The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

That is what he claimed.
 
The thing is, there is no data to suggest that the Russians actually succeeded in influencing anything in our 2016 election.

And you won't find any. Because it is currently not known how to calculate this. Also, as you correctly stated, the idea that Trump won -only- because of Russia is laughable from the very beginning. As long as the democrats will do as they are doing now, even terrible people like Trump could win the Presidency.

However, Russia surely had an influence. Many others did. Many other do all the time: as you correctly say, almost everyone has someone financing them, and trying to orient the vote in any way possible.

The point is (and that was true even before Trump and russian influence): what do you think of someone who receives support from people who are clearly NOT doing the best interests of the US people, and is still ok with this? How do you consider someone like this?

There have probably been many other people on the same, low, level, and I personally have been saying this for a long time: how can they serve the people, if they are so easy to corrupt, if their standards are so low?

The main difference I see is that before, many could tell me, to try and rationalize, "hey, but the big supporter in the dark thinks they are doing the best thing", or "hey, but you cannot say they are bad, it's just a different position"; well, now I can. So what would you think of someone accepting this kind of help?

Trump is not bad because of some ideology; in fact, other people might be as bad as him (in different fashions); he is bad because his skills, intelligence and moral standards are ALL very low. And his idea are a manifestation of this lack of ability.
 
Congress has access to an unredacted report, what is the issue?

You made the same claim and have yet to give a source.
 
Right above your above post. Congress is a proper noun that includes the.Senate and House of Representatives.
 
Right above your above post. Congress is a proper noun that includes the.Senate and House of Representatives.
So if I say "government is bad at fixing roads" you would assume I am talking about every single person in the government including janitors?
 
The point is (and that was true even before Trump and russian influence): what do you think of someone who receives support from people who are clearly NOT doing the best interests of the US people, and is still ok with this? How do you consider someone like this?
Well, the question over what is in the best interest of the US people is always highly debated. It's very possible that was is in the best interest of the US people could also benefit other nations. If you were running for public office, completely pure and uncorrupted, wanting only what is best for your fellow citizens, and you found out a foreign nation was throwing their support behind you... what would you do? Abandon your policy proposals? Change your views? Drop out?

The way I see it, foreign nations all have a massive interest in who becomes the next US President, because what our country does has an unfortunate impact on the rest of the world. So every nation is going to have their preferred candidate. That simple fact alone should not influence anyone's vote, imo. Instead I think it would be important to dig deeper to understand exactly what it is these foreign nations are hoping for and whether that negatively impacts the interest of the US people.

What did Russia want out of Trump? Less sanctions? Decreased tensions over Syria? It's very possible that Trump could be acting in what he believes to be the best interests of the US people, while also doing things that Russia would like to see happen.
 
So if I say "government is bad at fixing roads" you would assume I am talking about every single person in the government including janitors?


No, government is to general in that context. Congress is pretty narrow.
 
No, actually it's not.

So you think it's legal for a hostile foreign government or it's agents to intrude into private computer systems for the express purpose of manipulating an election and for the candidate who benefits from that action to be able to publicly invite that intrusion and manipulation?

Are you serious?
 
Please cite the specific law(s) that has/have been broken and by who. Trump did not seek Russia's help.


There is more than a little evidence that he, or at least people in his campaign did.

Edit

It should be noted, that HE, Trump has admitted. Of course he denied it happened, then denied he had knowledge of it first
 
Last edited:
Please cite the specific law(s) that has/have been broken and by who. Trump did not seek Russia's help.
That's a lie. Trump and his campaign did seek Russian help, they were just too incompetent to tell the difference between a state official and a weightlifter - among other things.

Let's see, Trump seeking Russian help against a political adversary:


Putin states that he wanted Trump to win:


Trump states outright that he benefited from Russian actions:

3555556


As for specific laws: How about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and 11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditure, independent expenditures, and disbursement by foreign nationals.

And before you say that information is not an expenditure, the courts and the law say that it has value and is therefore covered under campaign finance law. Bluman vs FEC upheld bans on foreign nationals from making gifts or donations (including services) to a campaign. The decision specifically banned contributions to candidates and political parties as well as “express-advocacy” expenditures — those ads that clearly support or oppose a specific electoral outcome. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision without comment. Russia's interference including the use of advertising - specifically covered under this case.

How about the Logan Act, which bars US citizens from interacting with foreign governments, or their representatives, to influence policy. A public appeal for foreign intervention would certainly qualify as "interaction" since it was followed by a response from Russia to aid the Trump campaign.

In the Watergate case, the crime was the physical break-in to access physical records - today that intrusion is electronic, to access electronic records; and it's still just as illegal.
 
No, government is to general in that context. Congress is pretty narrow.
Both are general enough, since both are comprised of a body of people. By the same token "Congress passed a law" doesn't imply that every single member of Congress actually read and voted on said law. Congress has committees for a reason, if a relevant committee has access to relevant info that is absolutely within SOP for Congress, which is why this whole hullabaloo is so tiring.
Also as Lev already alluded to, stop trying to make a semantic argument, you are not very good at it.
 
Top