Trump's views on Russia

[Fenring]

A lot of hay has been made in American media about Trump's potential relationship with Putin. I just came across an interesting article on the subject, which made some points that try to clarify what that 'relationship' actually is:

http://theduran.com/donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-potential-partners-not-allies-or-even-friends/

Trump and Putin have in reality exchanged nothing more than a few pro forma compliments. Trump’s “man crush” is nothing more than an acknowledgment of something that even Putin’s critics don’t dispute: The Russian is a strong leader. “I’ve always felt fine about Putin. He’s a strong leader. He’s a powerful leader,” he told a TV interviewer. In addition, Trump has said many times that he believed—or hoped—that he would get on well with Putin. During the second presidential debate in September 2015, Trump declared that he “would get along with Putin.” But then, he added, “I would get along with a lot of the world leaders that this country is not getting along with.” He returned to this theme in another presidential debate: “Wouldn’t it be nice if actually we could get along with Russia?”

It is extraordinary that a statement promising improved relations should cause so much fury. In his National Interest-hosted foreign policy speech on April 27, 2016, Trump again reiterated that the United States and Russia “are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests. Russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of Islamic terrorism. I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible.”

The quoted text here refers to the notorious "man-crush" Trump and Putin supposedly have for each other, according to the liberal press. More from the article on that:

Not terribly sophisticated but media outlets that make their living through clickbait were even less sophisticated. Salon, for example, has run innumerable stories suggesting a homoerotic relationship between the Russian leader and the American businessman. Donald Trump’s revealing man-crush on Vladimir Putin screamed a typical headline. The man-crush is mutual apparently. On another occasion, we were told that Putin has a “man-crush on Donald Trump.” On yet another occasion, Salon spoke of a “bromance”: “Donald Trump is a big fan of Russian president Vladimir Putin. Big fan. Huge fan.” Just in case readers still didn’t get the message, two days after the appearance of that story, Salon ran yet another  story on this theme, headlined Donald Trump’s got Putin fever. This was soon followed by yet another story telling us that “Russian president Vladimir Putin has continued to sing Donald Trump’s praises.” Trump “can’t help but gush with praise at those who use violence to oppress their people,” Salon claimed more recently, “At the top of the list, of course, is Vladimir Putin, who Trump repeatedly swoons over like he’s a 12-year-old at a Justin Bieber concert.” Putin is aware that “Trump goes to sleep snuggling a photo of the Russian dictator every night, and are seeking ways to support Trump’s run, knowing that nothing would destabilise the United States and strengthen Russia’s position like a Trump win.”

My takeaway from all this is a realization that the insinuation that Trump and Putin have a man-crush, or a bromance, really smacks of appealing to homophobia in the readers. Can you imagine if Trump was praising Merkel and the press spoke of Merkel and him having a crush on each other, or having a romance? I really cannot imagine such a thing, because feminism has been alive and strong long enough that such a statement would immediate enrage a vast swath of Americans. The sexualization of a female leader would not be taken lightly as a way of disparaging Trump. Now granted, "bromance" isn't an exact counterpart for "romance", but it still has a homoerotic bent to it, and besides, I've seen countless articles pass through my FB feed that do directly state that Trump has a crush on Putin.

It's no surprise that the left-wing press will find ways to vilify a conservative candidate, and ditto for right-wing press haranguing liberal candidates, but does this way of attacking Trump not betray the fact that the liberal press doesn't appear to actually embrace liberal values? Isn't it a betrayal of their readership to cast a male-male relationship in a negative light by referring to it sarcastically as a bromance or a mutual crush?

[NobleHunter]

Bromance, at least, specifically refers to "straight" relationships among men. I'd read "man-crush" as having similar connotations. I find bromance is more value neutral, in that it refers to a close friendship without added negative subtext. "Man-crush," especially in the context Salon uses it, is a more negative term. It seems to imply immaturity, codependence, foolishness, and emotionality. That speaks more to masculinity than orientation. The adders "bro-" and "man-" remove the terms from the romantic or sexual connotations present in the unmodified terms.

