so says HRC,

Hillary Clinton told a group of donors she believes Russian President Vladimir Putin
contributed to her presidential Loss....

Could it be that you SUCK!

Putin made me Loose wah wah wah

by the way Vladimir is hacking your computer as i type this
AND Nebe this is Not Fake news :tooth:

I don't doubt she said that.

She lost because a lot of people that might have voted for her flat out refused to after the hacks revealed the tactics that the DNC used to sweep Bernie under the rug.
Oh and she is a corrupt lying pos as well. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would be a real howl if it comes out that Putin tried to affect the election....to help HER win! :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

To use her own words....
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE
Turmp is president in abut 30 days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To use her own words....
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE
Turmp is president in abut 30 days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The electoral college has not voted yet. For all we know they are going to say no way and then chaos will follow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that would get ugly real faast if that occured

don't worry, Nebestrodamus is the Cleveland Browns of Prognostication

I dont think the Russians Help Trump win or caused Clinton to lose

Whats amazing to see people dont care That the Russians tried

and now Trump and his supporter dont believe it?? not based on facts or any contrary information to support their position just the excuse they(dems and establishment R's) are upset they lost and he won...

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House,

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Trump said in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” his first Sunday news-show appearance since the Nov. 8 election. “I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it. . . . No, I don’t believe it at all.”

What road real or imagined with Trump take us down???

I dont think the Russians Help Trump win or caused Clinton to lose

Whats amazing to see people dont care That the Russians tried



democrats are just upset because they think the russians...chinese communists, socialist dictators around the world are supposed to be helping THEM...not the other way around ....:exp:

dem party went all grabbers, pseudo intels, and elitists....they forgot all about working mid class America. game over.

democrats are just upset because they think the russians...chinese communists, socialist dictators around the world are supposed to be helping THEM...not the other way around ....:exp:

You have any quotes backing that up or is that another one of your typical snarky responses? What is indisputable is the alt right AKA neo-nazis and KKK help the Republicans take the presidency back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I dont think the Russians Help Trump win or caused Clinton to lose

Whats amazing to see people dont care That the Russians tried

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Trump said in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” his first Sunday news-show appearance since the Nov. 8 election. “I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it. . . . No, I don’t believe it at all.”

?

Exactly correct. Reagan must be turning over in his grave. To see the president-elect praising him and ridiculing our intelligence services. Maybe Trump should start taking those daily briefings he is skipping.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're all wrong...its Bush's fault!:biglaugh:

What is indisputable is the alt right AKA neo-nazis and KKK help the Republicans take the presidency back.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotf3:

wait ...I thought it was the russians....noooo...I mean the racists...no...I mean the deniers....no......or the greedy CEO's....or...maybe...the..... the vast conspiracy....

:screwy:

There was this constant warning by some of us that removing the limits of power which the Constitution places on government--regardless of how well intentioned are those who promise us that more power will enable them to better make our lives easier and fuller--there could (probably would) eventually come to power someone who you fear--the boogeyman who you think is not worthy or capable of wielding that unchecked power and thereby doing great damage to us and our way of life.

In response, some said that we had already progressed beyond that outworn piece of paper, which was good for its time, but that we are in a new historical era in which we no longer had to fear government. That we have evolved into a time where unbridled freedom had gone too far and the checks on government needed to be removed in order to impose fairness and justice--all that was needed now was politicians to act responsibly.

Some said they didn't understand the intricacies of how the Constitution worked, or what it really meant. That they were content to leave that up to the politicians, judges, and lawyers. To the real experts. The experts would make it work, as experts do in everything else.

Many said nothing.

It appears, from the fear of Trump being displayed here, that the unexpected boogeyman has arrived. Now, the bigly, badly, tyrant and his henchmen will wield the constitutionally unchecked power that we so willingly gave away for the nice promises of what government would do for us rather than doing it ourselves.

Oh well . . .

But maybe Trump will ignorantly nominate some old-fashioned constitutionalists to the various levels of federal courts, especially the Supreme one. But will you guys be happy with that? And will your Progressive political hero's allow that?

There was this constant warning by some of us that removing the limits of power which the Constitution places on government--regardless of how well intentioned are those who promise us that more power will enable them to better make our lives easier and fuller--there could (probably would) eventually come to power someone who you fear--the boogeyman who you think is not worthy or capable of wielding that unchecked power and thereby doing great damage to us and our way of life.

In response, some said that we had already progressed beyond that outworn piece of paper, which was good for its time, but that we are in a new historical era in which we no longer had to fear government. That we have evolved into a time where unbridled freedom had gone too far and the checks on government needed to be removed in order to impose fairness and justice--all that was needed now was politicians to act responsibly.

Some said they didn't understand the intricacies of how the Constitution worked, or what it really meant. That they were content to leave that up to the politicians, judges, and lawyers. To the real experts. The experts would make it work, as experts do in everything else.

Many said nothing.

It appears, from the fear of Trump being displayed here, that the unexpected boogeyman has arrived. Now, the bigly, badly, tyrant and his henchmen will wield the constitutionally unchecked power that we so willingly gave away for the nice promises of what government would do for us rather than doing it ourselves.

Oh well . . .

But maybe Trump will ignorantly nominate some old-fashioned constitutionalists to the various levels of federal courts, especially the Supreme one. But will you guys be happy with that? And will your Progressive political hero's allow that?


I am confused? do you not have an issue with the russians playing in our election? that is the topic

Why are none of the Trump backers here speaking about the topic ? but rather talking around it ..

its very simple you either think its an issue or you take Trump stance . and don’t believe it at all

which is it ? I think its an issue today tomorrow or the next election .. what will be you response when its your party or your candidate on the receiving end of hacks and media dumps .. some true and some false by a foreign goverment ?? .. will you think its an issue then?? why wait acknowledge the issues exist that the 1st step back to a Fact based reality

http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/The-View-from-Israel/Obamas-shocking-interference-into-Israels-election-process-389858

I am confused? do you not have an issue with the russians playing in our election? that is the topic

Fake news at it's finest.

How about the 60% of precincts in Detroit they couldn't recount because there were more votes than people checked in or the seals on the voting machines were broken.... Silence is deafening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am confused?

That's a fake response.

do you not have an issue with the russians playing in our election?

No. They have always done so. The U.S. has always played in other country's politics. It's standard political procedure. Saying that it is an issue is political fakery.

I am concerned with our own government interfering with our elections and our lives.



that is the topic

In this thread you asked "What road real or imagined with Trump take us down???

I don't know if that was off topic. Or if you're allowed to go off topic but others aren't. Or if I should feign being confused about that. But my response was in large part to your off or on topic question.

And I think it was a very relevant response to your question. And I didn't expect that you would respond to it. Nor that you would even be able to respond to it.

Fake news at it's finest.

How about the 60% of precincts in Detroit they couldn't recount because there were more votes than people checked in or the seals on the voting machines were broken.... Silence is deafening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your post is exactly what he was talking about two posts earlier. So tell us how it is "fake news"?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/The-View-from-Israel/Obamas-shocking-interference-into-Israels-election-process-389858


another Blog dodge defense

hers is mine
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/25/blog-posting/blog-claims-us-funded-anti-netanyahu-election-effo/

In this thread you asked "What road real or imagined with Trump take us down???

I don't know if that was off topic. Or if you're allowed to go off topic but others aren't. Or if I should feign being confused about that. But my response was in large part to your off or on topic question.

And I think it was a very relevant response to your question. And I didn't expect that you would respond to it. Nor that you would even be ale to respond to it.


well I can say much to that line of thought, Fear of our Goverment over another and excuse it away with They have always done so. The U.S. has always played in other country's politics. It's standard political procedure.



so I spoke about the topic then I questioned where Trump will take us

this is off Topic ok

another Blog dodge defense

hers is mine
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/25/blog-posting/blog-claims-us-funded-anti-netanyahu-election-effo/

Politifact is a joke....i'm waiting for the "facts" before jumping to conclusions or believing conspiracies regarding Russia messing in our elections

Fear of our Goverment over another and excuse it away with They have always done so. The U.S. has always played in other country's politics. It's standard political procedure.



it's not fear of government but what those may do with the power that government can provide if unchecked....like the fear that the leftys are experiencing to the point of needing counseling and pet rock therapy now that Trump is going to assume a government with greatly expanded powers in large part thanks to our friends on the left

so if it's ok for us to play in others politics who are we to whine if others play in ours????

