a reply to: TritonTaranis
I have no personal issue with Mr Trump having a more appealing stance toward Russia. If anything its positive...
UNLESS it happens to issue from collusion between the Russian government and/or criminal enterprises (which are often a front or cover for GRU
operations), and Mr Trump in a manner which throws his loyalty into question. And why you ask would this be a problem? Because he has stated that he
is not going to be led by the nose, as previous administrations have been. He has said that he cannot be bought, because he is already rich, but if he
has indeed been co-opted by the Russians, in any small way, then that poses a significant risk to national security amongst other things.
Again, it does not matter that Hillary was the leakiest hole in security infrastructure that one could possibly imagine, because Trump said he was
different. If any of what has been revealed about his ties to Russia are accurate, any smallest little bit of the punctuation even in the correct
place, the risks involved with his Presidency are FAR greater than anyone could have predicted, previous to the announcement of the result of the
Furthermore, its important to understand something. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, the Clinton administration before that,
and the Bush administration before that, have all been ENTIRELY crooked. They have dealt weapons to enemies of their people, they have killed untold
millions between them, for absolutely no reason what so ever, picked fights with nations so puny, so resource starved or third world in aspect that
victory or at least oppression of the target was certain. They have all been dogs, the movers and shakers in these administrations. No one can argue
with this because it is absolutely factually accurate. Iraq could never have won any of the wars which have been fought against it, for example. The
Afghans never could have prevented the US invasion and subsequent occupation of their lands. These things were certain.
But just because the administrations previous to this one have been full of muck, does not mean that this one has to be by default, ESPECIALLY since
the man in the hot seat this time around PROMISED the country, that he would drain the swamp, protect the interests of the country, and be responsive
to the peoples need to see no shady folks working in, for, or around the D.C. machine.
Trump was elected on emotion only, not because his policy was better, not because he talked a better game, but purely because he tapped into negative
attitudes held by the electorate, and an understandable frustration with always getting stiffed no matter how carefully they had made previous
election choices. He said he was different, and because he had NOTHING ELSE GOING FOR HIM AS A CANDIDATE, he MUST live up to that. If what we are
hearing is true, he may actually be WORSE than the previous Liar In Chief, because at least the previous President was not in bed with a foreign
superpower. He may have turned out to be corrupt, probably doing exactly what every US president over the last forty or more years has been doing, by
getting in on the dirty arms sales, taking a cut of CIA smuggling ops perhaps, who knows, its a messed up world... but at least he wasn't in bed with
the commies! Right?
There is hypocrisy everywhere, but the greatest hypocrisy I have ever heard, is a right winger supporting a man who has connections, deep connections
and probably some significant obligations to a nation which just thirty years ago was considered the greatest threat to Western democracy that had
ever existed, a nation with whom the US and its allies were on the brink of going to nuclear war.
Frankly, this situation makes a nonsense of pretty much every single argument I have heard supporting his Presidency, and he has not even taken up
residence in the White House yet. Its a bloody shambles!
edit on 11-1-2017 by TrueBrit because: grammatical improvements