Liberal Democrats keep fantasizing that Donald Trump will soon be impeached over his campaign’s alleged and completely unproven collusion with Russia to swing the 2016 presidential election. But there still isn’t any evidence, much less proof, of such collusion.
The Russians Are Coming…Maybe
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
64 Comments. Leave new
The “real” reality of this? Well, first, I know–as much as anything CAN be “known”–that the CIA destabilizes democracies to make sure the “right” candidate gets elected and stays in power.
Did a Bernie Booster turn over the information? Sure. Why not. The CIA sends in an agent, tells him to join the Bernie Sanders campaign, and then, presto, Bernie Sanders’ people did it.
Even if “proof” were given, I would have to dismiss it because I, literally, cannot believe anything the government tells me anymore. It’s not like I had a lot of trust in them before, but I see these senators on TV and they seem almost proud of how ignorant they are about computers, privacy, how the internet works, that the whole thing about how the Republicans sold our privacy is false (the NSA already stole it. That the Republicans want to sell it is a red herring).
P.S. The simplest fix for that whole privacy thing? I’ve been doing it for years because I knew this day was coming: Go to lots of weird sites. MomsWhoSleepWithDivorcedMenWhoAreRabidSecondAmendmentSupporters.com, GuysWhoLiketoEatIceCreamNakedInTheBathtubWhileOperaPlays.com, etc. I’m all over the place. (Nothing illegal. Just lots and lots of sick and weird stuff.) If everyone did it my way, imagine the ads that would show up on the browser screens. “Meet like-minded individuals who also enjoy sitting on beehives while whistling ‘The Stars and Stripes Forever.’ Click here.”
Oh, yeah – the NSA already stole our privacy, but at least they didn’t sell it to every corporation in the country.
And I totally believe your reason for visiting the sick & weird sites. >:->
How do you think I got here?
A point for Alex and the crowd goes wild.
To CrazyH,
I’d hardly disagree that the NSA, and dozen, or so other intel agencies, didn’t “SELL it to every corporation in the country,” but I would suggest that, instead, the intel community BOUGHT, and buys, a good portion of “it” from corporations in the country: Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google, etc
> intel community BOUGHT..
Oh, hell yeah. In those cases where they they offered compensation rather than stealing it outright.
> completely unproven collusion with Russia to swing the 2016 presidential election
Dude, it’s not just about campaign emails. We’re finding more & more evidence that his staffers talked to high-level Russian government staffers: we taped their phone calls. When asked, they lied about it. Trump hosted a beauty contest in Russia three years ago, but when asked he said he hadn’t even phoned anyone in Russia for ten years.
There there’s that multi-million dollar house that Komrade Trumpski sold to a Rooskie who didn’t live in it. We do know he has business ties with Russia, and is an admirer of Putin. We know he’s a lying con man who cares for no-one but himself. We know he wants very badly to BE president, but doesn’t particularly want to do the job.
Okay, Assange says that the email leak came from a DNC insider. How does he know? Did he talk to the person face to face? Or did he get an email from TotallyRealDNCInsider@kgb.ru? *IF* government-level Russian hackers were involved, they damn well would have covered their tracks.
I’m not saying we know for certain that we got ourselves a Moskovian Kandidate, but there are just too many data points to dismiss it out of hand.
A: The Russians hacked the DNC, their fingerprints where on it.
Q: But Wikileaks says it wasn’t a hack but a leak.
A: In that case the Russians still did it, as they have the skill to plant false fingerprints on it. If anything, it proves how powerful the conspiracy is.
Q: Doesn’t every major spy agency have the skills to plant false fingerprints on it?
A: Including the Russkies which proves they did it.
Q: Seriously?
A: The Russians. Seriously.
Q: The Russians… Maybe. Wasn’t this the title of the cartoon?
A: Isn’t this just what the Russians would want you to think?
Tell me again — what was the question?
😀
andreas5 – you can’t prove they didn’t do it.
😀
My neighbor had a vision after drinking holy wine in which he saw Putin do it, so it must be true because he is a very good Christian and a true blue Democrat, and God would not steer him wrong in a matter of such great import.
Case closed.
@CrazyH on March 31, 2017 at 7:19 PM
By reason of my estimate of your intelligence I think that you know that a negative can’t be proven.
Because you are too intelligent to believe that statement I will assume that something else is going on.
«My neighbor had a vision after drinking holy wine in which he saw Putin do it, so it must be true because he is a very good Christian and a true blue Democrat, and God would not steer him wrong in a matter of such great import.