This hacking is "unpresidented".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"unpresidented".

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hope that's the beer talking?? :buds:

Not yet maybe after 7:15
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This hacking is "unpresidented".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In a Bigly way :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is indisputable is the alt right AKA neo-nazis
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Alt right being described as neo Nazis is fake news. Here is a more in-depth look at the alt right by someone who set out its principles. It has nothing to do with Nazism, or racial superiority, or white supremacy. It, rather, subscribes to so-called identity politics. And does so out of what it perceives as a necessity in order to engage and compete with the identity politics practiced by the other races. It is much more about cultural identity and preservation which is tied in with race and ethnicity. If you want have an honest understanding of what is generally the alt right agenda rather than relying on the biased reporting of the fake news that you've read, try watching this entire video. I doubt that you can. And that you would rather trust the more comfortable fakery of main stream bias. But maybe you will try watching:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=molyneux+and+vox+what+is+the+alt+right&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dmolyneux%2band%2bvox%2bwhat%2bi s%2bthe%2balt%2bright%26FORM%3dEDGNNC&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=5FC3E10101E4EF4555AB5FC3E10101E4EF4555AB&FORM=WRVORC

Here is vox day's 16 principles of the alt right to which I alluded in the above post:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html?m=1

I fail to see any Nazi or white supremacy affiliation in them.

BTW, the comments that follow are a good discussion.

Politifact is a joke....i'm waiting for the "facts" before jumping to conclusions or believing conspiracies regarding Russia messing in our elections


Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."


what are the facts your waiting for?

how many said Iraq had WMD's?....hmmmmm??

and you just linked a story from a guy who cites Politifact as his source for his facts..." according to Politifact...blah..blah..blah..."......Politifact is a joke

I'm pretty sure democrats would be pushing for Putin to get the Nobel Peace Prize if it were discovered that Russia hacked the RNC and disclosed embarrassing emails that might sway voters and the result of the election...

Here is vox day's 16 principles of the alt right to which I alluded in the above post:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html?m=1

I fail to see any Nazi or white supremacy affiliation in them.

BTW, the comments that follow are a good discussion.

I've been around a long time...been all over the place.....I've yet to run into a Nazi, White Supremacist or KKK member....they should be easy to spot.....and apparently they are everywhere in sufficient numbers to sway an election....but voter fraud does not exist :eek:

Don't see how the Russians interfered with the election.

It was held on the date it was scheduled, the polls opened on time, people voted, votes were tallied, and a winner was declared. All seemed pretty orderly to me....

Now did they hack into some poorly secured servers owned by the DNC and HRC? And did they expose all the lies and corruption going on in the DNC? Hmmmmm.....

If Putin's last name was Woodward or Bernstein he'd probably get a Pulitzer. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The CIA concluded that the Russians not only tried to disrupt the election but specifically to aid Trump. And Trump ended up dismissing not only the intelligence agency's conclusion but also dismissed the intelligence community all together by calling its conclusions ridiculous. So the Russians didn't interfere with the elections yet Trump used the same emails they exposed to smear Clinton.🙈🙉🙊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't see how the Russians interfered with the election.

It was held on the date it was scheduled, the polls opened on time, people voted, votes were tallied, and a winner was declared. All seemed pretty orderly to me....

Now did they hack into some poorly secured servers owned by the DNC and HRC? And did they expose all the lies and corruption going on in the DNC? Hmmmmm.....

If Putin's last name was Woodward or Bernstein he'd probably get a Pulitzer. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


This.

Russia DID try to influence the election. It is what they do.

They did not HACK the election. That would involve tampering with the results.

What they did is more or less what they always do to us and to others.

I dont think the Russians Help Trump win or caused Clinton to lose

Whats amazing to see people dont care That the Russians tried

and now Trump and his supporter dont believe it?? not based on facts or any contrary information to support their position just the excuse they(dems and establishment R's) are upset they lost and he won...

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House,

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Trump said in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” his first Sunday news-show appearance since the Nov. 8 election. “I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it. . . . No, I don’t believe it at all.”

What road real or imagined with Trump take us down???

"Whats amazing to see people dont care That the Russians tried "

Can you support that please? I think most people, regardless of party, don't like what Russia did.

What's more important than how those emails were revealed, is what they revealed. Hilary getting debate questions ahead of time. The DNC paying operatives to start fights at Trump rallies. Hilary and the DNC working to sabotage Bernie's chances.

Seems to me that all liberals care about is how those emails were hacked. I haven't heard many liberals express concern about the content of the emails. Nor have I heard anyone at the DNC or the Hilary campaign, dispute the content of the emails.

Trump is now saying that if the FBI and CIA agree, he presumes they are correct. Hate to inject facts into your rant.

its very simple you either think its an issue or you take Trump stance . and don’t believe it at all



The mind boggles at the thought of where you get your information (Pravda? The Daily Worker? Tass?). Again, Trump has been saying that if multiple agencies say Russia is behind the hacks, he will presume they are correct. Look it up.

WDMSO -

for you.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/18/priebus-trump-ready-to-accept-russia-hacking-if-cia-fbi-release-consensus-report.html

Russia tried to influence the election by exposing truthful info about some disgusting Democrat tactics. There is zero evidence that the WikiLeaks leaks, played a major role in the outcome.

And if the leaks DID influence the outcome, is it the fault of those who exposed the truth? Or is it the fault of those who engaged in shameful tactics?

WDMSO, you want to comment on that, please?

Hilary ran against the most unpopular candidate ever, in terms of his unfavorable polling.

She spent WAY MORE than he did.

She cheated - got debate questions ahead of time from CNN, and the DNC hired thugs to incite violence at Trump rallies.

She had the entire media, except for Foxnews, in her camp.

All that...and she got creamed in the electoral college. Naturally, her followers are shrieking their big, fat, red mouths and asking, in true totalitarian fashion, for a small number of people to reject the expressed will of the electorate.

In a democracy, sometimes the voters will not go your way. Them's the breaks. Hilary doesn't have superdelegates in the general election to hand it to her, like she had available to her in the primary.

And naturally, Michelle Obama is right back to hating her country. She says we have no hope. Investors sure seem to feel quite differently. Tell everyone who has a 401(k), that we are in a hopeless situation...

This.

Russia DID try to influence the election. It is what they do.



Every news outlet and social media site tried to influence the election....

Interfering and influencing are two different things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This.
Russia DID try to influence the election. It is what they do.

Yes, but, as TDF noted, you use the key word here--"influence." That is significantly different from the words used in the other posts--"interfere" and "disrupt".

They did not HACK the election. That would involve tampering with the results.

No they did not. If they actually were able to physically change the vote count, especially if that reversed the results, that would be significant enough to void the election.

What they did is more or less what they always do to us and to others.

Yes, as do most other countries, including the U.S. That is, we try to influence the policies in various ways including cyber. During the so-called "cold war" we broadcast pro-American, anti-communist messages over their airwaves. We bribe with trade deals and foreign "aid", coerce with military pacts and military buildups, disrupt enemy economies by creating economic pacts with their competitors, and other clandestine ways. And yes, we even "interfere" in elections such as how Obama tried to do against Netanyahu.

But the most dangerous kind of influence is actual penetration of governments with agents in high government places which are actually able to direct policies--as the Soviets did in the U.S. in the 1930's to 1950's era. Moscow had agents, both foreign as well as American Communists or fellow travelers or just useful idiots who were able to influence our policies in Asia and Eastern Europe to the point that China and all of Eastern Europe were basically handed over to Mao or Moscow.

We all know about Oppenheimer and the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss. But there were others equally or even more importantly, in the State Department, or Treasury, or Agriculture, or labor departments, as well as other influential places, and those who were close key advisers to FDR. And there were, very importantly, turncoat or sympathetic journalists and academics who spread false reports and propaganda.

China need not have become Communist. Chiang Kai Sheck
was actually defeating Mao with our provision of military equipment. He actually had driven the reds into Northern China where they tried to hold off Chiang's forces even though the Communists were badly equipped. But before Chiang could finish off the Reds the U.S. abruptly changed its stance toward him, forced a cease fire, and the Communists were able to recover and get re-equipped by Moscow, even with equipment we had given to it as an ally against the Nazis. And our military aid to Chiang dwindled or ceased. And he was driven to Formosa (Taiwan), which is the non-Communist remnant of China today.

