Durham investigation ends after three years of searching, $40 million spent, and nothing found

#101
#101
lawgator1 said:
Consider:

1) regardless of actual knowing collusion Russia interfered to help Trump;

2) Republican support for Ukraine is being undermined. By Russia;

3) Trump to this day refuses to unabashedly criticize Putin's invasion of Ukraine;

4) Russia seeks to influence our elections even now, in an effort to get Republicans elected to have a more pro Russian US government, or at least one that will not resist them.
Click to expand...

1) Not quite; it was anti-Clinton due to her implying the 2011 Russian elections were rigged and that Putin wasn't duly elected. She made Putin her adversay, and the Obama admin handed Trump the worst U.S./Russia relations since the fall of the USSR.

First, Russian interference was a laughable drop in the ocean of political spending. It was anti-Clinton when it supported both Sanders and Stein, and it was anti-Clinton when Trump and Clinton became nominees of the two viable parties. It became exclusively 'pro-Trump' when Trump became the exclusive candidate with a chance of beating Clinton.

2) To the degree Repub support for Ukraine is less than effusive, it has diffuse grounds but recurring theme. Some have stupidly bought into the Nazi meme, while others oppose on grounds of tossing $ at a country with corruption problems. Opposition also springs from the folly of foreign policy in which there's not a clear U.S. interest (except proxy war), and risks another military misadventure, possibly catastrophic war with our treasure & blood on the line. There is also an anti-globalist strain of opposition. Avoiding military misadventure and globalism is a Trump residual and one way in which he transformed the party for the better. It's no coincidence the same Republican establishment that undermined Trump were the same cast of aging characters that virulently opposed Reagan.

3) Repeatedly stating Putin did not and would not have invaded on his watch is denouncing the invasion as wrong; there's no other way to interpret it. Frankly if I were Trump I'd state "I denounced white supremacists dozens of times - from the outset - even as the left kept demanding I renounce it. Why don't you all go fk yourselves until you learn how to accept 'yes' as the answer you're wanting?"

4) This is nonsense, erected on the wobbly three legs of assertions 1), 2) and 3). It wasn't enough the Obama admin handed off the worst post-Soviet relations with Russia, but that Dems former SoS and presidential nominee would pour gas on the relationship and toss a match for nothing more than to hold the presidency. If Trump was inarticulate or indecipherable in speech, it was against the backdrop of having no reason to trust a CIA, DOJ/FBI that were out to hang him using Clinton's depraved scheme as cover story, AND having to deal with the most nuked-up country on the globe in a publicly non-confrontational manner just as EVERY damned president does. The left talks as though Trump should have called Putin a lying cksucker and wrestled him to the ground at Helsinki, as if Obama ("cut it out", "flexibility"..."red line") or Biden would have done just that. Just as they talked a good game prior to fist-bumping MBS, shite changes when you're actually president and not a glib Senator or congressional. It gets real when the other guy has nukes, too.
 
#102
#102
NCFisher said:
1) Not quite; it was anti-Clinton due to her implying the 2011 Russian elections were rigged and that Putin wasn't duly elected. She made Putin her adversay, and the Obama admin handed Trump the worst U.S./Russia relations since the fall of the USSR.

First, Russian interference was a laughable drop in the ocean of political spending. It was anti-Clinton when it supported both Sanders and Stein, and it was anti-Clinton when Trump and Clinton became nominees of the two viable parties. It became exclusively 'pro-Trump' when Trump became the exclusive candidate with a chance of beating Clinton.

2) To the degree Repub support for Ukraine is less than effusive, it has diffuse grounds but recurring theme. Some have stupidly bought into the Nazi meme, while others oppose on grounds of tossing $ at a country with corruption problems. Opposition also springs from the folly of foreign policy in which there's not a clear U.S. interest (except proxy war), and risks another military misadventure, possibly catastrophic war with our treasure & blood on the line. There is also an anti-globalist strain of opposition. Avoiding military misadventure and globalism is a Trump residual and one way in which he transformed the party for the better. It's no coincidence the same Republican establishment that undermined Trump were the same cast of aging characters that virulently opposed Reagan.

3) Repeatedly stating Putin did not and would not have invaded on his watch is denouncing the invasion as wrong; there's no other way to interpret it. Frankly if I were Trump I'd state "I denounced white supremacists dozens of times - from the outset - even as the left kept demanding I renounce it. Why don't you all go fk yourselves until you learn how to accept 'yes' as the answer you're wanting?"

4) This is nonsense, erected on the wobbly three legs of assertions 1), 2) and 3). It wasn't enough the Obama admin handed off the worst post-Soviet relations with Russia, but that Dems former SoS and presidential nominee would pour gas on the relationship and toss a match for nothing more than to hold the presidency. If Trump was inarticulate or indecipherable in speech, it was against the backdrop of having no reason to trust a CIA, DOJ/FBI that were out to hang him using Clinton's depraved scheme as cover story, AND having to deal with the most nuked-up country on the globe in a publicly non-confrontational manner just as EVERY damned president does. The left talks as though Trump should have called Putin a lying cksucker and wrestled him to the ground at Helsinki, as if Obama ("cut it out", "flexibility"..."red line") or Biden would have done just that. Just as they talked a good game prior to fist-bumping MBS, shite changes when you're actually president and not a glib Senator or congressional. It gets real when the other guy has nukes, too.
Click to expand...