Case closed.» I’m with your neighbour all the way, Glenn ; indeed, I wonder, in the event he does not already occupy an elected office, if you might convince him to run for one. The people NEED someone who won’t allow himself or herself to be distracted by sophistries about «evidence» – Russian «interference» in the US (and many other) elections is a self-evident truth right out of Mr Jefferson’s Declaration, and questioning it is tantamount to treason. No wonder Mr Obama didn’t succeed in closing the US prison at Guantánamo, despite promising, when running for election back in 2008, that it would be one of the first things on his agenda after coming to the Oval Office. After all, all those dangerous traitors have to be housed somewhere, while waiting for a more permanent solution (Endlosung)….
Henri
«By reason of my estimate of your intelligence I think that you know that a negative can’t be proven.» I willingly grant, Glenn, that people love to claim that a negative can’t be proven, but fortunately, that statement is false. The ancient Greeks were able to prove, for example, that √2 is not a rational number. Generally speaking the method by which a proof of a negative assertion is carried out is to assume the contrary, and then show that doing so involves a contradiction. Of course, if one has no problem with contradictions….
Henri
@ mhenriday –
I’m always open to learning.
So — explain to me how to prove to my wife that I’m NOT cheating on her. Huh?
«I’m always open to learning.
So — explain to me how to prove to my wife that I’m NOT cheating on her. Huh?» Mein verehrter Lehrer, at your age, she’d probably be thrilled to get such information…. 😉
(Just kidding, of course. if you desire a serious answer, you will have to note the details of my claim above to the effect that «people love to claim that a negative can’t be proven, but fortunately, that statement is false». The above does not mean – and should not be taken to mean – that sufficient evidence («proof») can be found to demonstrate the truth of any and all negative statements (propositions), but rather that there do exist negative statements – and some very important ones in the history of human thought, like the one I mention above – which can be demonstrated to be true….
The difficulty with demonstrating the truth of negative statements is that, one of the ways in which we attempt to determine the truth value of a statement is to examine all possible cases, which leads to complications – I can, perhaps call on incorruptible witnesses to my presence at a public event between the hours of 18:00 and 22:00 on 1 April 2017 to show that I did not then cheat on my girlfriend, but how can I demonstrate that I did not do so at 22.05, when I was no longer in their presence ? Difficult, of course, but one way out of the dilemma would be to require of my girlfriend that she ever be by my side (which just might have the opposite effect, but that’s another matter)….
Summa summarum : not all negative statements can be proven, but there is certainly an important class – those in which reductio ad absurdum is applicable – which are. Thus the claim that «a negative can’t be proven» is false, as stated above….)
Mein bester zu deiner Frau
Henri
@ mhenriday –
Of course I checked the link you provided. I got lost.
Be that as it may, my interpretation of the discourse thusfar is that one cannot prove that something DID NOT happen (as, I believe, was the original intent).
I cannot prove to my wife that I am not cheating on her (if we disregard ED)!
With regard to the Russian involvement in the leaks, the premise would be to prove that someone other than they supplied them. That would be proof POSITIVE that the other party was the perpetrator and by extension suggest (though not “prove”) that the Russians weren’t involved.
Thanks for the laugh.
Glenn & Henri & der Lehrer –
You have touched upon one of my few vices – the unpardonable sin of logic. It is a common misconception that it is impossible to prove a negative.
Here is a negative assertion, “There are no elephants in my office.”
I may dis/prove this statement by enumerating all of the locations in my office in which an elephant may hide and examining each to determine whether an elephant is there.
“explain to me how to prove to my wife that I’m NOT cheating on her. ”
Strictly speaking, at the point in time when she makes that statement she might examine you to determine whether you are engaged in an act of intercourse with another woman. 😀
To sum up, the proper response to “have you stopped beating your wife?” is “which one?”
Love & kissies,
Professor CH
… engaged in an act of intercourse with another person, animal, plant, plushie …. I don’t judge.
@ CrazyH –
Alas, the problem with my wife hinged on her keen sense of smell.
😀
@ CrazyH –
“Strictly speaking, at the point in time when she makes that statement she might examine you to determine whether you are engaged in an act of intercourse with another woman.”
*
My problem is that my wife has a keen sense of smell.
😀
> Because you are too intelligent to believe that statement I will assume that something else is going on.
