The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[Banditbandit]

OK - I had a bit of time ..

To try and address your three points above, and pose a question or two in return.

=======
"Even if you buy into the idea that Clinton and Obama should be prosecuted - you have to see that
Russian engagement in the US elections and US politics in the way that is being suggested is a
major issue ..."
========

Why do I "have" to see this as being obvious ?

I might be persuaded to believe "a major issue", if I could see some good evidence of what
Russian engagement in the 2016 US election has "actually occurred to date". As opposed
to just having "been suggested".

Yes - that is true .. I was suggesting that, if it is true, it is a major issue. It has yet to be proven true.

True, the Western MSM has been "shouting to the roof-tops" and "pointing fingers in Russia's
(or Putin's) direction" over recent times. But all I keep hearing is only "meddling". Nothing more
specific.

Does that necessarily make it a "major issue" ?

If it is true then yes, it is a major issue.

Western MSM have been quite vocal about a whole range of other events over the past 25 years
e.g.

- Bombing of Yugoslavian Serbia by NATO in the 1990's
- WMD's and the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003
- Accusations of massacres and rape prior to invasion of Libya and over-throw of Gaddafi in 2007
- Accusations of civilian massacres and bombings by Assad during the Syrian conflict since 2009
- Murder of civilians by the regime in Ukraine in 2014

But in many cases, as time passed by, truth slowly filtered out, and accusations carried in the
MSM were later seen to be untrue (or have been presented with a very one-sided view). Never
mind, too late now, it's all in the past. Except that the "historical record" is never corrected.

But more importantly, those publicly aired "accusations" were often used to justify political
decisions at the time. And sometimes accompanied by equally dodgy dossiers of "proof". The
"Iraqi WMD's and missiles 45 minutes away" is particularly memorable:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...md-taxi-driver

I don't regard much of western MSM to be particularly reliable sources of information today.

Accordingly, I don't quite share your view that media accusations of Russian meddling in the
2016 US election is currently a "major issue." But each our own opinion.

There has been evidence of Russian meddling in the election - whether or not that meddling is linked to any collusion by Trump or his people has yet to be established ..

Mueller has been running an investigation for nearly two years to date. I would have expected
much more progress in that time (or at least some definitive schedule of charges against the
Russians).

12 Russians have so far been charged with meddling in the elections .

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44825345 (Oh hang on it is MSM reporting .. can't rely on them to even report the charges correctly ...)

For accusations supposedly so serious ("treasonable"), this seems to me an awfully leisurely
paced investigation. You'd almost be forgiven for thinking that there is not much evidence
actually in existence. Or that progress is possibly being delayed for political purpose.

12 Russians have been charged already ..

If Mueller was really serious about securing a conviction of "Russian meddling", all he needed
to do was go back to 2009, when he (as acting FBI Director) uncovered a Russian bribery plot
(Uranium One) - even if that incident supposedly benefited the Barack Obama administration
and the Clintons.

According to government documents and interviews at the time:

"...before approving the controversial Uranium One deal with Russia, the Obama administration
participated in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering with Russian officials –
all with the aim to expand Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the U.S."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...nistration?amp

Surely, that might have yielded a more positive result (unlike all the recent ones involving
campaign receipts, wire fraud, mis-use of funds). And having to rely on "guilt by association".

It could have saved the country a whole lot of time and money (and "Putin was involved").

Why wait until 2016 ?

Was it that an investigation into the earlier incident in 2009 would have possibly ended up
with an indictment and conviction of the "wrong party" (on the US side of the fence) ?

Or was it because, in spite of all the appropriate "electoral controls" in place in 2016, the
"minority" candidate still won the US election (i.e. the public elected the "wrong person") ?
So now it's time to remedy the situation.

Uranium One is a Canadian company - wit mining interests in the US .. not a US company. The US got to OK the deal because uranium is a 'security issue".

