Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 26, 2017 -> 12:35 PM) The "I know nothing about what my assistants are doing" can only go so far for Pitino. At least one would hope. It's been 6 years since the UNC scandal broke so.... he can coach another few seasons and retire before anything happens.

QUOTE (Brian @ Sep 25, 2017 -> 10:45 AM) It's not but I see memes and videos posted about how they are disrespecting the military and veterans. The people posting them have no clue what it's about obviously. That's the problem with this entire protest. Kap was kneeling before anyone was paying attention. Once people started to talk about it, the discussion was never about racial inequality, it was all about the flag, the anthem and how professional athletes act. Still is. All day yesterday the "why" was Trump, not the original issue.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Sep 25, 2017 -> 09:33 AM) Trump is genius. Misdirection is his forte. He's trying to get people distracted so he can try to pass his disastrous policies. People just need to keep their eyes on the prize, Trump's rhetoric is nothing new and should be treated as white noise. He is what he is. No chance he's that clever. He's in Alabama at a rally and just said something because he knew it would draw an applause. I bet he didn't think for a second about how the rest of the country would respond.

Anyone watch Billions? I had such high hopes for it. Season 1 was pretty good until the finale (I LOL'd through the last scene....so over the top). 4 or 5 episodes into season 2 and it's just....not good. I keep asking myself, why do I care about this? Who am I rooting for or rooting against? Is there anyone remotely likeable? I'm glad they finally told Damian Lewis to cut the new york accent. In season 1 you could tell which scenes they filmed around the same time because his accent would go from 100 to 0 and back to 100 again in the span of 10 minutes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 01:07 PM) Something to consider with all of the "then why haven't they indicted!" deflection is that Nixon wasn't ever actually charged with a crime, but he stilled resigned in disgrace and was threatened with impeachment. lol, "deflection." You can't stand disagreement.

Didn't his plantar fasciitis act up at some point? Or was that the next year? Tough to keep track of all the injuries.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 01:03 PM) BTW he only tweeted them out because the NYT contacted his team for comment before they were going to publish them. Trump Jr's team asked for 30 minutes (or something like that) to respond and then released them themselves. There wasn't anything noble or forthcoming about it. But he still legitimized the emails by providing them himself. If they were clear proof of criminal conduct there's no way he releases them on his own. You play the PR game that the emails are taken out of context, changed, photoshopped, whatever.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 12:58 PM) I have a feeling if this were Hillary's people, you would have a different take. I really wouldn't. I would argue that there is smoke and something worth investigating but I wouldn't make grand statements that it's proof of collusion.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 12:49 PM) It's not circumstantial evidence. It's explicitly a meeting to discuss the Russian government's help to get Trump elected, and they eagerly went to it. They never reported this meeting, and then when initially reported, lied multiple times about what the meeting was about and who was there. I'm honestly not sure how you can even get a more explicit example of evidence of willingness and desire to collude. It's circumstantial. Not sure why you're arguing about it. The e-mail sets forth their desire to help the campaign and get sanction relief and their offer of dirt on Hillary. There's no evidence of what Trump's campaign offered in response, if anything, or even if those issues were discussed or if the dirt was a gift or if they wanted to exchange info for the promise of sanction relief. All of the details are unknown at this point. Manafort's notes are all circumstantial too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 12:42 PM) You're not denying that something could be there, you're just setting an impossibly high standard for ever believing it. I'm sorry that you think betraying your own country in exchange for political favors is something that is normal and acceptable. That's what this is--discussions to undermine and change US policy in exchange for political help from a foreign government. I don't think i'm asking for an impossible standard. I'm saying more than one example with circumstantial evidence is needed to prove this very large conspiracy to work with the Russians. edit: but I forget, innocent until proven guilty except when it comes to people you don't like/believe.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 12:38 PM) Putin's MO is to sow chaos and discord. He helped Trump not exactly with the expectation that he would actually win but in an attempt to grow political divisions and make America look dumb for even considering electing Trump. There was earlier reporting that around mid-October they switched from "undermine and damage Clinton as much as possible to weaken her as she takes office" to "holy lol Trump could actually win." If so that's really short-sighted on their part. Trump was riding a wave a year before the election that showed the country was divided. And being divided isn't anything new, by the way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 12:35 PM) 1) Trump's legal team hasn't looked particularly bright so far. You've also got a weird standard here. Every week or so we get another small leak from Mueller's investigation about subpeonas, additional high-profile lawyers being added, more and more things they're looking into. If you're potentially trying to bring down the President of the United States, you're going to make sure you case is 100% absolutely air tight. "They didn't immediately indict" seems pretty nonsensical. 2) The Trump campaign eagerly met with a foreign agent representing themselves as working for and with the Russian government in order to discuss damaging political information on Clinton. You haven't made up your mind, but you're deflecting and minimizing everything as much as possible. 1) You (and Vox) are telling me those e-mails are all the proof you need that he committed a crime. If you discover a murderer at the scene with a gun in his hand you don't wait for weeks to investigate further. You file your charges. I'm just saying it's more of a grey area than what you believe, not that there's absolutely nothing there that should be investigated. 2) And I've said I would have done the same thing. Why on earth wouldn't you want to hear what dirt is out there on your opponent? Report it to the FBI afterwards but certainly have that meeting. And i'm deflecting and minimizing (without ever denying that something could be there) because i'd like to see the full evidence before deciding, conclusively, without doubt, what you already believe is true.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 11:18 AM) What about the twitter bots? Even Russian media is saying that is true. And with all the contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, the question would have to be why? Why did they want Trump elected? What's in it for them? Trump is America first, is he not? And why so much contact? And why all the denials? And why all the changing of security clearance forms after "fake news" reported on these meetings these people you want running the country couldn't remember? I think in Putin's mind Trump is someone without experience or knowledge of how the world operates and he wants to use that to his advantage. I also think he knows that someone with a business background is more likely to negotiate and make deals, regardless of the public reaction. Clinton would have acted only in the best interests of her being reelected, so it wouldn't be favorable to him.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 12:28 PM) Considering his reactions to people who criticize him I believe Trump cares a lot about what people think about him. He responds, but he doesn't change. There's a difference.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 11:12 AM) Mueller is investigating everything, including that meeting with Donald, Jr. Whether Donald, Jr. will be charged with a crime is very unresolved. As to the Russian election meddling, there's abundant evidence that Russia meddled in the election, and that they wanted Trump to win. Mueller is (among other things) investigating the Trump campaign's involvement (if any) in that. Jenks, you know that a case like this is a really, really difficult case to investigate and prove. The Nixon investigation took like 18 months (off the top of my head) and they had tapes of Nixon. As Crimson said, there isn't going to be some contract titled "Collusion to Influence Election" but there is a lot of evidence of impropriety between people close to Trump (Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, and Trump, Jr. at a minimum) and people related to Russia. Maybe there isn't ultimately anything there, but drawing a conclusion that there isn't anything there after 3 months of investigating is really, really shortsighted. 1) If he admitted to the clear and obvious federal crime, there would be an indictment. That's all i'm saying. Mueller hasn't yet, despite his investigation, which to me is telling. But yes, it absolutely could come later, i just don't think it's a clear cut case. He may be dumb but his lawyers are not and the lawyers gave him the ok to release those emails. 2) Yes, it's difficult, and yes, there's no question Russia tried to and did meddle in the election. But the key is whether the Trump campaign was actively and knowingly in on it. That's the part to me that has not been proven. Even the meeting regarding dirt on Hillary isn't sufficient proof of that. It's showing some shadiness going down for sure, but not straight up collusion. Manafort's notes are the clearest evidence of any exchange and it's not totally conclusive yet because they're jumbled notes on a piece of paper in close proximity. I'm not making up my mind. I'm imploring you all to do the same. You've already concluded what you believe is true with limited and incomplete evidence.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 11:06 AM) Trump strongly opposed the sanctions, but signed them after Congress made it clear they would override any veto. He had no choice. The more of a stink he put up, the worse it would look. I suppose, but again that's not really his MO. He could care less what people think about him and he acts accordingly.

And by the way, didn't Trump increase sanctions against Russia? Sure, that could be a "cover my ass" move, but that doesn't seem to be Donald's MO. If he doesn't think he did anything wrong he doubles down.

The media came out and said he committed a clear crime and yet no charges have been brought. It's a pretty clear cut case if true, so where's the indictment? Regardless, that still doesn't get us to the meddling that you all are claiming. At best you have Manafort asking for RNC contributions in exchange for sanction relief (illegal), but that's not "meddling" with the election system in the ways that are being alleged.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 10:45 AM) Buddy, I got some news for you about Reagan. I'd love to hear it.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 09:41 AM) What we do have proof of is that the meeting came about because the Russian party was promising dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's pretty black and white in the e-mail. Whether that reaches Trump himself is obviously very up for debate. And what was actually discussed in the meeting is also obviously unknown. But Trump, Jr.'s intent in taking the meeting was very clearly to get damaging info on Hillary Clinton from the Russians (or at least from this one Russian). But that's not solicitation. He didn't actively seek Russia's help. He was notified that someone wanted to meet to discuss what info they had. I think i'd take that meeting to, if I were Trump Jr. I might have sent a proxy just so it didn't look bad, but i'd want to know what info they had. I'm not even sure obtaining dirt from a foreign agent is illegal unless there's something provided in return.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 09:32 AM) Legally, it's very different. Someone leaking the Access Hollywood tape to the press is very different than soliciting dirt from a foreign government. Legally this is also very different. There's no proof of that (yet).

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 09:18 AM) Sure, but your post implied we don't know squat about what the meeting was. We do: the Russians trying to help Trump and Trump's inner circle being on board. In regards to what, if anything, Russia did with respect to "election meddling." If providing dirt on Hillary is what you or SS are considering as "meddling," fine. But to that end, whoever leaked the Access Hollywood tape was "meddling." Dan Rather was "meddling" when he filed his false report about Bush's war record. To me that's not the same as the claim that Trump's campaign actively assisted and/or requested Russia use hacking measures, making ads, false news, etc.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 09:14 AM) Don't those things go hand-in-hand? If Trump wins the Presidency, he can work towards things like removing the economic sanctions on Russia. I suppose, but that's not election meddling. That's Trump illegally benefiting from his role (obviously not ok)

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 21, 2017 -> 09:09 AM) Per the emails, the point of the meeting was for the Russians to provide dirt on Hillary Clinton that would help the Trump campaign. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07...email-text.html It's certainly not the right move, so don't think i'm excusing/justifying it. But being provided information versus requesting information from a foreign power (who's basically an enemy) in exchange for something are two very different things.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 05:21 PM) The main detail we're missing right now is this one. The Russians were able to buy Facebook ads and use social media to directly, precisely target areas in Michigan and Pennsylvania where they would have the most impact. No one seems to think they would be able to spend their money supporting Donald Trump very precisely if they did not have access to non-public voter information, the sort that party committees keep and build upon every election. Jared Kushner was involved in the Trump campaign's social media advertising "Microtargeting" campaign, that was doing the exact same sort of data processing and targeting of small groups that the Russians were able to make use of with their FB ad purchases and "Fake News" social media campaigns. Every time one of these statements about how the Russians were spending money or organizing FB groups of Trump supporters comes out - that's information it would be difficult for the Russians to have if they didn't have access through the campaign. That doesn't mean it's impossible - if so, then that means the Russians know more about how to control a US election than the US does and that should be the sort of thing terrifying anyone who isn't a Russian agent (they could decide they want the other party to win next time in exchange for something else. We might want to be scared of that). But for now, active collaboration as part of a trade/payback, where the Russians are leaking emails they hacked and targeting voters with that information using campaign information in exchange for a promise of sanctions relief is one way to make it happen. And that's why the reports of Facebook being questioned by Mueller's group is important. Didn't they hack both the DNC and RNC? Isn't that the easy answer to where they got that info? And the way the media covers the election, isn't the lay of our political map, down to the county level, easily attainable? Certainly the historical data is there. I don't think it would take much work to figure out which areas need targeted ads. Sorry guys, I just don't buy it (yet). Russia has been hacking the world for decades now. Did they meddle in our election? Absolutely. Much like we do all over the world. Should it happen? No. Should Trump be making a bigger deal of it. Absolutely. But is it/was it an orchestrated move by Trumps campaign? Doubtful. As I said above, they're all about money. I'd bet my salary that all this back channeling was to make money on deals, not win the election.