Why, yes! I’m teasing andreas5. (Note smiley above) I choose to take his/her/its response as tongue-in-cheek, and so reply in kind.
Thank you for the compliment, and rest assured that I feel similarly. You’re a bright guy and an argumentative SOB. Both traits are indicative of a sterling character.
«… my interpretation of the discourse thusfar is that one cannot prove that something DID NOT happen (as, I believe, was the original intent).» That depends entirely on the event about which evidence is to be presented and the ensuing consequences, mein verehrter Lehrer ; if, to take one example, it could be demonstrated that Gustav III of Sweden had lived for several years after that fateful masquerade ball on 16 March 1792 and died peacefully in his bed, one could, I submit, reasonably conclude that Jacob Johan Anckarström did not, in fact, assassinate the good (?) king at the ball. Some events, both negative and positive, are more difficult to prove than others ; I for one am glad that in modern jurisprudence, the burden of proof is on the accuser/prosecutor to prove the accused’s guilt, rather than on the latter to prove his or her innocence….
But none of this, I fear, is of any help with your domestic troubles…. 😉
Henri
” I for one am glad that in modern jurisprudence, the burden of proof is on the accuser/prosecutor to prove the accused’s guilt, rather than on the latter to prove his or her innocence….”
*
Yet, there have been many instances whereby guilt was proved beyond any reasonable doubt (supposedly), sometimes resulting in capital punishment, and later the innocence of the accused was established.
«Yet, there have been many instances whereby guilt was proved beyond any reasonable doubt (supposedly), sometimes resulting in capital punishment, and later the innocence of the accused was established.» Indeed there have, mein verehrter Lehrer, indeed there have. And quite often these «errors» have not been due to mistakes, but to malice aforethought. There is no system which is proof against subversion, but still I am glad that the burden of proof, theoretically at least, is where it is and not the other way ’round….
Henri
“… but still I am glad that the burden of proof, theoretically at least, is where it is and not the other way ’round….”
*
Why? What have you done???
😀
«Why? What have you done???» I’m tempted to respond facetiously, mein verehrter Lehrer, and write that that would be a matter for you and the special prosecutor to find out and prove in a court of law, but the plain boring fact is that I have led a mundane and monotonous life, totally devoid of interest to even the most suspicious government agencies…. 😉
Henri
Get ahead of the crowd, Ted! Now that he ‘done won the position’, he doesn’t want to do the work. The average American can’t get past their own bubble, whatever it is, and some people have to start laying their reputations and careers on the line to reign him in and hold him responsible for being an obviously ridiculous liar and fake. All politicians play the game, but this chimp has gone way past the line that other politicians usually cannot recover from. Are there still any real Americans , or have we all done gone berserk? 🙂
“… some people have to start laying their reputations and careers on the line to reign [sic] him in and hold him responsible for being an obviously ridiculous liar and fake.”
*
Any theories as to how that might work?
Both Parties are full of liars, but one is outside the bounds of acceptable lying.
So how does a liar call a liar a liar without being called a liar in return and still maintain enough credibility to impugn the character of the other while avoiding being impugned himself?
Om…Om..
I’m not sure, but I think that was what I was getting at.
😀
Look guys, I am an English teacher and I have somewhat of an eclectic education. (the word eclectic may send some into a tizzy, but please know that I spent years using an 8000 watt Argon laser to develop the first Laserdiscs, CDs, DVDs, etc. I am no country bumpkin – although I choose to write like one sometimes, and the crowd here seems to feed on grammatical mistakes that Ted or I can make – no one is perfect. Getting back to the issue at hand, I know that anyone trying to pursue a genuine attempt at the prosecution of Trump’s ongoing criminal activities will need to be ready for attacks from every side. That’s all I was trying say. 🙂
Understood.
My response to your original post was a legitimate question of how do you envision “… some people [will] have to start laying their reputations and careers on the line….”?
I don’t think that’s very likely.
«Now that he ‘done won the position’, he doesn’t want to do the work.» Now that seems unfair, rikster ; from what I read Mr Trump has been playing a lot of golf lately ; isn’t that what US presidents tend to do ? Perhaps the distinguish feature is that, if I am informed aright, Mr Trump does so largely on his own greens ; I can’t but wonder if he charges the US federal government for green fees ?…
Henri
This Democratic Party Russia investigation is about as valid for me as the Republican Party investigation of Clinton’s Whitehouse BJ. That is to say, invalid.
