Forget Paris

[CitizenBBN]

Trump did as he promised, walked us out of the Paris Accord.

I get the concern for us remaining "in" when the agreement has 200 nations agreeing, I do.

But in the end, this was the right move.

First, this was always a deal designed to hurt the US more than anyone else, which is why everyone else was so willing to sign up. This was always going to "level the playing field" and redistribute massive wealth, mostly from the US to the rest of the world. India was going to get something like $2.5 trillion (with a T) in subsidies, and other nations got huge amounts as well, while the US got to pay those bills AND reduce our emissions by strangling our economy.

second, it was already known that the environmentalists were gearing up to use this accord to take the US to court to try to enforce more stringent standards and maintain Obama's push toward ending the fossil fuel industry entirely. If we remained tied to it they'd have their case, but by walking away they have no legal grounds.

While I get wanting to be "at the table", there's not a really a way for this to somehow exclude us from anything else we want to discuss or address. If we want to address these things there are plenty of ways to do it without having to agree to standards that are unfair to us.

IMO this is no different than Kyoto, which was rejected by the Senate by something like 99 to 1, and the Iran deal, which was also agreed to by everyone else only b/c it was such a horrid deal for the US. Obama got his deals done by making them so good for the other sides that they had no choice but to agree. Lousy way to do business.

From my cursory read on this agreement, it basically rests on taking a lot of people at their word. China is supposed to peak out CO2 levels by 2030, and the assumptions that show that such commitment would reduce CO2 levels for them to any great degree are based on them a) keeping that promise, and b) committing to the plans now to curb those emissions so that the curve works out that way.

But the Chinese economy is naturally shifting more to services, and growing at slower rates, so they are largely committing to changes that will happen without them having to really hammer their economy. Further, the have to make changes b/c their air is becoming unbreathable, and people are starting to grumble, and that matters more than what Westerners think.

The economic reality is that the US, for various political reasons, would be very likely to meet its requirements under this accord, while most other nations that are major polluters have little chance of really meeting their goals, and there is no penalty for them to miss those goals.

This would let Russia, China, India etc. all talk about their goals, then explain how they are working hard as the goals slip, all the while the US is losing economically to them. With no enforcement mechanism the "level playing field" only works if we all think the totalitarian governments of Russi and China would take these steps, and if developing nations like India with mouths to feed would do so as well.

I just don't see why we sign up for an agreement where we will be all but forced to keep our end (through judicial action if nothing else) but there's no way to leverage the others. Thus even "sitting at the table" leaves us very exposed.

[CitizenBBN]

I was curious to fact check on India a bit. It's reported that part of their deal to move to more non-fossil fuels is tied to that $2.5 trillion in subsidies.

Well, that's true. Politico article (not known for being anti-environment): http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/mo...#ixzz3nzypxkkk

What they get is $2.5 trillion over 15 years in various assistance, which is basically government and UN grants and very low interest loans.

Their entire GDP is $2.45 trillion (US is vast at $19.4 trillion). Over 15 years that's about 7% of their GDP coming in as a subsidy each year.

To put that in perspective, it would be like giving the US about $1.36 TRILLION a year in low interest loans and grants. Our federal budget is running a little under $4 trillion a year (sadly), so it would be like giving us more than a 25% subsidy on our current federal spending, or enough to pay, get this, our entire federal spending on medicare and medicaid.

Imagine if we were getting that kind of money to put in solar and wind and such. Of COURSE we'd do that, and do so gladly, b/c that would buy a TON of that technology and leave plenty more to make sure everyone still got cheap electricity and our business and industry was competitive. We could transition without much if any economic hardship at all, as that's enough to just subsidize the entire energy grid as needed.

Would we sign up for that deal, getting enough money to basically have someone else pay for our wind farms and solar panels entirely? India will get enough money from abroad to easily cover the investment costs to meet those goals, and probably left over for other things, while also getting to lower their pollution levels.

Of course they take that deal. Duh. It's 7% of their entire annual gross domestic product. That's huge when it's coming out of thin air like that. They'll be able to install the tech to move from fossil fuels without incurring big increases in energy costs. A win win.