[Wayward Son]

Of course, there is more than just bromance here.  Apparently Trump has had financial dealings with Russia in the past.

The Washington Post outlined a number of business dealings with Russian investments and with Russian money.

The Trump Organization is also interested in investment opportunities in Russia.

Trump also said, last November, that "I got to know him [Putin] very well because we were both on "60 Minutes," we were stablemates, and we did very well that night."  But, of course, he said last Tuesday that "I have nothing to do with Russia, nothing to do, I never met Putin, I have nothing to do with Russia whatsoever."  So you get your choice of facts.

Whether he has dealing and investments in Russia as of today, he certainly had some in the past.  Which might make him a bit more friendly and forgiving to Putin and Russia in general than he might normally be.  After all, he made money with their help in the past.

[velcro]

Point of fact:  Trump strongly implied that he and Putin met on 60 minutes "I got to know him very well because we were both on '60 Minutes,'."  Trump was taped in the US and Putin taped in Russia.  They never interacted in any way.  You can say that is good, because he doesn't actually know Putin, or you can say that is bad because he blatantly lied.

[Pete at Home]

If we wanted someone who didnt lie in speeches we would have elected Bernie.  I'd be happy with someone that doesnt lie under oath.

[Pete at Home]

" Can you imagine if Trump was praising Merkel and the press spoke of Merkel and him having a crush on each other, or having a romance?"

No kidding.  Rachel Maddow was hoowling like she had a crackfull of glass cieling when Bill Clinton talked about the "girl" he romanced 3/4 of their lives ago.

[Fenring]

Of course, there is more than just bromance here.  Apparently Trump has had financial dealings with Russia in the past.

Wait, so doing legitimate business with a foreign nation is now a point of suspicion? Trump has outright said he knows how to deal with Russia and wants better relations with them. Having had business dealings in Russia serves as a credential for that position, if anything, and certainly not an accusation.

But if you really want to look at shady dealings with Russia go take a look at the Clintons and Uranium One

[JoshCrow]

Can you imagine if Trump was praising Merkel and the press spoke of Merkel and him having a crush on each other, or having a romance? I really cannot imagine such a thing, because feminism has been alive and strong long enough that such a statement would immediate enrage a vast swath of Americans. The sexualization of a female leader would not be taken lightly as a way of disparaging Trump.

Good thing it never happened, right?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2006/jul/28/bushrubsmerke

[Fenring]

Good thing it never happened, right?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2006/jul/28/bushrubsmerke

Heh, funny. But obviously this isn't on topic with what I was mentioning.

[JoshCrow]

Good thing it never happened, right?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2006/jul/28/bushrubsmerke

Heh, funny. But obviously this isn't on topic with what I was mentioning.

Heh, just having some fun.
The media loves the term "bromance" lately. I was typing in "Trudeau Obama" into the searchbar and the next suggested word was "bromance". http://www.people.com/article/president-obama-justin-trudeau-bromance-three-amigos-summit

[rightleft22]

Disregarding the email scandal or legality of hacking.

Is it ok that the candidate for the precedency ask a foreign power to hack another candidate’s email even if the emails no longer exist?

If Trump is ok with foreign nationals hacking American citizens Is Trump implying that he would be ok and even encourage government spying on citizens and if he could get away with it would disregard privacy laws and or change them to suit his purpose

[Fenring]

The media loves the term "bromance" lately. I was typing in "Trudeau Obama" into the searchbar and the next suggested word was "bromance".

Yeah. I personally don't care, but it still strikes me as a massive double standard that male-male relationships can be mocked in the press, even if technically it can be defended as 'in good fun.' It doesn't really seem like it's in good fun, because I cannot think of a positive connotation for 'bromance' as it's being used in these contexts. The usage is certainly not ever meant to be a compliment to the persons involved. Again, I think about what kind of outcry there would be if female-female political relationships were ubiquitously named in mainstream press to be "bestest girlfriends" or "no-homo lesbian buddies" (some analogy to "man-crush"). I think the newsroom would get flame mail from all over the country over it, frankly. But somehow it's ok and even a meme of some kind to playfully disparage two political males by using 'no-homo' meme language to describe a working relationship between them. It's kind of like the TV-rules meme where a man can be belittled or disparaged (like Tim from "Tool Time") and that's a fine way of poking fun at them, but if it was women that would be sexist.

