2) Donald Trump's campaign's ONLY intervention in the entire GOP platform was to remove anti-Putin language from the platform re: Ukraine.

3) Not only that, but just days before the RNC, Carter Paige, one of Trump's foreign policy advisers traveled to Russia and gave a speech attacking America's policies towards Russia, calling America's focus on democratization and fighting inequality "hypocritical."

4) The Intelligence community has confirmed that Russian Intelligence is responsible for the hacking of the DNC, which is an obvious attempt to harm Hillary Clinton's campaign.

5) Furthermore, Donald Trump called on Russia to release/hack any emails they could get their hands on.

6) Trump's campaign manager has ties to pro-Putin oligarchs who were propped up by the Kremlin. This isn't new information. As long ago as 2005, there were calls to McCain's people to try and do something about Manafort because he was working against American interests in the region.

7) Trump has praised Putin numerous times, calling him a far better leader than Obama.

8) Donald Trump has taken an anti-NATO stance.

#5 was as expected, taken out of context. All Trump said was that if the Russian did hack Hillary's email, that they release the 'lost/deleted' ones, something FBI wants very much as well.

#7 that isn't very surprising considering Obama's policies are so far to the left of most Republicans and frankly so seldom make any sense.

#8 again, not surprisingly that this was taken out of context by someone. Trump correctly pointed out that NATO has serious issues that need some tough love if they're going to be resolved.

In mid-June, Democratic Party suspicions about the hackers seemed to be confirmed when CrowdStrike, an outside security firm retained by the DNC, reported that it traced the hackers to two separate units linked to Russia’s security services: the FSB, Russia’s equivalent of the FBI, and GRU, the country’s military intelligence agency.

5.) Trump explicitly said "russia, if you're listening, i hope you find hillary's emails"

7.) you're ignoring the fact that putin is a dictator that has $200 billion in wealth, and has committed various heinous crimes to his people and to other countries

8.) trump's anti-NATO remark was so bad, republicans ripped up trump for it http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-nato-new-york-ti...

[0]https://files.sans.org/summit/Digital_Forensics_and_Incident...

More concerning is apparently our leaders can now deflect proof of misconduct by making unproven allegations against Russia.

As opposed to the rags to riches dynasties running the US government one after another.

> and has committed various heinous crimes to his people and to other countries

Really? You want to play that game after the US has meddled in half the world and assassinated and deposed democratically elected leaders then installed dictators?

>trump's anti-NATO remark was so bad, republicans ripped up trump for it

Of course they would, they are all interventionist NEOCONs.

What I love most is how Obama is hated because he's a Muslim agent (despite literally zero evidence), but here's an actual agent of the former-USSR trying to steal an election and these guys are after Hillarys email management. Selective paranoia apparently.

Now the question, does it matter ? If the emails are legit it is the only thing that counts.

The hawkish neocon establishment, as can be easily observed.

"evidence"

You mean, "code with comments in Russian"? Then I presume if the comments had been in English, it would be evidence of a British involvement? Or maybe Australian?

>> 8) anti-NATO stance Nope. This is actually really really wrong. What is being covered as his anti-NATO stance is a position the US has nailed on quietly for years. As someone who grew up in a Canadian military family, I heard the same criticism for years around the dinner table. A lot of nations, Canada included, do not contribute our fair share to our collective security. For decades Canada has signed on to NATO commitments but our government (liberal, more so than the conservatives) for just as long as yet to put pass the budgets in order to meet those commitments.

One of Trump's stance on NATO is to put pressure on nations like canada who enjoy the collective security afforded by NATO and benefit from it greatly, but consistently, budget after budget, has never met our commitments to ensure said security. The american tax payer is paying for the lion share of our collective security, and our current security environment has been suffering a tragedy of the commons.

>>Trump and NATO pivot to terrorism

One commitment that Canada has met, and something we Canadians should be proud of, is our commitment via NATO to the taskforce in afghanistan. We actually fought and put the necessary dollars to support that fighting. We had to lease transport planes, but eventually spend the billions to buy our own, we upgraded equipment. In terms of spending, we took our military from using 1980s equipment (the prior combat uniform was drab olive) to a fighting military contemporary of 2007.

Britain also met commitments, and, likewise, America did to. Other nations (like france, germany, poland) were reluctant to put their soldiers in combat roles and avoided risks. The issue in Afghanistan highlighted the relucantance and lack of incentive for france, germany and poland to incorporate their troops within a NATO joint chain of command because of their reluctance to see their troops engage in combat.

None of these two issues that Trump has spoken about (NATO in Afghanistan and how horrible it was), and NATO as collective security, is him speaking about disbanding NATO. You americans paid a lot more for our collective security than the EU does, or canada (as percentage of GDP). And because of the tragedy of the commons, leaders will not spend more, or take more risks unless they have to, which NATO has proven year after year, that they wont unless they feel threatened. They would rather direct that budget to domestic needs and get a free ride from you, the american tax payer.

> 7) Trump calling Putin better than Obama Trump believes Obama is the worst thing ever.

Nah, nah. There's two things NATO is about: (a) keeping money flowing in these economic empires and involved countries; (b) protecting the security of them. Money first, citizen safety second. Always in that order. Otherwise, U.S., U.K., France, etc wouldn't have screwed with so many Middle Eastern, Latino, etc countries for their resources in bloody wars. So, that's the game.

