Is this a question that congress is avoiding? It is in the Republican interest not to challenge Trump. Are they willing to risk harm to the country to accommodate this political interest?
By Kathleen Parker
First, a history refresher: For the past nine years, a smattering of Americans, most recently led by our now president-elect, have insisted that Barack Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.
For years, Donald Trump was unrelenting in his insistence that Obama prove beyond existing proof that he was born in Hawaii and not in the African country of his biological father. That Obama said he is a Christian wasn’t enough to persuade Trump’s followers, who apparently know a Christian when they see one.
Further, there is no logical basis for assuming that a young person briefly raised in a given country — say, Indonesia — necessarily would adopt the dominant religion of that country. He might, however, observe that though people worship in different ways, we’re all essentially the same. Never mind the cruel and absurd assumption that being a Muslim means that one is, ipso facto, a “bad person.”
Respecting others despite differences is, generally speaking, the hallmark of an enlightened soul, as well as a desirable disposition in a leader. Yet, those who sided with Trump interpreted Obama’s gentle touch toward the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims as evidence of a hidden agenda to advance Islam in the United States — notwithstanding Obama’s rather robust drone operations, which eliminated quite a few bad actors who happened to be, or said they were, Muslims.
Noteworthy is that these same Obama doubters weren’t bestirred to suspicion when then-President George W. Bush visited a mosque immediately after 9/11. Nor, thus far, have they expressed any concern about Trump’s cavalier approach to Russia’s cyberattack on the United States.
Given this history and recent evidence, isn’t it about time Trump be declared a Russian spy?
No, I don’t really think he’s a spy because, unlike the man himself, I’m not given to crazy ideas. But what’s with this double standard? Under similar circumstances, how long do you think it would have taken for Obama to be called a traitor for defending a country that tried to thwart our democratic electoral process?Seconds.
How surreal to realize that the man who soon will become president was long committed to a rumor soaked in paranoia and propagated by conspiracy theorists whose pursuit of truth stops at the point where facts and willful ignorance collide.
How perfectly terrifying.
And now? What is so obviously a conspiracy of Russian leadership, hackers and spies, Trump has repeatedly dismissed as lousy intelligence. Why would he do such a thing? Is it that he’s so thin-skinned he can’t tolerate anyone thinking that he might have benefited from the cyberattack? Or is it that he knew about it in advance and doesn’t want to be found out? This is how conspiracy theories get started. Then again, sometimes a conspiracy is just a conspiracy — and a fool is just a fool.
Consider what we know: Our best intelligence indicates that Russia was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee. Trump, who has long expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin (once a KGB agent, always a KGB agent), has his doubts.
Obviously, Trump wants to preserve the narrative that he won fair and square. And, clearly, claims of Russian interference would muss his ego. But is that it? Ego and narrative?
Consider further: Trump would rather make common cause with our fiercest geopolitical adversary (hat tip Mitt Romney) than take the word of our best people. Moreover, he has said he won’t receive daily security briefings and reportedly plans to reduce our security agencies.
Pray tell, whose side is this man on? When was the last time you had to ask that question about a president-elect?On Friday, Trump met with real American spies and others who attempted to explain things to him, leaving open the question: Can Trump learn? From his statement following the meeting, it doesn’t seem so.
On Thursday, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the agency is “now even more resolute,” and that Trump is damaging American intelligence (not to be confused with the absence thereof, to wit, Trump). To top things off, former CIA director James Woolsey quit Trump’s transition team Thursday in protest against being bypassed.
In sum, when the president-elect persists in a state of denial, siding with the enemy against his own country’s best interests, one is forced to consider that Trump himself poses a threat to national security.
In Russia, they’d just call it treason.
There's more to Trump than meets the eye. He strikes me as the American front of a family and business organization that is deeply rooted in Pre World War Two Eastern Europe. Hahaha he named his kid "Baron" for cryin out loud! Hahaha! Only other "Baron" I evet heard of was a friend of mine in grade school whose dad was for real a german Nazi. "Baron" hahaha gimme a frekin break.
