Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP
Comments
-
Skylinehead wrote: »"When is America going to have a conversation about this?"
Almost certainly never, considering that none of them know who Denis O'Brien is, and that there's thousands of Denis O'Briens (and worse, much worse) in America to have a problem with.
You can tell people by their friends.
Close to the Saudi royals too, and she talks about being pro-woman and pro-LGBT.
...and is it any surprise the latest poll show 68% of people don't find her honest or trustworthy.0 -
Some reputable sources would be appreciated.By all accounts it was Her who convinced Obama it was the right thing to do, he eventually accepted her judgement and it was an absolute disaster.
Hillary also tried to push that it was a good idea to bomb Assad, Obama has said he did the right thing by not bombing Assad, as he knows it would have helped ISIS take over all the country.
You mean the two wars Trump supported?I think most people would agree with Trump that most of the wars the US have been involved in since 9/11 have been stupid wars, the two most stupid wars have been Iraq and Libya.
Would you rather these countries just get 'bombed the sh*t out of' like Trump has said he would do?I will not support Clinton who like previous people in power like Bush and his administration, Blair, Cameron and Sarkozy and the Obama administration who have destroyed countries and who remain unaccountable for all the lives they destroyed and the terrorism they aided with their destructive foreign policies.
It's this kind of hypocrisy and double speak that is just bizarre among Trump supporters, you might as well find Clinton supporters claiming Trump should not be elected because of 'wall street influence'. A complete and utter denial of reality - in this case, the reality that Trump supported both Iraq and Libya, and that he wants to 'bomb the sh*t' out of chunks of the middle east.
I guarantee that before Nov 8, there will be posters (here, or at least on popular US political message boards) attacking Clinton on her attitude towards minorities. I absolutely guarantee it.0 -
I am not a vociferous Trump supporter.
I just agree with Julian Assange who I see today and which I posted a link to earlier also agrees that Hillary Clinton is liberal war hawk and will be causing more death and destruction like she did when Secretary of State.
By all accounts it was Her who convinced Obama it was the right thing to do, he eventually accepted her judgement and it was an absolute disaster.
Hillary also tried to push that it was a good idea to bomb Assad, Obama has said he did the right thing by not bombing Assad, as he knows it would have helped ISIS take over all the country.
I don't agree with some of the stuff Trump comes out with, but for me it is a case of Hillary with her proven incompetence which cost a lot of lives and turned a nation over to terrorists and she seems to have a blood thirst compared to Trump who is unproven competence and has learned from recent history it seems who has said the US have wasted trillions on stupid wars.
I think most people would agree with Trump that most of the wars the US have been involved in since 9/11 have been stupid wars, the two most stupid wars have been Iraq and Libya.
I will not support Clinton who like previous people in power like Bush and his administration, Blair, Cameron and Sarkozy and the Obama administration who have destroyed countries and who remain unaccountable for all the lives they destroyed and the terrorism they aided with their destructive foreign policies.
Johnson and Stein haven't a hope in the election.
Hell will freeze over before I support that warmonger Hillary Clinton.
Again Trump supports a bigger military and advocates war crimes. He has not learnt from recent history. He has merely held every position imaginable and people take what they want.0 -
You can tell people by their friends.
Close to the Saudi royals too, and she talks about being pro-woman and pro-LGBT.
...and is it any surprise the latest poll show 68% of people don't find her honest or trustworthy.
So no worries of Trump himself being an even more shady businessperson that Denis O'Brien by a wide margin? By your logic, that automatically disqualifies him immediately, simply on the basis of who he is and what he has done through his professional business career.
Or his connections with the mob? Or even his own multiple investments in Saudi Arabia? No interest there, no?0 -
P.....
Regarding my comment.. Look at what the Democrats are promising… higher taxes. They always propose higher taxes. And Obama will have added about 10 Trillion to our deficit before he leaves. Yet our roads, bridges and infrastructure remain in a shambles. Tell me... Were did the money go?
0 -
Advertisement
-
Some reputable sources would be appreciated.
You mean the two wars Trump supported?
Would you rather these countries just get 'bombed the sh*t out of' like Trump has said he would do?
It's this kind of hypocrisy and double speak that is just bizarre among Trump supporters, you might as well find Clinton supporters claiming Trump should not be elected because of 'wall street influence'. A complete and utter denial of reality - in this case, the reality that Trump supported both Iraq and Libya, and that he wants to 'bomb the sh*t' out of chunks of the middle east.