Dealing with the # 2 point, the problem is that it can ALWAYS be argued that our involvement in two other nations at war is costly to us in some fashion, both monetarily and in possible other ways. Also, there will ALWAYS be an argument that the nation we are assisting is not worthy, has "corruption problems" as you say, or is otherwise not completely deserving of our help for some reason or another.

The goal here not simply to assist Ukraine out of some poorly defined allegiance to Ukraine. It is to stop Putin from expanding Russian territory both now and in the future.
 
#103
#103
lawgator1 said:
Dealing with the # 2 point, the problem is that it can ALWAYS be argued that our involvement in two other nations at war is costly to us in some fashion, both monetarily and in possible other ways. Also, there will ALWAYS be an argument that the nation we are assisting is not worthy, has "corruption problems" as you say, or is otherwise not completely deserving of our help for some reason or another.

The goal here not simply to assist Ukraine out of some poorly defined allegiance to Ukraine. It is to stop Putin from expanding Russian territory both now and in the future.
Click to expand...

Sure, but militarily propping up a country bordering a nuclear adversary in conflict with that country is rather novel. This can't be likened to supporting the home team in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Ideally, this would be a purely Euro problem but NATO membership prompts us to act with other members even when the nation concerned is not one. Suddenly no one is screeching Trump is starting WWIII, trying to break up NATO, or haranguing the EU for depending on Russia for energy. He would look like Nostradamus now, were it not so glaringly obvious then.

There's no disagreement the West (or democracies anywhere) doesn't want to see Russia expand and upset the broad peace, post WWII; a continued vision of a world that settles disputes by other means than war. At the same time, U.S. policy - as recently as the destruction of Libya - has made it easy for Russia & China to excuse their own aggression. That philosophical tension between intervention and doing nothing creates valid disagreement without excusing Russia, or without making disagreement a pro-Russia indicator.
 
#104
#104
lawgator1 said:
Dealing with the # 2 point, the problem is that it can ALWAYS be argued that our involvement in two other nations at war is costly to us in some fashion, both monetarily and in possible other ways. Also, there will ALWAYS be an argument that the nation we are assisting is not worthy, has "corruption problems" as you say, or is otherwise not completely deserving of our help for some reason or another.

The goal here not simply to assist Ukraine out of some poorly defined allegiance to Ukraine. It is to stop Putin from expanding Russian territory both now and in the future.
Click to expand...
Why should we care about other countries expanding their territories?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#105
#105
Sandman 423 said:
Why should we care about other countries expanding their territories?
Click to expand...

Under the circumstances I think the answer specifically as to Russia is so obvious that its not necessary to delve into why we would not want Russia, in particular, invading other parts of Europe.
 
#106
#106
lawgator1 said:
Under the circumstances I think the answer specifically as to Russia is so obvious that its not necessary to delve into why we would not want Russia, in particular, invading other parts of Europe.
Click to expand...

You really think Putin would invade NATO nations, knowing what it triggers? If the USSR did not do it during their preeminence, a vastly inferior Russia would not.
 
#107
#107
Orangeburst said:
You really think Putin would invade NATO nations, knowing what it triggers? If the USSR did not do it during their preeminence, a vastly inferior Russia would not.
Click to expand...

Put it this way: if he doubted our resolve 8 months ago he certainly does not now.
 
#109
#109
lawgator1 said:
Under the circumstances I think the answer specifically as to Russia is so obvious that its not necessary to delve into why we would not want Russia, in particular, invading other parts of Europe.
Click to expand...
Hey, I can care...... Just give me an actual reason as to why I should. Lets say Russia took back every former USSR country, How would that change anything in our lives?
 
#110
#110
Sandman 423 said:
Hey, I can care...... Just give me an actual reason as to why I should. Lets say Russia took back every former USSR country, How would that change anything in our lives?
Click to expand...


They are sovereign countries. If you don't stand up to aggression, specifically from Russia, on that very issue, then when do you? Just if they are in NATO? So everyone else is at risk?

I would not disagree that the international security apparatus is a bit dated and parts of it simply linger from the Cold War. But for a few decades now it just ... was. Now all of a sudden Putin wants to thrust upon the world a unilateral and reckless approach to suit his own vision of the World. I just see it as worthwhile to remind him we are still here.
 
#112
#112
hog88 said:
It doesn't take a lot of resolve to print money.
Click to expand...


What Presidents ballooned the debt the most?

Biden increased it by 6.3 %

Trump by 40.4 %

Obama 69.9 %

G W Bush by 105 % (that's not 10.5. Its 105)

Clinton by 31.6 %

GH Bush by 54.3 %

Reagan by 186.3 %



The lesson is that its Republican Presidents who, by far, have ballooned the national debt the most.
 
#113
#113
US Debt by President | Chart & Per President Deficit | Self.

