Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba
The impact of economic sanctions against russia (from the us and EU) over the past several years have been huge. Donald could easily have made policy promises for personal enrichment without having any hand in the hacking itself.
He was consistently publicly supportive of sanction relief for Russia. That implies his trading on sanction relief would be dumb, even for Trump. This is what I said about this in the Trump thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken
Still trying to understand the potential charges against Trump.
First he declares that a better relationship with Russia, including sanction relief, is part of his election platform. Then he tells Russia that his official, stated, known position is part of a secret quid pro quo for their releasing authentic communications of Hillary Clinton and associates?
I must be missing something because that doesn't make sense to me. Trading on known, official positions in secret transactions seems backward and inconsistent. Who announces "I will do X" publicly and then uses the threat of not doing X in a secret negotiation? That would also imply that Trump actively recruited Russians to do it (Wikileaks saying it wasn't even Russia btw) since, presumably, the Russians know Trump's public positions and wouldn't try to, backwardly, gain that which was already openly promoted.
I suppose this sort of easy analysis, whereby the viability of taking a public stand on an issue and then using trading on that issue is thought through, is just beyond most people. Or do you have an answer?
Quote:
He's repeatedly lied about his ties to russia, and several members of his inner circle have been caught lying about their meetings. The idea that this is even close to as improbable as 9/11 conspiracy theories is laughable.
I don't recall Trump actually lying about his ties to Russia. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I would need a citation there please.
As for Trump's people being in contact with Russia- oligarchs gonna oligarch. Their false, exculpatory statements are troubling. And no doubt whatever they were cooking would predictably be bad for most people and personally enriching for them. However, no one has produced anything tying Trump or his team to "hacking the election". There is a wide universe of corruption available to politicians. To get worked up over one highly improbable instance, which makes no sense and for which there is no evidence, is pure hysteria.
It's sad that you can't see why you are being led to believe a complete fabrication. This is about attribution. The democrats want people to attribute the loss to cheating by Russia and Trump. They don't want you to simply look at the obvious truth staring everyone in the face: Hillary Clinton is a venal monster and a terrible candidate who lost because she sucks. That truth also happens to be an indictment of the democratic party. How could they, eyes wide open, advance such a candidate who would lose to Trump? Come on. If something equivalent happened in medieval times DNC heads would be stuck atop pikes. But now we have thought control. So they tell people like you unsubstantiated nonsense in a way which fools the weak minded. And you will believe it.