I guarantee that before Nov 8, there will be posters (here, or at least on popular US political message boards) attacking Clinton on her attitude towards minorities. I absolutely guarantee it.Obama’s reticence frustrated Power and others on his national-security team who had a preference for action. Hillary Clinton, when she was Obama’s secretary of state, argued for an early and assertive response to Assad’s violence. In 2014, after she left office, Clinton told me that “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad … left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” When The Atlantic published this statement, and also published Clinton’s assessment that “great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Obama became “rip-**** angry,” according to one of his senior advisers. The president did not understand how “Don’t do stupid ****” could be considered a controversial slogan. Ben Rhodes recalls that “the questions we were asking in the White House were ‘Who exactly is in the stupid-**** caucus? Who is pro–stupid ****?’ ” The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid ****. (Clinton quickly apologized to Obama for her comments, and a Clinton spokesman announced that the two would “hug it out” on Martha’s Vineyard when they crossed paths there later.)“Once the commander in chief draws that red line,” Leon Panetta, who served as CIA director and then as secretary of defense in Obama’s first term, told me recently, “then I think the credibility of the commander in chief and this nation is at stake if he doesn’t enforce it.” Right after Obama’s reversal, Hillary Clinton said privately, “If you say you’re going to strike, you have to strike. There’s no choice.”
On Libya:But what sealed Obama’s fatalistic view was the failure of his administration’s intervention in Libya, in 2011. That intervention was meant to prevent the country’s then-dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, from slaughtering the people of Benghazi, as he was threatening to do. Obama did not want to join the fight; he was counseled by Joe Biden and his first-term secretary of defense Robert Gates, among others, to steer clear. But a strong faction within the national-security team—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, who was then the ambassador to the United Nations, along with Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes, and Antony Blinken, who was then Biden’s national-security adviser—lobbied hard to protect Benghazi, and prevailed. (Biden, who is acerbic about Clinton’s foreign-policy judgment, has said privately, “Hillary just wants to be Golda Meir.”) American bombs fell, the people of Benghazi were spared from what may or may not have been a massacre, and Qaddafi was captured and executed.
But Obama says today of the intervention, “It didn’t work.” The U.S., he believes, planned the Libya operation carefully—and yet the country is still a disaster.
Why, given what seems to be the president’s natural reticence toward getting militarily ensnarled where American national security is not directly at stake, did he accept the recommendation of his more activist advisers to intervene?
“The social order in Libya has broken down,” Obama said, explaining his thinking at the time. “You have massive protests against Qaddafi. You’ve got tribal divisions inside of Libya. Benghazi is a focal point for the opposition regime. And Qaddafi is marching his army toward Benghazi, and he has said, ‘We will kill them like rats.’
“Now, option one would be to do nothing, and there were some in my administration who said, as tragic as the Libyan situation may be, it’s not our problem. The way I looked at it was that it would be our problem if, in fact, complete chaos and civil war broke out in Libya. But this is not so at the core of U.S. interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Qaddafi regime. At that point, you’ve got Europe and a number of Gulf countries who despise Qaddafi, or are concerned on a humanitarian basis, who are calling for action. But what has been a habit over the last several decades in these circumstances is people pushing us to act but then showing an unwillingness to put any skin in the game.”
“Free riders?,” I interjected.
“Free riders,” he said, and continued. “So what I said at that point was, we should act as part of an international coalition. But because this is not at the core of our interests, we need to get a UN mandate; we need Europeans and Gulf countries to be actively involved in the coalition; we will apply the military capabilities that are unique to us, but we expect others to carry their weight. And we worked with our defense teams to ensure that we could execute a strategy without putting boots on the ground and without a long-term military commitment in Libya.
“So we actually executed this plan as well as I could have expected: We got a UN mandate, we built a coalition, it cost us $1 billion—which, when it comes to military operations, is very cheap. We averted large-scale civilian casualties, we prevented what almost surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict. And despite all that, Libya is a mess.”
Mess is the president’s diplomatic term; privately, he calls Libya a “**** show,” in part because it’s subsequently become an isis haven—one that he has already targeted with air strikes. It became a **** show, Obama believes, for reasons that had less to do with American incompetence than with the passivity of America’s allies and with the obdurate power of tribalism.
