You've been banging this drum for a while, so I'd love to hear you actual opinion. The majority opinion seems to be, 1/2
-
-
"Trump is too much of a Putin fan, and there is some evidence that he has been compromised in some way by them". Do you disagree?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @mtracey
"No" he hasn't been compromised or "No" we don't have sufficient evidence to say that he was?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SholomN
There is no reason to believe that he has been "compromised," which is itself a loaded term
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
I'm defining "compromised" that as president he would deal with Russia not strictly on the basis of US national interest
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SholomN
That's not an apt definition. "Compromised" implies actively subverted by hostile forces.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
I don't agree, but we can use a different word if you'd like. Just to restate, the argument is that there is reason to suspect 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
that Trump as president would operate vis-a-vis Russia not strictly on the basis of US national interested. You reject this?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SholomN
I reject the notion that operating in such a way that might indirectly benefit Russia is indicative of acting "vis-a-vis" Russia
1 reply 2 retweets 6 likes
Was Reagan acting "vis-a-vis" Russia when he forged an accord with Gorbachev? This line of thinking makes no sense.
-
-
Replying to @mtracey
Vis-a-vis means "face-to-face", as in his direct dealings with Russia as president. I'm not sure what you think I'm saying here
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SholomN
Was Reagan "compromised" by his dealings with Gorbachev?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes - 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.