The approved deal allows Uranium One to mine uranium, but not export it out of the US.

Three years after the deal, Uranium One donated money to Clinton's election campaign .. so what? Many companies contribute to many party's campaign coffers ..

"there is no direct evidence of a quid pro quo among Clinton, the State Department, Rosatom and the Clinton Foundation donors with ties to Uranium One. Clinton has repeatedly denied any involvement in the State Department’s approval of the Uranium One sale, insisting that such approval was granted at lower levels of the department and would not have crossed the secretary’s desk.

Jose Fernandez, who was the assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs when the Uranium One deal was approved, told the Times that Clinton “never intervened with me on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter."

Beyond the State Department, eight other government agencies approved the Uranium One sale."

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...plainer-244895

=======
"If Russia was NOT trying to influence the US elections for an outcome favourable to Russia
why waste time and money, as Russia clearly has, either state-sanctioned or not? "
=======

The only explicit "evidence" I've read of has been mention of some Facebook advertisments,
but starting back in 2014 (well before the 2016 election). As per the following article.

https://williamblum.org/aer/read/156

Don't bother reading all the US interventions that he's listed in the body of the article -
I'm sure that it's all just "fake news".

Nice summary here - you can trace the sources from this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia...ates_elections

Or this

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/13/...trump-sessions

I do have to hand it to Putin. He must be a smart chap, being able to look that far forward
in time and pick out Trump as the obvious (successful) Republican candidiate, then predict
that Trump would also beat the "sure fire winner" Hillary Clinton. And that the US public
would be gullible enough to deliver.

Either that, or those US electronic voting machines must be even less secure and easier to
hack than touted. [ Ignoring Hillary clInton's private email server.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvOKWeW_Fog

"Earlier this week the FBI confirmed breaches have been detected in electronic voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. The FBI is now urging states to take new steps to enhance the security of their computer systems ahead of the November election."

Personally, I'd simply just have offered Trump some loan money (confiscated from oligarchs,
of course) to finance purchase of some new land for a golf course or to build a new hotel,
and been done with it. He's a businessman. He'd have accepted in a flash.

Why "meddle" with a US election ? It all just seems so very cumbersome and unnecessary.
And not very smart at all (and I'm not even a "devious master-mind" like Putin).

But, just assuming for a minute that:

- the Russians actually "meddled" in the 2016 election, and
- the Russians had spent considerable time and money (much more than all the other donors
busy "investing in democracy")

Just exactly HOW did YOU envisage Putin (and Russia) would then take advantage of and get
some benefit from all this newly acquired political control over the US President ? How would it
then play out ?

Would Russia :

e.g.
1 - Get Trump to refuse to start a nuclear war ? Or refuse to fight if Russia started one ?

Given that it has been suggested that Clinton was more lilely to start a war tha Trump, it is possibel that Putin dies not want a war - and therefore preferred Trump .

2 - Get Trump to cancel US / European economic sanctions currently in place against Russia ?

Yes - good motive right there.

3 - Get Trump to change (revoke) some US legislation to be in Russia's favour ? [ Magnitsky Act ? ]

Yes - good motive right there

4 - Get Trump to withdraw US weapons and forces from countries around Russia's borders ? [ Shrink NATO ? ]

Yes - and to weaken NATO so someof the former Soviet satellites do not join - and so Nato does not interfer in the Ukraine and other areas.

5 - Get Trump to agree to renew existing strategic arms treaties soon coming due for rollover ?

Yes - or even negotiate a deal more favourable to Russia ..

6 - Get Trump to allow Russia (and/or Iran) to sell oil and gas to Europe ?

Don't they do that already? More to the point woud be the panned pipelines from the Middle east to Europe and Russia ..

7 - Get Trump to spend less Fed money on the MIC [ building / deploying new US weapons systems]?

That's a possiblity - but given Trump's willingness to increase the armed forces, it's not likely

8 - Get Trump to back off US plans trying to restrict Russian weapon sales to US allies ?

