calbear93;842838882 said:

---

That is not my point. People do have basis for complaining about everything that Trump says and does. It is justified. However, the battlefield is not this board. The people who will actually matter in what gets changed are not those who exaggerate what is already unfortunate and has never deviated from their party position. My point is that it is unfair for 1979 to be criticized for not engaging in the mental masturbation here. It's all empty talk here. It's fun sometimes and that is why I engage. However, not a single thing has been accomplished by someone picking a side here (despite emphatic directive to do so from others) or saying "let's pick Holden, etc, done". So to say that someone has given up because they choose not to engage in meaningless discussions here as if this is the real driver of what will change the country is unfair. I can't think of a single person whose perspective has really changed from the persuasive (or often times not so persuasive) arguments here.

---

No one thinks this board is the battlefield. And it's odd to take on a stop criticizing 1979bear approach for "not engaging" when his 2nd post to this thread was itself an very engaged and critical post. It was only later that he became above the fray.

calbear93;842838869 said:

---

I agree absolutely. That is why I think this focus on Russia (just appoint a darn independent special counsel and get rid of this nonsense) is missing the point. We are messing up on so many fronts, whether scaring our allies with inconsistent rambling, rushing to fix something as critical as health care (Obamacare needs to be fixed but it is not a business deal negotiation and it needs to involve both parties), trade deficit, deteriorating middle class, etc. But the Democrats think that making noise about Russia is going to change people's votes. The revolution is not going to come from the far-left. The revolution has to come from the moderates on both sides saying enough with letting these loud crazies on both sides run our country to the ground. While we may disagree on certain things, we certainly agree more than we do with the extremes on either side.

---

It's amazing people have been focused on Russia for as long as they have what with all of the side scandals Trump has launched in order to distract people. Perhaps he fired Comey now to shift the narrative yet again, who knows.

I agree that the moderates look like our best hope for any sort of defense of our country as they appear to be standing up to the extremists (at least on the Republican side). In a world where Trump is in the white house and republicans control both houses, the best I can hope for is failure to pass legislation because it's difficult to find enough that the Republican moderates and extremists agree on knowing they will get zero support from the democrats.

I have to say all of this has me laughing that I continue to hear conservatives telling democrats not to overreact to Trump being Trump and to stop calling everyone a nazi, meanwhile Trump is in the white house largely because the conservatives convinced enough people that Hillary was the most corrupt politician ever in large part due to a drummed up charges regarding her private email server (which they now of course acknowledge was a bungled investigation by the FBI). Does anyone really think we'd be having these sorts of discussions with Hillary in the white house? I am 100% positive Republicans would be talking about benghazi, emails, whitewater, etc. but we would have a competent and professional administration and wouldn't be worried about Hillary starting war with North Korea over a tweet. All of which, by the way, she very clearly stated in her campaign. She may not have had the most cohesive message in the campaign, but she was right about Trump.

I also get that you have to break eggs to make an omelette, but republicans don't have an omelette now they just have egg on their faces.

calbear93;842838889 said:

---

He apparently disagrees with you that those things are effective. I tend to agree. I tend to think that how you are with others in real life, things you do within your community, and helping others is a lot more effective and meaningful than saying you support something on a message board or writing to your senator. What do I think is effective? Lead by example. Act to affect those whose lives you can actually affect. No one is going to be impressed with partisan regurgitation.

---

I disagree. I think the lack of direct engagement with our elected officials has been the problem recently. Only the Tea Party has done it on a large-ish scale recently, and they wound up getting a lot of what they wanted (shutting down the government, halting Obama's agenda). So IMO, it is not silly at all for people on the liberal side of the aisle to start getting actively engaged in the process (writing to/speaking with your Congressman, donating money, etc.). It's probably exactly what they need to do if they want their values reflected in government.