This was all accomplished in various coordinated means of direct influence. There was false journalism (fake news long before the current crop), as well as key figures in our government cabinets and agencies. These were all used to influence the U.S. to desire the countries along the Soviet borders to be friendly to the Soviet Union.

Pro-Communist journalists who were either sympathizers or actually Communist Party members advanced Communist interests through organs such as Time Magazine and its Moscow correspondent, Richard Lauterbach who was confirmed by Venona as a Communist Party member, Guenther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor, Israel Epstein of The New York Times, Mark Gayn of Colliers, Edgar Snow of The Saturday Evening Post, and other smaller publications such as the New Republic and a Communist front publication Amerasia.

They wrote stories praising Mao and denigrating Chiang. Made it appear that Mao was actually doing the heavy fighting against Japan while portraying Chiang as doing little and ineffectivey when just the opposite was true. They painted Mao as the true and future leader who would make China the future haven of a free, egalitarian, productive, and happy nation. And made Chiang out to be a throwback to the old oppressive imperial regime.

They bolstered the efforts of diplomats such as Communist sympathizer John Stuart Service and others to return to the FDR administration reports glowingly, and falsely, favorable toward Mao and the Soviets. And this in turn made the work easier for those in high places as advisers to the President such as John Davies in State, and others such as Harry Hopkins, Laughlin Currie, and many more, who were at FDR's side and elbow.

In short, it was the advice of actual Soviet agents in FDR's administration which persuaded him to give China to Mao and Eastern Europe to Stalin. Needlessly so.

FDR was persuaded by them to believe, as he said, as told to his first envoy to Moscow, William Bullitt, that Stalin "wanted only security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work for world democracy and peace." FDR also wrote to Churchill "I think there is nothing more important than that Stalin feel that we mean to support him without qualification and at great sacrifice." AT Yalta, the conference where he effectively handed Eastern Europe over to the Soviet sphere, he told British Field Marshall Alan Brooke "of one thing I am certain, Stalin is not an imperialist."

Among many others, FDR was influenced in his pro-Stalin thinking by Soviet spy and sympathizer Joseph Davies of the State Dept. and Soviet agent Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent who was ensconced in the Agriculture Dept.

The U.S. Army cryptographers who "hacked" Soviet correspondence to Communist agents in the U.S. government were able, under a project named "Venona, to decode about 3,000 coded messages which confirmed the names of hundreds of Communist agents in our Federal Gvt. agencies and departments. These Venona papers were declassified and released in the mid nineteen nineties. The FBI already had, since the early 1930's, several of these names listed as possible Soviet agents. And the KGB files which were released in the mid nineties also corroborated and confirmed the names and others. There had also been in the 1930's House UnAmerican Activities Committee ongoing investigation of Communists employed by the Federal government which had about 180 suspected or confirmed employed agents.

For various reasons, the FDR administration was lax or totally averse to removing those exposed by the FBI and the Army cryptographers and the House committee. The laxness, tardiness of dismissing the infiltrators lasted into the Truman administration.

The maligned Joseph McCarthy in 1950 restored the fight, this time in the Senate, to investigate, expose, and remove the enemy agents. For various reasons he was rejected, vilified, and destroyed for trying. In the end, he was proven right.

That is the kind of influence, interference, and disruption that is truly destructive to "our democracy." It is the kind which comes from within. And it only can happen within if we have those in high places who are supportive of it. Who are its agents.

The chicken-chit stuff that Putin does is more annoying than anything else. And, since we must spend time and energy talking about it, shouldn't we be as much, or more, concerned with if the information is true? I find it strange that we are more concerned with hacking and attempted influence than if what is revealed is true. Even more strange that we consider the truth to be an interference or a disruption.

Facebook is more to blame than Russia. Facebook is also probably to blame for the Arab spring uprisings as well. It's the most amazing tool to spread propaganda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Whats amazing to see people dont care That the Russians tried "

Can you support that please? I think most people, regardless of party, don't like what Russia did.

Seem's you haven't been reading post in this thread

What's more important than how those emails were revealed, is what they revealed. Hilary getting debate questions ahead of time. The DNC paying operatives to start fights at Trump rallies. Hilary and the DNC working to sabotage Bernie's chances.

See you support the hacks .. because you like the outcome ..or believe them to be the truth



Seems to me that all liberals care about is how those emails were hacked. I haven't heard many liberals express concern about the content of the emails. Nor have I heard anyone at the DNC or the Hilary campaign, dispute the content of the emails.

Trump is now saying that if the FBI and CIA agree, he presumes they are correct. Hate to inject facts into your rant.

Here we go again he NOWS SAYS .. Why now?? because he is getting push back ,,, thats the only reason but Thats the problem with trump he has more flip flops then you can count ..and you and his supporters carry his excuse's proudly




:sleeps:

WDMSO -

for you.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/18/priebus-trump-ready-to-accept-russia-hacking-if-cia-fbi-release-consensus-report.html

Russia tried to influence the election by exposing truthful info about some disgusting Democrat tactics. There is zero evidence that the WikiLeaks leaks, played a major role in the outcome.

And if the leaks DID influence the outcome, is it the fault of those who exposed the truth? Or is it the fault of those who engaged in shameful tactics?

WDMSO, you want to comment on that, please?

Hilary ran against the most unpopular candidate ever, in terms of his unfavorable polling.

She spent WAY MORE than he did.

She cheated - got debate questions ahead of time from CNN, and the DNC hired thugs to incite violence at Trump rallies.

She had the entire media, except for Foxnews, in her camp.

All that...and she got creamed in the electoral college. Naturally, her followers are shrieking their big, fat, red mouths and asking, in true totalitarian fashion, for a small number of people to reject the expressed will of the electorate.

In a democracy, sometimes the voters will not go your way. Them's the breaks. Hilary doesn't have superdelegates in the general election to hand it to her, like she had available to her in the primary.

And naturally, Michelle Obama is right back to hating her country. She says we have no hope. Investors sure seem to feel quite differently. Tell everyone who has a 401(k), that we are in a hopeless situation...


Again you seem to to read I dont think the Russians Help Trump win or caused Clinton to lose.. but thats not the issue its about the russians and Trumps feckless stance on the issue

I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking of other Americans their party and their citizens and some how make this a partisan issue ... keep up the good work

Every news outlet and social media site tried to influence the election....

Interfering and influencing are two different things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't recall what new sites and social media sites hacked personnal email accts. before.

I can't recall what new sites and social media sites hacked personnal email accts. before.

I'm pretty sure if you look(not very hard)you can find info that was reported by the msm for political reasons after being obtained obtained by less than scrupulous methods and democrats claiming that the content was far more important than the questionable way it was "stumbled upon"

I think Obama was successful in his first run for office after the sealed divorce records of his opponent were mysteriously obtained by the media

I'm pretty sure if you look(not very hard)you can find info that was reported by the msm for political reasons after being obtained obtained by less than scrupulous methods and democrats claiming that the content was far more important than the questionable way it was "stumbled upon"

I think Obama was successful in his first run for office after the sealed divorce records of his opponent were mysteriously obtained by the media

So we do know who hacked other people's emails?

While we don't know to what magnitude we do know it impacted some people's thinking (along w/Comey). Certainly no one can claim it threw the election though.

:sleeps:

"See you support the hacks "

Once again, you respond to something that I didn't say. I actually said the opposite. We need to investigate the hacks and try to ensure it doesn't happen again. Fair enough?

But I think we also should discuss what the hacks revealed. You haven't said you have any issue with what they revealed. Yes, I like what they revealed. I can't deny that.

"or believe them to be the truth "

Is anyone disputing that? CNN fired the woman who gave debate questions to Hilary. The DNC fired the 2 guys who were hiring thugs to incite violence at Trump rallies.

I see a ton of news coverage about how the hacks are bad (and I agree). I haven't seen any stories suggesting that the hacked emails were untrue or fabricated. Have you?

Donna Brazil basically admitted giving debate questions to Hilary, when she said that as an activist, she was proud of what she did. She's not denying it, so I wonder on what basis you are questioning it.

