Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[pErvinalia]

Stop pretending this isn't political.

It's bipartisan.

[pErvinalia]

Stop pretending this isn't political.

Look - colluding with a foreign power to "subvert US democracy" is NOT illegal.

Look who's been trotting out Fox News talking points again.

[Svartalf]

Foreign powers meddling in ANY way with US elections is HIGHLY illegal, candidates may not even sollicit campaign donations from foreign sources... colluding with people tied with a foreign gummint to rig the elections is tantamount to high treason.

[Forty Two]

Not accurate - foreign powers making contributions to political campaigns is illegal, and yes, candidates may not solicit such donations from foreign sources. However, "meddling" in the sense of a foreign power buying ad space to advocate for stuff is not illegal, much less "highly" illegal. If the Russians want to lobby for a repeal of the Magistky Act, or put ads in the NY Time and on Facebook saying how bad it is and how it should be repealed, and saying the voters should support candidates for repeal thereof, that's not illegal.

Conspiracy to "rig" an election is illegal, sure, but nobody is making that allegation.

Facebook ads is not election rigging.

In 2016, the DNC apparently colluded with the top-level Ukrainian government officials to gain opposition research on then-candidate Donald Trump. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446

If true, is that illegal?

[Brian Peacock]

...

Look - colluding with a foreign power to "subvert US democracy" is NOT illegal.

....

You should put that on a T-shirt.

[Forty Two]

It's just a catch-phrase. It's a meaningless platitude. What law was violated? By whom? When?

I mean, the Democrats appear to have "colluded" with Ukrainians to undermine the Trump campaign. Why is that not a big deal? It was reported in Politico, which leans in favor of Democrats too. Were they "subverting Democracy?"

[Brian Peacock]

You're resistence to acknowledging that Russia seems to have been actively engaged in a concerted effort to subvert US democracy, and your apparent eagerness to dismiss that wholesale by an appeal to statute, is telling.

[Forty Two]

You're resistence to acknowledging that Russia seems to have been actively engaged in a concerted effort to subvert US democracy, and your apparent eagerness to dismiss that wholesale by an appeal to statute, is telling.

It's telling about what?

I have zero resistance to the notion that Russia has been engaging in a concerted effort to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order and the American electoral system. I have no problem with that. I have no resistance even to the allegation that the Russians preferred Trump over Clinton - Clinton was very outspokenly hawkish on Russia, coming close to banging war drums. Trump, on the other hand, spoke very diplomatically of Putin and Russia, and said he'd be able to work with Russia no problem.

That's not criminal on the part of Trump, or even unethical or immoral. Even if a Trump campaign person thought he might get some dirt on Clinton, so what? What if the UK had dirt on Trump? Would it be a crime for a Clinton campaign person to have a meeting to get that dirt? What if the dirt was coming from Ukraine?

[Tero]

It would. Not even dirt from Iceland or Zimbabwe. Not even Canada!

[pErvinalia]

You're resistence to acknowledging that Russia seems to have been actively engaged in a concerted effort to subvert US democracy, and your apparent eagerness to dismiss that wholesale by an appeal to statute, is telling.

It's telling about what?

Your ridiculous partisan biases.

[Hermit]

...you're the same folks who poo-poo and hand-wave every allegation against Hillary Clinton. You don't want to know the truth, except about your political opposition.

I am not sure who you mean with "you", but I would object if you included me in your sweeping statement. As far as I am concerned the only redeeming feature of the Democrats is that they are slightly preferable to the Republicans. Fundamentally, both parties work in the interests of the 1%ers. They know which side their bread is buttered on. The hundreds of million dollars each side gets in donations come with strings attached, and most of the donated dollars come from big business. Each in its own way is pulling the wool over the voters's eyes. Bill Clinton was an inveterate neo-liberal and Hillary Clinton is an outright Wall Street shill. No wonder transcripts of her speeches to the likes of Goldman Sachs are kept under wraps. We know because some excerpts leaked out via hacked email accounts. Turns out Hillary told the bankers that she has no intention regulating the finance industry. She told those virtuous money managers that self-regulation is much better and more effective than anything that can be achieved through government legislation.

You might think I only say that because I have no horse in that race. You'd be wrong. I do have a horse in our local race, but that does not cause me to turn a blind eye whenever the Australian Labor Party fucks up. It too is not hugely different from the conservative "Liberal"/National coalition. It is just slightly preferable.

That said, there is a certain justification to casually hand-wave some allegations out of the way. Examples, not necessarily connected to Hillary Clinton, include Pizzagate, the 48 or so murders she Clinton is responsible for and of course Obama's Kenyan birth.

[Animavore]

[Animavore]

[Brian Peacock]

[Sean Hayden]

--holy shit that's fucked up on so many levels, a very ugly view of Americans...