MULEBOT PROCESSING INPUT. TREASONOUS INSINUATION AGAINST FUEHRER DETECTED. WARNING WARNING. DANGER DANGER.
It's Double Feature night at the drive inn folk's,so calm down.Had 8 yrs of one Barack Hussein Obama,& almost another 4 followed with Killary.Don't cha think its about time ta stir the soup pot? Lock n Load,& always keep one eye open.
True man, Hilary was been getting ready for the final ratchet of the lugs on the Obama wagon, but that doesn't mean I have to trust Baron Von Trump, whose son looks like Eddie frekin Munster. They are a pack of Old World vampires.
So Luke you are saying this deal that Trump has with the Russians is okay with you? It's time to stir the pot and you don't care if it's the commies with the paddle. As long as it's not Obama we'll be safe.
[Edited on 1/8/2017 by Swifty]
Isn't it funny that all the folks who called Obama a communist are fine with russia influencing our election?
Ain't sayin none of that! I am sayin Obama had his hay ride,Killary & Trump had a showdown,& Dracula Trump won.Can someone please show me where a black person like that mentally handicapped white boy that was beat up,scalped,made to drink toilet water,and made to say they loved black people, while havin F Trump screamed in their face by 4 white thug's,had the somewhat same thing done to them,except by a group of white thug's to black boy instead after Obama won in 08 & 12? And the media just touched on it a few time's ,and now it's quieter than crickets. Or what about Ferguson,Trayvon,Freddie Gray,BLM yellin what do we want DEAD COPS! When do we want it ,NOW! Or layin down in the middle of the interstate and on the story goes.
I ain't here ta get into some kinda masters degree debate on who won,tit for this,tat for that. And ya damn sure didn't hear about white folk all over the country,as well as blacks goin crazy when Obama won.We are living in troublesome times these daze.And only GOD knows whats comin down the line. I bitched my as* off here when Hussein won.But i damn sho didn't go out beating up people,crying,and goin to therapy to deal with it.Trump won and Whatever will be will be.End of story.Maybe we'll all be blood suckin night stalkers in 2 yrs.WTF knows!
Luke there is a trial on right now in South Carolina where a white supremacist walked into a prayer session at a black church and killed nine African Americans. The case you mention has gotten plenty of media attention and outrage. Are you outraged by what happened in South Carolina?
Trump started the Birther moment and for almost 8 years challenged Obama's legitimacy as president. I would say that was a going crazy moment for Republicans.
We are not talking about whether Trump won. We are talking about this new move by Trump to be nice to the commies. It could be that you turn into a blood suckin night stalker if you don't come clean on whether or not you support this. It would be a hell of a thing to have riding on your soul.
Trump started the Birther moment and for almost 8 years challenged Obama's legitimacy as president. I would say that was a going crazy moment for Republicans.
FALSE. The Hilary Clinton campaign founded the birther movement in the 2008 campaign.
I bitched my as* off here when Hussein won.But i damn sho didn't go out beating up people,crying,and goin to therapy to deal with it.
LOL!!! You only call him by his middle name to make some point, but no, he doesn't bother you one bit. What a joke you are. How about you be a man and tell us why you refer to everyone else by their first or last name, but single out Obama and call him by his middle name? Why is that Luke?
Trump started the Birther moment and for almost 8 years challenged Obama's legitimacy as president. I would say that was a going crazy moment for Republicans.
FALSE. The Hilary Clinton campaign founded the birther movement in the 2008 campaign.
There was a volunteer staffer that suggested looking at Obama's background but it was never explored seriously.
According to an NBC poll from August 2016, 72 % of Republicans still think Obama was born in Kenya. Now you are saying this is a movement Clinton started. That is hilarious. The Birther movement was Trump all the way.