Donna Brazil basically admitted giving debate questions to Hilary,.



speaking of Hack's.....

why would Putin want trump to win anyway?...he's completely abused Obama and his administration...you'd think he'd like to continue with the incompetents, especially if it's so easy to hack them that he can get any information that the might want or need

I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking of other Americans their party and their citizens and some how make this a partisan issue ... keep up the good work

Not surprising to see you trying to keep up the good work of trying to delegitimize Trump's victory. This time by trying to get us all to be outraged by the alleged Russian hacking and tying that to waving the American flag and Trump's slogan of making America great again.

I haven't seen anyone actually "supporting" the hacking. That it probably happened would not be unexpected, unusual, nor anything that should be a criticism against Trump or his supposed feckless stance.

OK. Let us all be outraged. What now? What to do about it? What can effectively be done about it that has not already been tried? Should we arrest Putin and put him in jail for committing what we consider a crime? Put more sanctions on Russia? Invade it? Jinn up a trade war? Retaliate in cyber kind? Ramp up our own influencing the rest of the world? Pump a whole lot of oil and destroy what little economy he has?

Come to think of it--Trump would be more likely to do that last thing more than Obama or Hillary. You'd think Putin would be afraid of that.

OK. Let us all be outraged. What now? What to do about it? What can effectively be done about it that has not already been tried?



ok...for starters...no more unsecured servers in the bathrooms of administration officials...even if their last name is Clinton

Again you seem to to read I dont think the Russians Help Trump win or caused Clinton to lose.. but thats not the issue its about the russians and Trumps feckless stance on the issue

I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking of other Americans their party and their citizens and some how make this a partisan issue ... keep up the good work

"its about the russians and Trumps feckless stance on the issue "

So the actions of the Dems that were revealed in the emails, have no importance?

I agree the hack is bad. But if the Dems weren't doing anything unethical, there would have been nothing to leak.

As I posted, Trump is conceding that if the FBI and the CIA are on the same page, than they are probably correct.

You want to say Trump is an azz, you get no argument from me. See, I can admit shortcomings in Republicans. I didn't see one word from you about what the emails reveal, except you question their accuracy. Given the way people got fired for what the emails claim they did, you seem to be the only one denying the validity of the leaked emails.

"I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking "

Who, exactly, is happy about the hacking? Sean Hannity maybe. That's about it.

Who on your side, is upset about what the hacks revealed? Anyone?

Also, I remember a few years ago, Mitt Romney claimed that Putin was going to be an adversary.

Do you all remember Obama's reaction to that?

"Hey, Mitt, the 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back". Haw haw haw, Mr President, please stop, my stomach hurts from laughing.

Obama - always wrong, yet never in doubt.

speaking of Hack's.....

why would Putin want trump to win anyway?...he's completely abused Obama and his administration...you'd think he'd like to continue with the incompetents, especially if it's so easy to hack them that he can get any information that the might want or need

I've been wondering that too, it's not like team Obama/Hilary have done anything to curtail the guy. But Trump might be more of an active ally.

speaking of Hack's.....

why would Putin want trump to win anyway?...he's completely abused Obama and his administration...you'd think he'd like to continue with the incompetents, especially if it's so easy to hack them that he can get any information that the might want or need

Donna Brazil has been doing this for 35 years.

When Bush 41 was running against Dukakis, a Democrat staffer leaked a story to the press that Bush was having an affair, cheating on Barbara (yeah, right). The staffer was fired by the Dukakis campaign for such an outrageous action. The person who got fired for lying - Donna Brazil. She's STILL the head of the DNC, right? She's been lying about those who disagree with her for 30 years, and the Democrats still keep her around.

Not surprising to see you trying to keep up the good work of trying to delegitimize Trump's victory.

Wow thats a lie if i have ever seen one . Trump won so are trying to delegitimize Trumps victory not me ... ..

I haven't seen anyone actually "supporting" the hacking. That it probably happened would not be unexpected, unusual, nor anything that should be a criticism against Trump or his supposed feckless stance.

Making excuses like they always way do it .. sound like you accept it (support not against )




OK. Let us all be outraged. What now? What to do about it? What can effectively be done about it that has not already been tried? Should we arrest Putin and put him in jail for committing what we consider a crime? Put more sanctions on Russia? Invade it? Jinn up a trade war? Retaliate in cyber kind? Ramp up our own influencing the rest of the world? Pump a whole lot of oil and destroy what little economy he has?

Admitting it happened lets start there but we cant even get there ..

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/12/cia-russian-hacking-story-sham/

Come to think of it--Trump would be more likely to do that last thing more than Obama or Hillary. You'd think Putin would be afraid of that.

But Trump supports are more like :faga:

But Trump supports are more like:bshake:

fixed it

Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

Not surprising to see you trying to keep up the good work of trying to delegitimize Trump's victory.

wdmso reply: Wow thats a lie if i have ever seen one . Trump won so are trying to delegitimize Trumps victory not me ... ..

It's not a lie. It's an opinion. Based on, as I said (and which you left out of my quote) "This time by trying to get us all to be outraged by the alleged Russian hacking and tying that to waving the American flag and Trump's slogan of making America great again."


I haven't seen anyone actually "supporting" the hacking. That it probably happened would not be unexpected, unusual, nor anything that should be a criticism against Trump or his supposed feckless stance.

wdmso reply: Making excuses like they always way do it .. sound like you accept it (support not against )

What I said was not an excuse. It was a factual statement. The hacking is not unusual for Russia. Nor is it unexpected. That you see that as a support for it implies to me that your seeing a lot of words in my quote that are not actually in it.


OK. Let us all be outraged. What now? What to do about it? What can effectively be done about it that has not already been tried? Should we arrest Putin and put him in jail for committing what we consider a crime? Put more sanctions on Russia? Invade it? Jinn up a trade war? Retaliate in cyber kind? Ramp up our own influencing the rest of the world? Pump a whole lot of oil and destroy what little economy he has?

wdmso reply: Admitting it happened lets start there but we cant even get there ..

My statement to which you replied put us there then asked what then.

Come to think of it--Trump would be more likely to do that last thing more than Obama or Hillary. You'd think Putin would be afraid of that.

wdmso reply: But Trump supports are more like the faga emoticon

Your emoticon doesn't address anything I said. Certainly not my last sentence which your emoticon followed.

I am glad to see how those who wave their American flag and want to make America great again ... Happily support Russian hacking of other Americans their party and their citizens and some how make this a partisan issue ... keep up the good work

Why does that surprise you? Didn't Manafort get like $20M from the Russions and Tillerson get a friends of Russia award or something like that? According to Trump's son "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets".

From Politico

More Republicans viewing Putin favorably

The GOP is warming to Russian President Vladimir Putin — even as evidence of his regime’s interference in the election intensifies.

While some Republicans in Congress have slammed the Russian strongman and called for investigations into the Kremlin’s attempts to influence the election, the party’s voters are increasingly fond of Putin.

The dramatic shift in sentiment — for a party that once defined itself by its staunch opposition to the Soviet Union — comes as President-elect Donald Trump has steadfastly refused to criticize Putin and signaled a different tone with Russia policy.

Trump has downplayed any role Russia played in the election and high profile hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. And some of his top appointments — including his pick for national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his selection for secretary of state, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson — have longstanding ties to Russia and personal relationships with Putin himself.

The change in views has been swift.

Back in July 2014 just 10 percent of Republicans held a favorable view of Putin, according to a poll conducted by the Economist and YouGov. By September of 2016, that number rose to 24 percent. And it's even higher today: 37 percent of Republicans view Putin favorably, the poll found in December.

While the Russian president still has a net un-favorability rating among Republicans, his standing has improved dramatically – from a net negative of 66 points to a mere 10 points.
By comparison, only 17 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of President Barack Obama, the December poll found. Obama’s net negative among Republicans is 64 points – significantly worse than the party’s take on Putin.

Within the GOP there has always been a faction with more sympathetic views toward Putin and Russia. Republicans like Rep. Dana Rohrabacher have taken a more open-minded view of Putin’s behavior in places like Crimea and Syria. But for years Rohrbacher and others like him were pariahs who existed outside the mainstream.

Now Rohrabacher — who was a speechwriter for Reagan and talks of fighting communism — is being floated for State Department appointments. (Rohrabacher said Thursday that he had been considering a role in Trump’s State Department but decided to stay in Congress.)
There’s a lot of negative things about [Putin] that are accurate but there are a lot of negative things about him that have been said that are inaccurate,” Rohrabacher told POLITICO. “At least the other other side of the coin is being heard now. … Finally there’s some refutation of some of the inaccurate criticisms finally being heard.”

For the GOP, it’s been a sudden shift from a hardline on Russia, toward something resembling respect, if not warmth.

Daniel Vajdich, a former foreign policy adviser on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, recalled traveling to Foreign Relations Chair Sen. Bob Corker’s home state of Tennessee just after Russia annexed Crimea and supported rebel incursions in Eastern Ukraine.

For the Corker constituents Vadjich met, “no other issue—not Iraq, Syria or Iran— topped the emotion or frustration about what the Russians were doing in Ukraine and the way the Obama Administration was failing to do anything about it,” he said.

Now, the Republican president-elect Trump has said he would consider recognizing Crimea as part of Russia.

“It is dizzying,” said Vajdich, who has worked on the presidential campaigns of Gov. Mitt Romney, Gov. Scott Walker and Sen. Ted Cruz, all of whom represented the decades-old consensus view of Russia. “It’s just totally unexpected and counterintuitive to see how Republicans have shifted. I do think it has something to do with the general attitude that Trump expressed towards Putin and Russia. There’s no doubt there’s a very direct causal relationship about the permission he gave people.”

There also may be some politics at play, said said Larry Sabato director of the center for politics at the University of Virginia, because Putin’s alleged involvement boosted the GOP. Among the alleged Russian incursions into the election were hackers obtaining and leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

“It’s just based on the ancient principle the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don’t think it’s much more complicated than that,” said Larry Sabato director of the center for politics at the University of Virginia. “The Republican base, particularly the Trump part of the Republican base, is going to regard anyone and anything that helped their great leader to win as a positive force, or at least a less negative force.”

Trump, for his part, continues to contest that there was any Russian involvement in the election-related hackings.

“If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?” Trump wrote on Twitter on Wednesday.

In fact, Trump is incorrect to say that federal agencies did not talk about Russian interference until after he had won. They did so more than a month before Election Day.

The Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence released a statement on Oct. 7 saying they were “confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”

The Washington Post has since reported that the CIA concluded the efforts were aimed at lifting Trump’s prospects, rather than just destabilizing the election. And NBC has reported that Putin himself was personally involved in the effort.

Trump’s campaign contends that news of Russia’s involvement in the hacking is a media-driven plot to “delegitimize” the election.

Even if Trump’s ascendance allowed a more sympathetic view of Russia and Putin to become more mainstream, Vajdich does believe the appeal of Putin, and his leadership style, always existed in certain corners of the GOP.

“I think there’s something inherently attractive about Vladimir Putin when you compare him to President Obama and that’s something that’s going to resonate with some Republicans regardless of what Trump says,” Vajdich says.

“He’s decisive and unapologetically pursues Russian interests in a way Obama didn’t for America, in the minds of many Republicans.”

That reverence for Putin’s persona, if not his policies, extends even to those Republicans who decry Russia’s incursions abroad. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, for example, did not share Trump’s reservations about attacking Putin – he called Putin “small and bullying” at a September campaign event – but he still said he agreed with Trump that Putin was a stronger leader than Obama.

Even in 2014, in the midst of Russia’s widely condemned annexation of Crimea, Rudy Giuliani, who would become one of Trump’s most vocal surrogates, praised Putin for acting like “a leader.”

“[Putin] makes a decision and he executes it, quickly. And then everybody reacts. That’s what you call a leader,” Giuliani said.

And Russia has reciprocated.

State media has been full of praise for Trump, Tillerson and Flynn, noted Angela Stent, director of Georgetown’s Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and a a member of the senior advisory panel for NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe from 2010-2016. Russian media also portrayed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a persistently negative light.

“Certainly the Kremlin didn’t like Hillary Clinton,” Stent said.

But there’s another aspect to the affinity between some Republicans and Putin.

Putin has fashioned himself as a defender of traditional values around the world, something that has a particular appeal to the socially conservative elements of the Republican Party. He’s actively pushed anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion legislation in his country. Just this week, the Russian government prevented the UN Security Council, in their statement about outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, from praising the Korean’s promotion of LGBTQ rights during his time in office.

"President Putin sees himselfas the leader of the conservative world, battling decadent liberal values,” former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Mike McFaul told POLITICO. “When I was in the government there were overtures between evangelical and conservative religious organizations and Russians, including those associated with the government. … What brought them together was an ideological affinity about issues like LGBT in particular.”

The warmth toward Russia is not reserved to Trump and elements of the party’s base.

Rohrabacher went to great lengths in an unsuccessful attempt to derail legislation that Russia opposed in Congress. He even used information provided directly from the Russian government to make his case.

And he took to the op-ed pages of USA Today on Wednesday to defend Russia from accusations of attempts to influence the election, while also praising the work of hackers who targeted Democrats. He also wrote more broadly about his thoughts on the Russia-U.S. relationship.

“Putin is by no means guiltless in the deterioration of relations between our countries. Both sides failed,” he wrote. “We broke faith with a Putin-brokered deal with Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, which resulted in his downfall and an expansion of radical Islamic power. Putin has had ample reason to lose faith in America’s resolve.”

“Several people like myself, in order to say what we thought was truth, have been willing to take on the common knowledge that we think was wrong,” Rohrbacher told POLITICO. “There’s been this vilification not only of the Russian leader but of Russia itself.”

While Rohrabacher’s views have been injected into the mainstream, the party still has elements that are vigorously opposed to Putin.

There will be many Republicans, Sabato said, “who will not adapt to this new reality, they have long regarded Putin as one of the great evils of the world…They may just not bring it up very much.”

Some Republicans remain unwavering and outspoken in their opposition to Putin. And they expect voters will get behind them.

“For years, American diplomats and leaders have pretended Russia is our ally—we’ve tried resets and ignored their aggressions— that’s nonsense,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who did not support Trump, said in a statement to POLITICO. “Putin and his friends are murderous thugs and it’s time Americans stopped pretending otherwise. Period.”

Isaac Arnsdorf contributed reporting.

Just look at the right with Obama on National security

Right-wing commentators ripped President Obama for dancing the tango at a state dinner in Argentina a day after the terrorist attacks in Brussels, Belgium, criticizing him for "dancing the night away" "while Brussels burns."

Iran HUMILIATES American Sailors -- And Obama Administration THANKS Them For It!


All I am saying Trumps no stance on the Russians Hacking is disturbing as is the dismissive attitude of his supporters in face of the information provide.. they see no evil hear no evil speak no evil when it Comes to Trump They see no conflict of interests in his Cabinet but saw it clearly with the Clinton foundation ?? and that presents a Dangerous development .. it should be an interesting 4 years :btu:

I'm pretty sure Trump has not yet been sworn in....any problems with the russians are still obama's responsibility...obama assured us in his piss and moan conference the other day that they're working on a report that will come out before he leaves office and after he gets back from his latest lavish vacation...sounds like they're not in a big rush so probably not a big issue :bl:

funny everyone gets upset when Trump says something and even more upset when he doesn't say anything....he's in so many heads :spin:

I wonder if someone will come out with a 3rd Manchurian candidate movie in 2021.

I can't recall what new sites and social media sites hacked personnal email accts. before.

Do you mean personal e-mail accounts....or e-mail accounts of government officials being housed on personal servers? because there is a difference.

and that argument doesn't make what I said about news organizations and social media sites influencing the election any less legitimate.

The GOP is warming to Russian President Vladimir Putin — even as evidence of his regime’s interference in the election intensifies.




http://alliantz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Inigo-Montoya-WORD-MEANS.jpg

Just look at the right with Obama on National security

Right-wing commentators ripped President Obama for dancing the tango at a state dinner in Argentina a day after the terrorist attacks in Brussels, Belgium, criticizing him for "dancing the night away" "while Brussels burns."

Iran HUMILIATES American Sailors -- And Obama Administration THANKS Them For It!


All I am saying Trumps no stance on the Russians Hacking is disturbing as is the dismissive attitude of his supporters in face of the information provide.. they see no evil hear no evil speak no evil when it Comes to Trump They see no conflict of interests in his Cabinet but saw it clearly with the Clinton foundation ?? and that presents a Dangerous development .. it should be an interesting 4 years :btu:

And what has Obama done regarding Russia? He made fun of Romney for predicting that Putin was going to be a bully!

