One of those Putin worshippers, they are to be found on the far right and far left.
Well, no. Hacking the DNC in an attempt to influence the election is bad, but illegally selling arms to Iran in order to fund a coup in a third country is BAD.
Hacking the DNC computers is illegal. It would be a violation of the … uh, Computer security law, whose name escapes me. It’s a federal crime to hack into someone else’s computers. It’s an anti-terrorism measure, so it’s got some teeth. But hackers are so rarely identified by name, and even more rarely, residing in the US, so the law doesn’t get trotted out much.
I would expect that hiring a hacker to hack someone else’s computer would be illegal under the same provision.
Knowing about a criminal act and allowing it to go forward would make one an accessory before the fact, or possibly, part of a criminal conspiracy.
But all of that’s a lot of ifs. It’s true that Donald has close connections with Vladimir Putin and Russian money. It’s also true that Donald speaks admiringly about Putin. And it’s true that the DNC hack was carried out by Russian state intelligence actors.
But there’s no proof that Putin told Donald ahead of time that he was planning to do it. I mean, if you had a major secret spy plan, would you tell Donald Trump ahead of time? And I think it’s unlikely that Donald (who has no real political power to speak of. yet.) could actually order the Russian agencies to do this for him.
But I don’t know. I’m glad that people are starting to investigate.
If anyone is a Putin’s patsy in this election, it’s surely Mrs. Clinton.
President Putin probably licks his chops in anticipation of her occupying The White House. The highlight of Mr. Putin-Mrs. Clinton interactions so far was Mrs. Clinton initiating her "reset "policy with Russia, by presenting the Russians with a button, where the word “reset” was hilariously misspelled in a way that could be interpreted to mean the opposite of the reset. She got laughed at by Russia’s Foreign Minister in return, and then Mr. Putin subsequently ended Mrs. Clinton “reset” policy by unilaterally resetting the borders of Ukraine, in one of the biggest violations of post-WW2 European security.
Mr. Putin knows he can handle Mrs. Clinton easily, it remains to be seen whether that’s the case with Mr. Trump.
Before we lavish praise on Trump, what foreign policy experience does he bring to the table? Given Trump’s stance on abandoning NATO, how do you think that lines up with Putin’s aspirations in eastern Europe?
All his clothing/other crap line is made overseas.
And he’s been totally unable to bring those jobs back to the States.
Or we could compare Eastern Ukraine to the rest of Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine supports a government that attempts ethnic cleansing in the Donbass. Nuland helped to bring this government to power. Eastern Ukraine was doing quite well before the coup under the evil influence of Russia when compared to the rest of Ukraine.
Did you miss the part where I stated that Putin was an evil authoritarian? I realize Putin is a danger to humanity. If the US encircles, provokes, and isolates him he becomes an even greater threat to humanity. This is the preferred course of Hillary Clinton.
Trump is indeed a danger to humanity, Clinton is too. If I knew for sure that Clinton was Putin’s crony, I’d support her instead of merely favoring her.
It seems the anti-Trump zealots cannot think straight. They make him out to be a violent figure, yet they want him saber rattling with a nuclear power. They cannot think straight. My position is logically consistent with someone who wants to limit death and destruction.
He brings an experience of not initiating a silly foreign policy, followed by the humiliation of seeing that policy collapse.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether Mr. Trump’s experience will turn out to be as laden with failure as that of Mrs. Clinton–and if it is, we will know that Mr. Trump is just as unqualified to deal with Mr. Putin, as Mrs. Clinton proved herself to be.
Do you think these promise to be successful policies?:
- build a wall and have Mexico pay for it
- repatriate 11M illegal immigrants
- ban all muslims
- abandon NATO
Given Trump’s propensity to bluster, over-promise and under-deliver, is that a chance you’re willing to take?
Have these policies been implemented and failed?
Obviously not, he hasn’t (and hopefully never will be) elected.
Why can’t obviously idiotic policy proposals be shot down?
So, you’re asking us to compare policies that haven’t been implemented yet, and might or might not turn out to be successful, against policies that have been implemented, and failed?
That would be a good question to ask of Mrs. Clinton before she initiated her “reset” policy.
Kristol does not come out and make the accusation, nor does he claim to hold a smoking gun.
But really, would anyone put treason past Donald Trump? Of course a foreign power could buy him. Russia, China, Belgium, whomever; if they could slip Trump enough money he’d happily do their bidding to the detriment of the United States.
Say what you shall about Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton, about Ronald Reagan or Walter Mondale or George Bush (either one) or John Kerry or Mitt Romney or Michael Dukakis or Gerald Ford or LBJ; I don’t think any of them would be or would have been willing traitors. Donald Trump would be, assuming he isn’t already. Indeed, if he elected President, it’s likelier than not he’ll sell his power to whatever foreign power is willing to pay.
It can be really obvious that a particular policy would be a bad idea. Witness Trump wanting to default on the US debt.
Do we have to test it first before determining that the world’s economy just cratered?
Exactly. Why do you think that despite this fact, Mrs. Clinton initiated a “reset” policy with Russia?
Obviously bad ideas are obviously bad. We don’t have to enact them in order to prove what we already know to be true.
Embarrassing for her, sure, but what actual harm was done to US/Russia relations by that gaff?
IMHO, Hillary is not the ideal candidate. But she stands head and shoulders above Trump and his buffoonery.
Every single one of these posts is an anti-Clinton screed. Yet this thread is about Donald Trump.
Even when asked directly about Mr. Trump and/or his proposed policies, you evade and continue your tirade against Mrs. Clinton.
:rolleyes:
Trump offered the Baltic states to Putin, nakedly and openly. He’s either weak or a traitor. Or both.
Well, Donald (Senior) evidently subscribes to the notion that it’s bad for the character of a wealthy man’s son to simply coast through life on his father’s nickel, so he made Donny get a job…
Trump is supported by various unsavory elements. And IMO he himself is unsavory. However as a matter of fact there’s no credible evidence I know of Trump actively colluding with really bad actors, Putin or others. And Trump really has no obligation to be putting down Putin (as opposed to say the kerfuffle about him not immediately denouncing David Duke). It’s hypocritical for Democrats to call for that when Obama/Clinton’s original position was that Bush had ruined good relations with Putin which they were going to repair.
Trump’s recent comments about the Baltics were highly irresponsible and among his worst IMO, though got less attention than many others. His more general ambivalence to NATO and a desire for better relations with Russia even if it implies real concessions to Putin (beyond those made by Obama) are a matter of general policy direction. They are not inherently illegitimate.
Well, let’s see here.
Russia invades and dismembers our ally Georgia.
Mrs. Clinton punishes Russia by initiating “reset” policy.
Russia invades and dismembers our ally Ukraine.
US-Russia relationships sink to lowest level since the end of Cold War, and it can be justifiably said that the Cold War-2 has started.
For example, just a few months ago, Russia conducted a successful bombing campaign against the opponents of Assad’s regime that Russia knows the US supports.
Other than that, no harm has been done, I suppose.
You chose to use words “embarrassing” and “gaffe” to describe the situation. Do you think the more appropriate terms here would be “failure” and “utter incompetence”?