Will that mean liberals get everything they want? Of course not. But the effort is not for nothing; it can help to shift the terms of the debate and the national conversation.

calbear93;842838889 said:

---

And this board is not a shaper of any opinion. Who has changed their position based on what anyone has written here? Let's not inflate what we do here beyond what it really is. And I trust 1979 to do more for his community and have more affect on real people than some of those who would bash him here because he is not engaging in political busywork.

---

Any and all social interactions (IMO) are shapers of opinion. Is this board the #1 thing for anyone? No, probably not. But in aggregate all of the time you spend talking to people does indeed shape your opinions.

sycasey;842838898 said:

---

I disagree. I think the lack of direct engagement with our elected officials has been the problem recently. Only the Tea Party has done it on a large-ish scale recently, and they wound up getting a lot of what they wanted (shutting down the government, halting Obama's agenda). So IMO, it is not silly at all for people on the liberal side of the aisle to start getting actively engaged in the process (writing to/speaking with your Congressman, donating money, etc.). It's probably exactly what they need to do if they want their values reflected in government.

Will that mean liberals get everything they want? Of course not. But the effort is not for nothing; it can help to shift the terms of the debate and the national conversation.



Any and all social interactions (IMO) are shapers of opinion. Is this board the #1 thing for anyone? No, probably not. But in aggregate all of the time you spend talking to people does indeed shape your opinions.

---

OK, I disagree with you, but I respect your position. I would ask that you allow for 1979 to disagree with you without concluding that he doesn't care.

The big prize is health care, which neither party wants to sit at a table and discuss in a rational way where the focus is on whats best for the country vs what's best for their party. I'm hopeful that there are more than a couple smart guys on both sides of the aisle that can sit down and come to a proper health care solution with credit to both parties. Unfortunately, it seems our current political environment is too stubborn to allow that to happen.

calbear93;842838901 said:

---

OK, I disagree with you, but I respect your position. I would ask that you allow for 1979 to disagree with you without concluding that he doesn't care.

---

I didn't say he doesn't care, I said he advocated giving up, i.e. disengaging from the process.

Saying that doing things like writing letters and donating accomplishes nothing still sounds to me like advocating for disengagement.

"You people," and your "ilk," need to stop "spewing"

Ok back to our regularly scheduled programming regarding Russia. So if there is no "there" there, why does Trump hold a closed-doors meeting with the Russia Foreign Minister and none other than Sergey Kislyak. I simply don't believe that the administration is so incompetent that they fail to realize how this would be perceived, particularly given that they provided access to a member of the Russian media who posted photos which American news organizations were forced to rely on if they wanted to show photos of the event.

Now I'm not saying there was any funny business in that meeting (or that Trump met with Kissinger for any particular reason - for all we know he was just trolling our country) but the optics are horrible and it would have been very easy for Trump to have provided access to the media. The fact that Trump continues to put himself in situations which encourage people to run with narratives is entirely on him at this point.

Unit2Sucks;842838914 said:

---

Ok back to our regularly scheduled programming regarding Russia. So if there is no "there" there, why does Trump hold a closed-doors meeting with the Russia Foreign Minister and none other than Sergey Kislyak. I simply don't believe that the administration is so incompetent that they fail to realize how this would be perceived, particularly given that they provided access to a member of the Russian media who posted photos which American news organizations were forced to rely on if they wanted to show photos of the event.

Now I'm not saying there was any funny business in that meeting (or that Trump met with Kissinger for any particular reason - for all we know he was just trolling our country) but the optics are horrible and it would have been very easy for Trump to have provided access to the media. The fact that Trump continues to put himself in situations which encourage people to run with narratives is entirely on him at this point.

---

I completely agree with these statements. In my view they are not partisan. They are fair observations.

tequila4kapp;842838863 said:

---

March 5, Meet The Press, James Clapper: "No evidence" of collusion between Trump advisors and Russia:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597


Transcripts from the Monday Senate sessions:
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.3339c2d012a3)

GRAHAM: (long quote so I'll paraphrase: Is what you said on Meet The Press that there's no evidence of collusion still accurate?)
CLAPPER: It is.
-----
GRAHAM: What I don't get is how the FBI can have a counter- intelligence investigation suggesting collusion, and you, as director of National Intelligence not know about it, and the FBI sign on to a report that basically said there was no collusion.
CLAPPER: I can only speculate why that's so. There wasn't the evidence, if there was any, didn't reach the evidentiary bar in terms of the level of confidence that we were striving for in that intelligence community assessment.