Now, what of security? Wait, I know what you mean: U.S.-directed spending on military activities that profit U.S. defense contractors. The revolving door where defense contractors bribe Congress reps, hire Pentagon people for six digits, and get billions in contracts from same people. They build tons of stuff with no proven value on top of what has value. They have cost overruns due to mismanagement. They get involved in various forms of fraud and shoddy work. They pocket billions in process with tens of millions to their executives & Congress people's stock going up. America, with many starving and poorly educated, spends as much money as possible on these defense contractors' bottom lines... more than many others put together... while the other countries spend more on infrastructure, medical, school, etc.

In such a situation, it's 100% reasonable not to match the spending of the U.S.. Matter of fact, countries should brag on not running their defense so foolishly. Any money they spend will probably just make some American executives or legislators wealthier. The problem here is American corruption and defense spending. That industry needs to get their shit together. The corruption won't go away. So, I've just asked they create jobs and line pockets building stuff that's actually useful in modern warfare. If they want spare soldiers, have them fix our crumbling highways and stuff when they aren't killing foreigners for questionable reasons. Should just get something out of our tax dollars like, say, Canadians are.

"One commitment that Canada has met, and something we Canadians should be proud of, is our commitment via NATO to the taskforce in afghanistan. "

Wow. Thought you were American up to that comment as most countries are aware that was BS. Bush Sr and CIA funded terrorists in Afghanistan, training them to fight a superpower. U.S. govt also funded Sadaam in Iraq to tune of $600+ million in fight against Iran. We fought them since, as CIA admitted in 2013, we overthrew their government and installed dictator to help Britain steal their oil. Funded Sadaams war against them to punish their resistance. Slammed him when he resisted the meddling. Eventually, the Saudi terrorist they trained & supported brought a bunch of Saudi friends brainwashed by Saudi extremist religion into the U.S. to murder 3,000+ of us. U.S. response should've been to stop meddling, start some apologies w/ reconstruction money, and smash the hell out of Saudi Arabia until they stop promoting extremism. Instead, they convinced a bunch of people to smash Afghanistan and Iraq while walking hand-in-hand with Saudi king and training their military to be more effective.

Yeah, you shouldn't be proud of your country sacrificing its people to support American imperialism and mass-murder in the Middle East. Those countries you knocked just used their brains. They decided they shouldn't die to make American politicians happy or U.S. defense contractors richer ($300+ billion richer). Now, those countries are destabilized plus ISIS formed in the wake threatening to kill more of us. Great. (thumbs up)

Seriously, I know the subject of politics is very opinion base, but there are departments in universities across many lands that attempt to study these systems. Like, look how pathetically anti-war, super-simplified, black/white narrative fitting your perspective is: "war exist to fund defense contractors".

oh please, you aren't even responding to my comment or claims. You are just pulling stuff out of your crack. NATO own studies have shown over and over again that an issue it constantly faced is the uneven spending (as ratio to GPD) of its members and the reluctance of members to put their troops within joint commands.

You made that up yourself. I said most of our military actions were about pushing politics or capitalism. Which the evidence supports, including many declassified documents. I said military spending in U.S. is excessive, has tons of failed programs, is justified by bribes/votes, and mostly lines pockets of defense contractors and Congress reps. U.S. records give me proof of first two, Congress records have proof of next (i.e. lobbying), and annual reports + track records show proof of last. You're straight-up reciting propaganda of U.S. military connected outfits that contradict results in their own documents. Such contradictions are confusing until you realize they can lie in some places and it's a felony in others. ;)

"oh please, you aren't even responding to my comment or claims."

Sure I am. You implied the U.S. spending is actually about the security of us and NATO. It's provably not. It's a mix of profiteering, waste, and security expenses. Of the security expenses, it's a mix of useless stuff given modern battlefield and stuff that's actually useful which usually costs far less. Your whole spending claim is bogus if it relies on false belief that U.S. military spending is about security. It's partly false if it believes that the small portion spent on security actually improves security. Most is again about jobs (eg votes in key districts), campaign contributions to Congress, military heads getting promoted for appearing to improve something, and so on.

"NATO own studies have shown over and over again that an issue it constantly faced is the uneven spending (as ratio to GPD) of its members"

And since you're belief is false, those that correctly realize most U.S. military spending has no value shouldn't try to support or match that. They should instead just buy what has value in their country spending a tiny fraction on that. Your recent claim supports they are doing this. Smart.

"the reluctance of members to put their troops within joint commands."

Joint commands fighting the wrong people for the wrong reasons with the initiator of the war admitting in declassified documents they funded and created the enemies. Their newest war was projected to create even more. (It did.) That nations are reluctant to support those deployments is again the wise choice. Their citizens or targets shouldn't die for greed or politics.

Cool, so you are going to confuse Iraq with Afghanistan. clap

You are transparent and single dimension. In your narrative, you have erased any possibility that the cost borne by the American people in funding their military can contribute to global security. This is utterly utterly wrong and provenly so when allies who depend on US for security (but do not contribute back) place pressure on the US to develop and deploy technology and material for their defense. But then again, for someone who can only see THAAD is just a mix of profiteering,pork, cronyism, waste and other write offs, I am sure you know better than the false beliefs Korea holds for trying to acquire this useless development.

Again, your narrative isn't new. You haven't demonstrated my beliefs are false (again, if NATO is worthless, why does these nations make commitments they won't keep, why don't they simply leave NATO?) The only thing you have demonstrated is the ontogeny of your beliefs. It is one developed by someone who wants to understand the world through a very simplified lens, a black and white, war exist to fund defense contractors with the evil capitalist pulling some levers, and crony politicians patting each other's backs, not someone who wants to see security as is.

In other words you don't know. Those are weasel words

also, there are proof dugged up by the great american press.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-...

"Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012"