He has already stated that an simple list of observations of Trump’s objectively insane behavior constitutes an anti-Trump rant, so this seems like the best course of action.
But I’m going to guess that you’re still “Not interested.”
Not a chance. The BS he’s spewing right now is because he’s not president, but if he were he wouldn’t be praising Russia or blaming Ukraine. Good grief, where you guys get this stuff is a mystery. Pretty much the same policies that Obama set out, Trump followed wrt Russia, and Biden has just continued. Sanctions, sanctions, and more sanctions. Arguably, Trump et al imposed more sanctions (before the current invasion) than Biden has up to this point.
Here is a list of all the stuff Trump and his administration did wrt Russia during his presidency. Yeah, it’s a blog, but I spot-checked, and seems pretty accurate.
Regardless of who the president is, the underlying bureaucracy in the US remains mostly unchanged. Then you have the European aspect, in which our Euro buddies aren’t going to be pleased by any sort of action against someone else in Europe that is on their doorstep. You also have the fact that Trump was already opposed to Nord Stream II, and would have been attempting to apply the same pressure on Germany to include it in any sort of backlash against Russian aggression. Not sure Trump et al would have been as effective in getting Germany (sort of) on board with halting it if Russia made a move, but the administration would have been saying similar things.
I think that’s a big disconnect with a lot of 'dopers. What Trump said, especially in his stupid tweets, was often at odds with what the government actually did. He might have (probably would have) sent out some boneheaded tweets about Russia and/or Putin, and he almost certainly would have tried to play the great diplomat and statesman he always envisioned himself to be, but he’s had similar results to Macron…which is to say, Putin would have told him he was open to negotiating, and would be withdrawing troops…all the while, he’d have continued to beef up his forces in what is obviously his game plan from the start.
I’ll tell you what, if you can make a compelling case that you’re actually a skeptic, I’ll go to the trouble of presenting a case that would convince a skeptic.
Aspenglow tried to make an argument that Trump deliberately performed actions that supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine (on whatever scale that may entail), and did so based on instructions from Putin. I reject both of the clauses of that argument, and especially the second clause. However, I’m happy to be proved wrong. The Russian takeover of Crimea occurred in 2014. The US did basically nothing over the next two years, other than send in Joe Biden as an advisor, which accomplished nothing other than enabling Biden’s son to corruptly join the board of a corrupt Ukraine energy company. What did Trump do over the next four years that encouraged the invasion of Ukraine that can be shown to under the direction of Russia? If the argument is that Trump appeased Russian aggression in Ukraine, please explain Obama’s policies towards Russia post 2014. Also, if Trump’s Ukraine policies were evidently bad, what actions did Biden take to remedy those policies before the current crisis?
it’s easy for Trump haters to blame Trump for every bad thing in the world. However, that doesn’t turn their sentiment into a fact.
I made no such assertion. You are mischaracterizing my statements in an effort to bolster your own perspective. I said he engaged in several conversations and deliberately destroyed the evidence showing what the content of those conversations were, so no one knows the extent to which Putin manipulated Trump for his own ends. Do you honestly believe Putin gives a shit about any interests other than his own, or that Trump does, either? This makes Trump a very useful idiot for Putin indeed.
You know, you could have a productive discussion with others here if you were less intent on pursuing an agenda to put down everyone who offers an opinion different to your own. The venomous hostility in your posts wicks off them like flop sweat. You’re not offering information or citations that refute what anyone says, merely throwing shade. I’ve more productive ways to spend my time – as it appears others here do, as well.
Just to clarify, I never “walked back” any opinion I previously offered. I simply elaborated on them to make them more fine-tuned. That’s a thing most people get.
Cite?
There’s no post in this thread for the latter assertion (that such actions were based on instructions). YOU may have interpreted that from a post, but that’s not remotely the same thing.
As for the first part, Trump did deliberately perform actions that supported the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. That’s beyond question - Trump did this publicly and did so recently, i.e. this last week.
Why are you looking at me to defend Aspenglow’s position, which I’ve already said I don’t agree with?
My point is that while the worst of the accusations weren’t proven to be true, there were plenty of accusations that were absolutely true, including the fact that pretty much everyone involved with the Trump campaign agreed to meet with person that purported to be an agent of an adversarial government, and the stated purpose of this meeting was to obtain ill-gotten dirt on their political appointment. Furthermore, this agent had an “ask”, she was looking for assurances that Trump would advocate for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act in exchange for the dirt.
This meeting created kompromat that the Russians had for about a year.
There is quite of bit of circumstantial evidence that Trump knew about this.
I think the FBI would’ve been derelict in their duties if they didn’t investigate this.
Instead Mueller was pressured into issuing a document hag was essentially an impeachment referral instead of an indictment, a document that, quite explicitly, did not exonerate Trump, despite that fact that conservatives decided the phrase “This Document does not exonerate Trump” meant “total and complete exoneration”.