“When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong,” Obama said, “there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up,” he said. He noted that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, lost his job the following year. And he said that British Prime Minister David Cameron soon stopped paying attention, becoming “distracted by a range of other things.” Of France, he said, “Sarkozy wanted to trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign, despite the fact that we had wiped out all the air defenses and essentially set up the entire infrastructure” for the intervention. This sort of bragging was fine, Obama said, because it allowed the U.S. to “purchase France’s involvement in a way that made it less expensive for us and less risky for us.” In other words, giving France extra credit in exchange for less risk and cost to the United States was a useful trade-off—except that “from the perspective of a lot of the folks in the foreign-policy establishment, well, that was terrible. If we’re going to do something, obviously we’ve got to be up front, and nobody else is sharing in the spotlight.”
Obama also blamed internal Libyan dynamics. “The degree of tribal division in Libya was greater than our analysts had expected. And our ability to have any kind of structure there that we could interact with and start training and start providing resources broke down very quickly.”
Libya proved to him that the Middle East was best avoided. “There is no way we should commit to governing the Middle East and North Africa,” he recently told a former colleague from the Senate. “That would be a basic, fundamental mistake.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
I say Obama was happy to see the back of Hillary Clinton and the Libya mess that will be associated with the Obama administration.
Trump has said he wouldn't get involved directly, the US uses drones a lot now. Trump has said he wants to use money that would be wasted on wars instead on US infrastructure.
He said he wants to spend on the military, but not on wars.
If you supported wars but then learned from them and realise it is bad policy, or if you are Hillary and you are directly involved in supporting the disasters that are Iraq and Libya but want to continue that policy.
Who is the dumbest in these cases?0 -
So no worries of Trump himself being an even more shady businessperson that Denis O'Brien by a wide margin? By your logic, that automatically disqualifies him immediately, simply on the basis of who he is and what he has done through his professional business career.
Or his connections with the mob? Or even his own multiple investments in Saudi Arabia? No interest there, no?
Does Trump take money from the Saudi's for a foundation and then due to being secretary of state sign off a record weapons/military aircraft deal, which are then used in a war by the Saudi's?0 -
On Libya:
Trump has said he wouldn't get involved directly, the US uses drones a lot now. Trump has said he wants to use money that would be wasted on wars instead on US infrastructure.
He said he wants to spend on the military, but not on wars.
What possible reason is there for this? The US military is already large enough for defense- the only possible need for more spending on it is to use it. Else you are just paying for a bunch of people/technology to hang around doing nothing. Using drones is getting directly involved.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
I am not a vociferous Trump supporter.
Is that a joke? You jump in to constantly defend Trump and make excuses for his bigoted nonsense.
I just agree with Julian Assange who I see today and which I posted a link to earlier also agrees that Hillary Clinton is liberal war hawk and will be causing more death and destruction like she did when Secretary of State.
By all accounts it was Her who convinced Obama it was the right thing to do, he eventually accepted her judgement and it was an absolute disaster.
Hillary also tried to push that it was a good idea to bomb Assad, Obama has said he did the right thing by not bombing Assad, as he knows it would have helped ISIS take over all the country.
I don't agree with some of the stuff Trump comes out with, but for me it is a case of Hillary with her proven incompetence which cost a lot of lives and turned a nation over to terrorists and she seems to have a blood thirst compared to Trump who is unproven competence and has learned from recent history it seems who has said the US have wasted trillions on stupid wars.
I think most people would agree with Trump that most of the wars the US have been involved in since 9/11 have been stupid wars, the two most stupid wars have been Iraq and Libya.
I will not support Clinton who like previous people in power like Bush and his administration, Blair, Cameron and Sarkozy and the Obama administration who have destroyed countries and who remain unaccountable for all the lives they destroyed and the terrorism they aided with their destructive foreign policies.
Johnson and Stein haven't a hope in the election.
Hell will freeze over before I support that warmonger Hillary Clinton.
So you'd prefer Trump because he hasn't actually had a chance to mess up the Middle East yet? The same man who has gleefully told Fox "News" he thinks to defeat ISIS you need to "bomb their families". The same man who thinks the US should use water boarding "and more".
You're advocating a position of "better the devil you don't know"?they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
What possible reason is there for this? The US military is already large enough for defense- the only possible need for more spending on it is to use it. Else you are just paying for a bunch of people/technology to hang around doing nothing. Using drones is getting directly involved.