----
YATES: If I could try to clarify one answer before as well, because I think, Senator Graham, you may have misunderstood me. You asked me whether I was aware of any evidence of collusion, and I declined to answer because answering would reveal classified information.

I believe that that's the same answer that Director Comey gave to this committee when he was asked this question as well. And he made clear, and I'd like to make clear, that just because I say I can't answer it, you should not draw from that an assumption that that means that the answer is yes.

* * *

To the best of my knowledge, there may be evidence that Flynn broke OTHER laws and lied to Pence about his contacts with Russia. That IS NOT the same thing as colluding with Russia to interfere in our election on behalf of Trump. These Wash Post / NPR citation are representative:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/jason-chaffetz-elijah-cummings-michael-flynn-russi/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/25/525568470/lawmakers-say-it-appears-michael-flynn-acted-illegally-in-taking-russian-payment

* * *

If there are citations proving otherwise regarding evidence of collusion, please post them because I am not aware that any exist.

---

These are nicely culled snippets made to align with Trump talking points. Unfortunately they don't address the point that Clapper testified that he was unaware of the counterintelligence investigation by the FBI and so was not in a position to know. Yates, who would be in a position to know, followed up by not answering as you cite above.

It's pretty public knowledge that Michael Flynn conspired with Russia to negotiate Russia sanctions at a later date, after Trump was President. This conspiring was a violation of the Logan Act. Flynn is also known to have illegally accepted money from Russian actors.

We also know that the FBI is conducting a counterintelligence investigation into the matter with loads of classified material, so the fact that you or I don't know all the evidence right now is immaterial.

There should be an independent investigation so we can make sure to root out all the Russian agents, if there are more than just Flynn.

Unit2Sucks;842838914 said:

---

Ok back to our regularly scheduled programming regarding Russia. So if there is no "there" there, why does Trump hold a closed-doors meeting with the Russia Foreign Minister and none other than Sergey Kislyak. I simply don't believe that the administration is so incompetent that they fail to realize how this would be perceived, particularly given that they provided access to a member of the Russian media who posted photos which American news organizations were forced to rely on if they wanted to show photos of the event.

Now I'm not saying there was any funny business in that meeting (or that Trump met with Kissinger for any particular reason - for all we know he was just trolling our country) but the optics are horrible and it would have been very easy for Trump to have provided access to the media. The fact that Trump continues to put himself in situations which encourage people to run with narratives is entirely on him at this point.

---

I'm curious. Now that Russian state media has had ample to time to operate in the Oval Office. Is the office being checked for bugs or are they just proceeding with business as usual?

Unit2Sucks;842838914 said:

---

Ok back to our regularly scheduled programming regarding Russia. So if there is no "there" there, why does Trump hold a closed-doors meeting with the Russia Foreign Minister and none other than Sergey Kislyak. I simply don't believe that the administration is so incompetent that they fail to realize how this would be perceived, particularly given that they provided access to a member of the Russian media who posted photos which American news organizations were forced to rely on if they wanted to show photos of the event.

Now I'm not saying there was any funny business in that meeting (or that Trump met with Kissinger for any particular reason - for all we know he was just trolling our country) but the optics are horrible and it would have been very easy for Trump to have provided access to the media. The fact that Trump continues to put himself in situations which encourage people to run with narratives is entirely on him at this point.

---

He's certainly not behaving like an innocent person. I don't completely rule out "laughable incompetence," but it's getting harder to believe someone in his administration wasn't complicit.

