Flashback: "Russia, If You're Listening..."

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, maybe so, although I can't answer everything here. I'm not even sure Trump can answer for it, since he's not a computer expert either. It's simply a matter of their techies versus our techies and seeing which side has the smarter geeks. That would be just as true whether we're defending against further attacks or retaliating with attacks in kind.

Another thing we could do is just click the "off" switch to the internet, but then we wouldn't be able to post to RF anymore.

You are aware that Trump has completely handwaved the briefings given him on the matter, right? No one expects Trump to be a computer genius. The problem is that when the people who know all about computers tell him what he doesn't want to hear, he ignores it.

 

[Stevicus]

You seem to be trying to pick an argument where we're not reallydisagreeing then. What have I specifically said that you think is incorrect? Like, with actual quotes and stuff?

Specifically, when you said that "it's not just perception" in post #31. I disagree with that. I also disagree with your statement that I'm "willfully resistant to taking in this information" (post #36).

 

[Stevicus]

You are aware that Trump has completely handwaved the briefings given him on the matter, right? No one expects Trump to be a computer genius. The problem is that when the people who know all about computers tell him what he doesn't want to hear, he ignores it.

Or maybe he has reason to not trust them.

 

[Sleeppy]

Or maybe he has reason to not trust them.

LOL.. But he trusts Russian counterparts.

 

[Stevicus]

LOL.. But he trusts Russian counterparts.

Well, without any hard evidence either way, it's difficult to trust the speculation of our intelligence agencies. They've been wrong before.

 

[Sleeppy]

Well, without any hard evidence either way, it's difficult to trust the speculation of our intelligence agencies. They've been wrong before.

1) They have hard evidence.
2) Doesn't excuse naive faith in an adversary.

 

[Stevicus]

1) They have hard evidence.

Then it's their prerogative to try the case in court. If/when that ever happens and a verdict is reached, then we'll see. If the 2018 elections go the Democrats' way, then they may have enough votes to impeach Trump. But I see no point in rushing to judgment here.

2) Doesn't excuse naive faith in an adversary.

I'm not sure what it excuses, if anything. Naive faith can sometimes be misplaced in our country's intelligence agencies, military, and/or law enforcement agencies. This is where it gets somewhat complicated.

As for "adversary," who gets to decide these things? Who gets to decide who is America's "friends" and who is our "enemies"? Why not just be neutral and be friends with everybody?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then it's their prerogative to try the case in court. If/when that ever happens and a verdict is reached, then we'll see. If the 2018 elections go the Democrats' way, then they may have enough votes to impeach Trump. But I see no point in rushing to judgment here.



I'm not sure what it excuses, if anything. Naive faith can sometimes be misplaced in our country's intelligence agencies, military, and/or law enforcement agencies. This is where it gets somewhat complicated.

As for "adversary," who gets to decide these things? Who gets to decide who is America's "friends" and who is our "enemies"? Why not just be neutral and be friends with everybody?

Umm, because some people aren't deserving of friendship. Namely, human-rights-abusing, country-invading, murderous, shady dictators.

Ask Neville Chamberlain how trying to be "friendly" with Hitler turned out.

 

[Faithofchristian]

“In the entire history of our country, Americans have never seen a president of the United States support an adversary the way President [Donald] Trump has supported President [Vladimir] Putin.”

Those were the words of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) after last week’s summit between the two presidents in Helsinki, but there may be some holes in Schumer’s allegations — doughnut holes, that is. While Schumer had the audacity to accuse Trump of “support[ing] an adversary” in Putin, the Senate Minority Leader himself buddied up with the Russian president in 2003; they were even photographed sharing Krispy Kreme doughnuts inside a newly opened Russian gas station in Manhattan New York.



Coffee and doughnuts
During his first term in the Senate, Schumer welcomed Putin to his home state to inaugurate the first of a series of Russian-owned gas stations in the U.S. after Russian energy giant Lukoil bought out the American-owned Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. in 2000. Schumer celebrated the acquisition of more than 1,300 American stores with Putin over coffee and donuts inside the Soviet-red Lukoil-owned gas station on 10th Avenue and 24th Street in Chelsea.

https://twitter.com/stankm/status/1019571987818188801/photo/1

What's up with all that Go Figure

 

[Sleeppy]

“In the entire history of our country, Americans have never seen a president of the United States support an adversary the way President [Donald] Trump has supported President [Vladimir] Putin.”

Those were the words of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) after last week’s summit between the two presidents in Helsinki, but there may be some holes in Schumer’s allegations — doughnut holes, that is. While Schumer had the audacity to accuse Trump of “support[ing] an adversary” in Putin, the Senate Minority Leader himself buddied up with the Russian president in 2003; they were even photographed sharing Krispy Kreme doughnuts inside a newly opened Russian gas station in Manhattan New York.