Regarding Obama and national security, you left out a couple of criticisms that are a bit more legitimate, like his handling of Iraq and Syria (remember the "red line that" he warned Assad not to cross? Ooohhh, scary).

And my criticism of his doing the tango had nothing to do with timing, but merely that dancing is one more thing we can add to the list of things that Obama suckz at.

personnel email accts. Isn't that illegal? Most folks here don't seem to have a problem w/it. And they also don't seem to care that the Russians tried to influence our elections. I guess bc we have done it w/other countries they via it the same. maybe the double standard thing.

Of course every news article has the effect of trying to influence an election unless there is zero bias in an article and very, very few articles have zero bias.

That wasn't my word - that was the author's.

I think JohnR said something about "interference" though.

Maybe you need to go through other people's posts like you seem to go through mine.

You seem on edge recently. Did something happen?

That wasn't my word - that was the author's.

I think JohnR said something about "interference" though.

Maybe you need to go through other people's posts like you seem to go through mine.

You seem on edge recently. Did something happen?

Did the American media get accused of "interfering" with the election when they broke the story about Trump's disgusting language on the Access Hollywood tape?

I haven't heard anyone doubt the accuracy of what was in the hacked emails. If the emails are valid, than while we need to increase cyber-security, I see the release of the emails as allowing voters to make an informed decision.

When Romney was unknowingly recorded making his idiotic comments about lots of people not wanting to work, I don't recall pushback about how the truth was obtained.

When secrets are revealed about Democrats doing unethical things, all they do is attack the messenger. They never want to talk, not even for a second, about what was revealed.

It was the liberals who interfered in this election. In the primary, the DNC and the media worked with Team Hilary to sabotage poor Bernie. In the general, CNN got debate questions to Hilary, and the DNC actually paid thugs to incite violence at Trump rallies.

Those actions constitute "interfering". Reporting those facts is not interfering. The method of getting the emails may well have been a violation of international law, but sharing the emails was not interfering. Influencing, maybe, but people were free to choose whether or not to care about the democrats' unethical actions.

Maybe you and Kevin should address your issue to John since he used the word "interference".

I think I'm gonna start using the work "interference" soon though.

This.

Russia DID try to influence the election. It is what they do.

They did not HACK the election. That would involve tampering with the results.

What they did is more or less what they always do to us and to others.

Paul, you mean this quote by John? Looks like he used the word influence...not interference.

And I know that was the authors quote, not yours.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think I'm gonna start using the work "interference" soon though.

unpresidented interference :wave:

unpresidented interference :wave:

I think someone went in and edited his twitter after he posted that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The electoral college has not voted yet. For all we know they are going to say no way and then chaos will follow

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hey Nebestrodamus...the EC voted ..Mitt Romney is still unemployed...and the Cleveland Browns are 0-14

I think someone went in and edited his twitter after he posted that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

probably the Russians

personnel email accts. Isn't that illegal? Most folks here don't seem to have a problem w/it. And they also don't seem to care that the Russians tried to influence our elections. I guess bc we have done it w/other countries they via it the same. maybe the double standard thing.


It's not that they don't have a problem with it. They just don't have this all-holy outrage over it after its been going on so long (Russians trying to influence us or worse) and the rage didn't get all revved up till now. And now, after the election turned out not the way some wanted, they get all up in high dudgeon over it--with accusations of "interference" with or "disruption" of the election--of the election being hacked.

And when its admitted that it didn't change the outcome of the election and the election wasn't hacked, the narrative shifts to, well, its not about the election, but about the hacking. Never mind that such rage over hacking wasn't demanded of us before.

I think the media threw out the red meat of Hillary possibly losing because of Putin's manipulation of the election in favor of Trump. This provided some last gasp issue to somehow delegitimize Trump's victory. And those on the left swarmed all over it. It was such a tasty treat that everybody was not only invited to swallow it, but demanded we must or be accused of hypocrisy.

And yeah, the double standard thing is relevant. Why aren't we demanding each other to be outraged over our interference into other countries' business? Probably because we've gotten used to it all.

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.



Soviets would use every tool at their disposal to ensure Nixon did not win. In 1960, they held U-2 pilot Gary Powers after his plane crashed illegally in Russia, and specifically delayed his release until after the presidential elections. They used Powers as a bargaining chip, and, according to Khrushchev himself, it worked. In his memoirs, the Soviet leader stated, “We kept Nixon from being able to claim that he could deal with the Russians; our ploy made a difference of at least half a million votes, which gave Kennedy the edge he needed.” -

It's not that they don't have a problem with it. They just don't have this all-holy outrage over it after its been going on so long (Russians trying to influence us or worse) and the rage didn't get all revved up till now.
And yeah, the double standard thing is relevant. Why aren't we demanding each other to be outraged over our interference into other countries' business? Probably because we've gotten used to it all.

decades and decades of American leftist politicians, activists and celebrities fawning, conspiring and leg humping the various foreign workers paradises of the world and their esteemed leaders....

and now outrage because some embarrassing emails "may have been" hacked and exposed :huh:

verb (used without object), interfered, interfering.
1.to come into opposition, as one thing with another, especially with the effect of hampering action or procedure (often followed by with):
Constant distractions interfere with work.
2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.

Looks like the Russians, by releasing personal emails that they hacked interfered with the election.

It is pathetic that you guys are denying this. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. 1st no one seems to care Trump seems like a serial liar and now this (how many times have we heard "what difference does it make what he says" - remember that when you're trying to teach your kids morals. Comparing the hacking of personal emails to someone taping Romney's speach is a joke. I especially like the outrage of "poor Bernie". An independant socialist his whole life runs against a person who has been a Democrat their whole life and people are surprised when the establishment would rather have the person who was a loyal Democrat their whole life.

No one here claims it changed election which is the reason I think you guy's anger is so evident.

probably the Russians

Trump should prob. ask one of his Russian business associates to spell check his Twitter message so he doesn't continue to look so cartoonish.

verb (used without object), interfered, interfering.
1.to come into opposition, as one thing with another, especially with the effect of hampering action or procedure (often followed by with):
Constant distractions interfere with work.
2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.

Looks like the Russians, by releasing personal emails that they hacked interfered with the election.Ted Kennedy must be turning green with envy in his grave

It is pathetic that you guys are denying this. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. 1st no one seems to care Trump seems like a serial liar and now this (how many times have we heard "what difference does it make what he says" - remember that when you're trying to teach your kids morals. Comparing the hacking of personal emails to someone taping Romney's speach is a joke. I especially like the outrage of "poor Bernie". An independant socialist his whole life runs against a person who has been a Democrat their whole life and people are surprised when the establishment would rather have the person who was a loyal Democrat their whole life.

you guys are big on cutting and pasting dictionary definitions and citing Politifact...is this a new tactic of the left to prove they are intellectually superior?...


new chic phrase for the left...."Reagan would be turning over in his grave. "

Obama said it in the piss and moan conference and so all the left repeats dutifully....

he's dead...he can't "turn over"

dead
ded/Submit
adjective
1.
no longer alive.
"a dead body"
synonyms: passed on/away, expired, departed, gone, no more; More
2.
complete; absolute.
"we sat in dead silence"
synonyms: complete, absolute, total, utter, out-and-out, thorough, unmitigated
"dead silence"

you guys are big on cutting and pasting dictionary definitions and citing Politifact...is this a new tactic of the left to prove they are intellectually superior?...snarky, snarky - No, it is an independent source. Just bc you don't like their findings most of the time, you dismiss it. Whether you use Factcheck.org, Polifact, snoopes or any other ind. fact checker, they all basically say the same thing.


new chic phrase for the left...."Reagan would be turning over in his grave. "I can't help it that the right has moved so far it is now unrecognizable.

Obama said it in the piss and moan conference and so all the left repeats dutifully....

he's dead...he can't "turn over"

dead
ded/Submit
adjective
1.
no longer alive.
"a dead body"
synonyms: passed on/away, expired, departed, gone, no more; More
2.
complete; absolute.
"we sat in dead silence"
synonyms: complete, absolute, total, utter, out-and-out, thorough, unmitigated
"dead silence"

Snarky as usual.

Snarky as usual.

yes....

democrats only care about foreign influence of our elections when they think(imagine) it affects(ed) their ability to win....

the feigned indignation is unpresidented

Snarky as usual.

Whether you use Factcheck.org, Polifact, snoopes or any other ind. fact checker



you forgot Politruth, Politicheck, Facttruth.omg, Truthcheck.....

verb (used without object), interfered, interfering.
1.to come into opposition, as one thing with another, especially with the effect of hampering action or procedure (often followed by with):
Constant distractions interfere with work.
2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.

Looks like the Russians, by releasing personal emails that they hacked interfered with the election.

It is pathetic that you guys are denying this. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. 1st no one seems to care Trump seems like a serial liar and now this (how many times have we heard "what difference does it make what he says" - remember that when you're trying to teach your kids morals. Comparing the hacking of personal emails to someone taping Romney's speach is a joke. I especially like the outrage of "poor Bernie". An independant socialist his whole life runs against a person who has been a Democrat their whole life and people are surprised when the establishment would rather have the person who was a loyal Democrat their whole life.

No one here claims it changed election which is the reason I think you guy's anger is so evident.

The Russians only "interfered", if their actions had some effect, correct? Did the polls change materially after the email releases?

You say the Russians interfered. You can make a pretty good case. I can make an equally good case that what happened, is that the Democrats got caught behaving unethically. If they didn't behave that way, the Russians would have had nothing to gain by giving the emails to WikiLeaks. Funny, no one is talking about that.

If my school tells me that my son is misbehaving, and it turns out that he is in fact misbehaving...the last thing I care about, are the details of how he got caught.

Fix the cyber-security. But why is the left not talking, not even for a second, about the behavior that is brought to light by the emails.

I haven't heard a single person say that the hacking isn't a concern.

No one on the left seems upset by what your side was doing during the primary and the general. All you care about is shooting the messenger (who may deserve to be shot), but you are pretending that the message doesn't exist.

verb (used without object), interfered, interfering.
1.to come into opposition, as one thing with another, especially with the effect of hampering action or procedure (often followed by with):
Constant distractions interfere with work.


Again, the Election occurred on its scheduled date, polls opened on time, people cast their votes, votes were tallied, and a victor was determined. Nothing the Russians did hampered the (action or procedure of) Elections. It occurred without issue.


2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.


This definition can be applied to the fact that the Russians possibly meddled in the affairs of the DNC and HRC, not the election, by releasing damaging documents.

The Russians only "interfered", if their actions had some effect, correct? No, not necessarily, You can try and fail at something.Did the polls change materially after the email releases?They where released in a slow drib and drab way to get maximum news value so if the polls dropped it is tough to say. Comey's anouncement had more of an effect via the polls if you look at before and after.

You say the Russians interfered. You can make a pretty good case. I can make an equally good case that what happened, is that the Democrats got caught behaving unethically. If they didn't behave that way, the Russians would have had nothing to gain by giving the emails to WikiLeaks. Funny, no one is talking about that.Donna Brezile deserved to be fired. The question she released was expected but still releasing it was sleazy. Anyone would have been able to answer that question. It is not surprising that Wasserman Shultz favored Hilary as she was a Dem. for a long time vs Bernie who was an Indep. Plus Hillary was expected to have a better chance.

If my school tells me that my son is misbehaving, and it turns out that he is in fact misbehaving...the last thing I care about, are the details of how he got caught.If he was accused of taking something and hid it by putting it down his pants and was made to drop his pants in public any parent would be upset - not the best example but....Or would Watergate had been ok if it revealed something sleazy/wrong/illegal?

Fix the cyber-securityThe DNC had lousy security and when a FBI called them he was forwarded to a help desk and that person didn't believe he was an FBI agent.. But why is the left not talking, not even for a second, about the behavior that is brought to light by the emails.

I haven't heard a single person say that the hacking isn't a concern. I think there have been threads/post before this downplaying the hacks.

No one on the left seems upset by what your side was doing during the primary and the general. All you care about is shooting the messenger (who may deserve to be shot), but you are pretending that the message doesn't exist.

I'm not ignoring either sides actions but am admittedly giving more weight to a hostile foreign govern. actions then to actions of our own. Is it a double standard that it bothers me more than what we have done in Chile or Argentina when we tried to influence an election – sure. I view the hacking as closer to Watergate than Jimmy Carter’s grandson taping a Milt Romney speech where he was a bartender. The "election" isn't just what occurred bt the time the polls opened on 11/8 and when they closed.

If he was accused of taking something and hid it by putting it down his pants



you mean like Sandy Berger?

Again, the Election occurred on its scheduled date, polls opened on time, people cast their votes, votes were tallied, and a victor was determined. Nothing the Russians did hampered the (action or procedure of) Elections. It occurred without issue.



You're trying to view the election as something that only occurs over the 12 hour period polls are open instead of from when the 2 major candidates started running for the Pres.

So if someone sabotaged all the polling booths the night before the election, wouldn't that be considered trying to sabotage the election even though it doesn't fit into your timeframe?

you mean like Sandy Berger?

I was thinking David Patraeus giving his mistress secrets or maybe Michael T. Flynn, future national security adviser sharing classified information with others in Afghanistan.

I was thinking David Patraeus giving his mistress secrets or maybe Michael T. Flynn, future national security adviser sharing classified information with others in Afghanistan.

A) it would be very interesting to know...what exactly Sandy smuggled out of there and why?

B) what "secrets" DP was giving with his honey?

C) and what "ci" Flynn was sharing with "others?" in Afgh.


i'm guessing A is pretty interesting...the others...not so much...applying the HRC standard...I doubt b or C were intentional or calculated....maybe just an error in judgment....A) Berger, however , was willful and calculated.....not just bad judgment

this is interesting...

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who was sentenced in 2005 — as the result of a plea bargain — to two-years probation and fined $50,000 for stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them, had also been functioning as a Hillary Clinton campaign adviser before his death last December.

According to a recently released Hillary Clinton email, Berger who served as national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, had been advising Hillary Clinton since her days as Secretary of State for President Barack Obama. His email correspondence with Clinton was stored on her private server and it’s yet to be reported whether or not he — a convicted thief of classified documents — had access to emails containing classified intelligence.

The release of the Clinton/Berger email was part of a batch of email messages released by the State Department. In one of those emails, Berger advised Clinton to make Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political life “uneasy.”


thick as theives

You're trying to view the election as something that only occurs over the 12 hour period polls are open instead of from when the 2 major candidates started running for the Pres.

The election IS the something that occurs over 12 hours on ELECTION Day.

The time prior to that the candidates start running for office is called the Campaign.

It's still not to late to ask Santa for a dictionary for Christmas :hee:

So if someone sabotaged all the polling booths the night before the election, wouldn't that be considered trying to sabotage the election even though it doesn't fit into your timeframe?

If the polls were sabotaged the night before an election and the polls couldn't be opened on time because of it.....that is interfering with the election.

If the polls were sabotaged the night before an election and the polls opened on time in spite of it.....that is attempting to interfere with the election.....but failing.

I'm not ignoring either sides actions but am admittedly giving more weight to a hostile foreign govern. actions then to actions of our own. Is it a double standard that it bothers me more than what we have done in Chile or Argentina when we tried to influence an election – sure. I view the hacking as closer to Watergate than Jimmy Carter’s grandson taping a Milt Romney speech where he was a bartender. The "election" isn't just what occurred bt the time the polls opened on 11/8 and when they closed.

"No, not necessarily, You can try and fail at something"

Well, if they tried to effect the outcome and failed, then they also failed to interfere. Can you ever just admit a conservative has a point? Russia likely tried to interfere. No evidence they succeeded.

"Donna Brezile deserved to be fired. The question she released was expected but still releasing it was sleazy"

Agreed. But her sleazy actions, I noticed, weren't enough to get her fired as the head of the DNC.

"It is not surprising that Wasserman Shultz favored Hilary as she was a Dem. for a long time vs Bernie "

If Deb wants to personally favor Hilary, that's fine. But she went WAY beyond that, she actively sabotaged Bernie's campaign, and actively colluded with the media to lift up Hilary. Correct?

"Plus Hillary was expected to have a better chance"

That's for the voters to decide in the primaries. The DNC isn't supposed to put their thumbs on the scale. But the existence of the superdelegates, is proof that the DNC isn't interested in democracy, they are interested in nominating who the party leaders want to be nominated, voters be damned.