The problem is that money has to come from somewhere, and it was already discussed when India signed on as to whether Obama could get the US Congress to pony any of it up. Had we remained then eventually we'd be paying part of these bills once Democrats were back in charge, just like how we pay more than our share of the UN and more than our share of NATO.

So yeah, given that the US has never, not once entered into one of these agreements where we don't end up paying more than our proportional share, I'd say it was dang likely we were going to be doing it again, PLUS having to implement these restrictions on our own nation simultaneously with no one subsidizing our costs.

So we were going to subsidize our competitors while making us less competitive. Oh yeah, great treaty. (not a treaty though of course, since Obama never took it to the Senate)

[dan_bgblue]

I read today that Al Gore is in full voice bashing the President and the decision to pull out of the accord. Claims it will kill millions and ruin the economy of the USA

[dan_bgblue]

The entire accord is not about climate change at all. It was written and agreed to by many as a wealth redistribution mechanism. Sadly the signers knew this

[CitizenBBN]

The entire accord is not about climate change at all. It was written and agreed to by many as a wealth redistribution mechanism. Sadly the signers knew this

Absolutely the knew it.

People need to separate concerns for climate, which I understand, from the use of that fear and concern to get policies that have nothing to do with climate issues.

I'm all for reducing pollution and that's great, but I'm NOT for the US paying for India's and China's pollution reduction by sending them a check and simultaneously paying vastly more for energy and everything I consume.

in the view of the the US environmentalists we need to not just "go green" 100% but pay for the rest of the world to do it. I don't agree.

[CitizenBBN]

If you have 5-7 minutes to kill, this is an hysterical interview by Tucker Carlson. Talking to mayor of Miami or someone, trying to get him to explain specifically why the Paris Accord would actually help address climate. I don't know that I've ever seen someone duck the question with more fervor.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/545684127...#sp=show-clips

I'm working on some images, have this running in the background for sound, some funny stuff out there.

But re Paris, the problem is this agreement is a lame and toothless attempt to actually address climate change, and the only country that will get stuck doing it is the US.

FWIW Tucker did say we were supposed to meet IIRC a 26% reduction over 2005 levels, which based on my quick research earlier would be higher than anyone else I ran across. there's a surprise.

[UKHistory]

I need to research this more to articulate my position.

I will go the shorthand. President Trump is billy Gillespie without the charm.

I get and respect the folks who viewed Hillary as a horrible option. Donald trump is the single greatest domestic threat to our democracy since the civil war.

He is an abomination that will test the limits of our way of life. He is a clear and present danger in my view.

It,is a time for patriots.

That said I hope I am wrong. But I just don't see it.

Bless yawl.

[CitizenBBN]

Donald trump is the single greatest domestic threat to our democracy since the civil war.

He is an abomination that will test the limits of our way of life. He is a clear and present danger in my view.

I'm not going to argue, but I honestly just don't get this perspective.

I don't get it for any President in US history. I've heard it for a number of them on both sides, but it's never once come to fruition, and there's absolutely nothing on Trump's agenda nor anything he's said he's going to do that in any way would limit American democracy.

What thing is he specifically trying to do that is such a threat? I'm serious, I really don't get it.

yes, he's brash and an asshat a lot of the time. I get not liking him personally one bit. I don't like the few brash New Yorkers I've ever known and I'm betting he'd top the list. If I had a daughter who wanted to marry him I'd cringe like a madman. I get why people don't like him as a person, and I tend to agree.

But in his role as President what is he doing or will he do that is such a horrible threat? I'm sincerely looking for reasons.

[dan_bgblue]

This has been ignored by most pundits and loons when they are bemoaning the President's action as admitting the truth of the following statements does not support their agenda.

Has the president done anything since he has been in office that has been harmful to Tesla Motors, or "green" renewable energy research and or production, or incremental improvements in the solar energy production equipment, or research into improvements in batteries for energy storage, or and the list goes on.

