Klobuchar going all in on Trump-Russia connection

[Mr. Morden]

I’m sure she must be Eharding’s new favorite Senator. 

Klobuchar doesn’t sit on any foreign policy-related committees, yet she’s been spending a lot of time since the election focusing on Russia and Eastern Europe, as well as the Trump-Russia nexus.  It seems to have started during her December trip to Eastern Europe with McCain and Graham, where she met with several leaders in former Soviet republics who are less than thrilled with Vladimir Putin:





She was also the only Senator who doesn’t serve on any foreign policy-related committees to attend the security conference in Munich last week, where she met with more Eastern European leaders on the sidelines.

Now she’s part of the push for a 9/11-style independent commission to investigate the Trump-Russia nexus, and has written to the Election Assistance Commission (in a letter co-signed by 25 fellow Democratic Senators) asking for a full accounting of the commission’s work to counter Russian cybersecurity threats to the election:

http://www.page1publications.com/2017/02/24/klobuchar-leads-26-senators-in-calling-for-a-full-account-of-the-election-assistance-commissions-efforts-to-address-russian-cybersecurity-threats/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.startribune.com/klobuchar-state-s-democrats-want-open-investigation-of-trump-russia-ties/414211633/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Btw, she’s also hosting a forum for Minnesota’s Ukrainian community today:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/02/26/klobuchar-forum-ukrainian-community/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

My least favorite senator is still John McCain, as he has greater potential to subvert the party via his constant backstabbing. I never liked Klobuchar -I've long understood her as far too authoritarian for my tastes- and am not pleased BRTD apparently now has an ear in the Senate.

There has been no land annexation in Ukraine and Georgia any more illegal than the Ukrainian coup or Saakashvili's invasion.

Also, she's short -not a leader, and certainly not presidential material.

[The_Doctor]

True FF for standing up to the Lunatic in the White House.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My least favorite senator is still John McCain, as he has greater potential to subvert the party via his constant backstabbing. I never liked Klobuchar -I've long understood her as far too authoritarian for my tastes- and am not pleased BRTD apparently now has an ear in the Senate.

There has been no land annexation in Ukraine and Georgia any more illegal than the Ukrainian coup or Saakashvili's invasion.

Also, she's short -not a leader, and certainly not presidential material.

And she's my Senator too!

Great for her!

[Famous Mortimer]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

[uti2]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

It's ironic when in 2012 they were all laughing at Romney for wanting a 1980s-era policy regarding Russia. A lot of it is just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points, to be honest.

[Beet]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

It's ironic when in 2012 they were all laughing at Romney for wanting a 1980s-era policy regarding Russia. A lot of it is just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points, to be honest.

In 2012 Russia had not done any of the stuff it's hated for now. The same people who accuse the Klobuchars of wanting to 'start WW3' are also the ones who see things in black and white: as if an country must be permanently Good or Evil for all of history. Instead of looking at the Democrats' attempted friendliness towards Russia in 2012 as evidence that maybe we're not all unreasonably anti-Russia or looking to pick a fight, they take it as another black mark of inconsistency. The notion of judging a government on the basis of its actions escapes them.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

It's ironic when in 2012 they were all laughing at Romney for wanting a 1980s-era policy regarding Russia. A lot of it is just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points, to be honest.

Yeah.. I'm sure that's what it is.  A U.S. senator and former prosecutor is using her investigatory powers to try and get to the bottom of an issue that has far reaching implications if at all true.  And she's doing it in a way that is relatively quiet and behind the scenes because she's not trying to score political points with it... unless there is actual merit to the accusations.

But no.. she's just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points.  You're a real intellectual hard hitter, aren't you?

[uti2]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

It's ironic when in 2012 they were all laughing at Romney for wanting a 1980s-era policy regarding Russia. A lot of it is just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points, to be honest.

In 2012 Russia had not done any of the stuff it's hated for now. The same people who accuse the Klobuchars of wanting to 'start WW3' are also the ones who see things in black and white: as if an country must be permanently Good or Evil for all of history. Instead of looking at the Democrats' attempted friendliness towards Russia in 2012 as evidence that maybe we're not all unreasonably anti-Russia or looking to pick a fight, they take it as another black mark of inconsistency. The notion of judging a government on the basis of its actions escapes them.

Both Hillary and Mccain ran anti-Russia campaigns in 2008 in light of the recent events that had taken place in the past couple of years in that time frame, the Dems gave Obama a carte blanche with regards to his relative pro-russia position for the bulk of his 2 terms.