There are too many data points that suggest the fact that the “Constitutional” government we are said to live under is little more than window dressing for the Capitalist government that directly impacts every person, whether citizen or elected official, foreign or domestic, of nearly every country on earth, now living under finance capitalist domination.
To have Trump removed from office on the basis of suspicions without any basis in fact would be a waste of energy—because there are so many real issues that a party could and should be organized in opposition to; and because this would justify the Democrats contention that they don’t have to do anything about anything real because they wuz robbed by the electoral college and an unknown player to be named later; and that a fake issue is just as good, or even better than a real issue because they would then continue to be able to ignore the real issues that Trump raised in his campaign, even if he had no intention of doing anything about them.
The big beef by the Democrats is that they were caught interfering with the Sanders campaign by someone they suspect must have been a foreigner who interfered with their internal matter of stealing the nomination from Sanders, mostly fair-and-square by the undemocratic DNC rules, that intentionally diminished the democratic impact of the popular primary elections for the Democratic Party nomination.
I am reminded of the story of a drug dealer who was robbed during an illegal transaction and called the police to report it.
The Democratic Party wants an investigation into who interfered with their illegal transaction. And in the process will further Hillary’s efforts to bring nuclear war with Russia, who might well appropriate the words of General Turgidson, who, in Dr. Strangelove minimizes the Soviet retaliatory, counter-attack casualty statistics:
“Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks.”
“To have Trump removed from office on the basis of suspicions without any basis in fact would be a waste of energy….”
*
Well, now. That ain’t ever gonna happen, doncha think?
Clinton was impeached for a lie of far less consequence.
The support of both parties by fake news always manages to make dupes of the citizens when it fakes the party’s representation of them.
Impeached, yes. Removed from office, no.
I’m saying Trump can’t be removed from office based upon “suspicions” — that’s all.
Then does “To have Trump impeached (whether successfully or not) on the basis of suspicions without any basis in fact would be a waste of energy….” work for you?
Well, actually…
No.
Suspicions are not grounds for impeachment.
Basis in fact might be.
😀
It seems that most who post comments believe the MI6 report that Putin has at least 2 Kompromat tapes on Trump, so Trump was forced to work with the KGB to steal the election from St Hillary and get Putin elected. Almost every gocomics comment was that they know there is absolute, irrefutable ‘proof’ that Trump and the KGB stole the election. It’s a pity that the most trivial of academic subjects have fallen into such disrepute that almost no one has the slightest familiarity with them.
It is true, of course, that a top MI6 agent purchased the Kompromat report from a top Soviet informer, who learned his skills from such outstanding Soviet journalists/intelligence agents as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Pushkin, who wrote the biography of Boris Badunov.
And (as the commentators noted) Wikileaks are nothing but lies published by a rapist who works for the KGB spreading Soviet propaganda: the DNC was absolutely fair, and Bernie has no complaint since few, if any Americans would have voted for him, which is why St Hillary won the nomination and would have won the election with more than 75% of the vote had it not been for the KGB assisted by its Trump dupes and fellow travelers who hacked the election.
But I’m confused. When the character says ‘They think Global Warming is a hoax,’ to whom is he referring? The only people who still act like they believe that it’s a hoax are the Republicans (and some Brits). Russia is very worried about the Arctic melting (although they claim all the fossil fuels under the Arctic ice, so a melted Arctic won’t be a total loss for Russia).
“But I’m confused.”
*
Indeed.
«It is true, of course, that a top MI6 agent purchased the Kompromat report from a top Soviet informer, who learned his skills from such outstanding Soviet journalists/intelligence agents as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Pushkin, who wrote the biography of Boris Badunov.»
«Boris Badunov» (Boris Badenuff ?), Michael ? + 1 !…
Henri
Re: Boris Badenuff –
The name of the cartoon antagonist is, indeed, a thoroughly despicable pun*. Here’s a reference for those readers who are not American Boomers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Badenov
* “thoroughly despicable pun” can be read as “pretty darn good pun” 🙂
Thanks, CrazyH, for that link ; I was unaware of this fascinating character. Human ingenuity is an amazing thing ; let us hope it – or plain old human stupidity – doesn’t end by killing us all….
Henri
When will the DNC comply with FBI requests to turn over its allegedly compromised servers for the type of investigation the DNC demands for Herr Hair? Instead, the DNC HAS hired a corporate tech entity to examine the servers and, lo an behold, the DNC narrative was supported!
This, of course, is the logical equivalent of the DNC insisting that critical election results in midwest states was due to Russian hacking of electronic voting systems (controlled by corporate, proprietary software) … as opposed to the obvious, i.e., those states are controlled by GOP governors, legislatures and secretaries of state.
As below, the Dems insistence on investigations WOULD be like various GOP hair-brained investigations of the past EXCEPT that the Dems hold only VAST minorities in both houses of congress and, thus, have no control over the investigations. They DO, however, magically expect fairness from the GOP, presumably like they thought the electoral college should be ignored in the case of the 2016 election.
For anyone eager to read actual journalism on the topic (i.e. NOT the government-approved fake-news of the scriveners of Empire: NYT & WaPo) here is a link to the last of an ongoing series from Consortium News countering the anti-Russia-Putin hysteria.
This entry is “Blaming Russia for Everything” tinyurl.com/knjlcxg
PS: when do the courageous and feisty Dems demand, with equal gusto, demand congressional investigations into:
1) the nationwide (GOP) Crosscheck voter suppression scheme
2) the “mysterious” murder of a DNC staffer, Seth Rich, shortly after the alleged leak/hack of the DNC servers?
«Trump will be impeached as soon as all the Russia stuff comes out.» It’s worse than even your character suspects, Ted – those dastardly Russians not only hacked the DNC, whose communications were, of course, protected by the best talent money and/or ideology could buy and the late US presidential elections (ditto), but they are no doubt even infiltrating the US military, what’s left of the diplomatic corps, and even, alas, the police. Don’t believe me ? Check and you’ll see that in some inconspicuous place inside their clothes, they all have a minuscule version of the Russian flag sewn in or perhaps a tattoo on some portion of their anatomy never revealed to outsiders….
«I have here in my hand a list …»
Henri
One last thought on all of this. And most of you know it already. All these guys who are running these Internet billionaire companies? To a one, they are only interested in what gives them more power to shape the world the way they want it to be. But they’re smart enough to realize the Single Strategy For Getting Away With It(TM). It works like this:
1. “Support” gay rights/women’s rights/disabled rights.
2. Actively recruit gays/women/disabled people.
Meanwhile … back at the farm … their accountants are outsourcing every job they can and bringing in all the slave labor they can. The finance manager is pulling in every loophole possible. The legal team is drafting the legislation to hand to the senators and representatives that were bought for a song to make sure that life is made pretty fucking miserable for all the gays and women and cripples who aren’t of use to them.
These are businessmen. And if they could put everyone in chains tomorrow, they’d be building their plantations today. If you forget that for a single second, I cannot help you.
You raise, as so often, Alex, an important point : worthwhile causes, like ending discrimination based on gender, sexual preferences, etc, can be used by the powerful just as well as against them. The red cape is a distraction, while the sword is poised to strike….
Not easy to deal with strategies of that sort….
Henri
To Alex,
Indeed, so like the Democratic Party, one has to wonder who originated the cynical and pernicious strategy.
1. “Support” gay rights/women’s rights/disabled rights / senior rights.
2. Actively recruit gays/women/disabled people.
3. Passively interview seniors who subsequently are not hired
4. Should a gay/woman/disabled/senior employee so much as suggest otherwise: circle the wagons and deploy the lawyers.
5. I am *NOT* bitter!!!
Speaking of global warming, Ted, I discovered this today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huX1bmfdkyA
«Don’t let anybody tell you we’re gonna get on a rocket ship and go to Mars ; this is our home !» Mr Gore is right, but alas, we – or rather some of us – seem determined to fuck up that home beyond any possibility of repair (in the short term in which human life plays out ;, geologic perspectives are another matter)….
Henri
All of this science in the name of one day living on Mars will not go to waste; humans may never make it to Mars, but a Mars-like climate will make it to Earth when climate change deniers have their way.
Climate change is just a way of moving the swamps to the poor people instead of moving the poor people to the swamps as Malthus suggested the rich do to the poor, to the benefit of both (in shortening the immiserated life of the poor, a short misery being better than a long misery, this a benefit Trump demonstrated a willingness to provide through Trumpcare).
The Mars habitat survival facilities developed on Earth will come into great use by those made rich by the desperate attempts to sustain a twentieth century high energy consumption life-style into the twenty-first century.
Perhaps, Glenn, rather than concentrating our planetary endeavours on Mars, we should instead devote ourselves to Venus, which already possesses a climate presumed to be the result of a runaway greenhouse effect and moreover, due to its proximity, receives more thermal energy from the sun than the Earth does. If Matt Damon epigoni can grow potatoes there, then perhaps some humans will be able to survive on a future Earth….
Henri
Dang gone it, I can’t find the quote I’m looking for. I believe it was Arthur C. Clarke who said, “Humanities eggs are too fragile to have them all in one basket”
Having a second home would give us a far better chance of preserving the species. Always assuming that’s a good thing – which brings up another Clarke Quote, “It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.”
However, migration would do nothing to fix our problems here – nor would it alleviate overpopulation, but I’d be safe & happy in my new dome home away from home.
«Having a second home would give us a far better chance of preserving the species.» Ceteris paribus, CrazyH, I’d be inclined to agree, but the problem is that other things are definitely not equal. The resources required to establish your «new dome home away from home» would, I submit, be very large, not to say humongous, and would be have to be taken from projects which could help to resolve the immense challenges we are facing on this planet. which is, as we know, the only one in this solar system which is reasonably hospitable to us. Besides, were this planet to go under, it strikes me that those domed outposts would most likely even be be doomed ; I strongly suspect that continual inputs from the home planet would be required for their survival….
This is not to gainsay the joy and pleasure that I derive from reading the works of Mr Clarke and other SF writers, in which human beings have spread throughout not merely the solar system, but the galaxy. May they keep writing !… 🙂
Henri
@ CrazyH –
Stephen Hawking:
“The human race shouldn’t have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let’s hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load.”
Attributed to Robert A. Heinlein:
“Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for mankind to keep all its eggs in.”
Thank you, der Lehrer. I had it stuck in my head that it was Clarke (obviously)
Henri “The resources required…” are huge. Absolutely, which is one reason that it won’t alleviate overpopulation: we simply can’t move enough people.
“were this planet to go under, it strikes me that those domed outposts would most likely even be be doomed” This is a common theme in SF, the brave pioneers struggling to surive without the help from the Mother World.
Yet, despite those drawbacks I agree with /C/l/a/r/k/e/ Heinlein, we’re better off with a spare.
Expanding (expounding?) on a favorite subject.
Space exploration is indeed expensive, but that money is spent right here on Earth. Most of it goes to labor, a rocket may use some exotic materials but a good deal of labor goes into using as little of that as possible.
It’s also been the biggest driver of technological advancement since the invention of war. A Space Race kills far fewer people than an Arms Race.
Luna appears to be dead – if so, then it would be a good place for polluting industries. Delivery is all downhill and doesn’t require a diesel engine to move.
«Space exploration is indeed expensive, but that money is spent right here on Earth.
…
It’s also been the biggest driver of technological advancement since the invention of war. A Space Race kills far fewer people than an Arms Race.»
I quite agree, CrazyH, that a so-called «Space Race» kills far fewer people than an Arms Race – under the presumption, of course, that the Space Race is not turned into an Arms Race ; these last years we’ve been hearing worrying signals of such a development, not least from Washington….
I’d like to see many more resources devoted to space exploration around the world and enhanced cooperation among the space-faring powers (the US policy which bans China from participating on the International Space Station (which, under these circumstances, is a misnomer) is a glaring example of what to avoid) ; both when it comes to so-called «deep space» (beyond the lunar orbit) operations and those devoted to Earth observation. Imagine if, as an initial step, some 10 % of the respective military budgets – the real military budgets, not the public versions in which costs for on-going wars, black ops, etc, etc, ad nauseam don’t appear)- were devoted to (non-military) space exploration, how much we could learn about our universe and our own planet !…
Henri
What does the last panel mean?
«What does the last panel mean?» This, of course, is Ted’s call, bikerusl, but I interpreted the last panel above as a statement to the effect with regard to «the Russian’s are coming» meme, the DNC type was promoting his own alternative alternative facts to the Trumpian/GOP «alternative facts» on anthropogenic global warming….
Other interpretations ?…
Henri
I don’t claim to know what’s in Ted’s head, but here is my take on the cartoon:
The male character is hanging his hopes for Trump’s impeachment on proof that Russia contributed to Trump’s election.
The female character calls his impression one of “alternative facts” which category is the domain of the GOP, and supports her belief with the “fact” that the emails came from a “pro-Bernie staffer at DNC,” rather than from Russia.
He tries to counter that thinking by pointing out that “they” (the GOP?) also think that global warming is a hoax.
She turns it around on him with her observation that, because their convictions are diametrically opposed, he is expressing “alternative alternative facts.”