Unit2Sucks;842838914 said:

---

Ok back to our regularly scheduled programming regarding Russia. So if there is no "there" there, why does Trump hold a closed-doors meeting with the Russia Foreign Minister and none other than Sergey Kislyak. I simply don't believe that the administration is so incompetent that they fail to realize how this would be perceived, particularly given that they provided access to a member of the Russian media who posted photos which American news organizations were forced to rely on if they wanted to show photos of the event.

Now I'm not saying there was any funny business in that meeting (or that Trump met with Kissinger for any particular reason - for all we know he was just trolling our country) but the optics are horrible and it would have been very easy for Trump to have provided access to the media. The fact that Trump continues to put himself in situations which encourage people to run with narratives is entirely on him at this point.

---

In summation Trump doesn't know how to govern.

Unit2Sucks;842838914 said:

---

Ok back to our regularly scheduled programming regarding Russia. So if there is no "there" there, why does Trump hold a closed-doors meeting with the Russia Foreign Minister and none other than Sergey Kislyak.

---

Trump's boss was sending a delegation to audit his lagging performance, so he fired Comey to impress them.

1979bear;842838916 said:

---

I completely agree with these statements. In my view they are not partisan. They are fair observations.

---

That's because I'm not partisan. I might seem partisan (and I'm sure some will scoff at my statement) because I have bigger problems with the republican party at this point in time than I do the democratic party but I'm not registered to either one and I hold no party allegiances. I do lean certain ways on a number of issues which more closely aligns with the current state of the democratic party but it's far from lockstep.

Unit2Sucks;842838927 said:

---

That's because I'm not partisan. I might seem partisan (and I'm sure some will scoff at my statement) because I have bigger problems with the republican party at this point in time than I do the democratic party but I'm not registered to either one and I hold no party allegiances. I do lean certain ways on a number of issues which more closely aligns with the current state of the democratic party but it's far from lockstep.

---

I used to not be partisan or registered with either party. The behavior of Republicans for most of my voting life (Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations) has driven me into being a Democrat.

What are they afraid of and what are they hiding?

In thinking out the unfolding of this thread, I see more reasonable discussion and less intense partisanship than in almost every predestined OT threads in the past. So let me throw this into the fold----I can totally feel the passion with those thinking that there is something there in the Trump/Russia thrust. It may or may not turn out to be, but I can understand how you feel whether right or wrong. Why? Because I recall how convinced I was that there was/is something there with Benghazi after the Rice/HRC talking points. We don't need to argue that again, but it was the same feeling for me that convinced you that there is something there in the Trump/Russia link. Is there something there? Maybe yes, maybe no. But let us see. But do remember, back a few years there were those who wanted everything to go away as if nothing happened.

So hopefully a good discussion continues.

OdontoBear66;842838988 said:

---

In thinking out the unfolding of this thread, I see more reasonable discussion and less intense partisanship than in almost every predestined OT threads in the past. So let me throw this into the fold----I can totally feel the passion with those thinking that there is something there in the Trump/Russia thrust. It may or may not turn out to be, but I can understand how you feel whether right or wrong. Why? Because I recall how convinced I was that there was/is something there with Benghazi after the Rice/HRC talking points. We don't need to argue that again, but it was the same feeling for me that convinced you that there is something there in the Trump/Russia link. Is there something there? Maybe yes, maybe no. But let us see. But do remember, back a few years there were those who wanted everything to go away as if nothing happened.

So hopefully a good discussion continues.

---

I have to disagree (of course). Benghazi was thoroughly vetted by 8 separate investigations, mostly led by Republicans. It continued to be brought up after 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, inquiries showed nothing substantial, right up to the eve of the election. I was in favor of the first few investigations, but after awhile it was obvious what was going on. There is no comparison to our current situation.

Trump has finally taken the needed first step to solve his problem. He is appointing a panel to investigate illegal voting which almost cost him the election. We can all agree that this is truly a Great American.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/AP-sources-Trump-to-launch-panel-to-investigate-11138582.php

burritos;842838156 said:

---

Buy low sell high. Would this be a good time to re balance one's portfolio into emerging markets that include Venezuela, Russia, and Greece? Of course 99.9% of sane investors would say no, but 30 years from now(if that is your horizon), it might look like a good bet.

---

You should have been rebalancing all along back into EM. But better late than never. Half my stock investments are in foreign ETFs which include a large chunk of EM. After almost 10 years of underperformance I finally feel like this was a reasonable portfolio move. With all my ramblings on this I still abide but the tried and true investing rule: nobody knows nuthin'

dajo9;842838989 said:

---

I have to disagree (of course). Benghazi was thoroughly vetted by 8 separate investigations, mostly led by Republicans. It continued to be brought up after 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, inquiries showed nothing substantial, right up to the eve of the election. I was in favor of the first few investigations, but after awhile it was obvious what was going on. There is no comparison to our current situation.

---

dajo, You just can't let it go. I was not trying to re argue anything in the past or even conclude the current situation was right or wrong, but just acknowledging how one feels on one side or the other. But then, that speaks of you. I understand you think my thinking is flawed (as I do yours) but was talking how one's feelings can help understand the "other side". But then, that is you.

Bobodeluxe;842838991 said:

---

Trump has finally taken the needed first step to solve his problem. He is appointing a panel to investigate illegal voting which almost cost him the election. We can all agree that this is truly a Great American.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/AP-sources-Trump-to-launch-panel-to-investigate-11138582.php

---

It's funny that a Trump always chooses to order these reviews by EO as opposed to just asking his cabinet secretaries to lead the reviews.

I'm surprised that he's going to issue this EO now as opposed to when he appoints the new FBI director. This would be a perfect snipe hunt for his new director. I'm sure Sheriff Clarke or Joe Arpaio or whatever other esteemed law enforcement official he appoints would love to take this on rather than the meaningful issues facing the nation.

calbear93;842838869 said:

---

I agree absolutely. That is why I think this focus on Russia (just appoint a darn independent special counsel and get rid of this nonsense) is missing the point. We are messing up on so many fronts, whether scaring our allies with inconsistent rambling, rushing to fix something as critical as health care (Obamacare needs to be fixed but it is not a business deal negotiation and it needs to involve both parties), trade deficit, deteriorating middle class, etc. But the Democrats think that making noise about Russia is going to change people's votes. The revolution is not going to come from the far-left. The revolution has to come from the moderates on both sides saying enough with letting these loud crazies on both sides run our country to the ground. While we may disagree on certain things, we certainly agree more than we do with the extremes on either side.

---

I would argue that everyone on this thread who voted for either Trump or Clinton is a moderate- atmospherics aside, one's a Wall Street Republican, the other a Wall Street Democrat

OdontoBear66;842838993 said:

---

dajo, You just can't let it go. I was not trying to re argue anything in the past or even conclude the current situation was right or wrong, but just acknowledging how one feels on one side or the other. But then, that speaks of you. I understand you think my thinking is flawed (as I do yours) but was talking how one's feelings can help understand the "other side". But then, that is you.

---

If you are just talking about how you felt at the BEGINNING of the Benghazi investigation, then I do understand.

I do, however, agree with dajo that at present the two things are not equivalent, given that Benghazi was investigated multiple times and nothing found, while this Trump/Russia thing has barely begun.

Bobodeluxe;842838991 said:

---

Trump has finally taken the needed first step to solve his problem. He is appointing a panel to investigate illegal voting which almost cost him the election. We can all agree that this is truly a Great American.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/AP-sources-Trump-to-launch-panel-to-investigate-11138582.php

---

When I say our democracy is at risk the progress of these kinds of things, which can lead to voter suppression, is exactly what I am talking about (along with other things). Some have argued that voter suppression tactics in Wisconsin and Michigan led to the unexpected results of the 2016 election. I haven't looked closely enough at that to know if I agree. But these kinds of panels are very alarming to those of us that question Trump's motives.

OdontoBear66;842838993 said:

---

dajo, You just can't let it go. I was not trying to re argue anything in the past or even conclude the current situation was right or wrong, but just acknowledging how one feels on one side or the other. But then, that speaks of you. I understand you think my thinking is flawed (as I do yours) but was talking how one's feelings can help understand the "other side". But then, that is you.

---

You were trying to backdoor validate the Benghazi nonsense

dajo9;842839005 said:

---

You were trying to backdoor validate the Benghazi nonsense

---

Must be great to always be right. A joy to live with I would guess. Give not an inch.Haha

I think OD was just validating everyone's feelings - including his own about Benghazi.

There is no substantive comparison between what was alleged in Benghazi and here. No one (we'll probably nutjobs like Alex Jones but no real people) thought that the Obama administration participated in the terrorist strike - they just alleged incompetence and a cover up.

The Trump administration will likely have its own versions of Benghazi - in no small part due to cutting state department funding. And let's be honest, we probably aren't getting the full story behind the raid in Yemen where people died or the recent loss in Somalia. The country moved on rather quickly from the loss of almost 300 marines in Beirut under Reagan but Benghazi never seems to fade.

Bobodeluxe;842838991 said:

---

Trump has finally taken the needed first step to solve his problem. He is appointing a panel to investigate illegal voting which almost cost him the election. We can all agree that this is truly a Great American.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/AP-sources-Trump-to-launch-panel-to-investigate-11138582.php

---

The Prez must be wearing his new "Lonzo Ball Purloins"

dajo9;842839003 said:

---

When I say our democracy is at risk the progress of these kinds of things, which can lead to voter suppression, is exactly what I am talking about (along with other things). Some have argued that voter suppression tactics in Wisconsin and Michigan led to the unexpected results of the 2016 election. I haven't looked closely enough at that to know if I agree. But these kinds of panels are very alarming to those of us that question Trump's motives.

---

Whether or not it affected the outcome of the election, this country needs to find ways to make it EASIER to vote, not harder. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and ample evidence that our voter turnout sucks (compared to other countries).

sycasey;842839015 said:

---

Whether or not it affected the outcome of the election, this country needs to find ways to make it EASIER to vote, not harder. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and ample evidence that our voter turnout sucks (compared to other countries).

---

I don't think comparing turnout is apples to apples. I think our turnout is heavily impacted by our use of the electoral college and the use of states as the boundaries for the presidential vote. Voter turnout is much higher in contested states and approximates turnout in their countries.

That isn't to say we should suppress the vote or make it difficult for people to exercise their franchise but it does mean it's misleading to just look at turnout.

In other news, sounds like Rosenstein is unhappy with the Comey firing and the fact that he's being used to justify the firing. Tequila - does that change how you feel about this episode?

82gradDLSdad;842838992 said:

---

You should have been rebalancing all along back into EM. But better late than never. Half my stock investments are in foreign ETFs which include a large chunk of EM. After almost 10 years of underperformance I finally feel like this was a reasonable portfolio move. With all my ramblings on this I still abide but the tried and true investing rule: nobody knows nuthin'

---

Sorry, I was making a rhetorical query. I don't invest directly into Russia, VZ, Greece. However, 35% of my stuff has been in international mutual funds(moved over to low cost etfs) for the last 17 years. I rebalance via quarterly contributions though I don't commonly divest from one part unless there is a huge imbalance in the allocation plan.

OdontoBear66;842839006 said:

---

Must be great to always be right. A joy to live with I would guess. Give not an inch.Haha

---

I like reading Dajo's comments, very informative and insightful. Though you're right he never concedes. Ever. That being said, 99% of posters here never concede. Ever.

burritos;842839021 said:

---

I like reading Dajo's comments, very informative and insightful. Though you're right he never concedes. Ever. That being said, 99% of posters here never concede. Ever.

---

If my posts were more humble they would be perfect.