Coffee and doughnuts
During his first term in the Senate, Schumer welcomed Putin to his home state to inaugurate the first of a series of Russian-owned gas stations in the U.S. after Russian energy giant Lukoil bought out the American-owned Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. in 2000. Schumer celebrated the acquisition of more than 1,300 American stores with Putin over coffee and donuts inside the Soviet-red Lukoil-owned gas station on 10th Avenue and 24th Street in Chelsea.

https://twitter.com/stankm/status/1019571987818188801/photo/1

What's up with all that Go Figure

I don't support either the President or a Senator supporting Russian business over that of American business. However, one instance involves something legal and fully within public view, the other instance involves the President of the U.S., the illegal hacking of the U.S. Democratic process, and closed-door meetings. What's up with that?

 

[Faithofchristian]

I don't support either the President or a Senator supporting Russian business over that of American business. However, one instance involves something legal and fully within public view, the other instance involves the President of the U.S., the illegal hacking of the U.S. Democratic process, and closed-door meetings. What's up with that?

Maybe you should go tell that to, Chuck Schumer, seeing he done business with Russia and Hillary Clinton's uranium one deal with Russia.

What's up with all that Go Figure

 

[Sleeppy]

Maybe you should go tell that to, Chuck Schumer, seeing he done business with Russia and Hillary Clinton's uranium one deal with Russia.

What's up with all that Go Figure

1) Hillary Clinton didn't unilaterally approve Uranium One, Obama, and the Committee on Foreign Investments (eight other U.S. officials in different Gov. departments) all approved.

2) No excuse. Shouldn't have happened. What's up with that?

 

[Stevicus]

Umm, because some people aren't deserving of friendship. Namely, human-rights-abusing, country-invading, murderous, shady dictators.

That doesn't answer the question. Are such friendships useful to American interests or not?

Ask Neville Chamberlain how trying to be "friendly" with Hitler turned out.

False equivalence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That doesn't answer the question. Are such friendships useful to American interests or not?
No. Clearly not in the case of Russia who did everything they could to meddle in US elections to get the results they wanted, and have continued to do so.

False equivalence.

How so?

 

[Stevicus]

How so?

Putin is not Hitler.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Putin is not Hitler.

They are two different people. No kidding.

That doesn't explain how what I said was a false equivalency. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

[Stevicus]

They are two different people. No kidding.

That doesn't explain how what I said was a false equivalency. Perhaps you could clarify.

I thought it was obvious. You compared us having a friendly relationship with Russia as being the same as Chamberlain's "friendship" with Hitler in 1938. You seriously see these as analogous to each other?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I thought it was obvious. You compared us having a friendly relationship with Russia as being the same as Chamberlain's "friendship" with Hitler in 1938. You seriously see these as analogous to each other?

I see the same naivete on the part of the leaders in both situations. Neither Hitler nor Putin are/were 'friendly", in any sense of the word. Falling for Putin's con job would be stupid, especially in light of the obvious fact that he is trying to take down the US.Trump just seems to want to give Putin whatever he wants while expecting nothing in return. Same goes for Kim Jung Un.

Did capitulating to Hitler work out well for Chamberlain, or the world?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Maybe you should go tell that to, Chuck Schumer, seeing he done business with Russia and Hillary Clinton's uranium one deal with Russia.

What's up with all that Go Figure

I do enjoy watching people condemn Hillary for colusion with the evil, no good Russians while simultaneously lauding Trump for his colusion with the good and positive Russians.

 

[Stevicus]

I see the same naivete on the part of the leaders in both situations. Neither Hitler nor Putin are/were 'friendly", in any sense of the word. Falling for Putin's con job would be stupid, especially in light of the obvious fact that he is trying to take down the US.Trump just seems to want to give Putin whatever he wants while expecting nothing in return. Same goes for Kim Jung Un.

Did capitulating to Hitler work out well for Chamberlain, or the world?

But there quite a few differences here.

For one thing, I see absolutely zero evidence that Putin is "trying to take down the US." I know that there are those who are desperately trying to build up a case in that regard, but even if all the allegations about influencing the election are true, it still wouldn't prove a desire to take down the US. It could only mean a desire to have influence, which is no different than any other monied interest lobbying for power and influence in our government.

I don't know if Trump has given anything to Putin, but as for what Putin can do in return, his support might be instrumental in the US trying to deal with Iran, North Korea, or other countries with which the US has had problems. As I've said over and over and over many times already, the main reason all these small countries are able to act as they do is because they play the superpowers off against each other.

There is also a major significant difference between the two scenarios: Trump was negotiating from strength, while Chamberlain was negotiating from weakness. The reason the British were in that spot was because they let their military forces wither on the vine while Germany was rearming at breakneck speed. In 1938, Chamberlain was between a rock and a hard place. He needed to buy time, and that's all what Appeasement was about.

So, in a very real sense, "capitulating" to Hitler at that time and place did work out for the world. If they declared war on Hitler before they were ready, Germany might very well have won and that would be the end of that.