  • Until the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown (03/16/20), Donald Trump had increased debts by 16.08%. That’s considerably less than Barack Obama (69.98%) and George W. Bush (105.08%)
      • To tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, national debt was increased by a further 18.01% totaling $4.25 trillion in additional debt from March 2020 to Jan 2021.
 
#114
#114
lawgator1 said:
What Presidents ballooned the debt the most?

Biden increased it by 6.3 %

Trump by 40.4 %

Obama 69.9 %

G W Bush by 105 % (that's not 10.5. Its 105)

Clinton by 31.6 %

GH Bush by 54.3 %

Reagan by 186.3 %



The lesson is that its Republican Presidents who, by far, have ballooned the national debt the most.
Click to expand...

Back to this I see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and rekinhavoc
#117
#117
lawgator1 said:
You make it seem like spending is the problem and i thought it relevant that we look at the facts on that, when it comes to politics.
Click to expand...

The conversation was about Biden's "resolve" in relation to the war in Ukraine. It doesn't take resolve to print money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rekinhavoc
#120
#120
volfanhill said:
I would. With the only loophole being if deemed a national emergency. And the threshold for that would be the same as amending the constitution.
Click to expand...

It will come naturally or by force.

IF all this spending is the reason for inflation..

That is the elephant in the room IMO...supply chain or Fed spending
 
#122
#122
BowlBrother85 said:
Donald Trump had never held public office before, but that by itself, didn't make him an outsider.

Donald Trump's cabinet appointments, his embrace of lobbyists, and his weaponization of the DOJ, made it very clear that "draining the swamp" was never an objective of his. Donald Trump simply wanted to remove corrupt bureaucrats who favored the left, so he could replenish the swamp with corrupt bureaucrats who favored the right. Donald Trump didn't drain anything.

The reality is, Donald Trump didn't mind conflicts of interest, self-enrichment scandals, misappropriations of public funds, the wasteful spending of tax-payer dollars, or the buying and selling of influence by public officials; nor did he have a problem with the DOJ targeting his political opponents ... just as long as the swamp creatures were serving him, and his petty, vindictive and egotistical needs and ambitions, Donald Trump was fine with there being a full swamp.

If you were naive enough to believe that Donald Trump was going to clean up "politics as usual in D.C.", then I would bet that you also believed that Mexico was going to pay for a new stretch of border wall.
Click to expand...
Almost all that was reactionary. There is no doubt that all was a very calculated plot to amplify Trumps personality flaws. Yep, he is highly flawed, but also highly effective. Trump had some amazing accomplishments, which surprised me, because I thought he’d never get elected in the first place. He was under constant attack from the left. It was relentless. His reactions to this are exactly what led to the things you list. Sad that you can’t see that and prop up that POS fossil who’s being puppeted by Marxists.
 
#123
#123
lawgator1 said:
They are sovereign countries. If you don't stand up to aggression, specifically from Russia, on that very issue, then when do you? Just if they are in NATO? So everyone else is at risk?

I would not disagree that the international security apparatus is a bit dated and parts of it simply linger from the Cold War. But for a few decades now it just ... was. Now all of a sudden Putin wants to thrust upon the world a unilateral and reckless approach to suit his own vision of the World. I just see it as worthwhile to remind him we are still here.
Click to expand...
I believe when Russia has the ability to actually threaten our way of life is when we “remind” them we are still here.
 
#124
#124
Allvols1996 said:
Almost all that was reactionary. There is no doubt that all was a very calculated plot to amplify Trumps personality flaws. Yep, he is highly flawed, but also highly effective. Trump had some amazing accomplishments, which surprised me, because I thought he’d never get elected in the first place. He was under constant attack from the left. It was relentless. His reactions to this are exactly what led to the things you list. Sad that you can’t see that and prop up that POS fossil who’s being puppeted by Marxists.
Click to expand...
That is ridiculous.

Nobody forced Trump to hire Scott Pruitt to run the EPA. Pruitt was as corrupt and self-serving as they come. To a lesser extent, so were Tom Price, Ryan Zinke and Wilbur Ross. Nobody forced Trump to steer diplomats to his golf resort and hotel properties either. He tried to have the G 7 Summit held at Doral.

Trump wasn't highly effective at anything, except racking up emoluments clause violations.

Trump lost his re-election bid for a reason ... and the way he chose to handle that defeat was a disgrace. Trump's "alternate elector" scheme to retain the presidency was comically stupid. It speaks to both his immoral character and his lack of intelligence that he actually believed that the Vice President had the unilateral power during the process of formal certification, to refuse to count electoral college votes of his choosing, in effort to have those votes replaced with votes from electors who were chosen by Republican-controlled state legislatures to defy their state's popular vote and for his ticket instead. Does it make sense that a Vice President would have the power to set a scheme in motion, which would reverse the outcome of his own defeat in a democratic system of elections ?

Do Republicans want Kamala Harris to have such power in January of 2025 ? That alternate elector scheme was the most stupid thing ever... but an incredibly stupid person named Donald Trump actually thought it could work.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top