[/QUOTE]

Yes ... economic and power motive there ..

9 - Get Trump to get the CIA to cease starting colour revolutions all around the globe ?

Not sure what you mean by this one .

10 - Get Trump to halt wars in certain countries and withdraw US troops ? [ Syria ? Afghanistan ? ]

Yes - good motive there ..

11 - Some other cunning option I haven't thought of ?

Can't answer that speculation ..

See - you can provide all the motives Putin might need yourself ..

I think we could safely cross off point 1 above, because all players recognise the "nuclear
winter" that would follow a nuclear war could severely damage or contaminate the Earth
and likely kill off all (or most of) mankind.

Are you really sure about that or just hopeful? I am not that hopeful .

But I'd be interested in a reply re any of points 2 through 11 above.

Because I'm struggling to see an option that wouldn't result in one of the following:

- A reduction in political or military tensions (or an improvement in political relations)

maybe - but I am not that hopeful ...

- A reduction in the risk of unintended conflict

Trump's style appears to be brinkmanship ... One day he might push that too far ..

- A reduction in the number of active wars

Hmm ... Trump bangs the drum a lot - someone might shoot first - he's a brinkmanship negotiator - and sometimes the other side walks away - and then starts shooting .

- A return of refugees to their home countries

Many refugees are unable to return home - if they do they will be executed ..

Enough for now

[pritch]

Some people have either very selective, or very short memories. To say that Muellers investigation hasn't acheived much is ridiculous. The Whitewater investigation went on for years and found nothing relevant so they settled for Monica Lewinsky. The Republicans spent years and millions of dollars investigating Hillary over Benghazi and again got nothing. Then came the complete fiction about Uranium One. Even Fox News disowned that, although Hannity and others keep bringing it up as if it was a thing.

Here's a factual account of the Uranium One transaction for those with an attention span of six minutes or so. The thought that I'd be actually posting a link to Fox as a source of facts takes some getting used to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAWt...&frags=pl%2Cwn

[Banditbandit]

Mueller has tapes ...

Mueller has the tape of Gates confessing to Van Der Zwaan that Gates and Manafort were conspiring with the Russian government intel community during the 2016 election. Gates pleaded guilty soon after Van Der Zwaan. This was likely the final straw that pushed Gates into cooperating and cutting a deal.

http://www.dcdailywire.com/robert-mu...gn=facebook_PP

[husaberg]

"The meeting" changes in story

1. November 2016: No communications, period
Hope Hicks: “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”

2. February 2017: There were no communications, “to the best of our knowledge”
Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “This is a non-story because, to the best of our knowledge, no contacts took place.”

3. March 2017: There were communications, but no planned meetings with Russians
Donald Trump Jr.: “Did I meet with people that were Russian? I'm sure, I'm sure I did. ... But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment. And certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form.”

4. July 8, 2017: There was a planned meeting at Trump Tower, but it was “primarily” about adoption and not the campaign
Trump Jr.: “We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow-up.”

5. July 9, 2017: The meeting was planned to discuss the campaign, but the information exchanged wasn't “meaningful”
Trump Jr.: “No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

6. December 2017: Collusion isn't even a crime
President Trump: “There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime.”
Jay Sekulow: “For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute that you claim is being violated. There is not a statute that refers to criminal collusion. There is no crime of collusion.”
(Technically speaking, the criminal code doesn't use the word “collusion,” but it's generally understood as a broad term that could encompass more specific, codified crimes. And even special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team has used it in court filings.)

7. May 16, 2018: Even if meaningful information were obtained, it wasn't used
Giuliani: “And even if it comes from a Russian, or a German, or an American, it doesn’t matter. And they never used it, is the main thing. They never used it. They rejected it. If there was collusion with the Russians, they would have used it.”
[One thing, Rudy Giuliani: The Trump campaign *did* use it.]

