Clinton V Trump - into the final three weeks.

[OhYouBadBadKitten]

new thread. :)

Nope dont worry

The pasword will be something like

"I hate donald trump"

Or

"Donald trump is a fuckwit"

Or is that just mine

Rufus

A slightly different slant on the email topic.

"Trump is Right. This Email Debacle is Worse than Watergate", but not quite why you'd think it.

It seems the FBI director never said the Clinton case had been reopened. Jason E. Chaffetz said it. Then the lie was spread.
It seems Comey had been sitting on this for weeks, since the beginning of October, and has decided to come out now.
But refuses to comment on investigations of Trump and associates with Russia.

With suggestions that Chaffetz and Comey may end up needing the best criminal attorneys money can buy. And accusations of treachery.

A little bit more on the double standards by the FBI head.

"FBI's Comey opposed naming Russians, citing election timing"

www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-comey-opposed-naming-russians-citing-election-timing-source.html

""A foreign power was trying to undermine the election. He believed it to be true, but was against putting it out before the election.""

Senator Reid says in a letter to the FBI head:
"“In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers and the Russian government,” Mr. Reid wrote. “The public has a right to know this information.”

Forgot the link
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/reid-russia-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-emails-weiner-fbi-a7388436.html

And I'll just leave this here...

I am baffled why so many who support Trump think it's ok to support a candidate with such strong ties to Russia

FBI enquiry into Manafort

MI5 head says Russia increasingly aggressive threat to UK

"Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
...
Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government
...
But the focus in that case was on Mr. Manafort’s ties with a kleptocratic government in Ukraine — and whether he had declared the income in the United States — and not necessarily on any Russian influence over Mr. Trump’s campaign, one official said."

www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0

I'm by no means a Trump supporter, but I can definitely see the benefit of having someone with strong ties to Russia as president, it will help to establish a dialog to calm down the sabre rattling, on both sides. Where is the harm in that? Why is it better to have someone confrontational?

But I do think Trump is a nightmare.

The issue is that Russia are meddling in the affairs of the west to a huge extent. There is a difference between dialog and letting them dictate our affairs. Being nice to Putin won't stop his cyber and physical space grabs.

If Putin were a reasonable character then I'd agree. There needs to be a balance when dealing with him. I don't think Trump has that balance, I'm not entirely convinced Clinton does either, but a US president being a Russian puppet has not got to be good news.

I can definitely see the benefit of having someone with strong ties to Russia as president, it will help to establish a dialog to calm down the sabre rattling, on both sides. Where is the harm in that?

:) are you aware of Putin?

You can't really have good relationships with Russia while he's in power and aims to restore it's previous importance.
That ship has sailed with Yeltsin.

Its not it's.

He may not even be a willing puppet, but in that case his naivety is just as worrying.

Putin is meddling in own affairs, but then so do we. Meddle, I mean and I we gain nothing from it.
There is absolutely no advantage to what we are doing, we so a pretty good she of sabre rattling on own and he thrives on that, we help him feed the Russian perception of being the victims of some Western provocation.
If we stop that, he'll be starved of what keeps him in power.

In fact, one can argue that an anti-Russian hawk in charge is the ultimate puppet, as you call it, because it gives them exactly what they want.

OYBBKitten - I genuinely haven't spoken to a single person in many months who believes US-directed stories of Putin's 'expansionism'. This is a great quote (can't remember where from now but I can find it again):

"Putin is certainly socially conservative and is a (Russian) nationalist, but similar 'criticisms' could be made of many world leaders; should we increase our vituperation on leaders of Japan, Germany, Spain , Australia...? If not, why not? Remember, whether one likes him or not, he is the democratically elected leader of the largest country on earth (by area), his approval ratings are around 86% (and most of those opposing him do so because they fell he has not done enough in places like Ukraine), the Russian Left actually works closely with him (eg, the remnants of the Communist Party), sand he has stood up to American expansionism in Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. Russia today may not be the liberal utopia but its laws on gun control, its health service, and its incarceration rates are all much better than those in the US, and its policies on LGBT matters, while poor, are better than in many States of the US, Latin America and the Caribbean and are similar to many in eastern Europe and to those pertaining in the UK under Thatcher and Major. The only example that can be given of his expansionism is Crimea, where he was supported by 96% of the population (a figure repeatedly confirmed by western opinion pollers) in reversing the decision made by Khruschev in 1954 to artificially transfer Crimea to Ukraine".

You are looking in the wrong direction for the 'threat'.

There is absolutely no advantage to what we are doing

What have the US been doing?

Obama has come up with amazing diplomatic progress elsewhere. Does that tally with relationships with Russia? It doesn't seem to me that the problem is with the US.
And just letting them have free rein is going back to the iron curtain.

he is the democratically elected leader of the largest country on earth (by area), his approval ratings are around 86%.

No truly democratic government has these figures. Wake up

Comey was out of order, in that case, with his statement in July. If Clinton says this is out of order then that was out of order too, but she praised that to the skies. But then Loretta Lynch did have that half hour private conversation with Bill Clinton on the tarmac about 'how their children were getting along' so giving the announcement to Comey deflected the spotlight from the Department. Comey's probably saving his own ass right now: he was faced with mutiny.

The US meddles hugely but the left have done an about turn on US meddling. What used to be bad is now good, purely it seems because they're snobs about Donald Trump.

Obama has come up with amazing diplomatic progress elsewhere

Has he? Where?
Cuba, yes.

Where else?

I'm not going to argue that Putin is democratically elected and great, because he's not. But by stationing NATO troops and missiles by his borders we are helping him, we are the ones keeping him in power.

Youtube video called "Russia scholar Stephen Cohen shuts down CNN shill host who tries to link Trump to Putin"

Gumpendorf: that's pretty silly. Perhaps you don't know much about the emails, I'm guessing. It's not an email scandal: it's a national security scandal and a corruption scandal.

WW, I understand the e-mail server issue perfectly thank you. Otoh, I think you are in danger of overblowing it's importance.

I know who I see as the threat to national security here.

But, again, Trump supporters are having a lovely time focussing on the emails whilst happily ignoring all the points made in the attachment to Gumpendorf's message. Do you really want to support someone who is due to go on trial shortly accused of racketeering and child rape; who boasts of using his position to go in for sexually predatory conduct; who won't release his tax returns; who has used his foundation's money to pay his legal fees; who abused the family of a war hero on racist grounds; who is not proposing to put his business interests into blind trusts if elected? If Hillary Clinton had even a tiny part of those issues hanging over her it would be game over. Why the double standards?

Why is it better to have someone confrontational?

Because Putin isn't up for tea, cakes and cosy diplomacy. He is actively working to destabilise the West. Putin has flattered Trump in the past and Trump's ego can't get past that as his conversational meandering demonstrate. Trump will enable Putin and Putin knows this.

There comes a point when someone has to stand up to a bully. That someone won't be Trump.