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.

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.

http://alliantz.com/wp-content/uploa...WORD-MEANS.jpg

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?

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.

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

unpresidented interference :wave:

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

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

probably the Russians

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.” -

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.

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.

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"

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

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

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.

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.


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.

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.

you mean like Sandy Berger?

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?