8. May 19, 2018: There was a *second* planned meeting about foreign help in the election, but nothing came of it either
The New York Times reported Sunday on yet another meeting about getting foreign help with the 2016 election. This one came three months before the election and featured Donald Trump Jr. and an emissary, George Nader, who said the princes who lead Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates wanted to assist Trump.
Alan Futerfas, Trump Jr.'s attorney: "They pitched Mr. Trump Jr. on a social media platform or marketing strategy. He was not interested, and that was the end of it.”

9. July 16, 2018: Trump couldn't collude, because Trump didn't even know Putin
Trump: "There was no collusion. I didn't know the president. There was nobody to collude with."

10. July 30, 2018: Collusion isn't a crime, and Trump wasn't physically at the Trump Tower meeting
With Michael Cohen alleging that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting in real time -- despite many previous denials -- Giuliani told both CNN and Fox News that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting.

June 2016: The Trump Tower meeting
By June 2016, the Republican primaries were over. Kasich and Cruz had dropped out after the early May primary in Indiana, so Trump locked up the nomination. His campaign was planning for the Republican National Convention and preparing a general election game plan.
Other plans were underway as well: a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who was said to have incriminating information about Clinton. At the meeting, Trump Jr. was joined by his brother-in-law Jared Kushner and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Kushner joined the Trump administration and did not include the meeting on the first versions of his security clearance forms, which required disclosure of any contact with foreign nationals. The White House senior adviser said in July 2017 he "did not remember the meeting and certainly did not remember it as one with anyone who had to be included" on the forms.
When news reports revealed the existence of the meeting in July 2017, a misleading statement was put out in Trump Jr.'s name that claimed the meeting was primarily about Russian adoptions. Trump's lawyers recently acknowledged that the President personally dictated the statement.

[Viking01]

OK - I had a bit of time ..

Enough for now

Evening. And thanks for the reply.

I have to admit that I seriously thought about just posting "TL-DNR"
in reply as well. But since you'd gone to the trouble of doing
a point-by-point reply, that would have been a bit ungracious of me.

1. Meddling - It's such a nice delightfully vague word.

2. Indictments of 12 Russian Individuals - Well, it was no great feat
for the AG (Rosenstein) to lodge indictments, but it might require a
little more effort to actually produce some robust evidence and to
secure a conviction (even in absentia). I wouldn't hold your breath.

3. Uranium One

Damn ! Found out. I'd been saving that link for a while. It sounded
so salacious, and best of all, it had a "Clinton Foundation" link. It
seemed such a pity to waste it.

I read about the Uranium One accusations when they first surfaced,
but took me some time to find most of the relevant dots and manually
join them up (unlike Pritch's FOX video clip).

It was only the last question in that section ("minority candidate",
"elected the wrong person","time to remedy the situation") that I
was really interested in getting reply to.

4. Wikipedia on (alleged) Russian Interference

Thanks for the Wiki link. Yes, I had read it earlier. And when I read
through it again (and look at a few of the references), I still can't
help feeling some of the items in the Wiki have as much substance
and credibility as the Uranium One story (given some of the speakers
involved).

And with so much "smoke" (my opinion), it's hard to see exactly in
which direction it's being blown.

5. Electronic Voter Registration Databases

I'm not sure that the alleged nationality of the "hacker" is all that
relevant to that discussion. Seems any number of parties may have
had a motivation (e.g. theft of identity data for use in illegal financial
transactions).

And would many US voters feel that comforted if the party involved was
found to be a member of the US Intelligence community ("..just doing a
little ethical hacking to make sure that the controls are all working
properly, honest ..")?

6. Possible Russian Motives

Yes, I know the motives listed are all viable options (from a Russian
perspective), but it was reply to the last part of the question I was
interested in ("how did you see it playing out ?").

e.g.
- Would Trump just start issuing some Presidential Signing Orders? And
which of the options would be of particular interest to him?
- Would the military and various US government departments ignore his
instructions, or just simply debate endlessly and seek to delay actual
implementation?
- Would Trump enjoy some partial success (or suffer an unfortunate fall
down the stairs, or alternatively be assessed as being mentally unfit and
be removed from office)?

7. Possible Outcomes

-Nuclear War - Can only hope the MAD concept is still alive and forefront
of US minds. But recent US discussion on development and use of tactical
(low yield) nuclear weapons is not encouraging (i.e. bridging a slippery
slope between use of conventional weapons and high yield nuclear weapons).

-Brinkmanship - Acknowledged. But what if the opponent decides to call
your bluff? Or instead, if one of your allies does something precipitate?
[as per WW1]. Edit: Seems a particularly high risk strategy between
nuclear nations.

It's a possibility we may find out the answer to those questions in Syria
in the coming days or weeks when combat in Idlib ramps up. [Though I'll
still bet on "Russian restraint", even if allied forces launch missile attacks.]

-Refugees - A small number of said "refugees" might well end up jailed
or dead if forcibly returned home (e.g. ISIS members in Germany or Sweden).

but I would argue many refugees (having fled war) would prefer to return
to their home country, and to live with people of similar religion/heritage/
beliefs. Even if their country was home to mixed cultures (e.g. Syria).

The largest issues affecting return of refugees will be the cessation of
hostilities, and establishment of political agreements in their homeland.
Followed by activities such as disarmament and de-mining, and then actual
clearance / reconstruction / restoration of services. Only then will many
be able to return.

[husaberg]

But wait there is more about Trump either not knowing or meeeting Putin

Trump touted his ties to Putin on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2015, once going so far as to say, "I got to know him very well." But during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump said, "I have no relationship with him" and "I never met Putin – I don't know who Putin is."

Mar 6 2014 Donald Trump Addresses CPAC,
"I was in Moscow a couple of months ago … and they treated me so great. Putin even sent me a present," Mr Trump said in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (C-Pac) in 2014.

Apr. 12, 2014 We just left Moscow. He (Putin)could not have been nicer. He was so nice and so everything," Mr Trump said in a 2014 interview with Fox News' Eric Bolling.
According to Mr Trump, the Russian leader even sent him "a gift".

Oct. 6, 2015: In a conversation with conservative radio host Michael Savage, Trump claims to have met Putin. “Yes, a long time ago. We got along great, by the way.”

May 5, 2016: Trump refuses to answer Fox News’ Bret Baier when asked if he had ever met Putin. “Yeah, I have no comment on that,” he says. Later, he adds, “Yeah, but I don’t want to comment because, let’s assume I did. Perhaps it was personal. You know, I don’t want to hurt his confidence.

July 27, 2016: In an explosive news conference, Trump insists that he had never met Putin and didn’t know who he was: “I never met Putin,” Trump says. “I don’t know who Putin is.

Oct. 19, 2016: In the third presidential debate, Trump responds to Clinton’s charge that he is Putin’s puppet by saying, “No puppet. You’re the puppet.” He again denies having met Putin and argues that Putin had “outsmarted” Clinton and then-President Barack Obama.
Feb. 16, 2017: During a press conference, Trump claims that he had “nothing to do with Russia” and had only spoken to Putin twice. “I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don’t have any deals in Russia,” he says.

Here’s what Putin said at the July 16, 2018, press conference, according to the translation provided:
Well, distinguished colleague, let me tell you this: When President Trump was at Moscow back then, I didn't even know that he was in Moscow. I treat President Trump with utmost respect, but back then when he was a private individual, a businessman, nobody informed me that he was in Moscow."

[Banditbandit]

Woodward's new book is coming out this month (Remember the guy who, with Bernstein destroyed Nixon ... oh hang on many of you were not born then)

Devastating - even more so if true ..

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/04/p...ear/index.html

[Banditbandit]

Evening. And thanks for the reply.

I have to admit that I seriously thought about just posting "TL-DNR"
in reply as well. But since you'd gone to the trouble of doing
a point-by-point reply, that would have been a bit ungracious of me.

I was expecting such a response ... My original TL-DNR was only half serious - and more about the timing than any wish to ignore it .. I didn't have time a couple of days ago

At the time I was also thinking about the sound-bite nature of social media ... and it was a bit of a subtle dig at short posts, rather than long posts .. but you would not have known that.

2. Indictments of 12 Russian Individuals - Well, it was no great feat
for the AG (Rosenstein) to lodge indictments, but it might require a
little more effort to actually produce some robust evidence and to
secure a conviction (even in absentia). I wouldn't hold your breath.

The evidence is there. This one outlines the events - with links to other sources.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/26/u...cts/index.html

3. Uranium One

Damn ! Found out. I'd been saving that link for a while. It sounded
so salacious, and best of all, it had a "Clinton Foundation" link. It
seemed such a pity to waste it.

I read about the Uranium One accusations when they first surfaced,
but took me some time to find most of the relevant dots and manually
join them up (unlike Pritch's FOX video clip).

It was only the last question in that section ("minority candidate",
"elected the wrong person","time to remedy the situation") that I
was really interested in getting reply to.

Uranium One is the sort of story flung around by Trump supporters making allegations against Clinton - allegations with no substance.

4. Wikipedia on (alleged) Russian Interference

Thanks for the Wiki link. Yes, I had read it earlier. And when I read
through it again (and look at a few of the references), I still can't
help feeling some of the items in the Wiki have as much substance
and credibility as the Uranium One story (given some of the speakers
involved).

And with so much "smoke" (my opinion), it's hard to see exactly in
which direction it's being blown.

Yes.

I'm still trying to find the stuff I have seen before - detailing hacking of specific state machinery ..

This is the best I've found so far https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bea...nal-committee/

I'l keep looking .. Oh - here's one Homeland Security warned specific states they had been hacked - Homeland Security - not a Trump or Clinton supporter https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/22/el...-cyber-actors/

5. Electronic Voter Registration Databases

I'm not sure that the alleged nationality of the "hacker" is all that
relevant to that discussion. Seems any number of parties may have
had a motivation (e.g. theft of identity data for use in illegal financial
transactions).

And would many US voters feel that comforted if the party involved was
found to be a member of the US Intelligence community ("..just doing a
little ethical hacking to make sure that the controls are all working
properly, honest ..")?

Haha ... true ...

Cyber warfare is real - maybe this is the new form of attacking another country ..

6. Possible Russian Motives

Yes, I know the motives listed are all viable options (from a Russian
perspective), but it was reply to the last part of the question I was
interested in ("how did you see it playing out ?").

e.g.
- Would Trump just start issuing some Presidential Signing Orders? And
which of the options would be of particular interest to him?

Clearly has has been signing Presidential orders

I have no idea ... Trump is so erratic - one minute he's friends with Putin, the next he's chucking out Russian diplomats ..

This is worrying .. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ump/467806002/

- Would the military and various US government departments ignore his
instructions, or just simply debate endlessly and seek to delay actual
implementation?

THat is the ultimate question - I think the answer is probably about 50/50 .. plenty of indoctrinated followers int eh military - plenty of ones who may well refuse ..

- Would Trump enjoy some partial success (or suffer an unfortunate fall
down the stairs, or alternatively be assessed as being mentally unfit and
be removed from office)?

Sniper in a book repository? I have no idea - I think it will be interesting after the elections - I suspect both houses will have a Democrat majority - anything could happen. If Trump's as crazy as Woodward's new book makes him out to be, then even the Republicans may move against him ..

7. Possible Outcomes

-Nuclear War - Can only hope the MAD concept is still alive and forefront
of US minds. But recent US discussion on development and use of tactical
(low yield) nuclear weapons is not encouraging (i.e. bridging a slippery
slope between use of conventional weapons and high yield nuclear weapons).

-Brinkmanship - Acknowledged. But what if the opponent decides to call
your bluff? Or instead, if one of your allies does something precipitate?
[as per WW1]. Edit: Seems a particularly high risk strategy between
nuclear nations.

Yeah - the worry is someone will cal his bluff - and Trump won't back down ..

It's a possibility we may find out the answer to those questions in Syria
in the coming days or weeks when combat in Idlib ramps up. [Though I'll
still bet on "Russian restraint", even if allied forces launch missile attacks.]

Yes - but Russia is not he only armed and nuclearized participant in that region ..

-Refugees - A small number of said "refugees" might well end up jailed
or dead if forcibly returned home (e.g. ISIS members in Germany or Sweden).

but I would argue many refugees (having fled war) would prefer to return
to their home country, and to live with people of similar religion/heritage/
beliefs. Even if their country was home to mixed cultures (e.g. Syria).

The largest issues affecting return of refugees will be the cessation of
hostilities, and establishment of political agreements in their homeland.
Followed by activities such as disarmament and de-mining, and then actual
clearance / reconstruction / restoration of services. Only then will many
be able to return.

Yes - the majority of refugees may well wish to return home - but having seen life in the west they may well change their minds.

[oldrider]

Syrians etc may not yet have a home to return to - the war on terror might yet be only just beginning - America and Israel have not forgotten about crushing Iran!

[Viking01]

I was expecting such a response ... My original TL-DNR was only half serious - and more about the timing than any wish to ignore it .. I didn't have time a couple of days ago

Evening. Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, it's a complicated world out there at the moment. And it's
getting more so by the day.

Russia has been opposing imperialism (and capitalism) since 1900
at least, so we shouldn't be too surprised to see Russia is still the
"most favoured enemy" of the West.

And even after two world wars and a damn good "financial spanking"
in the 1990's, Russia has still managed to resurrect itself and stage
another comeback (under Putin's guidance). Maybe not as strong
as before, but still a power to be reckoned with.

My tuppence worth in reply to a few points:

1. Russian Indictments - Both Russia and the US will attempt to
conduct penetration and monitoring of each others networks and
computer systems. Have to expect a certain level of background
activity as a given.

Despite the long CNN list of events, still think these indictments are
all just part of the wider political sideshow. Will be surprised if they
ever secure a conviction. Time will tell.

In the end, it matters not (whether they do secure a conviction),
especially when the US can easily sanction Russia on other grounds.

2. Electoral System - Think the US has a more fundamental issue
(one of electoral fairness as a whole). Especially when a certain
portion of the wider electorate (Black, Hispanic, Asian) can in
part be denied opportunity to vote (through use of restrictive
voter enrollment conditions).

Security of voting machines in the US has been an issue since at
least the year 2000 US election. And the situation doesn't seem
to have improved dramatically in the interim.

Four elections since, and still not regarded as very secure ?
Can you imagine a comparable banking system being allowed to
persist in a similar state for so long ? What price electoral
integrity ? [See word that electronic voting systems might
soon be introduced for local government elections here in NZ]

And attempt by the DHS to bring US electoral operation under
its purview does not necessarily add a positive light to the
picture (e.g. given events like DNI Clapper resigning after his
earlier denials of monitoring to an investigating committee).

3. Cyber Warfare - To be expected. Though it might be just a
little hypocritical of the US administration to be "pointing
fingers" and "playing the victim role" (given the loss of
software hacks and hacking tools by NSA - Shadow Brokers).

4. How Will Things Play Out - In terms of "exploitation of
Trump by Russia", personally, I think this has long been a
non-issue.

It would simply not be allowed to happen. One way or another.

Think that TPTB have in the last year realised that Trump is
not a political asset (certainly not one under their control),
and have slowly been engineering his coming exit. With his
unwitting help.

Lacking engagement with and support of his own team (and his
own "maverick" action), he has been lining himself up for a
fall (though not necessarily down the stairs).

The number of "critical" news articles over the past year has
helped to establish a useful background narrative, with more
recent articles saying "just how distanced and disengaged he
has become from his staff". And Bernstein's coming book will
likely only add to that view in the public mind.

Personal decision-making and authorisation by Presidential
Signing Order alone is easily able to be re-cast in a less
flattering political light (e.g. missiles by moonlight over
Syria).

The Republicans may well be prepared to suffer some electoral
losses in the coming mid-term elections - Trump can wear the
responsibility for that outcome.

As well as being held personally responsible for trade wars
once they are more visibly seen to be damaging the US (both
financially and job-wise).

TPTB have both sides of the US electoral house "locked up",
so while they may be slightly inconvenienced (having to deal
with another set of politicians and administrators), they'll still
be in the game and back in control.

Be prepared for a new Republican "leader" to emerge, and for
a vote of no-confidence to remove Trump. Who knows - he
might even negotiate another hotel out of the deal. The price
of silence.

Then be prepared for plenty of political "bridge-building and
re-engagement", be it with the UK, Europe and even China.

Though the Russians and Iranians will still be on the outer
(they won't forgive either the Russians or the Iranians).

Trump will have achieved a few "useful" political outcomes
for certain players along the way (with his "bull in a china
shop" antics). But he better not think he will receive any
thanks or favours from those who have benefited.

The "mask" has well and truly been ripped off, and his time
in office will be seen as having been expensive (in terms of
"capital" consumed and "control" foregone along the way).

Review again in six months time ? In the meantime, feel
free to rip the above comments apart.

Cheers,
Viking

[pete376403]

Looking forward to the Woodward book

[Banditbandit]

Evening. Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, it's a complicated world out there at the moment. And it's
getting more so by the day.



Review again in six months time ? In the meantime, feel
free to rip the above comments apart.

Cheers,
Viking

Thanks - no I won't be ripping our comments apart - I'm inclined to agree with you .

I think you are right, that a new Republican leader will emerge - I hope it is someone like John McCain ..

But they will not take over if Trump is impeached and toss out - Pence will - and he's potentially worse than Trump. He and his supporters want to see the Apocalypse - and is probably prepared to start it .

[husaberg]

Michelle Obama had Resting bitch face
But Trumps wife just doesnt seem to like her husband at all.

[Banditbandit]

Michelle Obama had Resting bitch face
But Trumps wife just doesnt seem to like her husband at all.

Probably doesn't - he sleeps around - most wives dump such husbands

Puts her at risk of catching something like AIDS

Stormy Daniels calls him the "two minute trump" .. http://thesource.com/2018/08/29/pres...tormy-daniels/

Can't be very satisfying to be married to a two minute man .

Omarosa says Melania is just waiting for the end so she can divorce him

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...ivorce-Omarosa

Omarosa also claims Trump is holding Melania hostage .. if she goes he will punish her by deporting her ..

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new...ectid=12109770

And finally - what ever you think of his politics the man is simply unlikable ..

[jasonu]

Probably doesn't - he sleeps around - most wives dump such husbands

Puts her at risk of catching something like AIDS

Stormy Daniels calls him the "two minute trump" .. http://thesource.com/2018/08/29/pres...tormy-daniels/

Can't be very satisfying to be married to a two minute man .

Omarosa says Melania is just waiting for the end so she can divorce him

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...ivorce-Omarosa

Omarosa also claims Trump is holding Melania hostage .. if she goes he will punish her by deporting her ..

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new...ectid=12109770

And finally - what ever you think of his politics the man is simply unlikable ..

Haha quoting stormy Daniels and omorosa will never improve anyone’s argument .
As for trumps mrs, she looks like a typical eastern block misery guts.