No he has not.. Unlike his predecessor he has not tried to "KILL" any industry or source of energy production thru draconian laws, regulations and fiat. He knows that when there is a need, private industry, if left unfettered in their attempts, will find solutions to problems

This is the talk of a proper president. And what a contrast to President Obama’s statement. Not one mention of constitutional principles. Not one mention of the sovereignty issue. Mr. Obama suggests Mr. Trump is lagging the private sector. But Mr. Trump has put no brakes on the ability of private enterprise to try to make and sell solutions to any climate problem. Mr. Trump is neither sneering at the concerns of the climate movement, nor denying science.


I liked this opinion piece

[CitizenBBN]

Exactly Dan.

This is about the specifics of the Paris Accord, and honestly has nothing to do with whether climate change is real or a huge threat or not.

I have yet to see one attack of this move that is based on the actual details of the accord. It's all about how kids will have asthma, how we'll have floods and plagues and such, but that is all based on the built in assumption that exiting this agreement means we are going to start polluting like mad and drive off the future of green energy.

The claims of job losses are the same. Again they are arguing that green energy is a future for jobs and tech exports. OK. The inherent assumption that this somehow kills that is either that a) Trump will kill it, which is silly and he's said nothing of the sort, or b) only Draconian policy decisions that triple our price of energy were going to produce those jobs and tech in that sector, in which case such things have to be offset by the massive loss of jobs and wealth due to the government forced shift in market forces.

FWIW I agree that moving to more green tech is the future, and it's been the future since long before the early environmentalist doomsayers of the 1970s started this movement. We've been working on solar power since well before that point, and as soon as the price points for that meet up with other options it will be eagerly adopted. Of course that's the future, does anyone seriously think we'll be burning coal in 100 years? 50 years?

No, eventually it will go the way of whale oil, but the Paris Accord was about us killing it off early and forcing what are currently more expensive options on us while simultaneously subsidizing the rest of the planet including our economic competitors.

I have to do some homework but Pedro posted about how solar is actually lower cost than oil. I think there's a lot of debate in the numbers on both sides, but fwiw I surely hope that's right, b/c then of course the US government need to NOTHING other than get out of the energy subsidy business altogether on both sides, and let the market work.

The good news, if that is the case, is that we don't need the Paris Accord at all for such an achievement, and we just saved spending trillions in foreign grants and subsidies while getting all the benefits of a more green future.

This is only bad if you assume that those arguments are false, or that Trump will work to support oil and coal to the detriment of competitive green energy,and I so far don't see an indication of that. I see him allowing them all to compete, at least I hope that is the case. We need environmental regs on coal and oil too, just a balance of that with the approach that it should be fair and balanced to all segments of the energy industry and may the best man win.

[CitizenBBN]

And let me add I'd love to get rid of coal and oil and have dilithium warp drives and food replicators, but what Paris proposed was that the US would get rid of those things while nations like China and India got to keep going for more than a decade before they had to start doing anything, and leaving us at a huge competitive disadvantage that entire time.

It all reminds me of Obama's gas guzzler buyback thing to boost the car business and get older cars off the road. IN the end all it did was boost car sales some and make it less affordable for a lot of poor people to have a car. Cars that would have been available to them at the bottom of the price range were scrapped instead. It hurt the poorest among us the most and helped big business. Which of course is why so many of them are all for these kinds of agreements. They still get all the protections that make them money.

[CitizenBBN]

This one is for Dan mostly:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/0...-trump-climate

it touches on the obvious glaring economic incentive scientists have to fear monger this issue, but is mostly about the fact that the Paris Accord had little to do with climate change and a lot to do with western nations going nuts to spend money to buy signatures from developing nations for emissions standards they set for themselves and can't be enforced.

[KSRBEvans]

For me, it's more about the process. It's a civics lesson on why treaties are important and why trying to circumvent the rules on treaties can have consequences.

A treaty has to be submitted to the Senate and passed by a 2/3 majority. Obama knew he'd never get it through, so he implemented it as an "agreement," "accord," whatever you want to call it.

Well, guess what? It's easier to pass, but it's also easier to set aside, as Trump showed this week. If you want something that's lasting, you should get Congressional buy-in. You know, the folks elected by the people. As the author of this article stated, "Policy made by the Congress is accountable to voters; policy made by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isn’t."

