America First: Russians paid bounties on dead US troops, Trump knows, doesnt care, still wants in G7

So, either a Republican that wants to smoke dope, or a Republican that wants to let others smoke dope so they can justify having a bigger gun collection.

I think you underestimate their self-secure desire to stick it to the libs, loud and defiant, whenever they can.

Only whilst he’s actually in office.

Honestly, if somebody is willing to eat well-done steak "to own the libs," how much is left?

So Hoax means totally true, right?

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/new...eaths-of-marines-from-del-central-pa/2451910/

A month after Trump was informed of the Russian bounties and did nothing, three marines were killed in a roadside bomb in Afghanistan.

This would be Trump's Benghazi, if Republicans weren't spineless traitors.

For years, on this board, the idea has been tossed around that, just maybe, a President wouldn't leave the office on inauguration day. That, just maybe, Bush may try to pull one last fast one. That, just maybe, Obama really was a secret muslim sleeper agent.

I've always given those ideas the time they deserved, which was none at all. The very idea was insane. The peaceful transition of power is the FIRST hallmark of our political system.

But, in the very back of my mind, if Trump does lose in November, will Law Enforcement have to drag him from the White House, kicking and screaming, as he rants about Fake News and a rigged election? If he loses, he's going to be the most dangerous man on the planet for three months.

I don’t want to think about that. My biggest worry right now is election shenanigans.

I can see him resigning and Pense pardoning everyone.

It does seem extremely archaic and rooted in a pre-industrial time that after the population chooses a new leader you give the old one so much time to hang around and still have power.

Hey, we're doing better! Terms used to not start until March! (also technically the presidential election is not until mid-December, and certification of the vote until 1/6)

Also, while checking on the date, I learned that Alexander Hamilton drafted a constitutional amendment requiring states to select electors on a per-district basis, and prohibiting slates of pledged electors, which failed to go anywhere due to his death. People would have had to vote for electors directly, the idea being that electors would have to campaign on being the best judges of character and policy. I wonder how different the world would have turned out if that had passed...

Was that around the same time that senators were still picked by the state governments? I imagine any system like that would have long since evolved into one where a vote for the elector is equivalent to a vote for a candidate.

It being per-district would be interesting though. You'd probably see elections more similar to those that happen in the UK and Australia, with swing seats (districts) being focused on.

Senators yes (that was until 1913). Presidential electors were in some states determined popular vote, some by the legislature. It was the ones with popular votes for slates of pledged electors that drove Hamilton to draft the amendment.

Because he's heavily involved in Russian money laundering schemes vis a vis his real estate properties and the revelation of such could land him in prison, and more importantly, choke off the one part of his business that's actually turning a profit.

All he understands is praise and money, and he's got plenty of the former from his sycophants.

The issue is that the President of the United States has clearly sided with a foreign adversary hellbent on killing American soldiers.

Thanks for clearing that up.

And that also is extremely archaic. It would be possible to have the electoral college vote by mid-November, certification of the electoral college vote within a couple of days after that, and the new president taking over before the end of November. Those procedures could even be simplified very much, because they are based on conditions that existed in a rather disorganized federation of not-very-technologically advanced states at the end of the 18th century. It doesn't have to take two and a half months to transition to a new government.

I wonder if part of it is also that the presidential system means you almost end up with a new completely inexperienced team coming in.

Under a parliamentary system whoever becomes a new PM usually has experience as leader of the opposition, and has a team of people many of whom have been acting in shadow roles for a while.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/this-day-in-history-july-3

Fox News would like you to remember that the United States put a bounty on Saddam Hussein and his sons on this date in 2003.

What a weird thing for them to point out.

So, any evidence for these claims yet, other than unattributed "intelligence"?

You mean, like Republicans admitting that they were real? Yes. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...nce-may-have-been-trump-brief-wasn-t-n1232498

How else can they defend the indefensible?

Three months? This clown has had access to your top secrets for the last four years. He can't stop running his mouth when he's in office, think about the damage he could do if he was tossed out and has a vendetta! You guys are going to need to Epstein him!

I don't believe what Republicans say. There is a sizeable component of the US polity, cutting across both parties and within the intelligence services, that favours a more confrontational approach towards Russia. These people have lied before so this kind of thing might be true and it might not. Given the stakes - which involve two nuclear powers armed to the teeth - it is important that it is not accepted uncritically, regardless of how political convenient it may be in order to damage Donald Trump.
Are there any witnesses, any identified victims (of the 31 Americans who were killed in Afghanistan over the last couple of years), any paper trails? None have been presented to my knowledge.

Given what is known about Putin's character, do you really think that it is implausible? Additionally, the UK government has said that bounties were placed on their soldiers as well. Do you think that they are lying?

I didn't say that it was implausible, just that it shouldn't be accepted uncritically. We know that "intelligence" can consist of some low-level informant making something up that his paymasters want to hear, and them running with it.

I stand to be corrected but from what I can see, the UK government were simply briefed on the intelligence that the US say they have, so there isn't any independent verification from them.

In this case, however, such information is absolutely the last thing the paymasters want to hear. They can't say a negative thing about Putin in Trump's presence without him getting upset.

There's not been a denial from the UK government about the validity of the information. That seems telling.