"was made to drop his pants in public any parent would be upset "

Agreed, I would be upset at that. But I would also be upset that he cheated, and no one at NBC, ABC, or CNN, had much to say about what was in those emails. And CNN actually told viewers not to watch coverage of the emails on other networks. They buried the truth, because it made Hilary look bad. That completely undermines the reason why we have a free press. You know how bad Sean Hannity was in the tank for Trump? That's how bad, almost everyone else was, for her.

"The "election" isn't just what occurred bt the time the polls opened on 11/8 and when they closed. "

Agreed 100%.

If the Dems weren't being so sleazy and underhanded, there would have been no Wikileaks dump.

I have no problem with looking into the leaks. I have issues with the extent to which every network but one, buried the content of the emails.

The election IS the something that occurs over 12 hours on ELECTION Day.

The time prior to that the candidates start running for office is called the Campaign.

It's still not to late to ask Santa for a dictionary for Christmas :hee:I think now that I see your logic I won't be asking for a dictionary



If the polls were sabotaged the night before an election and the polls couldn't be opened on time because of it.....that is interfering with the election.

If the polls were sabotaged the night before an election and the polls opened on time in spite of it.....that is attempting to interfere with the election.....but failing.

So saying the Russians attempted to interfere with the campaign is true but that they didn't attempt to interfere with the election?

I think when most people state that the Russians tried to interfere in the election they know it was not on election day but if you want to use that when you defend the Russians have at it.

Edit - It seems Jim even agrees that election shouldn't be considered only a 12 hour event.

The selling of the Trump WH has begun!

Maybe we can attack TMZ and say they aren't journalists.





One of the biggest questions about the coming presidency of Donald Trump has been how he will address the tension between his public role of the nation’s chief executive and the private interests of the Trump Organization and his family members. And two reports out this week show just how real those tensions are.

The Center for Public Integrity on Monday night published a story demonstrating that a Texas-based non-profit recently formed by Trump’s two adult sons and two associates in Texas is already selling the opportunity to meet with President Trump -- on the day after his inauguration -- for as much as $1 million.

Also on Monday night, the liberal organization ThinkProgress published a report claiming that the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States had been pressured by officials with the Trump Organization to cancel a contract to hold the annual National Day celebration at the Four Seasons Hotel in Georgetown and to move it to the newly opened Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House.

The stories come just days after Eric Trump canceled a controversial online auction in which he was offering the opportunity to have coffee with his sister, Ivanka, to donors willing to make a donation to a charity he sponsors. Ivanka Trump, a close adviser to her father, is expected to play a major behind-the-scenes role in the Trump White House and, like her brothers, is already serving on the presidential transition team that is in charge of filling jobs in the coming administration.

The non-profit formed by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, called the Opening Day Foundation, is sponsoring an event the day after the inauguration next month in Washington. First reported by the website TMZ, the organization is offering sponsorship packages that include the “Bald Eagle” level. For $1 million, sponsors are entitled to a private reception and photo opportunity with the just-inaugurated president, a multi-day hunting or fishing trips with Donald Jr. and Eric Trump, and nearly 100 tickets to the event itself, and other benefits.

A $500,000 “Grizzly Bear” package also comes with a private reception with the president, and an excursion with his sons, and other amenities. Lower tier packages substitute a reception with the president for one with his children.


While the donations to the Opening Day Foundation are said to be going to unspecified conservation-related charities, the money being paid to the Trump International Hotel by the Kuwaiti Embassy for its National Day celebration will be going into the coffers of the Trump Organization, which will remain under Trump family ownership even after Donald Trump takes office as president.

According to ThinkProgress writers Judd Legum and Kira Lerner, “The Kuwaiti embassy, which has regularly held the event at the Four Seasons in Georgetown, abruptly canceled its reservation after members of the Trump Organization pressured the ambassador to hold the event at the hotel owned by the president-elect.” The source spoke to ThinkProgress on condition of anonymity, but according to the report, “ThinkProgress was also able to review documentary evidence confirming the source’s account.”

If confirmed, the story raises not just concerns about the use of political power to drive private gain, but also about whether or not Trump will be in violation of the Constitution once he takes office. The “emoluments clause” in the nation’s founding document bars the president from accepting payment from foreign governments.

what's next....the Lincoln Bedroom????? oh the horror

So saying the Russians attempted to interfere with the campaign is true but that they didn't attempt to interfere with the election?.

Safe to say the Russians attempted to interfere with the Democrat's campaign.

I think when most people state that the Russians tried to interfere in the election they know it was not on election day but if you want to use that when you defend the Russians have at it..

I'm not defending the Russians...I'm defending the English language. How about we actually state what happened properly and then discuss it.

This is how Fake news happens, twisting words to fit the narrative. You know what fake news is....its on the list of reasons why Hillary Lost.

Edit - It seems Jim even agrees that election shouldn't be considered only a 12 hour event.

Jim can think whatever Jim wants to think....doesn't change what I think.

This is how Fake news happensno it isn't. You're the one trying to limit a many month long event to a 12 hour window to fit your narrative., twisting words to fit the narrative:laughs:. You know what fake news is....its on the list of reasons why Hillary Lost.That is exactly what you have been doing. No one else uses the word election in this context to refer to a 12 hour period. The Government doesn't, the press doesn't, only you are doing to fit your narrative. When the govern. refers to the election they never use such a narrow definition unless they are refering to the 12 hour period on election day.



So keep trying to twist the common usuage by taking a narrow definition.

verb (used without object), interfered, interfering.
1.to come into opposition, as one thing with another, especially with the effect of hampering action or procedure (often followed by with):
Constant distractions interfere with work.
2.to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):
to interfere in another's life.

Looks like the Russians, by releasing personal emails that they hacked interfered with the election.

Words have definitions, but they also have connotations. The definitions that you list for interfere can be applied to any political campaign. Campaigns are composed of opposing parties. Everything said in a campaign in order to detract from the opposing party and for the gain of one's own party, could be called interference if you wish to apply interfere as the descriptor. So, Hillary's entire campaign, and everything she said, would therefor be interfering with Trump's campaign, and thereby, as well, interfering in the election or election process.

I doubt that you mean to say that. Maybe you do.

On the other hand, if influence is used as the descriptor, it is quite logical that our election campaigns are about influencing the outcome--ergo about influencing the election not interfering with it.

The difference in connotations makes sense to say "influence" rather than "interfere." The use of interfere connotes more of a use of force or coercion or actual physical action. Influence connotes, in this context, persuasion. Campaigns strive to persuade, not force.

No one here claims it changed election which is the reason I think you guy's anger is so evident.

I have not noticed the anger that you cite here. You have done this several times in other posts. Saying anger exists where it doesn't. If debate is anger, then by participating in the debate makes you angry as well.

So keep trying to twist the common usuage by taking a narrow definition.

like this?

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement…

Safe to say the Russians attempted to interfere with the Democrat's campaign.



I'm not defending the Russians...I'm defending the English language. How about we actually state what happened properly and then discuss it.

This is how Fake news happens, twisting words to fit the narrative. You know what fake news is....its on the list of reasons why Hillary Lost.



Jim can think whatever Jim wants to think....doesn't change what I think.

"Safe to say the Russians attempted to interfere with the Democrat's campaign."

We're all saying the same thing. The Russians likely tried to help tilt things in Trump's favor.

"How about we actually state what happened properly and then discuss it." Now that sounds like a good idea. I have heard many reporters on ABC, NBC, and MSNBC say that the Russians hacked the election, or played a serious role in Trump's win. Zero evidence of that. But even if the polls changed 40 points after the email leaks, the bigger issue isn't how the truth was revealed, but rather the behavior that was revealed. I would say the same thing if it was the Republicans who were being unethical.

"Jim can think whatever Jim wants to think"

I think, that I think, the same thing that you think.

I also think that you were right about Cub Scouts. My first grader loves it more than anything we have ever asked him to try, and he could not look cuter in his uniform. He doesn't believe me about how big the battleships are that we are going to sleep on in the spring. Hoping to take his den ice-fishing this winter.

I also think that you were right about Cub Scouts. My first grader loves it more than anything we have ever asked him to try, and he could not look cuter in his uniform. He doesn't believe me about how big the battleships are that we are going to sleep on in the spring. Hoping to take his den ice-fishing this winter.

Glad he likes it....always had a lot of fun and you guys will build a lot of great memories from it. You get to be a kid again as well... :hee: