. It's a a bit looney.
Is it not obvious?
Strenuously disagree. The Obama/Trump voters will flock to Bernie if Trump isn't an option. Whereas they wouldn't vote for Pelosi with a ten-foot pole.
I guess I haven't really heard it anywhere, but it seems to be the subcontext of the whole Russia scandal. Why are we investigating every person with potential ties to Russia? Because it somehow ties back to Trump and his scheme to gain power. It never seems to be framed as Russia pulling the strings behind the scenes, but always as something Trump did, which just doesn't make sense to me
Yes, I agree that it was wrong of Russia to interfere with our election, but it's naïve to think that the US and other major players don't try to similarly influence elections worldwide. They got us this time. Good for them. That's on us and our politicians for not having better security (I hate to bring it up, but it seems like using a private email server sure didn't help anything), not on somebody encouraging someone else to do something nefarious
No, Trump shouldn't have encouraged it. But at the time, he wasn't a government employee or elected official; he was a private citizen just like you or me, and ultimately has no meaningful authority to either negotiate with a foreign government (something there's still no substantive evidence of) nor did he have access to any of that information himself. I suppose there could be an argument for a "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" type situation, with Russia taking the first action, but I've never seen it explained like that
Maybe I don't fully understand the issue at hand, but I feel like I've read enough news stories from enough reputable sources that this should have been explained somewhere along the way. At the moment, it just seems like there's no "there" there. Yes, Trump is an emotional, shallow, incompetent leader, but at this point I'm struggling to see how he is responsible for foreign influence in our election, especially considering his government outsider status at the time
He may not be "responsible" for it, but may have been aware it was happening and did nothing to stop it. In other words, caring more about himself than the fact that the country was under attack by a hostile power.
Or maybe he was more involved than that. We know he had Russian business connections, and any Russian with serious business interests is at most a step or two from Putin. And certainly an inordinate number of Trump associates had connections and contact with Russians. Not the Chinese or the French or the Japanese. The Russians. And many of them lied about it.
Or maybe he's completely innocent and just acting like he's guilty. Because he definitely is acting like he is. But this is what Mueller's investigation is charged with finding out.
"It's not the crime, it's the cover-up." - R. M. Nixon.
But similar to how he had no power to cause it, did he really have much power to stop it? Without any access to confidential information, I'm not sure he could have done anything other than politely asking them to stop. He certainly shouldn't have publically encouraged it, but I struggle to see how he has much sway in the situation one way or the other
As for caring more about himself than the country, I have to think that Mrs. Clinton would have reacted the same way. Sure, she probably would have done more to put an end to it (or at least make it appear that way), but I'm quite certain she would look out for herself before others. Or maybe I've just been watching too much House of Cards lately
I get that. And he's certainly acting like there is something to cover up. Then again, he has a TV background and his campaign certainly showed us that he thinks any coverage is good coverage; maybe this is just to keep him in the headlines.
And as long as we're making Watergate analogies, I think part of what helped legitimize that was the scandal broke as information came out; it was information first, which eventually turned into the scandal. This whole saga is filled with breathless reporting about a scandal, but there doesn't seem to be much real evidence yet. Considering how much coverage it's gotten, remarkably few details that hint at "the appearance of impropriety" have been revealed, let alone actual impropriety
I think there's a decent chance that something fishy is going on. I just think the quantity and tone of the coverage is completely disproportionate to the information that has been reported to date. I can't help but wonder if this will turn into "the boy who cried wolf," and numb us all before/if a real story does come out
First of all, his associates (at least) had MANY contacts with the Russians, this we know already. Both during the period the hacking was going on, and during the period that our intel services had pinned them on Russia, before the election. At the very least, he could have sent word through his associates that this was not something he condoned, and not something he'd tolerate if he was indeed elected.
Instead, we got something like the opposite. Not only encouraging it publicly, but denying it was Russia long after the intel services both told him personally (through the briefings that major party nominees get) and told the freaking world that yes, it was Russia. AFTER this was known, and AFTER he was briefed on it, he was still saying "Maybe it was Russia, we don't know. Maybe it was China. Maybe it was some guy in his bedroom. Maybe there was no hack." Seriously, who does that? It sure looks like he's trying to cover something up.
I don't think Clinton would have reacted the same way. First of all, Putin hates her, so it never would have happened, at least not from Russia. But if, say, another country for some reason did something similar, and our intel services had briefed her on it... she has enough experience and enough respect for them to have not done what Trump did.
And all this, by the way, is IF Trump or his campaign were not colluding. It's been a right-wing talking point that "there is no evidence," but this confuses evidence with proof. There's plenty of evidence. If there wasn't, there would be no special investigation. Now most of it is circumstantial so far, but any good prosecutor will tell you that circumstantial evidence doesn't mean it's worthless. It just means it's not (yet) proof. This is what the investigation is for.
It's quite true that the coverage is somewhat breathless, but that's the nature of the 24-hour news beast plus the internet, neither of which existed during Watergate.