Now maybe Trump should've corrected Obama's error and sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification, but if he already doesn't believe in it, there's no point. And it wasn't going to pass, anyway. It's no more popular now than it was when Obama did his end run.

[dan_bgblue]

Good read BE. Regardless of all of the seen and unseen faults of the current President, he is doing something I respect, and that is to attempt to govern by the constitutional rules. Or at least that is my perception.

[KSRBEvans]

Dan, I think there's too much legislating by executive order and regulation. It's been that way for decades but really accelerated under the previous administration IMHO. Some say it's the only way a government this large can function effectively, but IMHO it's an argument for reducing government's size and role.

[KeithKSR]

I need to research this more to articulate my position.

I will go the shorthand. President Trump is billy Gillespie without the charm.

I get and respect the folks who viewed Hillary as a horrible option. Donald trump is the single greatest domestic threat to our democracy since the civil war.

He is an abomination that will test the limits of our way of life. He is a clear and present danger in my view.

It,is a time for patriots.

That said I hope I am wrong. But I just don't see it.

Bless yawl.

Where is the evidence that Trump is a threat to our democracy?

The real evidence is that Obama was a threat to our republic in the use of the government agencies against his political enemies. It's no accident that the Tea Party was targeted by the IRS to keep their PACs on the sideline in 2012, that the unmasking of Americans seems to target the 2016 GOP presidential field, and surveillance of reporters that dared investigate anything his administration was doing.

[UKHistory]

Great point about treaties and bypassing congressional oversight.

Biggest benefits are symbolic and getting horrible polluters like china to see the benefits of going green.

The short term economic argument to get out is a strong one. It does remind me of what the British parliament initially argued when the matter of abolishing slavery first came up. Opponents to abolition said other nations would reap the benefits of England abstaining from the peculiar institution. Slavery would continue without England receiving the financial benefit.

I am not comparing anyone here to a slave trader. I am simply saying if there is an argument to be made that the accord is a major step towards a more sound environmental approach for conserving the earth, the long term benefits could be worth the short term effects.

Being one of only three countries not in the accord doesn't mean we aRe in the wrong. But when standing alone we need to make damn sure it really is the right long term approach.

we can't lead if we are not in the club. The US must always put our national interests first. That does mean maintaining military and economic alliances that are good for us and bad for our enemies.

And just like getting one and done guys at U.K. Strengthens our roster, it also weakens our opponents.

A vacuum of leadership on the global stage allows china and Russia to flex their muscles.

That is not putting America first.

[UKHistory]

Where is the evidence that Trump is a threat to our democracy?

The real evidence is that Obama was a threat to our republic in the use of the government agencies against his political enemies. It's no accident that the Tea Party was targeted by the IRS to keep their PACs on the sideline in 2012, that the unmasking of Americans seems to target the 2016 GOP presidential field, and surveillance of reporters that dared investigate anything his administration was doing.

My reasoning on President Trump comes from this truism: if the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Donald Trump and or his closest people are compromised by the Russians. The Russians interfered with the election in a way that benefitted Trump. Just so no on forgets Russia is not the friend of the United States.

I thought no we will be seeing more proof of that in the near future.

Trump's position on NATO and his behavior towards those countries in comparison to his behavior towards Russia horrifies me.

We are right to push the NATO countries to increase their contributions in our mutual defense. We should do that strongly in private while reaffirming the alliance in th face of Russian aggression.

And had Clinton won and seemed to cozy up to Russia like trump is after the uranium deal, I'd raise the same questions.

The surveillance state, patriot act and technology all are dangers to our liberty. Were there abuses under Bush and Obama? Yes. And those who treasure the bill of rights have legitimate concerns. The speed of history and technology in a terrorist world is moving to inhibit liberty.

To me Trump is the next and most physical manifestation of this shrinking of freedom.

With regards to the IRS and the so called attack and The TEA party, i can see why folks would see it that way.

From what I know that is not accurate. And unlike when we wonder about where a player is going, I know intimate details of this.

[UKHistory]

It is not appropriate for me to go into detail publicly regarding the IRS. I will speak with folks from this board privately about the situation. This not cloak and dagger. The people involved are important to me and it is there story. If I have talked about it in the past I don't recall the level of detail I shared previously. That simple.

It was not a conspiracy in the devious sense. If you want to know more send me a message. We can talk.

We by that I mean me and folks I call friends here disagree on trump. We all love our country. I worry about Trump and where he is taking us. Many of you are not as concerned as me.

I respect that. I feel moved to speak my mind. I took an oath to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic.

defend it I will. Go Cats.

[KeithKSR]

Trump is definitely not cozying up to the Russians. The Obama administration and Hillary did that to the extreme, including rolling over for Putin every step of the way.

If you've not been paying attention to world events and only listening to the absurd 24 hour Russian conspiracy theory news outlets you would know that relations between the
US and Russia are anything but cozy right now.

In regards to your agreeing that other NATO alliance nations should pay their fair share then you are in agreement with Trump. Unlike the previous administration the Trump administration realizes you need to negotiate using leverage from a position of strength.

Russia has been meddling in our elections for over fifty years, it has yet to impact the outcome of any election. The only entity to examine the DNC servers was the DNC, they did not allow any government agency to examine the servers to determine who hacked them. They pronounced it was Russia, Assange has hinted that Seth Rich provided the emails, and he was murdered.

None of the things you ment

[UKHistory]

NATO paying more has been the position of several presidents. Calling the alliance obsolete and not condemning Russian behavior in the UKraine is a concern.

I agree NATO should pay more. I disagree with the way he talks down to them in public. That doesn't strengthen an alliance. If trump does something I agree with I will say it. Negotiating with heads of state is not the same as evicting little old ladies.

But when trump refers to the rules of the senate as arcane I take notice. When he insists that millions of ineligible voters voted against him in an election he won, I worry. Sore winners are scarier than sore losers.

He is bully in public like no president in my lifetime. That worries me.

When a moron likes Kathy griffin threatens him, I will condemn it. I don't want hm harmed. I want him removed from office. Legally. Peacefully.

Trump retracted his NATO position but bullying your allies and having the Russians for tea in the oval is not a way to negotiate with friends.

As for keeping up with world events I do. And I am pretty sure your name is not on a waves appointment list. I didn't sign you in. So we are about even in terms of direct access.

Folks can bring up Obama and Hillary. They are not in office. Trump is. So whatever damage they did or,would be doing is not the immediate concern.

I loathe her. Obama was not the best in foreign policy. But trump has been far more critical of our allies than Russia who is our enemy. Putin has brought the Cold War back and. NEither W or Obama were prepRed for that.

Trump has been way too complimentary of a leader who wants to see US hegemony reduced.

[UKHistory]

Russians have tried. This president is the only public denier of the evidence shared within him by our intel. The intel staff trump referred to as nazis.

FSB in the oval with Russian press taking photos.

There was a time. All Americans would have stood up against that. I don't understand wh more folks are not up in arms about this.

Democrats and liberals are not enemies of this country. At least not in comparison to the Russians.

[CitizenBBN]

Russians have tried. This president is the only public denier of the evidence shared within him by our intel. The intel staff trump referred to as nazis.

FSB in the oval with Russian press taking photos.

There was a time. All Americans would have stood up against that. I don't understand wh more folks are not up in arms about this.

Democrats and liberals are not enemies of this country. At least not in comparison to the Russians.

And I dont' get why people are so up in arms over this, b/c it in fact pales to other foreign associations we've had to endure.

You want to dismiss Obama and Hillary, but they can provide a meaningful benchmark for what level of foreign interaction is really out of line with the norm, and when you do that it's pretty clear that there's nothing so far that shows the Trump people are any cozier with Russia than any other administration.

Let's look at some of the points:

1) The FBS in the White House, and the Russian Ambassador. Well the Russian Ambassador and yes Russian press have been there many many times. If there is evidence they weren't properly escorted and secured then we have a topic for conversation, but them just being there is meaningless as LOTS of foreign dignitaries and their press followings come to the White House. Dozens of times a year if not more.

The records show the Russian Ambassador visited the White House under Obama at least 22 times. Obama, and Bush, and Reagan, and Ike, and Kennedy, and Nixon, have all had umpteen meetings with them including media from both nations in those preset things where they sit in two chairs and do a photo-op. It's gone on forever. What specifically was done differently in this meeting to make us think it's an issue?

2) Trump's comments on NATO. Were they at times over the top? Yes, as is a lot of campaign rhetoric. And yes he's called out their spending issues, but we know for a fact Obama and Bush were livid over it, they just wouldn't do it publicly. Well Trump was elected to cut through the diplomatic cow piles and do just what he did. You don't have to agree with the approach, but there's no basis to conclude that the approach shows a weak attitude towards Russia.

3) Trump cozying up to Russia, and his pro-Russian views.

Honestly of all of it this one kills me. For YEARS Obama and Hillary and lots of people on both sides of the aisle were fawning over being closer to Russia and Putin. Hillary came up with the "reset" with Russia, and used the federal government to help build new high tech facilities in russia and got Apple and Google and the others to all come and open up shop there. That administration was directly involved with infusing millions if not billions into the Putin government's coffers, not to mention the uranium purchase and lots of other things.

Were you afraid that Obama and Hillary were the great threat to democracy then for their very close relations with Russia? How was that different than now when Trump says he wants to work with them to counter terror groups like ISIS?

When Obama and Hillary decided it's in the best US interests to try to build a better relationship with Russia it's OK and just trying to help the nation. When Trump suggests we do the same thing it's treason. Huh?

4) The Russian Election meddling. This is where the Democrats have been able to get people to see Trump's actions re Russia as nefarious while Obama having a far more pro-Russian policy is deemed as just fine. B/c the Russians didn't help get him elected and they did with Trump, supposedly.

But that ignores so much. First, it ignores that the Russians are interfering in elections in lots of places for the purpose of destabilizing that process. They are winning in this no matter who wins the actual election, and this obsession with this situation has helped them more than they ever dreamed. It's paralyzing the US on the world stage and domestically, exactly what they wanted.

The assumption they wanted to elect Trump for some reason is just not supported. They hurt Clinton, but that may be for any number of reasons. It also may be that they wanted Trump to win b/c they thought he'd just be a worse President, or that he'd be so polarizing we'd end up doing just what we're doing, playing politics instead of making policy. But the narrative that the Trump campaign was coordinating this is just not supported.

Do various Trump people have various ties with Russian businesses or officials? Yes, of course. So do lots of Hillary people, Obama people, Bush people, etc. Whether this is good or not, and I'm sure it's not, this sort of thing is now COMMON. John Podesta's brother is a foreign agent of a Russian bank, the Clinton Foundation is awash in foreign money from everywhere, Bill Clinton got $1 million in speech fees from a Russian company tied to the uranium purchase his wife approved, etc.

This reaction, frankly, is out of a lack of perspective that there is now a vast fabric of foreign influence within our government and business institutions, b/c all of these entities are interwoven. Obama had numerous bundlers and such with foreign ties, many were foreign. Hillary has loads of those ties. We're rife with them.

But what's happening here is the media is focusing on those ties with Trump people as if they are the only people with those ties, as if Hillary and Obama and Bush staffers didn't also have those ties and influences. They did. Loads of them.

The Clinton Foundation alone is the most brash use of those ties ever seen. It operated throughout the Obama years and there are just this week even more emails released showing that Hillary staffers were helping Foundation Donors get "hooked up" with the "right" government people.

that doesn't condone the ties Flynn or Bannon or whoever may have, but we have GOT to have perspective in order to weigh what those ties mean. If you ignore the fact that the last administration had far more of those ties, as well as direct financial payments that seem to be missing with Trump's people, you lose perspective.

So far all I see here is a media-assisted twisting of the way Washington works in order to make it look like what Trump did was highly unusual and thus suspect. The truth is that so far I can go down everything that has come out and find a counterpart in the DNC and the last administration who did the same thing or has the same ties or worse. If that's the case then the conclusion is that so far nothing out of the norm has even come up about this, that it's all just a twisting of the truth by focusing on "facts' without context. If we provide that context and look at how Hillary and Obama conducted business with all of these same ties and behaviors, we see that at worst our ENTIRE government has sold out (which I think may be the caes), but that Trump's actions are no more concerning than any others we've already endured.

[CitizenBBN]

Russians have tried. This president is the only public denier of the evidence shared within him by our intel. The intel staff trump referred to as nazis.

FSB in the oval with Russian press taking photos.

There was a time. All Americans would have stood up against that. I don't understand wh more folks are not up in arms about this.

Democrats and liberals are not enemies of this country. At least not in comparison to the Russians.

I wanted to give a different, more "political landscape" answer to this as well.

The reason more arent' up in arms is b/c we tried to be up in arms for 8 years as these other scandals of Russian and other foreign influence rose up, and no one joined us.

People on here were complaining about selling out to the Russians when Hillary started the reset with Russia. We talked about the Clinton Foundation and how it was a giant slush fund of foreign influence.

remember when Romney said Russia was our greatest threat abroad and called out Obama's closer ties with them and Obama and the media lamblasted hm as a fool?

Those stories were out there, including stories of foreign campaign money to Obama through his bundler Roche, as well as lots of stories of foreign influence. They just were never touched by the mainstream media b/c they would never attack that administration. They never once questioned the conflicts of interest of Hillary approving the uranium purchase by a Russian company while her husband got $1 million in cash from those companies. not one word, and anyone who brought these things up was just a tin foil hat wearing fool.

They really didn't even go afte Bush and Cheney, who also had such ties, b/c they were also establishment. There were rumblings, but nothing serious.

Only now with Trump is it all suddenly a big deal. So pardon me for not seeing the fact that Flynn's business had some contracts with Russian companies when we now know for a fact that Clinton was deeply tied to at least one company that was little more than a shill for access given to foreign players and no one did anything about it.

Here's a story on the released Band memo which shows just how much was going on in those years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.e1aeb61c1d98

Did the Times and Post beat on that for years? did they go find "anonymous sources" and really work to dig up what was going on when literally hundreds of millions of dollars were moving from foreign players and governments into the Clinton Foundation and companies on which her husband and and associates sat as directors or worked for directly?

Where was that outrage? Those ties are far deeper, far more clear and far more supported by the evidence, but the reaction still seems to be "well they aren't in charge now so let's focus on Trump". When people in the media call for EQUAL treatment and the Clintons and Obama and the Bushs and the rest are all ripped apart for their corruption and ties then I'll accept that what is being done to Trump is just a pursuit of the truth and protection of American democracy.

Otherwise what I think is this is a push to get Trump out so they can get back in power and then they can have those SAME EXACT ties to those same people, only they're getting the money and power. Supporting that politically is nonsense to me, b/c all you're doing is installing a different corrupt dictator, not defending democracy.

[UKHistory]

Citizen

Thank you for being thoughtful and polite in your responses.

I agree there was a a double standard in Hillary and Obama with the press. Bush gravely misjudged Putin too.

They are not the white knights. They are very flawed. The Clinton foundation and the emails made her unfit to be president. Bernie is often mentioned. But the democrat who would have won was Jim Webb. He had no chance at the nomination.

I hear you on the establishment stuff. There is truth there in your words.

I am very critical of the previous regime. I can only swing at so many windmills at one time. They are not in power. And this blowhard worries me.

That said Citizen, I value and respect your opinion very much.

[KeithKSR]

Citizen

Thank you for being thoughtful and polite in your responses.

I agree there was a a double standard in Hillary and Obama with the press. Bush gravely misjudged Putin too.

They are not the white knights. They are very flawed. The Clinton foundation and the emails made her unfit to be president. Bernie is often mentioned. But the democrat who would have won was Jim Webb. He had no chance at the nomination.

I hear you on the establishment stuff. There is truth there in your words.

I am very critical of the previous regime. I can only swing at so many windmills at one time. They are not in power. And this blowhard worries me.

That said Citizen, I value and respect your opinion very much.

Webb was much too moderate for the extreme liberals on the coasts. I gotta say what concerns me the most about the future of our republic is the currrent situation in Berkeley and other college towns, where free speech is being shutdown over threats of violence and acts of violence.