At this point, does collusion even matter?

[TV and credit cards]

It's already apparent that El Cheato rose to the presidency by regurgitating Russian Fake News talking points, either out of a co-ordinated effort with Uncle Vlad or as Vlad's unwitting puppet.
Cheato continues to fawn over Putin while dishonoring the office he holds. He has made every effort to destroy the credibility of both houses of congress, the intelligence community and the judiciary. IOW, he is destroying people's confidence in the ENTIRE American government.

Why should we care whether he is Putin's witless dupe or willing accomplice? Sure, a willing accomplice would make him liable for a treason charge, but in the same breath, if he's "just" a clueless pawn, that should be more than enough reason to remove him from office. At the end of the day nobody will be better off if he is jailed or put to death, than if he is simply sent home. I think that puppet vs partner question is a distinction without real meaning for the American public - as long as it is recognized that his ascent was and remains illegitimate and steps are undertaken to get rid of him.

Bannon & Co will try to make sure that this meaningless distinction becomes an 8-years debate, and while people (plus the intel community, congress and probably the courts) split hairs over the question of whether he is a traitor or "just" an idiot, Cheato can persist in furthering the Bannonist vision of tearing down the American government.
Impeachment proceedings should begin - yesterday. There is NO QUESTION that his interests have nothing to do with the duties of the office to which Putin got him elected.

For impeachment purposes, it does not matter. All that matters is getting congress to set the wheels in motion. Their evidence need not be grand in scale. It only needs to be agreed upon.

I think many here place Putin on too high a pedestal. Trump's admiration is for the power structure in Russia, not for Putin himself. Trump dreams of wielding such power in the United States. To have the nation's wealthy answer to him, to conduct their business by his leave. This is Trump's dream.
Notice, he has no political ideology. He'll move in whatever direction he needs to move to achieve what he wants. That healthcare bill was a good example. He didn't care what was in it, only that it pass. When it didn't happen by going to the right, he was quick to say he will move to the left. What's in it and how it affects the heard is of no importance to him. He just wants his Trump Stamp on it. As long as he can show accomplishments, he shows power to his followers. Whether or not they end up hurting from the results is no matter as such pain is easily deflected toward others.

Trump is not so ill-informed that he does not recognize the size of Russia on the world economic stage. We have three states with greater output than that shithole of a country.

 

[Malintent]

I don't think it should bother anyone that Russia (or any other country) tried to influence an electoral outcome in the USA. We do it all the time in other countries. Nor do I think it should be a surprise that Russia did try to influence the election. After all, there is ample evidence that Russia is not an isolationist country that leaves other countries alone.

I think whether there was tacit collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is an important question, not so much for the actual collusion but the implications for the US going forward. If Trump and his surrogates are willing to make deals with foreign countries that place their own self-interests above the interests of the USA, that is a big problem.

It is one thing to provide information and publically express an opinion, even with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.
It is entirely a different thing to spread misinformation and obfuscate facts, with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't think it should bother anyone that Russia (or any other country) tried to influence an electoral outcome in the USA. We do it all the time in other countries. Nor do I think it should be a surprise that Russia did try to influence the election. After all, there is ample evidence that Russia is not an isolationist country that leaves other countries alone.

I think whether there was tacit collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is an important question, not so much for the actual collusion but the implications for the US going forward. If Trump and his surrogates are willing to make deals with foreign countries that place their own self-interests above the interests of the USA, that is a big problem.

It is one thing to provide information and publically express an opinion, even with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.
It is entirely a different thing to spread misinformation and obfuscate facts, with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.

democracy in terms of political correction as deemed by only certain people.

 

[barbos]

It is one thing to provide information and publically express an opinion, even with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.
It is entirely a different thing to spread misinformation and obfuscate facts, with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.

Come on, both campaigns (democrat and republican) were doing that. And you want Russia stay away?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think it should bother anyone that Russia (or any other country) tried to influence an electoral outcome in the USA. We do it all the time in other countries. Nor do I think it should be a surprise that Russia did try to influence the election. After all, there is ample evidence that Russia is not an isolationist country that leaves other countries alone.

I think whether there was tacit collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is an important question, not so much for the actual collusion but the implications for the US going forward. If Trump and his surrogates are willing to make deals with foreign countries that place their own self-interests above the interests of the USA, that is a big problem.

It is one thing to provide information and publically express an opinion, even with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.
It is entirely a different thing to spread misinformation and obfuscate facts, with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.

That is irrelevant. Hacking email is against the law, period. Conspiring with foreign entities to break American laws is bad, and even worse when related to elections.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think it should bother anyone that Russia (or any other country) tried to influence an electoral outcome in the USA. We do it all the time in other countries. Nor do I think it should be a surprise that Russia did try to influence the election. After all, there is ample evidence that Russia is not an isolationist country that leaves other countries alone.

I think whether there was tacit collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is an important question, not so much for the actual collusion but the implications for the US going forward. If Trump and his surrogates are willing to make deals with foreign countries that place their own self-interests above the interests of the USA, that is a big problem.

It is one thing to provide information and publically express an opinion, even with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.
It is entirely a different thing to spread misinformation and obfuscate facts, with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.

In most elections at any level, candidates routinely allege their opponents spread misinformation. And to some degree, they are almost always correct to some degree. Add in these "nonpartisan" PACS spreading misinformation, and I don't see how your distinction is empirically useful unless you wish to go down the road of establishing the information police.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is one thing to provide information and publically express an opinion, even with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.
It is entirely a different thing to spread misinformation and obfuscate facts, with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.

In most elections at any level, candidates routinely allege their opponents spread misinformation. And to some degree, they are almost always correct to some degree. Add in these "nonpartisan" PACS spreading misinformation, and I don't see how your distinction is empirically useful unless you wish to go down the road of establishing the information police.