I just find it troubling that it's ok to use terms like "man-crush" when referring to two individuals who are potentially both world leaders. If that's ok then the press has devolved in style to little better than a tabloid. In terms of substance it's already been there for a while.

[Fenring]

If Trump is ok with foreign nationals hacking American citizens Is Trump implying that he would be ok and even encourage government spying on citizens and if he could get away with it would disregard privacy laws and or change them to suit his purpose

Are you saying you don't think this already happens, as an unofficial part of the system? The NSA spy network, for instance, has opened up its umbrella; exchange agreements have been made between various countries to save on costs where the NSA will agree to monitor all transmissions from the other country for them in exchange for sharing the data. This literally is a government asking a foreign government to spy on its own citizens, and it's not hypothetical, it's the current system. Trump can hardly be accused of something which is already functional policy.

[Wayward Son]

Of course, there is more than just bromance here.  Apparently Trump has had financial dealings with Russia in the past.

Wait, so doing legitimate business with a foreign nation is now a point of suspicion? Trump has outright said he knows how to deal with Russia and wants better relations with them. Having had business dealings in Russia serves as a credential for that position, if anything, and certainly not an accusation.

But if you really want to look at shady dealings with Russia go take a look at the Clintons and Uranium One.

It makes you wonder when a person finds a foreign leader so admirable and his fortune (which he is known for) is tied to that leader's country.  Especially a leader who has recently been in conflict with the U.S. (Ukraine, Syria, etc.)

I have also heard a couple of times that the New York banks had stopped loaning Trump money (he was too big a risk), and he had to go to the Russian oligarchs to fund his projects.

I'm not saying that Trump must be corrupt just because he had substantial business dealings with Russia and now finds the Russian leader far more admirable than most of the rest of the world.  It may be coincidence.  But it is something to consider.  And that connection makes it more than just mutual-admiration.

Besides, if having financial dealings with Russia isn't a point of suspicion, why do Republicans believe it suspicious that the Clinton Foundation got such a large donation from Russia over Uranium One?  Is it only because the name "Clinton" is associated with it?

If Trump is ok with foreign nationals hacking American citizens Is Trump implying that he would be ok and even encourage government spying on citizens and if he could get away with it would disregard privacy laws and or change them to suit his purpose

Are you saying you don't think this already happens, as an unofficial part of the system? The NSA spy network, for instance, has opened up its umbrella; exchange agreements have been made between various countries to save on costs where the NSA will agree to monitor all transmissions from the other country for them in exchange for sharing the data. This literally is a government asking a foreign government to spy on its own citizens, and it's not hypothetical, it's the current system. Trump can hardly be accused of something which is already functional policy.

How often does it happen with countries that aren't our close, or even official, allies?  Don't we reciprocate information with those countries, too?  Would Trump do that with Russia if they help him?

And remember, these 30,000 e-mails were those sent by Hillary when she was Secretary of State.  He's not just asking Russia to hack or release the e-mails of U.S. citizens (I find him a bit unclear on this point), but high ranking U.S. government officials. 

That's disturbing, or at least stupid.

[Fenring]

Besides, if having financial dealings with Russia isn't a point of suspicion, why do Republicans believe it suspicious that the Clinton Foundation got such a large donation from Russia over Uranium One?  Is it only because the name "Clinton" is associated with it?

From what I remember (I don't feel like source checking right now) it wasn't 'Russia' that sent the payment but was the business owner involved via Canada that sent them a substantial donation (in the millions) after they smoothed the deal for him to acquire the uranium interests in the U.S. The company itself had ownership in Russia, which is the link there, and this also occurred (if I recall) after Bill had made a trip out there. It'd be easy for you to find if you Google it, but I read quite a bit about it at the time it went down.

You want to talk about Trump having 'some kind' of business interaction in Russia, but then you have this event, which is documented and specific, involving handing uranium interests to Russia. If Russia is such an "enemy" to the U.S. then what's your position on giving them access to more uranium for their nuclear projects? This is not on the same level as a bank loan, and also involves very obvious bribery (not provable in court, no doubt ).

[Pete at Home]

Of course, there is more than just bromance here.  Apparently Trump has had financial dealings with Russia in the past.

Wait, so doing legitimate business with a foreign nation is now a point of suspicion? Trump has outright said he knows how to deal with Russia and wants better relations with them. Having had business dealings in Russia serves as a credential for that position, if anything, and certainly not an accusation.

But if you really want to look at shady dealings with Russia go take a look at the Clintons and Uranium One.

It makes you wonder when a person finds a foreign leader so admirable and his fortune (which he is known for) is tied to that leader's country.  Especially a leader who has recently been in conflict with the U.S. (Ukraine, Syria, etc.)

I have also heard a couple of times that the New York banks had stopped loaning Trump money (he was too big a risk), and he had to go to the Russian oligarchs to fund his projects.

I'm not saying that Trump must be corrupt just because he had substantial business dealings with Russia and now finds the Russian leader far more admirable than most of the rest of the world.  It may be coincidence.  But it is something to consider.  And that connection makes it more than just mutual-admiration.

Besides, if having financial dealings with Russia isn't a point of suspicion, why do Republicans believe it suspicious that the Clinton Foundation got such a large donation from Russia over Uranium One?  Is it only because the name "Clinton" is associated with it?

If Trump is ok with foreign nationals hacking American citizens Is Trump implying that he would be ok and even encourage government spying on citizens and if he could get away with it would disregard privacy laws and or change them to suit his purpose

Are you saying you don't think this already happens, as an unofficial part of the system? The NSA spy network, for instance, has opened up its umbrella; exchange agreements have been made between various countries to save on costs where the NSA will agree to monitor all transmissions from the other country for them in exchange for sharing the data. This literally is a government asking a foreign government to spy on its own citizens, and it's not hypothetical, it's the current system. Trump can hardly be accused of something which is already functional policy.

How often does it happen with countries that aren't our close, or even official, allies?  Don't we reciprocate information with those countries, too?  Would Trump do that with Russia if they help him?

And remember, these 30,000 e-mails were those sent by Hillary when she was Secretary of State.  He's not just asking Russia to hack or release the e-mails of U.S. citizens (I find him a bit unclear on this point), but high ranking U.S. government officials. 

That's disturbing, or at least stupid.

Your already-rebutted claim that Trump could possibly "asking Russia to hack" anything at this point is both disturbing and stupid.  Again:

Stop the brainwashing and think a bit about this crap that you're parrotting.  What Trump has rhetorically "asked" Putin to do isn't an act of "hacking" but an act of time travel.   All the Congress' horses and all the Congress' cybersleuths couldn't find those 30,000 emails under a lawful discovery order. How could Putin "hack" what is no longer there without a time machine?

Think harder, damnit.

What Trump is actually asking Putin (assuming that Trump isn't so psychotic to assume Putin has a time machine) is that IF Putin already did hack those 30,000 emails, back when Clinton had them all on an illegal an undersecured personal server, that he should produce them now.  That isn't an illegal request, since if the hacking's been done, then it's already done, and the information already in a foreign power's hands.

But Clinton and all assure us that no one hacked her server, so we can all be secure that Russia does not have and cannot acquire those emails.

Right?

As for the alternative that he's asking for them to be released, that's pursuant to Congress' discovery order. 

[rightleft22]

"Are you saying you don't think this already happens,"

Not relevant to the question.

Though I could rephrase
If Trump is ok with foreign nationals hacking American citizens would Trump make such actions openly legal for government agencies
As commander and chief would trump defend American from Foreign cyber attacks.

[Pete at Home]

"Are you saying you don't think this already happens,"

Not relevant to the question.

Though I could rephrase
If Trump is ok with foreign nationals hacking American citizens would Trump make such actions openly legal for government agencies
As commander and chief would trump defend American from Foreign cyber attacks.

That's a debate team question.  Real human beings are not ever persuaded by that sort of nonsense.  Can you look yourself in the mirror and say you even believe it yourself?