Matthew

Guys it's not that hard. Anyone in contact with a foreign enemy for the purpose of plotting against (or attempting to plot against) Americans are commiting treason and should be tried and executed. All this hiding behind labored lawyer talk is the reason that foreign nations can get away with corrupt influence. Plus the SCOTUS has done almost nothing to define the concepts of Article III section 3 of the US Constitution, and this Campaigns-Meeting-With-The-Russians situation would be a perfect test case.

This isn't making the point you think it is. Its from a paragraph in which they state that collusion and coordination are not terms in US law and that conspiracy is in US law. So they focused on ways in which the trump campain conspired to violate the law. The sentence you're quoting defines coordination this way: "We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." AKA they were using a very high bar legalese definition of the term. This does not contradict @Hodad when he said that the trump campain and Russians met and exchanged info on Hillary, which is also described in detail in the report: "Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had ”dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place. "Summer 2016. Russian outreach to the Trump Campaign continued into the summer of 2016, as candidate Trump was becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for President. On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as ”official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.” The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as ”part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The written communications setting up the meeting showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer’s presentation did not provide such information."

Fascinating how as soon as one of the blokes ends up being a right wing MAGA nut then suddenly nuance, context, and empathy must be applied instead of blanket condemnation an entire population.

Also, to your actual question: Americans don't spend time thinking about Canada. For-profit media corporations aren't going to waste much time trying to generate interest on the topic of colonizing canada. The real question is why is a political forum mostly made up of Canadians obsessed with US politics not talking a lot about their favorite US president casually taking about colonizing Canada?

The US presidency has only ever been vaguely democratic. - The people don't directly choose the president. - Our representatives in Congress have very few tools to keep the presidency in check - In the previous 240 years Congress has failed to prevent many their constitutional powers from drifting to the presidency. So yeah any criminal who can win a presidential election is off the hook and unlike other systems there is little recourse for a bad one being removed. Only impeachment and the 25th Amendment but neither has ever been done.

Yes, its the actual thing that brought up the point you're responding to before you injected yourself into two other people's dialogue.

No thanks. Though I wish someone had hugged you as a child so you wouldn't be so insecure all the time.

Yes. The question was why the FBI did not coordinate with nancy polosi. Answer: not their job nor branch of gov. The fact that trump does not inspire loyalty among those who work for him is beside the point but thanks for that hopeful reminder.

Not on January 6th 2021. Thanks for participating anyway.

The FBI does not work for Congress. It works for the Justice Dept of the Executive Branch which at that time was led by *checks notes* Donald Trump. 🙄

You and your poor feelings.

Well pfft. With a few noteworthy exceptions temps in general make less regsrdless of where they are from. I'm talking about the far more sizable immigrant labor for highly technical professions. Which overall ranges from 15 to 30% of the workforce depending on the specific field. And India is by far the biggest contribution to supplementing US shortage of technichal and healthcare expertise.

They were aware and lots of Intel and dozens of operatives emedded in the far right groups involved. But at what point do vaugly seditious plans become illegal? The US gives a remarkably high level of freedom for openly seditious speech and activism in peacetime. Trump people are so witless that when they violently took over the seat of government, their next step was to wander around and take selfies. So I'm sure the FBI accurately assessed these people as not a "clear and present danger."

And plus a "guy in an Airbnb" should have really tipped them off.

Again it's just a marketing term to make something basic and ordinary seem like a hidden conspiracy so as to better exploit their poorly informed and poirly educated supporters. But you are right that attacking expert technocrats is not unique to the far right. Socialists have also long done that. But at the current moment their influence in any political party is practically nonexistent.

I agree. That's why trump keeps trying to troll even harder with more outlandish nonsense. I'm done with caring about what he says since 100% of it is low-information horse shit. My intent is to only react to actual policy actions and outcomes.

Deep state is a marketing term used on the right to describe a normal functioning modern administrative bureaucracy that is 99% merit-based professionals rather than patronage positions loyal to a party. They presumably want more of it to be patronage positions because no field of science or of proper effective organizational management would ever do their bad policy ideas.

I'm glad you agreed with my assessment.

A lot of words, none of which disagreed with my summary of right wing loser reaction hobbyism. Pretty much everything right wing bloviators use to describe their perception of "The Left" is actually them describing themselves. So Im glad we see eye to eye on your lame bullshit.

Right Wing Loser Thought Process: Oh, deadly disaster has happened? Excellent. How can I use it to politically benefit my meaningless team?

Perhaps there was a time when what you're describing was accurate. But these days the average Indian IT professional in the US earns slightly more than the average for US IT professionals in general. And again there are several prominent technical fields where this is true, another main one being physicians. In both of these cases the main issue is a shortage of qualified individuals in specific geographic areas. Willingness to fill these gaps would explain why their average pay is higher.

Everything one needs to know about User.

Civil wars and violent revolutions don't start just because there are polarized ideological factions. There have always been polarized factions. Also, the factions that do exist are each a minority of the country. There are about 265 million adults in the US. Only 161 million bother to register to vote (2022 number) and around 77m (R) vs 75m (D) voted and of those likely less than half actually have strong feelings about politics and those strong feelings on either side are mostly isolated to barely relevant bullshit. So getting a critical mass for any significant political movement is very doubtful, much less a violent one. There are no competing national identities, or organized splinter movements, or state secession movements. And generally the limited organized anti-government militants and terrorist groups that have existed in the US in the last 60 years are almost entirely right wing. Not only have they been ineffective, but with fascism acending to the mainstream they don't have much to complain about.

I live and work amid one of the largest Indian enclaves in the US. The town i live in has a major communications and GPS tech firm. It's an absurd generalization to suggest that they are merely low skill and low tier workforce. While they are only a small minority in my midwest town, they hold a large percentage of the top tech and medical jobs and their kids are by far disproportionately top achievers in local schools.

Ok so you're in the "minors can lawfully consent" camp. Way to stay on brand.