No Collusion! Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[_Some Schmo]

Or perhaps a treasury department insider can leak the returns to the media or maybe wikileaks?

Wtf are you even arguing for?

Seriously, are you a Russian? You make as much sense as their propaganda.

[_Dr Exiled]

Or perhaps a treasury department insider can leak the returns to the media or maybe wikileaks?

Wtf are you even arguing for?

Seriously, are you a Russian? You make as much sense as their propaganda.

I had a dream last night that you answered this thread and here you are.

I'm not Russian. I just don't buy what russiagate is selling.

Anyway, let me ask you this: Let's say Ted Bundy was running for president against the Donald and mysteriously young female campaign workers kept going missing across the country and it seemed to be happening wherever Ted was making a speech. The media starts to make the connection but the campaign successfully deflects, pointing out how horrible the Donald is and how racist he is with wanting to build the silly wall, etc. Ted is the lesser of two evils ....

Now, because the Donald is so horrible and Ted is so smooth, Ted is about to pull off winning and becoming a different kind of mass murdering president. However, the Russians have information linking Ted to these murders and gives the information to the FBI and local police and the media, right before the election. The Donald wins in a landslide. Wouldn't you want the Russians or whatever other country to give us the truth?

I think this is the key. What is the information being given by the foreigners, not the messenger. Who cares about the messenger if the information is true. Obviously, one would want to know who the messenger is because supposed enemies might not be telling the truth. But I for one want to know the truth about our lying candidates and welcome it from whatever source. Would you accept Trump's tax returns if the Russians provided them?

What if Putin did in fact control Trump, like you want to believe and what if Putin gets tired of Trump double crossing him (sanctions against Russia have increased under Trump and what benefit otherwise has Putin received?)? Also, what if Putin likes the Democratic nominee and gives the press the low down on Trump's ties to the Russian mob and shows that these were the ones to whom Trump really beholds? What if this were done right before the election? Wouldn't you want to know this? I would and I wouldn't care if Putin or some other foreign government were the source.

[_subgenius]

[_Some Schmo]

What if Putin did in fact control Trump, like you want to believe

I don't want to believe that. The evidence forces me to believe it. You have to be part of a cult to not see it.

and what if Putin gets tired of Trump double crossing him (sanctions against Russia have increased under Trump and what benefit otherwise has Putin received?)? Also, what if Putin likes the Democratic nominee and gives the press the low down on Trump's ties to the Russian mob and shows that these were the ones to whom Trump really beholds? What if this were done right before the election? Wouldn't you want to know this? I would and I wouldn't care if Putin or some other foreign government were the source.

I guess you've never heard the expression, "Consider the source." I don't know if you've noticed this, but I respond differently to various posters based on their history of posting. That's because I always consider the source.

Yes, I do care where the information comes from. Some sources are more credible than others. It's entirely likely that if we're getting information from another country, they're providing it for their interests, not ours.

I know you don't "believe in" (read: are in denial about) "Russiagate." Things are true or false whether you believe them or not. Reality wins over your belief any day.

[_subgenius]

What if Putin did in fact control Trump, like you want to believe

I don't want to believe that. The evidence forces me to believe it. You have to be part of a cult to not see it.
...

Also a cult sees things that are not there, like yours that imagines there is such evidence...but, let us imagine you are correct...why would Putin be making Trump impose sanctions on Russia? (like the freezing of assets and travel bans through 2020 over Crimea; or the sanctions on the Chechen group under the Global Magnitsky Act....and so on)

[_canpakes]

(like the freezing of assets and travel bans through 2020 over Crimea; or the sanctions on the Chechen group under the Global Magnitsky Act....and so on)

Both of those pre-date Trump.

Trump has made some soft sanction moves against Putin, but it would look much worse for him to buck his party completely. He has to play the game a little.

[_Dr Exiled]

What if Putin did in fact control Trump, like you want to believe

I don't want to believe that. The evidence forces me to believe it. You have to be part of a cult to not see it.

and what if Putin gets tired of Trump double crossing him (sanctions against Russia have increased under Trump and what benefit otherwise has Putin received?)? Also, what if Putin likes the Democratic nominee and gives the press the low down on Trump's ties to the Russian mob and shows that these were the ones to whom Trump really beholds? What if this were done right before the election? Wouldn't you want to know this? I would and I wouldn't care if Putin or some other foreign government were the source.

I guess you've never heard the expression, "Consider the source." I don't know if you've noticed this, but I respond differently to various posters based on their history of posting. That's because I always consider the source.

Yes, I do care where the information comes from. Some sources are more credible than others. It's entirely likely that if we're getting information from another country, they're providing it for their interests, not ours.

I know you don't "believe in" (read: are in denial about) "Russiagate." Things are true or false whether you believe them or not. Reality wins over your belief any day.

Assume what the devil says or what Russia says in a particular case is the truth. You can go on believing that they are evil and our enemies, but let's assume that they tell the truth in one isolated case. Will you not believe it because of the source? Remember, it is the truth they are telling in this case. So, are you saying that you wouldn't believe the truth simply because Russia said it? Would you want Ted Bundy as president because Russia provided the evidence of guilt as in my above scenario?

[_Some Schmo]

Assume what the devil says or what Russia says in a particular case is the truth. You can go on believing that they are evil and our enemies, but let's assume that they tell the truth in one isolated case. Will you not believe it because of the source? Remember, it is the truth they are telling in this case. So, are you saying that you wouldn't believe the truth simply because Russia said it? Would you want Ted Bundy as president because Russia provided the evidence of guilt as in my above scenario?

I would find that truth suspect because of who it came from, yes. And in order for me to accept it, it would have to be verified by a more reputable source.

And by the way, Ted Bundy is a bad example. I'd take Bundy over Trump any day. Of course, I'd take a burning pile of old tires over Trump, so that isn't saying much.

[_Dr Exiled]

Assume what the devil says or what Russia says in a particular case is the truth. You can go on believing that they are evil and our enemies, but let's assume that they tell the truth in one isolated case. Will you not believe it because of the source? Remember, it is the truth they are telling in this case. So, are you saying that you wouldn't believe the truth simply because Russia said it? Would you want Ted Bundy as president because Russia provided the evidence of guilt as in my above scenario?

I would find that truth suspect because of who it came from, yes. And in order for me to accept it, it would have to be verified by a more reputable source.

And by the way, Ted Bundy is a bad example. I'd take Bundy over Trump any day. Of course, I'd take a burning pile of old tires over Trump, so that isn't saying much.

Ted Bundy over Trump ..... ? I guess I'll let you get back to your team.

[_canpakes]

Assume what the devil says or what Russia says in a particular case is the truth. You can go on believing that they are evil and our enemies, but let's assume that they tell the truth in one isolated case. Will you not believe it because of the source? Remember, it is the truth they are telling in this case. So, are you saying that you wouldn't believe the truth simply because Russia said it? Would you want Ted Bundy as president because Russia provided the evidence of guilt as in my above scenario?

Ex, the practice of espionage has operated this way since the beginning, right? Except that the critical difference is that the information we receive from that is neither ceremoniously nor surreptitiously dropped in the lap of a sitting President as fodder to use against his perceived political enemies. Instead, that information is routed to and through the appropriate security and intelligence apparatus, for arguably non-partisan personnel to analyze and distribute in proper form.

The argument that you’re making isn’t limited to simply considering a source, but must also consider the content, and how that content is received and processed. Trump’s declaration that he would happily accept ‘dirt’ on opponents corrupts the system for his personal gain while simultaneously ensuring the least secure method of processing that information. As well, it sets up Trump to be duped by foreign interests who are betting that he’ll place his personal interest in ‘besting’ a perceived opponent over the greater interests of truth and/or national security.

Trump has plainly shown little self control, and little regard for the truth, even within inconsequential or stupidly trivial situations. I’m pretty sure that the rest of the world has noticed this by now, and more than a few unsavory players know how to manipulate that tendency, including one particular fellow often lauded by Trump but who used to operate within a certain well-known enemy espionage and disinformation organization.

Related, it has been quite the sight to see the Fox News crowd and Trump Base fall all over themselves defending the Prez’s remarks on this. Seems like many will gladly trade our national security and well-being for their perceived chance to ‘pwn the libs’; what we end up with is a spectacle not unlike watching a Trump voter saw his leg off with a dull blade on a dare, in hopes of making some liberal somewhere faint from the sight of that stupidity.