(08-30-2020, 09:21 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 09:11 AM)mikesez Wrote: I don't agree with that line of questioning. You cannot demand evidence to prove a negative. That's not just a rule of jurisprudence.  Logic demands it.
2016 was the 5th US presidential election we had with Putin in charge of Russia.  He didn't express an opinion about the first four.  He chose to express an opinion in 2016. Westerners who have dealt with Putin consistently say that he believes in bizarre conspiracy theories, some of them of his own invention. He may have had a logical reason for coming down in favor of Trump, but he's done lots of other things in the past with no discernible logical reason.  Now, there is reason to be suspicious, that Trump colluded, or offered Putin something in exchange for the support, but you can only be suspicious. You have to find evidence to prove it, before you can expect other people to believe it.

Putin has a big China problem sitting on his border and sees Trump as a willing ally in the battle against them. Be suspicious all you want, but even so 3 years, millions of dollars, dozens of hostile Democrats on Team Mueller and they came up with nothing.

I don't think there was collusion with Russia in 2016, but I do think Roger Stone tried to collude.
As I said, Putin is not always logical, so there doesn't need to be a logical explanation for him wanting Trump to beat Hillary.  But, the most likely and most logical explanation, to me, is he saw Trump as a capricious and divisive person, who would weaken our country's resolve, set our citizens against each other, and leave us less prepared for crisis, should any crisis happen.  
Whether Putin planned it that way or not, that's what's happened.

---