The Russians and the 2016 Election PT II

Was this guy in charge of protecting our institutions from attack by the Russians?

Or are you saying it was Candidate Trump or RNC Chair Preibus that should have been in charge of national security for the last 2 years?

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

It's a lot easier to look past a guy grabbing women by the pussy cause he can. But lord don't dare appoint anyone pro choice to the SC.

That's also pretty fucked up mentally if you ask me.

As far as the Russians. I don't know which bothers me more. Dems fucking over Bernie which is an assault directly on our democracy and frankly arrests should be made, ir the Russians manipulating shit to help a friend get elected. Both are equally horrifying. As horrifying as how so many people can be hypocrites in the way they choose their ethics and morals toward women and abortion.

It's fucked up. And scary.

Pro choice - pro killing babies - it's all the same. but I agree that "pro-choice" is the better term for delicate company.


Tell me about the ethics of stilling the beating heart of an innocent child.

I'll listen to your convincing argument on why that should be celebrated?

You first. Tell me about grabbing women by the pussy cause you can. How do you ethically square that with the women in your life?

In one case, your argument is with the scotus. They have disagreed with you, not me or my wife who donate to Bethany.org as do my daughters who work stuffing envelopes at our church. But we understand that in some cases choice is needed and we aren't breaking laws. We also aren't like those hypocrites who rail against choice but refuse to do anything other than bitch about it on message boards and cocktail parties. While my wife politely keeps quiet about it, I have no problem asking them what they're doing. If nothing I invite them to stfu about it.

In the case of grabbing women by the pussy cause you can, well unlike choice, THAT currently breaks our societies laws. Pieces of shit who do that should currently be in jail getting their own asses violated repeatedly by cell mates.

Maybe you can see the difference, maybe not. But there it is. Dumb asses line Dude actually think grabbing a pussy because you can is the same as saying a girls is good looking. It's beyond mentally fucked up.

LooseGoose wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Confirmed that the Russians tampered with the 2016 US election and tried to help Trump win.

OK, I'm convinced.

The Russians tampered with our election.

Who would have been responsible for preventing that? Heads must roll, I want to know who.

Yes, Obama was completely weak on this matter. I'm outraged by it. He deserves criticism.

The debate is would he as president have been viewed as tampering with the election or should he have worked harder towards securing our election.

I lean towards securing our election.

Grabbing a woman by the pussy and being against aborting babies are two closely related positions. Jeezus Wags, you're losing it.

steveschneider wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

OK, I'm convinced.

The Russians tampered with our election.

Who would have been responsible for preventing that? Heads must roll, I want to know who.

Yes, Obama was completely weak on this matter. I'm outraged by it. He deserves criticism.

The debate is would he as president have been viewed as tampering with the election or should he have worked harder towards securing our election.

I lean towards securing our election.

Should he resign?

Why do I see people in this thread blaming the Republican party? Were they in charge of National Security for the last 8 years?

Obama and most Democrats MOCKED Romney in 2012 for saying that the Russians were our #1 geoPOLITICAL enemy. Now they want to forget all that when Obama FAILED miserably regarding the Russians and blame it all on the Republicans? That's fucking rich.

LooseGoose wrote:Grabbing a woman by the pussy and being against aborting babies are two closely related positions. Jeezus Wags, you're losing it.

Wow. Tell you what. Go grab a women by the pussy in the town square. I'll go offer a woman guidance in pregnancy which includes the choice option. Which one of us goes to jail?

LooseGoose wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Yes, Obama was completely weak on this matter. I'm outraged by it. He deserves criticism.

The debate is would he as president have been viewed as tampering with the election or should he have worked harder towards securing our election.

I lean towards securing our election.

Should he resign?

Why do I see people in this thread blaming the Republican party?   Were they in charge of National Security for the last 8 years?

Who is blaming Republicans? Unless there is evidence of collusion, then no such accusations can be made. What is being discussed is that it would not be a wise move for Republicans to stand in the way of an investigation if intelligence creates a need for an investigation.