Remarkably inaccurate.
Please enjoy your time here.
Where to start…….
First, you may not know this, but witches don’t exist. There is never any reason to investigate anyone for witchcraft. Corrupt politicians do exist. Russian agents do exist. I suggest thinking about your analogies instead of spouting conservative thought-limiting cliches.
Now if an old woman complained about kids, told a bunch of people that she wanted to poison the kids and bought some poison at the drugstore, poison that was found in bloodstreams of the kids after they got sick, yes the witchy old woman should be investigated.
Even if she turned out to be innocent, the investigation was legitimate and the local police would’ve been negligent if they didn’t investigate.
I’m quoting this, because it’s a thing of beauty.
The document quite explicitly did not exonerate Trump WRT obstruction of justice. Conservatives are referring to the fact that Mueller did not find collusion with Russia.
Obstruction of justice and collusion with Russia are very different things.
I disagree that I am “mischaracterizing my [your] statements”. Here they are:
Which part of my statement are you disputing?
As for your argument that I should be providing cites to disprove your unfounded theories, I find that a quandary. I’m saying that evidence doesn’t exist and you’re asking me to prove that evidence doesn’t exist. I think it should be the other way around.
But if you’d like my current opinion on how Trump would handle the current Russia-Ukraine crisis, versus how Biden is handling the crisis, my viewpoint hasn’t changed since post #11. Trump’s first response would be to state his opinion, and then every action he would take afterwards would be based on that initial response. It would probably be to avoid war with Russia, as Trump during his presidency sought to avoid military engagement.
I believe that avoidance of military engagement was Trump’s inclination. If others believe that it was based on outside influence, I’m happy to listen to their theories, but hope they provide solid proof. If I respond venomously to their lack of proof, then it’s just part of the effort to fight ignorance.
The Mueller Report details several instances of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian effort to interfere with the 2016 election.
I was referring specifically to the allegation that the investigation was a witch hunt.
I have a middle ground position on the Russia issue.
I don’t believe that Trump, personally, was an active Russian agent. I believe that he was a Russian asset, and I believe that Russian nationals, over the years, played him like a violin……by encouraging him to run for President and filling his cotton candy brain with anti-NATO, anti-Soros and, later on, anti-Ukraine propaganda.
I believe that there were people in Trump”s orbit that were actively working with Russia, we know this. Parnas and Furman funneled Russian money to Trump, and were instrumental in getting the US to remove their pro-Westerm ambassador that was enforcing the US pro-Western foreign policy in Ukraine.
Paul Manafort has been an agent of pro-Russia Ukraine for years, working to elect pro-Russian candidates and persecute their opponents, and, more recently, working in Eastern Ukraine drumming up support for a future Russian takeover, which isn’t future anymore, I guess. This was a tidbit from prosecutor Andrew Weissman’s book, the press never picked it up because it didn’t directly involve Trump.
Then we have Rudy and his pal Andriy Derkach, who is a Russian agent that was sanctioned for 2020 election interference, peddling both the Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election for Hillary and the Hunter Biden narratives.
I believe these narratives, the Ukraine election interference one in particular, were designed to turn Trump against Ukraine. In fact, this narrative was successful in delaying much needed military aid to Ukraine.
And, I believe all of the above was incredibly wrong and incredibly dangerous to our national security. I believe it was impeachable conduct. I believe that Trump is a narcissistic gangster completely unfit for public office.
Maybe the following will make it understandable.
Supposed that Donald Trump broke into someone’s house, trashed it, and stole the TV’s. Unbeknownst to him, the homeowner was murdered an hour earlier. When security footage was found showing Donald carrying off the TV’s, many people thought he committed the murder as well.
But the real murderer confessed, causing Trump to loudly proclaim his innocence. Does this exonerate Trump of the crime of stealing TV’s? Should the public servants who investigated the crime be investigated for persecuting Trump?
Nice turnabout. I compliment you on your rebuttal. But the problem is that you’re equating actions from the Trump 2016 presidential campaign, which Trump probably wasn’t aware of, with deliberative actions to support the Russian takeover of Ukraine in 2022. Are there specific, explicit examples of President Trump being directed by Russian agents? The answer is no. Is there of evidence of a Trump benefiting exchange with Russia that affected US foreign policy towards Russia? The answer is no. Do you want to blame Trump for being a lousy US president? Yes, that’s probably justified. Do you want therefore claim that he was a Russian puppet in the White House? I find that assertion absurd, and my answer is no.
I was referring specifically to the part of your post that I quoted, which purported to show contradiction between what the document explicitly stated and what “conservatives” claim about it. That contradiction is non-existant, as noted.
It seems like you have all sorts of other thoughts on the subject, but I wasn’t commenting about any of that.
Except it’s not unreasonable to suppose that he could not find collusion with Russia because of the obstruction of justice.
That and… he also found a bunch of collusion.