Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

I find it odd that from that article this is your takeaway. :blink:

 

Well, the Trumps being involved with the Russians is more of same. Hardly even news. But maybe stupidity with passwords by people who should know better falls into the same category. Or maybe Cherdano is right and Wikileaks didn't discover the weak password, they changed it to a weak password. I sort of doubt this, but who knows.

 

 

And yes, I know it is "alleged" involvement with the Russians. Indeed we have Putin's word for it, and Trump's assurance that Putin wouldn't lie, that he did no such thing. Sort of like the alleged shooter in Texas.

[Zelandakh]

Fine words Red but this sadly does not stand up to the slightest of scrutiny. If the PTBs wanted to take revenge for the factor that swung the election against their supposedly preferred option, all they would need to do is assassinate Comey. It was after all his announcement that certainly made enough of a difference to change the result. Except that in your theory, he should have been working with the intelligence services for a HC win, right?

 

The truth is that Russia has tried to influence American politics since forever but have probably never had as much success as in the last one. Technology certainly played its part in that success; the open question is whether collusion with the Trump campaign was also a factor in the level of success.

 

As far as WikiLeaks goes, I am fairly confident that the PTBs are much more concerned about the security breaches and flow of unauthorised information than the potential to affect elections. To the military, WikiLeaks is like a virtual enemy power. Is collusion with a virtual enemy any better than collusion with a physical one? Legally perhaps, since the Law is slow to catch up with such matters, but morally?

 

Finally, what is your source for WikiLeaks being a front for the Russian government? It seems quite clear that government-sponsored Russian agents are using WikiLeaks to their advantage. Why would they not? That is hardly the same as the people in charge of WikiLeaks having direct links with the Kremlin. Of course those links might be there too but B does not necessarily follow from A here. And given the campaign against Assange from Washington, is it any surprise that he might not be entirely sympathetic to them. In this way he is essentially using the Russians every bit as much as they are using him. I fail to see why anyone would think the military brass would be happy about the whole thing irrespective of DT or the election result.

[RedSpawn]

...

Finally, what is your source for WikiLeaks being a front for the Russian government?

The very article supplied by Winston says AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES believe Wikileaks was chosen by the Russian government as an agent (or accomplice).

 

Who am I to ever question the integrity and all-seeing eye of AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES as a legitimate source?

 

The messages show Wikileaks, a radical transparency organization that the American intelligence community believes was chosen by the Russian government to disseminate the information it had hacked, actively soliciting Trump, Jr's cooperation.

 

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/

[Zelandakh]

The very article supplied by Winston says AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES believe Wikileaks was chosen by the Russia government as an agent (or accomplice).

Could you provide the quote? The one I see is:-

The messages show WikiLeaks, a radical transparency organization that the American intelligence community believes was chosen by the Russian government to disseminate the information it had hacked

...which is quite a different thing. I can choose Dailymotion to disseminate videos supporting almost anything; but their presence does not mean that Dailymotion would be actively engaging with me, nor even that anyone there even shares the slightest of agreement with the views contained in the videos. Once again, the Russians using WikiLeaks to release stolen information does not in any way show that WikiLeaks is a front for the Russian government.

[RedSpawn]

Could you provide the quote? The one I see is:-

 

...which is quite a different thing. I can choose Dailymotion to disseminate videos supporting almost anything; but their presence does not mean that Dailymotion would be actively engaging with me, nor even that anyone there even shares the slightest of agreement with the views contained in the videos. Once again, the Russians using WikiLeaks to release stolen information does not in any way show that WikiLeaks is a front for the Russian government.

I think we are arguing over semantics.

 

Wikileaks works with 5 selected news agencies across the world to determine what "trove" of documents can be released on its platform. Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421949/everything-you-need-to-know-about-wikileaks/

 

An agent is a person or thing that acts on behalf of another or acts a proxy of another. Official awareness or scienter of this relationship is not necessary. Someone can be fooled into acting as an agent of another.

 

The quote is worded to suggest the American intelligence community believes Wikileaks was chosen by the Russian government to disseminate information it had hacked.

 

This means Wikileaks became either an active agent or an unwitting agent of the principal, the Russian government. It became a communications outlet for the dissemination of propaganda that was factually accurate and completely damning regarding HRC and the DNC.

 

At the end of the day, the article suggests and the American intelligence community believes Wikileaks is working to further Russian interests since it allegedly tipped the scales of the 2016 Presidential election to their desired candidate.

 

Whether the exact nature of the relationship between Russia & Wikileaks is agreed-upon collusion or as an unwitting dupe in an international spy vs. spy internet game -- I'll let the espionage experts and our Department of Justice decide.

[Zelandakh]

I think we are arguing over semantics.

 

An agent is a person or thing that acts on behalf of another or acts a proxy of another. Official awareness or scienter of this relationship is not necessary. Someone can be fooled into acting as an agent of another.

 

The quote is worded to suggest the American intelligence community believes Wikileaks was chosen by the Russian government to disseminate information it had hacked.

 

This means Wikileaks became either an active agent or an unwitting agent of the principal, the Russian government.

 

At the end of the day, the article and the American intelligence communities believes Wilileaks is working to further Russian interests.

 

Whether the exact nature of that relationship is agreed-upon collusion or as an unwitting dupe in an international spy vs. spy game -- I'll let the espionage experts decide.

Maybe but I think in this case the semantics are important. An agent by definition implies that the body under discussion is acting on behalf of another. Thus if I host controversial material on a website the ISP is not acting as my agent even though I have chosen them to disseminate my information. If on the other hand I go to a web company and ask them to create a website putting across my ideas then they are indeed acting on my behalf. Do you understand the difference?

 

In this case, we know that WikiLeaks was acting in the same way as an ISP. It might be the case that their involvement was greater but at present that seems like nothing more than conjecture and the quote from Winston's article does not suggest this closer connection is being put forward by the intelligence agencies. Not yet anyway, give them time...

 

So at present it seems like a more accurate term would be conduit rather than agent. Of course people wanting to make a point can use any term they choose but if they want to give the impression that WikiLeaks (or anyone/anything else for that matter, including DT) is essentially an arm of the Russian government, they will get fairly short shrift from me unless they have something to back their claims up with. Let us be clear here - you are making this claim; the intelligence communities are not. Time to back it up!

[barmar]

2) If Russia is guilty of election meddling, what is the cure aside from removing Trump from office?

Not really likely. Unless they actually cast thousands of fraudulent votes in the swing states, it's impossible to say that their meddling really swung the election. Social media posts and fake ads and news can influence voters, but in the end they still made up their own minds, and those votes are legitimate.

3) Did our nation pay a penalty of equal measure when we meddled in foreign elections to protect American interests or did we assume American exceptionalism provided us diplomatic immunity from such transgressions?

So what? Does hypocracy excuse other misbehavior?

 

John Oliver did a long piece about how Trump and the GOP frequently makes use of the "what about xxx?" method of diverting attention away from their own failings.

[Zelandakh]

John Oliver did a long piece about how Trump and the GOP frequently makes use of the "what about xxx?" method of diverting attention away from their own failings.

Didn't Time do a piece about Trump's whataboutism 2 months ago?

[RedSpawn]

Not really likely. Unless they actually cast thousands of fraudulent votes in the swing states, it's impossible to say that their meddling really swung the election. Social media posts and fake ads and news can influence voters, but in the end they still made up their own minds, and those votes are legitimate.

 

So what? Does hypocracy excuse other misbehavior?

 

John Oliver did a long piece about how Trump and the GOP frequently makes use of the "what about xxx?" method of diverting attention away from their own failings.

Hypocrisy does not absolve one of punishment for his own transgressions; however, it does make one an awful judge of character in evaluating other's wrongdoing.

 

America has to demonstrate the moral superiority it claims it has. Hypocrisy fuels resentment, undermines our credibility, and destroys our reputation. And without credibility, it's hard for us to build trust and build consensus and negotiate in good faith with our neighbors (and our enemies).

 

That's one of the reasons North Korea won't negotiate with us. They can smell our hypocrisy from a mile away.

 

Hypocrisy is the scarlet letter in politics.

 

Hypocrisy makes us as guilty as the bad actor we are punishing.

 

Hypocrisy is the ugliness we vividly see in others yet conveniently ignore in ourselves.

 

It's the social mask we refuse to remove because protecting our reputation is more important than repairing our character flaws. Hypocrisy provides fertile ground to cultivate the weeds of arrogance and complacency.

 

And that, my friend, is where we are as a nation. We are stuck in our own quicksand of hypocrisy. Our neighbors see this moral failing and whisper behind our backs. They know the truth but we remain defensive, blanketed in denial, and dependent on propaganda, military might, and bravado to artificially inflate our self-worth and distract others from our own shortcomings and insecurities.

http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/hypocrisy.jpg

[RedSpawn]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/12/army-lifts-ban-recruits-history-self-mutilation-other-mental-health-issues/853131001/

 

Say what? Something ain't right! Something ain't right!

 

We do a disservice to our military families when we lower our admission standards for mission-ready recruits. What is going on here? Are we forsaking our current admissions standards and jeopardizing the safety, security, and lives of our existing troops for the primary purpose of bolstering headcount and meeting overly aggressive recruitment and retention goals?

 

This is symptomatic of a "winning by any means necessary" mentality which imperils our armed forces and puts them at extreme additional risk in war theatre scenarios.

 

What's more important -- achievement of the recruitment goal or imperiling the lives of our troops to meet these seemingly unattainable goals?

 

Where is the Inspector General when you need one? Someone please sound the alarm!

 

Senior management in the armed forces has violated their fiduciary duty to uphold the military ethics code and protect their men from unnecessary harm. They are more concerned about keeping appearances than acknowledging the economic reality of what the labor markets are telling them about military service pay. If you pay your men what they are worth, it will attract more eligible mission-ready men WITHOUT LOWERING ADMISSION STANDARDS,

 

Senior management is trapped in the quicksand of their own hypocrisy, indifference, smug arrogance and shortsightedness.

[ldrews]

Hypocrisy does not absolve one of punishment for his own transgressions; however, it does make one an awful judge of character in evaluating other's wrongdoing.

 

America has to demonstrate the moral superiority it claims it has. Hypocrisy fuels resentment, undermines our credibility, and destroys our reputation. And without credibility, it's hard for us to build trust and build consensus and negotiate in good faith with our neighbors (and our enemies).

 

That's one of the reasons North Korea won't negotiate with us. They can smell our hypocrisy from a mile away.

 

Hypocrisy is the scarlet letter in politics.

 

Hypocrisy makes us as guilty as the bad actor we are punishing.

 

Hypocrisy is the ugliness we vividly see in others yet conveniently ignore in ourselves.

 

It's the social mask we refuse to remove because protecting our reputation is more important than repairing our character flaws. Hypocrisy provides fertile ground to cultivate the weeds of arrogance and complacency.

 

And that, my friend, is where we are as a nation. We are stuck in our own quicksand of hypocrisy. Our neighbors see this moral failing and whisper behind our backs. They know the truth but we remain defensive, blanketed in denial, and dependent on propaganda, military might, and bravado to artificially inflate our self-worth and distract others from our own shortcomings and insecurities.

http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/hypocrisy.jpg

 

Right on!

[RedSpawn]

http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/2017/11/14/attorney-general-frowns-on-gop-calls-for-special-counsel-to-probe-hillary-clinton/

 

Is this much ado about nothing or are we watching the evolution of the Salem Massachusetts witch trials in Washington D.C.?

Attorney General frowns on GOP calls for special counsel to probe Hillary Clinton

"I have always told the truth" on Russia: Sessions

 

Addressing calls by conservative Republicans in the Congress for the appointment of a special counsel to probe Hillary Clinton over the sale of a company during the Obama Administration with American uranium reserves, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions told lawmakers on Tuesday that there would need to be facts to support such a high profile investigation, giving no indication that such a probe has been authorized by the Justice Department.

 

“What’s it going to take to actually get a special counsel?” asked Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who repeatedly pressed Sessions on the need for a probe to look at the Uranium One matter, the Clinton Foundation and more.

 

“It would take a factual basis,” the Attorney General replied, in an extended back and forth with the Ohio Republican.

 

“The only thing I can tell you Mr. Jordan, you can have your idea, but sometimes we have to study what the facts are.”

 

The call by Jordan and other conservative GOP lawmakers for a full review of the Uranium One story has been supported publicly by President Donald Trump, as some Republicans argue there is more than enough evidence to support a broader investigation.

 

But in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Sessions seemed to indicate otherwise.

 

“I would say, ‘looks like’ is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel,” the Attorney General said, weighing in more directly than before on an issue that has drawn repeated public interest from President Donald Trump, who has often argued that Clinton’s ties to Russia need more investigation than questions of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections, and any ties to the Trump campaign.

 

 

Sessions was asked about the same issue four weeks ago during an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee; that time, he gave more of an extended ‘no comment’ response on whether there was even an ongoing investigation of the Uranium One matter.

 

“The Department of Justice will take such actions as appropriate,” Sessions said, as he seemed to take pains to say his answer should be taken “without confirming or denying the existence of any such investigation.”

 

Today was much different.

 

Republicans in October announced that a pair of committees in the House would investigate the issue, hoping to hear from an FBI informant who reportedly brought information of possible wrongdoing to the feds during the Obama Administration’s decision-making on whether to allow the sale of a company with U.S. uranium reserves to a Russian government business.

 

“The American people deserve answers,” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) said at the time.

 

No schedule has been given for any hearings into the case.

[RedSpawn]

Maybe but I think in this case the semantics are important. An agent by definition implies that the body under discussion is acting on behalf of another. Thus if I host controversial material on a website the ISP is not acting as my agent even though I have chosen them to disseminate my information. If on the other hand I go to a web company and ask them to create a website putting across my ideas then they are indeed acting on my behalf. Do you understand the difference?

 

In this case, we know that WikiLeaks was acting in the same way as an ISP. It might be the case that their involvement was greater but at present that seems like nothing more than conjecture and the quote from Winston's article does not suggest this closer connection is being put forward by the intelligence agencies. Not yet anyway, give them time...

 

So at present it seems like a more accurate term would be conduit rather than agent. Of course people wanting to make a point can use any term they choose but if they want to give the impression that WikiLeaks (or anyone/anything else for that matter, including DT) is essentially an arm of the Russian government, they will get fairly short shrift from me unless they have something to back their claims up with. Let us be clear here - you are making this claim; the intelligence communities are not. Time to back it up!

True, but I amended the original post with additional relevant information.

 

Wikileaks works with 5 respected news agencies across the world to determine what documents submitted to its platform qualify for publication. It's this coordinated review and approval process with these news agencies that elevates Wikileaks from unwitting bulletin board and conduit to a "conscious, active participant" or agent in foreign policy.

 

I think a better case can be made for conduit if the Russian government could post information to Wikileaks without its express or implied consent even if the supplier was an anonymous source. . . but that's not the case here.

 

The webmaster of Wikileaks is responsible for the content provided on his website and this review and approval process of content fit for publication meets the legal standard of scienter. Thus, Wikileaks knew or should have known that the information Russia allegedly hacked could have been obtained illegally and could have come from a "dark" government intelligence agency.

 

Also, Wikileaks knew or should have known from the review and approval process that this type of content had the ability to significantly sway public sentiment in a U.S. federal election. It published the content anyway and there is an assumption of legal risk for this decision.

 

Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421949/everything-you-need-to-know-about-wikileaks/

[barmar]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/12/army-lifts-ban-recruits-history-self-mutilation-other-mental-health-issues/853131001/

 

Say what? Something ain't right! Something ain't right!

 

We do a disservice to our military families when we lower our admission standards for mission-ready recruits. What is going on here? Are we forsaking our current admissions standards and jeopardizing the safety, security, and lives of our existing troops for the primary purpose of bolstering headcount and meeting overly aggressive recruitment and retention goals?

So mentally unstable soldiers are preferable to transgender? Sheesh!

[y66]

From Danica Roem Is Really, Really Boring by Frank Bruni:

 

Last week Danica Roem made history, winning election to Virginia’s House of Delegates as an openly transgender woman. She’ll be the only openly transgender person in a state legislature anywhere in America. And the man she defeated had held his seat for more than a quarter-century.

 

So when I was watching CNN a few days later and she popped up, I perked up. I realized that I somehow hadn’t caught her other media appearances since her sign-of-the-times triumph.

 

The CNN anchor, Kate Bolduan, invited her to reflect on it.

 

And Roem talked about … traffic.

 

Before using the word transgender, without draping herself in the glory of a trailblazer, she mentioned the awful congestion on Route 28 in Fairfax County, especially “through Centreville and part of Yorkshire,” and her determination to follow through on her central campaign promise “to replace traffic lights with overpasses where possible.”

 

Traffic lights. Overpasses. My jaw hit the ground, because she knew full well that Bolduan was after something juicier than a local-infrastructure tutorial. Then my eyes gleamed with admiration, because she had nonetheless delivered that tutorial — and with it, a crucial message:

 

Being transgender isn’t the whole of her identity, the extent of her purpose or the crux of her mission. The obstacles in her life are particular, but the hell of rush hour is universal. And her job as a lawmaker is to attend to the nitty-gritty that has an immediate, measurable impact on all of her constituents. When circumstances warrant it, she can be every bit as boring as the next politician.

 

This approach wouldn’t be praiseworthy if Roem seemed in any way to be hiding a part of herself or ashamed of it. But that’s not the case at all.

 

She campaigned frequently with her long dark hair under a rainbow scarf. She cooperated with local and national journalists who wrote about her candidacy in the context of strides by transgender people. “I understand the national implications of my race,” she told Time magazine. “I mean, I’m not stupid.”

 

She clearly stated her belief that insurance should cover hormone therapy and other treatments that transgender people seek. She just as clearly communicated her affinity with society’s underdogs.

 

Then she swerved, ceaselessly, to the problem of inadequate teacher pay, the importance of Medicaid expansion and Route 28, Route 28, Route 28. Traffic knows no color, creed or gender. It gave her both a mantra and a metaphor.

 

When she rallied campaign workers before Election Day, she told them to focus voters’ attention on three aspects of her biography. “I’m a 33-year-old stepmom,” she said, referring to her boyfriend and his child. That was the first aspect. Second was that she’d lived in the district almost her whole life. Third was that she’d worked there for many years as a journalist. “I know about public policy issues, because I covered them,” she said.

 

She wasn’t making a deeply personal appeal and imploring voters to affirm her. She was making a broadly public one and encouraging them to include her, lest her talents go untapped and her potential contributions unrealized. Her opponent, a Republican, was the one who made a big issue of her gender identity. Roem, a Democrat, let his cruelties roll off her, went back to knocking on doors, defined her common ground with fellow Virginians and planted herself there.

 

“When people see me doing this, they’re going to be, like, ‘Wow, she’s transgender, I don’t get that,’ ” she told Time, imagining voters’ response to her presence on the political scene. “ ‘But she’s really, really focused on improving my commute, and I do get that.’ ”

 

She avoided vocabulary that might be heard as the argot of an unfamiliar tribe. When I looked back at her campaign, I found plenty of “stepmom” but not “gender binary,” “gender fluidity” and such. As relevant as those concepts are, they’re questionable bridges to people who aren’t up to speed but are still up for grabs, in terms of fully opening their minds and hearts to us L.G.B.T. Americans. Sometimes you have to meet them where they live to enlist them on a journey to a fairer, better place.

 

In a perfect world, such caution and cunning wouldn’t be necessary. In this one, it’s not the only strategy, but it can be an effective one.

 

Roem dedicated her victory speech last week “to every person who’s ever been singled out, who’s ever been stigmatized, who’s ever been the misfit, who’s ever been the kid in the corner.” Those were her opening words, which poetically universalized her experience as a transgender woman without explicitly invoking it.

 

Then it was quickly back to prose and an exhortation that Virginians “fix the existing infrastructure problems.”

 

“I know this sounds like boring stuff,” she conceded. Indeed it does — boring and brilliant and a lesson to us all.

[jjbrr]

Have I lost my mind? Having sex with 14 year olds is not OK. Why do I keep reading things about people defending having sex with 14 year olds? Have we really sunk this low?

[Winstonm]

Have I lost my mind? Having sex with 14 year olds is not OK. Why do I keep reading things about people defending having sex with 14 year olds? Have we really sunk this low?

 

Define "we".

[jjbrr]

Winston, the Magic R.

[PassedOut]

Here's a book title that will push some buttons: Collusion: How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. The author has a piece in the Guardian today: How Trump walked into Putin’s web

 

In late 2015 the British eavesdropping agency, GCHQ, was carrying out standard “collection” against Moscow targets. These were known Kremlin operatives already on the grid. Nothing unusual here – except that the Russians were talking to people associated with Trump. The precise nature of these exchanges has not been made public, but according to sources in the US and the UK, they formed a suspicious pattern. They continued through the first half of 2016. The intelligence was handed to the US as part of a routine sharing of information.

 

The FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of these contacts between Trump’s team and Moscow. This was in part due to institutional squeamishness – the law prohibits US agencies from examining the private communications of US citizens without a warrant.

 

But the electronic intelligence suggested Steele was right. According to one account, the US agencies looked as if they were asleep. “‘Wake up! There’s something not right here!’ – the BND [German intelligence], the Dutch, the French and SIS were all saying this,” one Washington-based source told me.

 

That summer, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at “director level”, face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. James Clapper, director of national intelligence, later confirmed the “sensitive” stream of intelligence from Europe. After a slow start, Brennan used the GCHQ information and other tip-offs to launch a major inter-agency investigation. Meanwhile, the FBI was receiving disturbing warnings from Steele.

 

At this point, Steele’s Fusion material was unpublished. Whatever the outcome of the election, it raised grave questions about Russian interference and the US democratic process. There was, Steele felt, overwhelming public interest in passing his findings to US investigators. The US’s multiple intelligence agencies had the resources to prove or disprove his discoveries. He realised that these allegations were, as he put it to a friend, a “radioactive hot potato”. He anticipated a hesitant response, at least at first.

 

In June, Steele flew to Rome to brief the FBI contact with whom he had co-operated over Fifa. His information started to reach the bureau in Washington. It had certainly arrived by the time of the Democratic National Convention in late July, when WikiLeaks first began releasing hacked Democratic emails. It was at this moment that FBI director James Comey opened a formal investigation into Trump-Russia.

 

In September, Steele went back to Rome. There he met with an FBI team. Their response was one of “shock and horror,” Steele said. The bureau asked him to explain how he had compiled his reports, and to give background on his sources. It asked him to send future copies.

 

Steele had hoped for a thorough and decisive FBI investigation. Instead, it moved cautiously. The agency told him that it couldn’t intervene or go public with material involving a presidential candidate. Then it went silent.

Seems strange that Steele wasn't equally concerned about Clinton's email server.

<_<

[Winstonm]

Winston, the Magic R.

 

That's Lozart, right?

[RedSpawn]

So mentally unstable soldiers are preferable to transgender? Sheesh!

NEWS ALERT! NEWS ALERT! THE UNITED STATES ARMY HAS DONE A COMPLETE ABOUT FACE!!!

 

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/15/army-says-usa-today-story-forced-drop-plans-waivers-high-risk-recruits/866626001/

 

I thought the U.S. Army had lost its fathermucking mind, but they cleaned up a horrendous decision regarding waivers for high-risk recruits. They didn't even need an Inspector General to make it happen. Well just touch me in the morning and then just walk away.

[RedSpawn]

This, from PBS, offers an understanding of the steps taken over the years with North Korea.

Any thoughts on this considering that NK met with Russia in September 2017?

 

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/14/china-north-korea-special-envoy-visit/865201001/

[RedSpawn]

This article from The Atlantic starts to peel back the curtain in Oz.

 

Russia-Wikileaks-Trump

 

Will the circle be unbroken, by and by, Lord, by and by...

 

Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politics/russia-investigation-fusion-gps-glenn-simpson-dossier/index.html

[barmar]

Have I lost my mind? Having sex with 14 year olds is not OK. Why do I keep reading things about people defending having sex with 14 year olds? Have we really sunk this low?

To be fair, many of his supporters are simply taking his word that it never happened, and that the accusations are false.

 

Others say that it happened so long ago that it shouldn't be an issue now.

 

Only a few actually say that it doesn't matter (like the one who compared it to Joseph and Mary -- never mind that things were very different 2000 years ago, when life was shorter and it was routine to marry off daughters one they went through puberty and could start having babies).

[hrothgar]

Only a few actually say that it doesn't matter (like the one who compared it to Joseph and Mary -- never mind that things were very different 2000 years ago, when life was shorter and it was routine to marry off daughters one they went through puberty and could start having babies).

 

There's also that whole Virgin birth thing that the same group of yahoos also insist upon