[uti2]

By the way, I will go further and say that Obama's position on russia actually helped him with progressives/the anti-war crowd in the very close primary race he had against Clinton. He made Clinton look like an 'evil warmonger', 'look, she wanted to invade iraq and now she wants to invade russia, etc'.

[Beet]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

It's ironic when in 2012 they were all laughing at Romney for wanting a 1980s-era policy regarding Russia. A lot of it is just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points, to be honest.

In 2012 Russia had not done any of the stuff it's hated for now. The same people who accuse the Klobuchars of wanting to 'start WW3' are also the ones who see things in black and white: as if an country must be permanently Good or Evil for all of history. Instead of looking at the Democrats' attempted friendliness towards Russia in 2012 as evidence that maybe we're not all unreasonably anti-Russia or looking to pick a fight, they take it as another black mark of inconsistency. The notion of judging a government on the basis of its actions escapes them.

Both Hillary and Mccain ran anti-Russia campaigns in 2008 in light of the recent events that had taken place in the past couple of years in that time frame, the Dems gave Obama a carte blanche with regards to his relative pro-russia position for the bulk of his 2 terms.

I don't understand the grammatical English meaning of this sentence, but my point was, it's perfectly reasonable to have supported engagement with Russia in 2012 but sanctions on it today, based on it's behavior. Obama's behavior was reasonable in 2008/2012, and Hillary's was in 2016.

Also, not to you, but let's not insult demographic groups like "middle class White women" as epipthets.

[Green Line]

I think I am in love.

[Beet]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

[uti2]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Clinton aligned her foreign policy views with Obama's after the fact when she took the Secretary of State job, she was working for her employer.

[Beet]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

[uti2]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

[Beet]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

The premise of your post is that there's no difference between invading Georgia, and largely pulling back (except for South Ossetia), and annexing Crimea, invading the eastern Ukraine, trying to set up a puppet state, shooting down an airliner and denying it, hacking American citizens, and possibly trying to blackmail an American political party and president. Obama's policies only need to be excused if your thinking is based on a whole bunch of assumptions that there's a whole lot of reason for people not to share.

[uti2]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

The premise of your post is that there's no difference between invading Georgia, and largely pulling back (except for South Ossetia), and annexing Crimea, invading the eastern Ukraine, trying to set up a puppet state, shooting down an airliner and denying it, hacking American citizens, and possibly trying to blackmail an American political party and president.

Actually, Russia did seize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so the parallel to Crimea is right there.

Russia has been known to hack for decades going back to the Soviet Union, and China is known for hacking on an even larger scale.

So, again, what excuse did Obama have? Did Hillary and Mccain not have good reason to oppose Russia in 2008?

[Beet]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

The premise of your post is that there's no difference between invading Georgia, and largely pulling back (except for South Ossetia), and annexing Crimea, invading the eastern Ukraine, trying to set up a puppet state, shooting down an airliner and denying it, hacking American citizens, and possibly trying to blackmail an American political party and president.

Actually, Russia did seize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so the parallel to Crimea is right there.

Russia has been known to hack for decades going back to the Soviet Union, and China is known for hacking on an even larger scale.

So, again, what excuse did Obama have? Did Hillary and Mccain not have good reason to oppose Russia in 2008?

Dude, you are trying to fit a square into a circle and it's just not going to work. I see the events of the last 3 years as very significant, and you don't. That's a fair disagreement. But it's not hypocritical just because you disagree. The facts are the different, and my opinion is different because of the facts. This is a different thing from hypocrisy.

Besides that, I'm not even sure what your point is? Hillary, McCain, and Obama are different people with different positions. Again I'm not sure why you even brought them up because I was only responding to your OP which referenced an unnamed "they" who derided Romney in 2012 but wants to investigate Trump-Russia connections today. That's a perfectly valid position to hold, since the reasons for the investigation didn't exist in 2012.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

It's ironic when in 2012 they were all laughing at Romney for wanting a 1980s-era policy regarding Russia. A lot of it is just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points, to be honest.

In 2012 Russia had not done any of the stuff it's hated for now. The same people who accuse the Klobuchars of wanting to 'start WW3' are also the ones who see things in black and white: as if an country must be permanently Good or Evil for all of history. Instead of looking at the Democrats' attempted friendliness towards Russia in 2012 as evidence that maybe we're not all unreasonably anti-Russia or looking to pick a fight, they take it as another black mark of inconsistency. The notion of judging a government on the basis of its actions escapes them.

I don't see things in black and white. Putin was a terrible leader in 2012, and is a terrible leader today, but there's no shortage of terrible leaders, and that's no reason for a new cold war. It's pathetic how many Democrats are suddenly anti Russia since the Democrats used that to try to deflect from the Wikileaks e-mails. The Democrats have really become everything I hate about Republicans.

[uti2]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

The premise of your post is that there's no difference between invading Georgia, and largely pulling back (except for South Ossetia), and annexing Crimea, invading the eastern Ukraine, trying to set up a puppet state, shooting down an airliner and denying it, hacking American citizens, and possibly trying to blackmail an American political party and president.

Actually, Russia did seize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so the parallel to Crimea is right there.

Russia has been known to hack for decades going back to the Soviet Union, and China is known for hacking on an even larger scale.

So, again, what excuse did Obama have? Did Hillary and Mccain not have good reason to oppose Russia in 2008?

Dude, you are trying to fit a square into a circle and it's just not going to work. I see the events of the last 3 years as very significant, and you don't. That's a fair disagreement. But it's not hypocritical just because you disagree. The facts are the different, and my opinion is different because of the facts. This is a different thing from hypocrisy.

Besides that, I'm not even sure what your point is? Hillary, McCain, and Obama are different people with different positions. Again I'm not sure why you even brought them up because I was only responding to your OP which referenced an unnamed "they" who derided Romney in 2012 but wants to investigate Trump-Russia connections today. That's a perfectly valid position to hold, since the reasons for the investigation didn't exist in 2012.

The basis for maintaining an anti-russia political position already existed in 2008 and it was in fact the establishment consensus, which is why the political establishment on both sides, Mccain and Hillary strongly opposed Russia in 2008. Obama excused Russia, and when he did, Obama's positions on Russia were also excused.

There's a reason why the GWB administration dramatically turned against Russia in its last couple of years, to ignore that dynamic is extremely hypocritical.

[Beet]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

It's ironic when in 2012 they were all laughing at Romney for wanting a 1980s-era policy regarding Russia. A lot of it is just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points, to be honest.

In 2012 Russia had not done any of the stuff it's hated for now. The same people who accuse the Klobuchars of wanting to 'start WW3' are also the ones who see things in black and white: as if an country must be permanently Good or Evil for all of history. Instead of looking at the Democrats' attempted friendliness towards Russia in 2012 as evidence that maybe we're not all unreasonably anti-Russia or looking to pick a fight, they take it as another black mark of inconsistency. The notion of judging a government on the basis of its actions escapes them.

I don't see things in black and white. Putin was a terrible leader in 2012, and is a terrible leader today, but there's no shortage of terrible leaders, and that's no reason for a new cold war. It's pathetic how many Democrats are suddenly anti Russia since the Democrats used that to try to deflect from the Wikileaks e-mails. The Democrats have really become everything I hate about Republicans.

I don't get it; the Russians hacked them. Are they supposed to respond to that with kisses and roses? How do you think the GOP would respond if the Russians hacked the RNC and flipped the election to the Democrats, while the Democratic campaign was in touch with the Russians, and the Democratic nominee asked Russia to hack the Republican nominee? The Democrats didn't start any beef with Russia this year. The Russians started a beef with the DNC.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

It's ironic when in 2012 they were all laughing at Romney for wanting a 1980s-era policy regarding Russia. A lot of it is just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points, to be honest.

In 2012 Russia had not done any of the stuff it's hated for now. The same people who accuse the Klobuchars of wanting to 'start WW3' are also the ones who see things in black and white: as if an country must be permanently Good or Evil for all of history. Instead of looking at the Democrats' attempted friendliness towards Russia in 2012 as evidence that maybe we're not all unreasonably anti-Russia or looking to pick a fight, they take it as another black mark of inconsistency. The notion of judging a government on the basis of its actions escapes them.

I don't see things in black and white. Putin was a terrible leader in 2012, and is a terrible leader today, but there's no shortage of terrible leaders, and that's no reason for a new cold war. It's pathetic how many Democrats are suddenly anti Russia since the Democrats used that to try to deflect from the Wikileaks e-mails. The Democrats have really become everything I hate about Republicans.

I don't get it; the Russians hacked them. Are they supposed to respond to that with kisses and roses? How do you think the GOP would respond if the Russians hacked the RNC and flipped the election to the Democrats, while the Democratic campaign was in touch with the Russians, and the Democratic nominee asked Russia to hack the Republican nominee? The Democrats didn't start any beef with Russia this year. The Russians started a beef with the DNC.

There's no proof that the Wikileaks e-mails came from Russia. Some UK diplomat claims he got them from an American.

[Beet]

I just noticed, as soon as I called out uti, he subtly shifted the goal posts from a hypothetical "they" who was "laughing at Romney in 2012" to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If these two were so uncritically hawkish, then they were not among those laughing at Romney in 2012.

I did not move the goal posts. In 2008, both the Clinton and Mccain campaigns opposed Russia due to the expansionist activities of Russia in that contemporary time frame. You're acting as if something revolutionary happened in the past 3 years, it didn't. The only thing that has changed is Obama becoming slightly more antagonistic towards russia, which proves my point. When Obama spoke of positive relations of Russia, it was supported.

Then who is the "they"? You original post never mentioned Clinton or McCain and neither did I, you brought them up.

In the past 3 years worlds events dramatically changed with respect to Russia. To state the trivial and obvious, for example, the title of this thread for instance would have made no sense 3 years ago.

Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008, and was making aggressive moves towards their neighbors even in the recent years before 2008. That's why both Clinton and Mccain opposed Russia in 2008. What I'm pointing out is how Obama's policies towards Russia were hypocritically excused.

The premise of your post is that there's no difference between invading Georgia, and largely pulling back (except for South Ossetia), and annexing Crimea, invading the eastern Ukraine, trying to set up a puppet state, shooting down an airliner and denying it, hacking American citizens, and possibly trying to blackmail an American political party and president.

Actually, Russia did seize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so the parallel to Crimea is right there.

Russia has been known to hack for decades going back to the Soviet Union, and China is known for hacking on an even larger scale.

So, again, what excuse did Obama have? Did Hillary and Mccain not have good reason to oppose Russia in 2008?

Dude, you are trying to fit a square into a circle and it's just not going to work. I see the events of the last 3 years as very significant, and you don't. That's a fair disagreement. But it's not hypocritical just because you disagree. The facts are the different, and my opinion is different because of the facts. This is a different thing from hypocrisy.

Besides that, I'm not even sure what your point is? Hillary, McCain, and Obama are different people with different positions. Again I'm not sure why you even brought them up because I was only responding to your OP which referenced an unnamed "they" who derided Romney in 2012 but wants to investigate Trump-Russia connections today. That's a perfectly valid position to hold, since the reasons for the investigation didn't exist in 2012.

The basis for maintaining an anti-russia political position already existed in 2008 and it was in fact the establishment consensus, which is why the political establishment on both sides, Mccain and Hillary strongly opposed Russia in 2008. Obama excused Russia, and when he did, Obama's positions on Russia were also excused.

There's a reason why the GWB administration dramatically turned against Russia in its last couple of years, to ignore that dynamic is extremely hypocritical.

The bolded line is your assertion. That does not make it fact. You don't get to state your opinion, and then label anyone not adhering to it hypocritical.

I stated my opinion and it has no internal inconsistency. I hold it sincerely. I find it pretty insulting that you are effectively accusing me of dishonesty, and continue to pursue that accusation despite not being able to defend it intellectually.

The establishment does not get to determine the "consensus". If that was true, TPP would be law today, instead of dead. Obama had a different position on Russia in 2008 than Clinton or McCain, which was a valid position to hold whether you disagree with it or not, and the American people picked him by a big margin.

[Beet]

Why does this Russia meme resonate so much with boring middle class White women?

It's ironic when in 2012 they were all laughing at Romney for wanting a 1980s-era policy regarding Russia. A lot of it is just uncritically regurgitating NYT talking points, to be honest.

In 2012 Russia had not done any of the stuff it's hated for now. The same people who accuse the Klobuchars of wanting to 'start WW3' are also the ones who see things in black and white: as if an country must be permanently Good or Evil for all of history. Instead of looking at the Democrats' attempted friendliness towards Russia in 2012 as evidence that maybe we're not all unreasonably anti-Russia or looking to pick a fight, they take it as another black mark of inconsistency. The notion of judging a government on the basis of its actions escapes them.

I don't see things in black and white. Putin was a terrible leader in 2012, and is a terrible leader today, but there's no shortage of terrible leaders, and that's no reason for a new cold war. It's pathetic how many Democrats are suddenly anti Russia since the Democrats used that to try to deflect from the Wikileaks e-mails. The Democrats have really become everything I hate about Republicans.

I don't get it; the Russians hacked them. Are they supposed to respond to that with kisses and roses? How do you think the GOP would respond if the Russians hacked the RNC and flipped the election to the Democrats, while the Democratic campaign was in touch with the Russians, and the Democratic nominee asked Russia to hack the Republican nominee? The Democrats didn't start any beef with Russia this year. The Russians started a beef with the DNC.

There's no proof that the Wikileaks e-mails came from Russia. Some UK diplomat claims he got them from an American.

Do you sincerely believe it didn't come from Russia? If someone put a gun to your head, and your life depended on getting the right answer, you would really claim it was an American, and not Russia?