Once again you take what could be a pretty straightforward conversation and reduce it to partisan nonsense. Welcome to my ignore list. It is not that we disagree - I do not have other posters that I disagree with on ignore - but more that you have grown to be completely incapable of rational conversation.

steveschneider wrote:The Republicans who lead the congressional committees overseeing intelligence, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security take the opposite view. They say that Russia was behind the election meddling, but that the scope and intent of the operation need deep investigation, hearings and public reports..

And the minute they did this the Dems/Bob would be on here and on the news daily with a new version of their "Benghazi" "Emails" shit - it would be cast as them picking on now former President Obama.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Should he resign?

Why do I see people in this thread blaming the Republican party?   Were they in charge of National Security for the last 8 years?

Who is blaming Republicans?

See if you notice a recurring theme here?   People seem to be casting a fair amount of shit on the R's.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:"Doesn't matter. Our team won. Whine some more stupid libs."

DWags wrote:Good luck convincing one supporter.  They could be eating  borscht getting paid in rubles wearing grey jump suits into work camps and they'd still be going home and celebrating 800 jobs saved for their comrades in Indiana.

GRR Spartan wrote:Conservative voters will be denying Trump's friendly attitudes towards Russia and deny that Russia could ever do anything to affect their vote. We see the same thing where there is evidence of Russian politics nfluencing the Brexit vote with faux news .  But no U.K. Voter who helped ed approve Brexit will ever admit a Russian or any other country could affect their vote.

But I know you'll be down to your last breath telling whoever who will listen that enough Trump voters were well informed and  immune to subtrafuge by Russia or any foreign power that would affect an national election in the US.

You know I thought the Trump campaign was in bed with Putin before the RNC convention and to date nothing has made me think I was wrong.

GRR Spartan wrote:The GOP leadership chose sdes and they sold out.  Next time anyone talks to me about the US having free elections unencumbered by foreign interference  I'll walk  away.  The GOP chose to accept the help of an authoritorian enemy of the US to win the 2016 election.

Nope not a SINGLE person in there blaming the R's.

And you really believe your own bullshit.

What I really don't see is ONE person condemning the man in charge of National Security. Do you?

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Should he resign?

Why do I see people in this thread blaming the Republican party?   Were they in charge of National Security for the last 8 years?

Who is blaming Republicans? Unless there is evidence of collusion, then no such accusations can be made. What is being discussed is that it would not be a wise move for Republicans to stand in the way of an investigation if intelligence creates a need for an investigation.

Once again you take what could be a pretty straightforward conversation and reduce it to partisan nonsense. Welcome to my ignore list. It is not that we disagree - I do not have other posters that I disagree with on ignore - but more that you have grown to be completely incapable of rational conversation.

Frankly I don't give a fuck if you see me as a partisan. I am. What I laugh about is how that's somehow bad. Every other person here is partisan and making outrageous accusations yet they're nonpartisan? That's laughable.

What was Trump supposed to do?

Announce a speech and stand before the American people and say: "Hey folks - the CIA which has been wrong repeatedly in the past thinks Putin might be supporting me for President. Because that has a 73% chance of being true I'm asking you to vote for Hillary to teach that fucker a lesson?"

Name me one Democrat that would do that? I'll wait. Forever.

LooseGoose wrote:

steveschneider wrote:The Republicans who lead the congressional committees overseeing intelligence, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security take the opposite view. They say that Russia was behind the election meddling, but that the scope and intent of the operation need deep investigation, hearings and public reports..

And the minute they did this the Dems/Bob would be on here and on the news daily with a new version of their "Benghazi" "Emails" shit - it would be cast as them picking on now former President Obama.

Other than yourself, who gives a rats ass what Bob posts?

The GOP have the majorities on both intelligence committees.   At least one was presented with the CIA findings and according to reports, they decided to keep the CIA findings secret prior to the election along party lines.  They decided they didn't want the voters to conclusively know that the Russians had hacked the DNC and RNC.  They decded they didn't want the voters to know that Russia and Putin had a candidate they wanted elected POTUS.

The next time you hear a GOP leader or legislator talk about any threat from Russia remember they didn't think the threat was serious enough to nform the electorate of Russia's involvement in the 2016 Presidential election.

Presdent Obama followed protocol leaving the decision up to a group of elected legislators.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:


Who is blaming Republicans?

See if you notice a recurring theme here?   People seem to be casting a fair amount of shit on the R's.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:"Doesn't matter. Our team won. Whine some more stupid libs."

DWags wrote:Good luck convincing one supporter.  They could be eating  borscht getting paid in rubles wearing grey jump suits into work camps and they'd still be going home and celebrating 800 jobs saved for their comrades in Indiana.

GRR Spartan wrote:Conservative voters will be denying Trump's friendly attitudes towards Russia and deny that Russia could ever do anything to affect their vote. We see the same thing where there is evidence of Russian politics nfluencing the Brexit vote with faux news .  But no U.K. Voter who helped ed approve Brexit will ever admit a Russian or any other country could affect their vote.

But I know you'll be down to your last breath telling whoever who will listen that enough Trump voters were well informed and  immune to subtrafuge by Russia or any foreign power that would affect an national election in the US.

You know I thought the Trump campaign was in bed with Putin before the RNC convention and to date nothing has made me think I was wrong.

GRR Spartan wrote:The GOP leadership chose sdes and they sold out.  Next time anyone talks to me about the US having free elections unencumbered by foreign interference  I'll walk  away.  The GOP chose to accept the help of an authoritorian enemy of the US to win the 2016 election.

Nope not a SINGLE person in there blaming the R's.

And you really believe your own bullshit.

What I really don't see is ONE person condemning the man in charge of National Security. Do you?

I'm lumped in because I don't believe one of his supporters will believe the Russians interfered on his part? Who is losing it Goose?

And for the record, I never called his supporters republicans. Thanks for pointing that out.

Lindsey Graham Verified account
‏@LindseyGrahamSC

Russia is trying to break the backs of democracies – and democratic movements – all over the world.

Lets not make this about Dems vs. Republicans. Falling back 100% on the blame Obama business will not solve this matter. Though I think he could have been tougher but that's behind us. Gotta solve the matter at hand now.

Lets make this about Trump, Russia and the 2016 election.

LooseGoose wrote:Was this guy in charge of protecting our institutions from attack by the Russians?

Just to note, I saw this moment called out last night by NYT writers on Twitter. For anyone that says the NYT is a pure democratic propaganda machine they are throwing criticism at Obama over this as well.

I still think this issue needs to be framed Trump, Russia and 2016 election. I now more than ever want to see his tax returns.

steveschneider wrote:Lindsey Graham Verified account
‏@LindseyGrahamSC

Russia is trying to break the backs of democracies – and democratic movements – all over the world.

There is some truth to that. Here is an interesting article about how Russia, China, and other authoritarian powers are trying to reverse the trend toward more free and open societies by proliferating non-democratic norms. It is absolutely in there interest to do so.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/28/authoritarianism-goes-global/

There is also an accompanying book.

https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism-Goes-Global-Challenge-Democracy/dp/1421419971?ref_=nav_custrec_signin&

steveschneider wrote:I still think this issue needs to be framed Trump, Russia and 2016 election. I now more than ever want to see his tax returns.

Completely non partisan.

Do you rule out the possibility that this was all a ploy by the Clinton campaign?

If you were going to interview one of the old silly people in the rural midwest would you deem them more or less likely to vote for someone if the Russians supported them? If I asked you that question a year ago you would have answered less likely. So why is it an outrageous speculation that the Clinton campaign started feeding this shit out there a year ago (and it was there that long ago) against Trump as a way of damaging him?

We'll see what if anything ever comes of it, my guess is that it's all a tempest in a teapot.

GRR Spartan wrote:The next time you hear a GOP leader or legislator talk about any threat from Russia remember they didn't think the threat was serious enough to nform the electorate of Russia's involvement in the 2016 Presidential election.

And your guy didn't take Russia seriously enough to STOP them from getting involved. In fact he laughed at any threat from Russia. Or is it too painful for you to watch his failure in the video I posted.

Lets not forget Trump worships Putin. He wants to normalize relations with Russia, he's been consistent about one thing in his entire campaign; his admiration for Putin and his criticism of any one including our own intelligence agencies suggesting that Russia tampered with our election.

If you thought Obama was weak on Russia wait until Trump. He wants to work with Russia in Syria (remember Assad is the bad guy), he wants to weaken NATO, Manafort has connection with pro russian ties in Ukraine and he's lining his cabinet with people that want to work with Russia.

If you are upset at Obama, well brace yourself it is going to get worse.

This was a Russian intrusion on US sovereignty and our president elect is fine with it.

So now the Clinton campaign thought of this?
That would be the same Clinton campaign that ran a child prosititution businss out of a DC pizza  joint and ordered the murder of a staffer and an FBI agent?

There is not supposed to be any partisanship in the CIA.  Many "conservatives" want us to believe the FBI was acting independently when they announced reopenng the investigation of Clinton weeks before the election. Okay.

I believe the CIA findings.  I believe the reports that the decision to keep the findings from the American voting public went along party lines.  I believe the GOP members that voted to keep the findings secret until after the election did so knowng it could hurt Trump's chances of winning and hurt other GOP candidates in Senate and Congressional races.

Conservatives and Republcans can save their breath on talkng any and all threats from Russia n the future. Their elected leadership knew about the CIA findings of Russia actions and chose to keep voters in the dark.

LooseGoose wrote:

steveschneider wrote:I still think this issue needs to be framed Trump, Russia and 2016 election. I now more than ever want to see his tax returns.

Completely non partisan.

Do you rule out the possibility that this was all a ploy by the Clinton campaign?

If you were going to interview one of the old silly people in the rural midwest would you deem them more or less likely to vote for someone if the Russians supported them? If I asked you that question a year ago you would have answered less likely. So why is it an outrageous speculation that the Clinton campaign started feeding this shit out there a year ago (and it was there that long ago) against Trump as a way of damaging him?

We'll see what if anything ever comes of it, my guess is that it's all a tempest in a teapot.

A ploy by the Clintons? I don't at all. I dropped off this board for a while, but I find people will find a reason to blame the Clintons for just about everything wrong in the world. I think it's gone to loony land how much people hate the Clintons, and I say this for both the Right and the far left. There's no rational discussion around them. Do they deserve criticism? Yes. Do they have flaws? Yes. Are they that evil to create a russian conspiracy? no.

GRR Spartan wrote:So now the Clinton campaign thought of this?
That would be the same Clinton campaign that ran a child prosititution businss out of a DC pizza  joint and ordered the murder of a staffer and an FBI agent?

There is not supposed to be any partisanship in the CIA.  Many "conservatives" want us to believe the FBI was acting independently when they announced reopenng the investigation of Clinton weeks before the election. Okay.

I believe the CIA findings.  I believe the reports that the decision to keep the findings from the American voting public went along party lines.  I believe the GOP members that voted to keep the findings secret until after the election did so knowng it could hurt Trump's chances of winning and hurt other GOP candidates in Senate and Congressional races.

Conservatives and Republcans can save their breath on talkng any and all threats from Russia n the future. Their elected leadership knew about the CIA findings of Russia actions and chose to keep voters in the dark.

The conversation around the Clintons has gone over the deep end. It's worse what my far left friends say about her. People will will attack her for a posted pic of herself walking with her dog in the woods.

steveschneider wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:So now the Clinton campaign thought of this?
That would be the same Clinton campaign that ran a child prosititution businss out of a DC pizza  joint and ordered the murder of a staffer and an FBI agent?

There is not supposed to be any partisanship in the CIA.  Many "conservatives" want us to believe the FBI was acting independently when they announced reopenng the investigation of Clinton weeks before the election. Okay.

I believe the CIA findings.  I believe the reports that the decision to keep the findings from the American voting public went along party lines.  I believe the GOP members that voted to keep the findings secret until after the election did so knowng it could hurt Trump's chances of winning and hurt other GOP candidates in Senate and Congressional races.

Conservatives and Republcans can save their breath on talkng any and all threats from Russia n the future. Their elected leadership knew about the CIA findings of Russia actions and chose to keep voters in the dark.

The conversation around the Clintons has gone over the deep end. It's worse what my far left friends say about her. People will will attack her for a posted pic of herself walking with her dog in the woods.

"Off the deep end" while you converse that the republican party was collaborating with the Russians to win the election.

No self awareness on that one.

Just to clarify:

I don't dispute that the Russians might have tried to sway the election.

I don't see how anyone can legitimately blame the R party for that. They didn't ask for it and weren't in charge of stopping it (national security).

If you want it investigated, fine with me. The investigation begins with those in charge of preventing national security threats.

I do think that people believing that the Russians convinced thousands of people in the midwest to vote Trump is laughable. But hell yes, let's spend 30 or 40 million finding out.

LooseGoose wrote:Just to clarify:

I don't dispute that the Russians might have tried to sway the election.

I don't see how anyone can legitimately blame the R party for that. They didn't ask for it and weren't in charge of stopping it (national security).

If you want it investigated, fine with me. The investigation begins with those in charge of preventing national security threats.

I do think that people believing that the Russians convinced thousands of people in the midwest to vote Trump is laughable. But hell yes, let's spend 30 or 40 million finding out.

I think, like any advertisement, it helped. But it's the Dems fault for being assholes on emails.

Again, the Russians are not friends of democracy or capitalism. They tried, maybe succeeded, to get a friend of theirs elected here. But you won't convince one supporter of trump they were involved or helped him. They could get a briefing from Putin himself and they'd say it didn't happen.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Just to clarify:

I don't dispute that the Russians might have tried to sway the election.

I don't see how anyone can legitimately blame the R party for that. They didn't ask for it and weren't in charge of stopping it (national security).

If you want it investigated, fine with me. The investigation begins with those in charge of preventing national security threats.

I do think that people believing that the Russians convinced thousands of people in the midwest to vote Trump is laughable. But hell yes, let's spend 30 or 40 million finding out.

I think, like any advertisement, it helped. But it's the Dems fault for being assholes on emails.

Again, the Russians are not friends of democracy or capitalism. They tried, maybe succeeded, to get a friend of theirs elected here. But you won't convince one supporter of trump they were involved or helped him. They could get a briefing from Putin himself and they'd say it didn't happen.

I'll skip the debate over whether it happened.

I'll gladly debate how many voters switched to Trump because Putin supported him.

LooseGoose wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

The conversation around the Clintons has gone over the deep end. It's worse what my far left friends say about her. People will will attack her for a posted pic of herself walking with her dog in the woods.

"Off the deep end" while you converse that the republican party was collaborating with the Russians to win the election.

No self awareness on that one.

Stop it.

I did not say the republican party is working with the russians. I think plenty of sane republicans are working to get to the bottom of this.

I do have my suspicions on Trump and his involvement with Putin but nothing confirmed.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:


I think, like any advertisement, it helped. But it's the Dems fault for being assholes on emails.

Again, the Russians are not friends of democracy or capitalism. They tried, maybe succeeded, to get a friend of theirs elected here. But you won't convince one supporter of trump they were involved or helped him. They could get a briefing from Putin himself and they'd say it didn't happen.

I'll skip the debate over whether it happened.

I'll gladly debate how many voters switched to Trump because Putin supported him.

How do you quantify that? How many decided because of the FBI director? How many because of various adds? How many decided they couldn't vote for a guy who grabbed women's pussies cause he could? Where do you get those numbers? What we can say is that Russian interference didn't hurt his candidacy and it didn't boost HRC's. My point remains. Not one supporter will ever say outliud the Russians interfered at all.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I'll skip the debate over whether it happened.

I'll gladly debate how many voters switched to Trump because Putin supported him.

How do you quantify that? How many decided because of the FBI director? How many because of various adds? How many decided they couldn't vote for a guy who grabbed women's pussies cause he could? Where do you get those numbers? What we can say is that Russian interference didn't hurt his candidacy and it didn't boost HRC's. My point remains. Not one supporter will ever say outliud the Russians interfered at all.

This country is done, it doesn't stand for anything these days.

I'm glad I grew up in a time when everyone understood the Russians are the bad guys. I watched this goal live, the entire nation was glued to the TV we all blew up cheering when we won. God bless American my friends.

Barry said Cold War is over.

Where's the threat?

The_Dude wrote:Barry said Cold War is over.

Where's the threat?

In 2010, in an effort to establish better relations with Russia, the White House identified Russia as a partner in solving global problems. Not unlike Trump intends to do with Russia. For example, the 2010 National Security Strategy reads:

We are working to build deeper and more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence—including China, India, and Russia, as well as increasingly influential nations such as Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia—so that we can cooperate on issues of bilateral and global concern, with the recognition that power, in an interconnected world, is no longer a zero sum game.

We seek to build a stable, substantive, multidimensional relationship with Russia, based on mutual interests. The United States has an interest in a strong, peaceful, and prosperous Russia that respects international norms.

By 2015, the White House had a different view of Russia. The 2015 National Security Strategy clearly labels Russia as an aggressor and threat to the international system. The 2015 National Security Strategy read:

Violent extremism and an evolving terrorist threat raise a persistent risk of attacks on America and our allies. Escalating challenges to cybersecurity, aggression by Russia, the accelerating impacts of climate change, and the outbreak of infectious diseases all give rise to anxieties about global security.

In particular, India’s potential, China’s rise, and Russia’s aggression all significantly impact the future of major power relations.

We will strengthen U.S. and international capacity to prevent conflict among and within states. In the realm of inter-state conflict, Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity—as well as its belligerent stance toward other neighboring countries—endangers international norms that have largely been taken for granted since the end of the Cold War.

So your overall point, which others have made on this board, is flawed. Your comments do not flow from reality. Like Trump intends to do, the White House tried to establish better relations with Russia and sought cooperation between the two countries. However, by 2014 and as articulated in 2015, the White House had come to see Russia as an aggressor and pariah.

https://mobile.twitter.com/minakimes/status/807648949288910849/photo/1

DWags wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/minakimes/status/807648949288910849/photo/1

Great find.

The US is about to sell out big time, and it's not about the right or left we are fighting over. Trump should just have his SOS confirmed in the Kremlin.

Hmm, the big US sell out is coming and the response from the right wing supporters in this crisis is the typical blame Obama and blame Hillary. Can never see beyond those two, I wish pavlov was here to observe the conditioned response.

As of today I've noticed a beyond severe pathology in the right. You guys need to get retro and get back to the 80's. You guys lead the charge against Russia in the good old days but you've lost your mojo.

I hope John McCain brings it, he was there during Reagan's cold war.

steveschneider wrote:Hmm, the big US sell out is coming and the response from the right wing supporters in this crisis is the typical blame Obama and blame Hillary. Can never see beyond those two, I wish pavlov was here to observe the conditioned response.

As of today I've noticed a beyond severe pathology in the right. You guys need to get retro and get back to the 80's. You guys lead the charge against Russia in the good old days but you've lost your mojo.

I hope John McCain brings it, he was there during Reagan's cold war.

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465096204/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_0/163-3933159-9369624?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=GY801VXBFA118J9HQDZC

And back in the "good old days" who mocked the R's for "fear mongering" about big, bad old Russia? The Dems. Amazing how things have changed.

Turtleneck wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Hmm, the big US sell out is coming and the response from the right wing supporters in this crisis is the typical blame Obama and blame Hillary. Can never see beyond those two, I wish pavlov was here to observe the conditioned response.

As of today I've noticed a beyond severe pathology in the right. You guys need to get retro and get back to the 80's. You guys lead the charge against Russia in the good old days but you've lost your mojo.

I hope John McCain brings it, he was there during Reagan's cold war.

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465096204/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_0/163-3933159-9369624?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=GY801VXBFA118J9HQDZC

Fifty percent of the Republicans hate Democrats more than the Russians. Never thought I'd see the day.

The right has become the big sellout party.