Isn't it funny that all the folks who called Obama a communist are fine with russia influencing our election?
"Influencing"...How so?.....Did not HC garner almost 2 million more popular votes?...
The reaction of the Left is interesting. The last thing on their mind is WHAT was exposed. Nobody wants to talk about it. They seem concerned only with WHO exposed it.
Isn't it funny that all the folks who called Obama a communist are fine with russia influencing our election?
"Influencing"...How so?.....Did not HC garner almost 2 million more popular votes?...
Russia hacked, Trump embellished the material causing voter suppression.
There is an interesting article by David Frum, a conservative, who maintains that the WikiLeaks material is pretty blah but Trump with exaggeration, distortion and hyperbole elevated it and it damaged Clinton.
How Trump Made Russia's Hacking More Effective
From 528, registered democrats stayed home costing Clinton.
Russia hacked, Trump embellished the material causing voter suppression.
Oh please! Voters stayed home or went to the polls of their own volition. Elections are an endless PR exercise to promote one side and degrade the other. Hillary had all the majors pulling for her in ever imaginable way while also attacking Trump, and she still couldn't inspire sufficient numbers. Similar analysis results showed Romney had the same effect on Republican voters - so what? Her voters were insufficiently inspired because she was a poor candidate, running a lousy race, and her party's tactics were despicable. Trump didn't cause any of these actions, so what you're arguing is that voters found out too much of Hillary's & the DNC's truths. So now too much info is a bad thing? Sad indeed
I don't know how they can even say Russia influenced our election. With the undercover videos of some of Hillary's team (from projectveritasaction.com) on how they planned to tilt the election in her favor, bussing illegals into different states, giving them employment id cards from dummy corporations set up specifically for that purpose, this whole thing about Russia influencing the election is just ridiculous.
Russia hacked, Trump embellished the material causing voter suppression.
Oh please! Voters stayed home or went to the polls of their own volition. Elections are an endless PR exercise to promote one side and degrade the other. Hillary had all the majors pulling for her in ever imaginable way while also attacking Trump, and she still couldn't inspire sufficient numbers. Similar analysis results showed Romney had the same effect on Republican voters - so what? Her voters were insufficiently inspired because she was a poor candidate, running a lousy race, and her party's tactics were despicable. Trump didn't cause any of these actions, so what you're arguing is that voters found out too much of Hillary's & the DNC's truths. So now too much info is a bad thing? Sad indeed
Since I cited sources these are not exactly my arguments.
Trump had a ceiling and to win he had to suppress Clinton's turnout. He used the material from Wikileaks to do that. Look at the tapes and watch how often Trump used the Wikileak material in speeches. The Russians gave him the weapon and he used it to help defeat Clinton. Were there other factors? Probably.
Still the Russians worked to get Trump elected and Trump used the material they released and he got elected. This means the Russians intervened successfully in a US election and they are giddy with hysteria about it. Can you refute any of this?
Trump is even on record asking the Russians to get him the emails.
I think historians will likely see the Trump win as illegitimate. All the spinning is not going to stop that form happening.
[Edited on 1/8/2017 by Swifty]
Isn't it funny that all the folks who called Obama a communist are fine with russia influencing our election?
"Influencing"...How so?.....Did not HC garner almost 2 million more popular votes?...
Russia hacked, Trump embellished the material causing voter suppression.
Wtf?...So, if I follow the left's logic...Trump was/is despised and the only way to defeat him is to go and Vote...But! Trump's hyperbole and "embellishment" caused these same voters to stay home and not Vote?
Are you serious?!
Russia hacked, Trump embellished the material causing voter suppression.
Oh please! Voters stayed home or went to the polls of their own volition. Elections are an endless PR exercise to promote one side and degrade the other. Hillary had all the majors pulling for her in ever imaginable way while also attacking Trump, and she still couldn't inspire sufficient numbers. Similar analysis results showed Romney had the same effect on Republican voters - so what? Her voters were insufficiently inspired because she was a poor candidate, running a lousy race, and her party's tactics were despicable. Trump didn't cause any of these actions, so what you're arguing is that voters found out too much of Hillary's & the DNC's truths. So now too much info is a bad thing? Sad indeed
Since I cited sources these are not exactly my arguments.
Trump had a ceiling and to win he had to suppress Clinton's turnout. He used the material from Wikileaks to do that. Look at the tapes and watch how often Trump used the Wikileak material in speeches. The Russians gave him the weapon and he used it to help defeat Clinton. Were there other factors? Probably.
Still the Russians worked to get Trump elected and Trump used the material they released and he got elected. This means the Russians intervened successfully in a US election and they are giddy with hysteria about it. Can you refute any of this?
Trump is even on record asking the Russians to get him the emails.
I think historians will likely see the Trump win as illegitimate. All the spinning is not going to stop that form happening.
Trump didn't create any of the multiple weaknesses used against Hillary and the DNC. Their numerous faults and schemes were their decisions. The only thing Trump did was talk about what was being exposed. Assange says their source was not Russian. I'm not sure how anyone separates who is more truthful between Wikileaks, Hillary, Podesta, the DNC, and the major media sources. But it is important to remember that no one has said any of the content exposed were outright lies. So again, we're left with the simple fact that voters learned more than they usually do about how ugly the process was, and acted accordingly.
As to Trump and the Russians; long before the flood of DNC/Hillary content was being released thru Wikileaks, he was on the stump asking: "wouldn't it be better if we were more friendly with the Russians?" Some may see that as prerequisite for today's suspicions - fair enough. But solely on face value, wouldn't that be a potential improvement from the current state of affairs? Had Hillary won and she were making similar statements, she'd be hailed as an enlightened statesman seeking the dawn of a new world arrangement. She'd probably get a golden Nobel before achieving anything - just like her old boss.
I think history will judge Trump much more on accomplishment and events than on conjecture.
It was all supposed to boil down to demographics and how the nation had changed, evolved, and so on.....The GOP can't win because they alienated all these different groups, and how can you do that and expect them to vote for you? Heard it over and over.....
Candidates and campaigns didn't matter. The demographics simply prevented them from winning the Presidency and they better wise up and learn their lesson!
Demographics!!
No matter how many times this argument was shot down, nobody would listen.
Russia hacked, Trump embellished the material causing voter suppression.
Oh please! Voters stayed home or went to the polls of their own volition. Elections are an endless PR exercise to promote one side and degrade the other. Hillary had all the majors pulling for her in ever imaginable way while also attacking Trump, and she still couldn't inspire sufficient numbers. Similar analysis results showed Romney had the same effect on Republican voters - so what? Her voters were insufficiently inspired because she was a poor candidate, running a lousy race, and her party's tactics were despicable. Trump didn't cause any of these actions, so what you're arguing is that voters found out too much of Hillary's & the DNC's truths. So now too much info is a bad thing? Sad indeed
Since I cited sources these are not exactly my arguments.
Trump had a ceiling and to win he had to suppress Clinton's turnout. He used the material from Wikileaks to do that. Look at the tapes and watch how often Trump used the Wikileak material in speeches. The Russians gave him the weapon and he used it to help defeat Clinton. Were there other factors? Probably.
Still the Russians worked to get Trump elected and Trump used the material they released and he got elected. This means the Russians intervened successfully in a US election and they are giddy with hysteria about it. Can you refute any of this?
Trump is even on record asking the Russians to get him the emails.
I think historians will likely see the Trump win as illegitimate. All the spinning is not going to stop that form happening.
Trump didn't create any of the multiple weaknesses used against Hillary and the DNC. Their numerous faults and schemes were their decisions. The only thing Trump did was talk about what was being exposed. Assange says their source was not Russian. I'm not sure how anyone separates who is more truthful between Wikileaks, Hillary, Podesta, the DNC, and the major media sources. But it is important to remember that no one has said any of the content exposed were outright lies. So again, we're left with the simple fact that voters learned more than they usually do about how ugly the process was, and acted accordingly.
As to Trump and the Russians; long before the flood of DNC/Hillary content was being released thru Wikileaks, he was on the stump asking: "wouldn't it be better if we were more friendly with the Russians?" Some may see that as prerequisite for today's suspicions - fair enough. But solely on face value, wouldn't that be a potential improvement from the current state of affairs? Had Hillary won and she were making similar statements, she'd be hailed as an enlightened statesman seeking the dawn of a new world arrangement. She'd probably get a golden Nobel before achieving anything - just like her old boss.
I think history will judge Trump much more on accomplishment and events than on conjecture.
Fuji wrote:
The only thing Trump did was talk about what was being exposed.
David Frum was a speech writer for George W Bush. He is not a Democrat. This is what David Frum argues:
Without Trump’s own willingness to make false claims and misuse Russian-provided information, the Wikileaks material would have deflated of its own boringness. The Russian-hacked material did damage because, and only because, Russia found a willing accomplice in the person of Donald J. Trump.
This is Donald Trump on the campaign trail. (Quotes from the David Frum essay.)
These Wikileaks emails confirm what those of us here today have known all along: Hillary Clinton is the vessel for a corrupt global establishment that is raiding our country and surrendering our sovereignty. This criminal government cartel doesn’t recognize borders, but believes in global governance, unlimited immigration, and rule by corporations.
As well as:
The more emails WikiLeaks releases, the more lines between the Clinton Foundation, the secretary of state's office and the Clintons' personal finances—they all get blurred … I mean, at what point—at what point do we say it? Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to seek the office of the presidency.
Fuji wrote:
I think history will judge Trump much more on accomplishment and events than on conjecture.
This statement is basically conjecture and has nothing to do with the Russian hack. Trump may perform admirably as a President--and I hope he does--but from his behavior and actions so far it does not look like he is on that path. To me, and to you as well, it looks like Trump will use the power of the state to cater to specific corporate interests. He is less concerned with a free market than picking corporations that with his support will find prominence in that market. Steve Bannon, chief strategist and senior counselor to President-elect Donald Trump, openly admits he is an economic nationalist. Bannon believes in an insular America. Putin, despite other labels, is also an economic nationalist.
This combo will produce an interesting new world order.
So you are saying that people relied on Trump to tell them about the leaked emails ?
Potential Hillary voters disregarded news sources and waited for Trump to tell them about the emails ?
Sounds pretty stupid eh ?
The entire matter of the Wikileaks emails begins with how anyone processes them through their own bias.
Any email on the Wikileaks site that doesn't have a digital server signature (of which there are many) must be questioned at face value, no matter what it may say or not say about anyone you may or may not like, agree with or land on the same side of an ideological spectrum or not.
The entire matter of the Wikileaks emails begins with how anyone processes them through their own bias.
Any email on the Wikileaks site that doesn't have a digital server signature (of which there are many) must be questioned at face value, no matter what it may say or not say about anyone you may or may not like, agree with or land on the same side of an ideological spectrum or not.
Certainly true. So why, if falsehoods exist in the content of what was exposed, hasn't Hillary/Podesta/the DNC/et al denied them as false? If they're not denying, then bias takes a backseat to what apparently is true.
For the record, here are my thoughts:
-Russian hacking = bad, we (people who run servers) need to have better security
-I don't think the leaked emails swayed many, if any votes. People who suspected this crap all along were validated, people who disregarded all this about Hillary, continued to disregard
-end of story
The entire matter of the Wikileaks emails begins with how anyone processes them through their own bias.
Any email on the Wikileaks site that doesn't have a digital server signature (of which there are many) must be questioned at face value, no matter what it may say or not say about anyone you may or may not like, agree with or land on the same side of an ideological spectrum or not.
Certainly true. So why, if falsehoods exist in the content of what was exposed, hasn't Hillary/Podesta/the DNC/et al denied them as false? If they're not denying, then bias takes a backseat to what apparently is true.
The strategy of response in a campaign is a matter of weighing options. Is a defense of a claim an admission that the claim has merit in the first place?
John Podesta has to go to a podium and vehemently deny being a part of a ring of pedophile Satanists that operate out of the basement of a pizzeria? Who would do that? Would you?
Next thing you know, you are spending a lot of time and resources fighting things that completely swerve your campaign in a different direction. In this case, there was waaaaay too much entitlement in the HRC campaign to get that granular about, well, anything.
People were willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Wikileaks and the Russians rather than HRC. Still do, but for bigger reasons.
Snip to prevent double posting:
-Russian hacking = bad, we (people who run servers) need to have better security
A million times yes and agreed. Our pathetic cyber security is embarrassing to the nth.
-I don't think the leaked emails swayed many, if any votes. People who suspected this crap all along were validated, people who disregarded all this about Hillary, continued to disregard
What people do or don't disregard is again exactly paralleled to their own bias. There's plenty about Trump that has also been disregarded.
So you are saying that people relied on Trump to tell them about the leaked emails ?
Potential Hillary voters disregarded news sources and waited for Trump to tell them about the emails ?
Sounds pretty stupid eh ?
What you have edited out here is the entire narrative except for how the emails were internalized.
The emails were not leaked. They were stolen by the Russians. A source gave them to WikiLeaks. Trump then used the material and embellished it and distorted the contents. Trump, if you put these facts together, definitely played a role distributing what could be seen as Russian propaganda.
The part that is certainly true is that Hillary had very little credibility with voters. Had her credibility level been higher then people could have dismissed Trump's hyperbole.
On the other hand Trump had exhausted his own base with his sex antics and if any more material had come out on this subject it may have suppressed his own vote. If hypothetically Clinton had obtained fresh info from the Russians on this topic and used it there is no doubt republicans would have been screaming she's working with the communists.
On the left it seems like Trump is firmly wrapped up in Putin's world. In the past any politician showing this level of favoritism to Russia and its leaders would be called a communist. The right seems very ready to dismiss this possibility yet 72% of them still believe Obama was born in Kenya. That to me is f_ckin stupid!
The strategy of response in a campaign is a matter of weighing options. Is a defense of a claim an admission that the claim has merit in the first place?
John Podesta has to go to a podium and vehemently deny being a part of a ring of pedophile Satanists that operate out of the basement of a pizzeria? Who would do that? Would you?
There's big difference between scurrilous, outlandish claims that few if any would believe, and serious, potentially believable claims that will sink your campaign if you don't address and deny. The Wikileaks dumps were never characterized as the former. They were most certainly the latter, left till this day as un-denied. Seems fairly damning, regardless of one's affiliation.
The strategy of response in a campaign is a matter of weighing options. Is a defense of a claim an admission that the claim has merit in the first place?
John Podesta has to go to a podium and vehemently deny being a part of a ring of pedophile Satanists that operate out of the basement of a pizzeria? Who would do that? Would you?
There's big difference between scurrilous, outlandish claims that few if any would believe, and serious, potentially believable claims that will sink your campaign if you don't address and deny. The Wikileaks dumps were never characterized as the former. They were most certainly the latter, left till this day as un-denied. Seems fairly damning, regardless of one's affiliation.
Apparently enough people believed the scurrilous and outlandish one that someone went to that pizza place with a gun.
So, in your eyes, HRC needed to go and deny every single "claim?" LOL. As if that would have made a difference to those who were never voting for her anyway.
Have you looked at the Wikileaks emails? Tell me those couldn't be faked or altered. Assange has claimed to be this crusader for fairness and truth, a comical claim of his own at best.
What claim sunk her campaign?