Drones will always be used , they are an example of removing people from the war zone.
I don't know what he means when he says he will rebuild the military.
It doesn't change the fact that Hillary is a proven warmonger, agree?0 -
Is that a joke? You jump in to constantly defend Trump and make excuses for his bigoted nonsense.
So you'd prefer Trump because he hasn't actually had a chance to mess up the Middle East yet? The same man who has gleefully told Fox "News" he thinks to defeat ISIS you need to "bomb their families". The same man who thinks the US should use water boarding "and more".
You're advocating a position of "better the devil you don't know"?
Hillary as the devil you know means lots of war, is that why I should support her.
She already destroyed Libya.
Obama's drone strikes are said to kill up to 90% civilians, you don't think he kills their families?0 -
Drones will always be used , they are an example of removing people from the war zone.
I don't know what he means when he says he will rebuild the military.
It doesn't change the fact that Hillary is a proven warmonger, agree?
You are dodging the point. You directly implied that Trump would not get involved with more action on foreign soil. I countered that point.0 -
You are dodging the point. You directly implied that Trump would not get involved with more action on foreign soil. I countered that point.
I am dodging nothing.
I have listened to Trump, he supports some stuff I disagree with like enhanced interrogation.
Watching his press conference right now, he said by rebuilding the military it means increasing the number of fighter jets, as they don't have enough for current operations.
Basically for the size of the military they don't have enough hardware.
He has been asked a lot of questions about Putin and Russia, he said he never met or talked to Putin or being to Russia.
He asked the question why does the US and Russia have to have bad relations, wouldn't it better to be friends and work more closely together to fight ISIS.
Trump was asked about foreign affairs advisors, he said he has been asked about such an advisor or this other advisor, he said they all supported the Iraq war and these people would have been better off going to the beach than advising people to invade Iraq, and he doesn't want advisors who promoted failed foreign policy.0 -
I am dodging nothing.
I have listened to Trump, he supports some stuff I disagree with like enhanced interrogation.
Watching his press conference right now, he said by rebuilding the military it means increasing the number of fighter jets, as they don't have enough for current operations.
Basically for the size of the military they don't have enough hardware.
He has been asked a lot of questions about Putin and Russia, he said he never met or talked to Putin or being to Russia.
He asked the question why does the US and Russia have to have bad relations, wouldn't it better to be friends and work more closely together to fight ISIS.
Trump was asked about foreign affairs advisors, he said he has been asked about such an advisor or this other advisor, he said they all supported the Iraq war and these people would have been better off going to the beach than advising people to invade Iraq, and he doesn't want advisors who promoted failed foreign policy.
The US military has a large enough budget. Link to the upgrading hardware quote though as I can't find it.
Not sure what this has to do with Russia (though his stance on them is scary-the issue with Russia is how aggressive they are towards eastern europe).
He promoted those same foreign policies. This is more of the Brexit we are sick of experts bull****.0 -
So Denis O'Brien never did those things. Weird that you would ask if Trump ever did those things in response to me pointing out Trump is considerably shadier than Denis O'Brien... and that's saying something!Denis O'Brien is proven corrupt by the tribunals who found Michael Lowry as the minister responsible aided DOB in securing the mobile phone license.
It is not similar and I never said it was.
Trump has been found guilty of corruption on plenty of occasions, from hiring illegal workers then refusing to pay them (as well as refusing to pay legal workers), to antitrust violations, to racist dealings in his casino businesses and corruption in them too, mainly in relation to the mafia. And of course, that's without going into the times he has settled out of court to avoid being found guilty of racist renting practices, and his current multiple trials for defrauding thousands of American citizens out of millions of dollars.
So rather than being seen in a photo with corrupt business people that you seem to think relations with should more or less automatically end someones political campaign, Trump IS that corrupt businessperson.0 -
I am dodging nothing.
He has been asked a lot of questions about Putin and Russia, he said he never met or talked to Putin or being to Russia..
But but but... here: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/watch-trump-says-he-never-met-putin-despite-bragging-about-meeting-him-just-last-year/ he said he did talk to him?
So, did he, or didn't he, ever talk to Putin?