The one surprising thing so far is there is no equivalent Secretary of Information by the Trump Admin yet.

 

[Malintent]

It is one thing to provide information and publically express an opinion, even with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.
It is entirely a different thing to spread misinformation and obfuscate facts, with the intent to influence the (voting) decisions that people make.

In most elections at any level, candidates routinely allege their opponents spread misinformation. And to some degree, they are almost always correct to some degree. Add in these "nonpartisan" PACS spreading misinformation, and I don't see how your distinction is empirically useful unless you wish to go down the road of establishing the information police.

I am willing to peek down that road and see what that may look like. Do you think that truth has value? Do you think that it has high value? How should things with high value be protected?

but... the point is not about the lies and the lying liars that lie. The point is that spreading misinformation to cause people to act against their own self-interest is wrong, and in politics should be HIGHLY illegal... Treasonous, even. Spreading facts that cause people to act (one way or the other), is not wrong. It is heroic.

 

[laughing dog]

In most elections at any level, candidates routinely allege their opponents spread misinformation. And to some degree, they are almost always correct to some degree. Add in these "nonpartisan" PACS spreading misinformation, and I don't see how your distinction is empirically useful unless you wish to go down the road of establishing the information police.

I am willing to peek down that road and see what that may look like. Do you think that truth has value? Do you think that it has high value? How should things with high value be protected?

I think a Ministry of Information is a terrible idea. The best way to deal with misinformation is education and actual information.

but... the point is not about the lies and the lying liars that lie. The point is that spreading misinformation to cause people to act against their own self-interest is wrong, and in politics should be HIGHLY illegal... Treasonous, even. Spreading facts that cause people to act (one way or the other), is not wrong. It is heroic.

In order to show that someone acted against their own self-interest, one would need to be able establish that you know better what that person should regard as their self-interest. I think it would be rare situation indeed where one could do that.

 

[barbos]

but... the point is not about the lies and the lying liars that lie. The point is that spreading misinformation to cause people to act against their own self-interest is wrong, and in politics should be HIGHLY illegal..

Good luck with that.

 

[Will Wiley]

Stop this nonsense already, Putin has written off Trump already.

They've written off Trump.

They've not written off continuing the internet campaign to disrupt western powers and alliances that stand in the way of Russian aggression. They engineered Brexit and Trump's victory.

The Russians ..or Putin "engineered Brexit"?

 

[Will Wiley]

but... the point is not about the lies and the lying liars that lie. The point is that spreading misinformation to cause people to act against their own self-interest is wrong, and in politics should be HIGHLY illegal..

Good luck with that.

 

[Elixir]

They've written off Trump.

They've not written off continuing the internet campaign to disrupt western powers and alliances that stand in the way of Russian aggression. They engineered Brexit and Trump's victory.

The Russians ..or Putin "engineered Brexit"?

They probably "helped".

MP claims it's 'highly probable' Russia interfered with Brexit referendum

(And no - "probably" does not also mean "probably not")

Given the means, one would expect that Russia would have acted in its own perceived interest to further the dismantling of the EU, wouldn't you agree?

 

[ElectEngr]

Wouldn't surprise me it the Russians were working on the French Presidential elections, as well

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wouldn't surprise me it the Russians were working on the French Presidential elections, as well

Later,
ElectEngr

Russia is Pro-Weaker Europe. Makes it easier to force their will.

 

[barbos]

The Russians ..or Putin "engineered Brexit"?

They probably "helped".

MP claims it's 'highly probable' Russia interfered with Brexit referendum

(And no - "probably" does not also mean "probably not")

Given the means, one would expect that Russia would have acted in its own perceived interest to further the dismantling of the EU, wouldn't you agree?

MP has spoken, therefore it's true!

- - - Updated - - -

Wouldn't surprise me it the Russians were working on the French Presidential elections, as well

Later,
ElectEngr

Russia is Pro-Weaker Europe. Makes it easier to force their will.

EU is Pro-Weaker Russia too. Makes it easier to force their will.

 

[Elixir]

They probably "helped".

MP claims it's 'highly probable' Russia interfered with Brexit referendum

(And no - "probably" does not also mean "probably not")

Given the means, one would expect that Russia would have acted in its own perceived interest to further the dismantling of the EU, wouldn't you agree?

MP has spoken, therefore it's true!

Uh, not what was said or implied. Do you disagree that given the means to further the dismantling of the EU, Putin would seize the opportunity (what I said)? If so, what do you base such disagreement upon?

 

[barbos]

MP has spoken, therefore it's true!

Uh, not what was said or implied. Do you disagree that given the means to further the dismantling of the EU, Putin would seize the opportunity (what I said)?

I don't know. Putin did express his frustration with the fact that slightly pro-russian members of EU were routinely forced to "behave" by EU establishment. MP is making his "theories" sound as if they were facts.

 

[Elixir]

Uh, not what was said or implied. Do you disagree that given the means to further the dismantling of the EU, Putin would seize the opportunity (what I said)?

I don't know. Putin did express his frustration with the fact that slightly pro-russian members of EU were routinely forced to "behave" by EU establishment. MP is making his "theories" sound as if they were facts.

So what? Putin is making it sound like Russia made no attempt to influence the US election. We both know that's a lie...

 

[barbos]

I don't know. Putin did express his frustration with the fact that slightly pro-russian members of EU were routinely forced to "behave" by EU establishment. MP is making his "theories" sound as if they were facts.

So what? Putin is making it sound like Russia made no attempt to influence the US election. We both know that's a lie...

Speak for yourself. I don't know that. I know that Hillary paid a firm to do an investigation into the hacking and that firm lied in their report.