As for never being in Russia, what about this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html
where it says: "Still, the weekend was fruitful for Trump. He received a portion of the $14 million paid by Agalarov and other investors to bring the pageant to Moscow. Agalarov said he and Trump signed an agreement to build a Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow — at least Trump’s fifth attempt at such a venture. And Trump seemed energized by his interactions with Russia’s financial elite at the pageant and a glitzy after-party in a Moscow nightclub."
So, he's been to Russia at least once. I imagine multiple times, as I don't think they could be signing off on a Trump Tower Moscow without him there for earlier discussions.
Oh, that WaPo article mentioned Trump trying to meet with Putin around his beauty pageant, but Putin cancelled at the last minute. Putin did send him some presents though...0 -
The US military has a large enough budget. Link to the upgrading hardware quote though as I can't find it.
Not sure what this has to do with Russia (though his stance on them is scary-the issue with Russia is how aggressive they are towards eastern europe).
He promoted those same foreign policies. This is more of the Brexit we are sick of experts bull****.
He mentioned rebuilding the military would be more fighter jets. I don't know where you find quotes right after a press conference. I used the word 'hardware' which a fighter jet would be.
The problem with Russia and the Ukraine goes back to Khrushchev when the Soviet Union existed so giving a present of Crimea to Ukraine was a bit like giving a part of southern Kilkenny to Waterford.
The thing is in Ferrybank which was historically Kilkenny, it was made a part of Waterford, when Kilkenny play Waterford in hurling, the flags there show there is a lot of support still for Kilkenny there.
This is similar to Crimea, it was a part of Russia, and Crimea only became a part og Ukraine in the past past century (unlike my example which is further back), there are no widespread protests in Crimea over being now in Russia again.
It is time to move on, Putin has done far less to destabilise the world compared to the countries who invaded Iraq and bombed Libya.
I don't agree with Trump on Brexit, the thing is if Trump was really for Brexit and he seemed to be, then it shows he read the situation and maybe it is why against all odds he became the Republican nominee and with a chance to win in November, and maybe he is just very good at reading public sentiment. Which is a very strong weapon to have for a politician if it is the case.0 -
Convention is cringe worthy. Decent people standing up for a proven liar and a crooked mind. Only thing that can top this is if next song is '' isn't she lovely ''0
-
Advertisement
-
But but but... here: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/watch-trump-says-he-never-met-putin-despite-bragging-about-meeting-him-just-last-year/ he said he did talk to him?
So, did he, or didn't he, ever talk to Putin?
As for never being in Russia, what about this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html
where it says: "Still, the weekend was fruitful for Trump. He received a portion of the $14 million paid by Agalarov and other investors to bring the pageant to Moscow. Agalarov said he and Trump signed an agreement to build a Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow — at least Trump’s fifth attempt at such a venture. And Trump seemed energized by his interactions with Russia’s financial elite at the pageant and a glitzy after-party in a Moscow nightclub."
So, he's been to Russia at least once. I imagine multiple times, as I don't think they could be signing off on a Trump Tower Moscow without him there for earlier discussions.
Oh, that WaPo article mentioned Trump trying to meet with Putin around his beauty pageant, but Putin cancelled at the last minute. Putin did send him some presents though...
Don't shoot the messenger, just saying in that part of what he said in his press conference.
He did say maybe Russia can find all those 33,000 missing emails from Hillary, and he said he hopes they have, because he expects they are very juicy.0 -
Life in occupied Crimea, where you get imprisoned for even cl carrying a Ukrainian flag - http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/05/11/life-in-annexed-crimea-protesting-russia-s-brutal-occupation/#arvlbdata0
-
Hillary's emails are going to lose her the election.
I think whoever hacked her emails and that of the DNC have tons of material.
They conveniently released the emails to disrupt the DNC convention by having the Debbie Wasserman Schultz controversy which led to her standing down, and which contributed to the chaos that was abound the first night.
I expect more emails for Hillary's acceptance speech, more for the debates and if Hillary is showing any signs of doing well more emails will be released.
I think she is highly compromised by her emails.
Julian Assange is on a revenge mission against her.0 -
Life in occupied Crimea, where you get imprisoned for even cl carrying a Ukrainian flag - http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/05/11/life-in-annexed-crimea-protesting-russia-s-brutal-occupation/#arvlbdata
News and views from Ukraine...the website says, it may be the case but news and views from the Ukraine on Crimea are hardly going to say it is a paradise under Russia.0 -
-
Trump said in today's press conference, "I can tell you right now, I have nothing to do with Russia." A breathtaking lie. Just from one source, the Washington Post article referred to above:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.htmlDonald Trump was in his element, mingling with beauty pageant contestants and business tycoons as he brought his Miss Universe pageant to Russia for a much-anticipated Moscow debut. Nonetheless, Trump was especially eager for the presence of another honored guest: Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump tweeted Putin a personal invitation to attend the pageant, and a one-on-one meeting between the New York businessman and the Russian leader was scheduled for the day before the show.
Putin canceled at the last minute, but he sent a decorative lacquered box, a traditional Russian gift, and a warm note, according to Aras Agalarov, a Moscow billionaire who served as a liaison between Trump and the Russian leader.
Still, the weekend was fruitful for Trump. He received a portion of the $14 million paid by Agalarov and other investors to bring the pageant to Moscow. Agalarov said he and Trump signed an agreement to build a Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow — at least Trump’s fifth attempt at such a venture. And Trump seemed energized by his interactions with Russia’s financial elite at the pageant and a glitzy after-party in a Moscow nightclub.
“Almost all of the oligarchs were in the room,” Trump bragged to Real Estate Weekly upon returning home.
......
Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities, and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world.
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
......
Trump’s top aides, too, have had ties to Russia. Campaign chairman Paul Manafort has done multimillion-dollar business deals with pro-Russian oligarchs and was a longtime adviser to the Russia-aligned Ukrainian president whose 2014 ouster triggered Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, a major source of tension between Russia and the United States as well as its NATO allies.
Manafort did not respond to requests for comment.
An adviser who helped run Trump’s efforts in the New York primary, Michael Caputo, lived in Russia in the 1990s. Caputo also had a contract for several months in 2000 with the Russian conglomerate Gazprom Media to improve Putin’s image in the United States.
Caputo declined to comment but told the Buffalo News, his hometown paper, that he was “not proud of the work today. But at the time, Putin wasn’t such a bad guy.”
Flynn, the former Defense Intelligence Agency chief who is advising Trump and has been mentioned as a possible vice-presidential running mate, stunned the diplomatic community by sitting near Putin at a 2015 Moscow dinner honoring RT, the English-language network aligned with the Kremlin that broadcasts into the United States.
.......
Carter Page, also a Trump foreign policy adviser, once ran the Moscow office of Merrill Lynch, including advising the Russian energy giant Gazprom, according to his biography posted on his employer’s website.
Just to be perfectly clear, this, from the Guardian today after the Trump press conference:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/jul/27/democratic-convention-hillary-clinton-nomination-day-threeTrump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort, asked directly whether Trump denied having any financial links to Russian oligarchs, said: “That’s what he said – that’s what I said – that’s, that’s obviously what our position is.”0 -
Politico have an article arguing that Democrats need to highlight how weak Donald Trump is to be victorious. I found the below article thought provoking. There's a strong argument to be made that Trump is the most dangerous person in America I think.Trump would not, as president, have the power to change libel laws, but this statement shows how eager he is to use the powers of the presidency to strike at his critics. Imagine if he had the tools of the CIA, FBI, IRS, the Justice Department, the U.S. military—and the nuclear codes—to promote his grandiose sense of self. President Trump would be able, almost entirely on his own—because there are no real checks and balances when it comes to pushing the button—order a nuclear strike. That makes his proximity to the presidency a global emergency.0
-
Suryavarman wrote: »Politico have an article arguing that Democrats need to highlight how weak Donald Trump is to be victorious. I found the below article thought provoking. There's a strong argument to be made that Trump is the most dangerous person in America I think.
Why would Trump order a nuclear strike?0 -
Please don't compare the Crimea to the Ferrybank issue in south Kilkenny. One is a high-tension geopolitical crisis with massive cultural and political ramifications for generations to come, in which a vastly stronger power is flexing its muscles against its smaller neighbour in a demonstration of strength designed to intimidate locals and bolster political power at home. The other is the Crimea.0
-
Advertisement
-
Suryavarman wrote: »Politico have an article arguing that Democrats need to highlight how weak Donald Trump is to be victorious. I found the below article thought provoking. There's a strong argument to be made that Trump is the most dangerous person in America I think.
Great article. Thanks Suryavarman0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement