B-Man Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 V. P. Mike Pence at the White House............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I wasn't responding to a question. I was responding to your statement that the Russians wanted a friendlier president in the White House. You mean you don't think Putin really wants the cyber security coordination? Can't see the collusion forest because the collusion trees are blocking your view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I wasn't responding to a question. I was responding to your statement that the Russians wanted a friendlier president in the White House. Yeah and Putin had some harsh words for Hillary in December of 2011 after he thought her comments about the Russian parliamentary being potentially rigged caused the mass Russian protests. Her reputation as being the most hawkish in the Obama administration is another reason US/Russia relations could have been a disaster under her presidency which is vital especially right now. We'll see what happens with Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Reading the list I can see that Obama continued many Bush policies Which is my point. You're too blinded by partisanship to see the agenda doesn't change on the issues that matter between administrations. That should be very illuminating with regards to how much the political parties matter. They are distractions. Designed to cause tribalism (my team is better than yours) which has metastasized in our current political climate into "trump is a Nazi/Russian plant" and gets you to focus on the noise rather than the signal. It gets you so worked up and enraged you're (the geneal you're not you specifically) too blinded by righteous indignation to look any deeper. The signal is we are all getting screwed by a government that no longer functions as intended. We do not live in a republic, we live in an oligarchy. Changing presidents won't do change that. Focusing on political parties or claiming one side is better than the other won't fix that because they're both the same. The only thing that will fix it is to first realize it's happened and that all this "Obama was better than bush and trump" is meaningless noise designed to placate you. (Again, General you not you specially) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 "Changing presidents won't do change that." Reagan was a billion times better than Carter. Carter was a billion times worse than Nixon. Not much else has made a diff over the last 60 or so years. Same old same old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 "Changing presidents won't do change that." Typing too fast between meetings... embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Yeah and Putin had some harsh words for Hillary in December of 2011 after he thought her comments about the Russian parliamentary being potentially rigged caused the mass Russian protests. Her reputation as being the most hawkish in the Obama administration is another reason US/Russia relations could have been a disaster under her presidency which is vital especially right now. We'll see what happens with Trump. You don't think they are a disaster now? you know the suspicion is that 2018 will see the same attempts to undermine our elections. I know you are not worried, you said so. But I'd say the threat is real and I'd call that sending us down the road towards a disaster. But ok, Hillary is just Devil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Yes, to dampen support for Hillary you complete idiot. Dampen? Like with a cloth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Which is my point. You're too blinded by partisanship to see the agenda doesn't change on the issues that matter between administrations. That should be very illuminating with regards to how much the political parties matter. They are distractions. Designed to cause tribalism (my team is better than yours) which has metastasized in our current political climate into "trump is a Nazi/Russian plant" and gets you to focus on the noise rather than the signal. It gets you so worked up and enraged you're (the geneal you're not you specifically) too blinded by righteous indignation to look any deeper. The signal is we are all getting screwed by a government that no longer functions as intended. We do not live in a republic, we live in an oligarchy. Changing presidents won't do change that. Focusing on political parties or claiming one side is better than the other won't fix that because they're both the same. The only thing that will fix it is to first realize it's happened and that all this "Obama was better than bush and trump" is meaningless noise designed to placate you. (Again, General you not you specially) Have I railed against Republicans or Frump? The latter is the correct answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Here's one of the other issues that no one considers: We're seeing lots of conjecture and narrative that's short of hard evidence - not one damn thing that's been released so far does anything other than reinforce everyone's preconceived notions. And it's being leaked slowly over a long time frame. This sort of slow-rolling of empty innuendo is exactly what you would do if you wanted to weaken the administration and the federal government. Call in to question the administration's credibility, and make the federal government focus on this to the exclusion of other issues. Frankly, anyone who honestly believes the Russians influenced the election should also consider it a strong possibility that the Russians are manipulating this story as well - they derive little benefit from having a "stooge" in the White House, since the president isn't all-powerful, but significantly benefit from being able to weaken the president and distract Congress. I believe there's a lot to this. And I think Don Jr. got played like a fiddle in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Have I railed against Republicans or Frump? The latter is the correct answer. You're missing the point. You have to ask yourself how did Trump (and Bernie) on the other side got such support this election running populist campaigns despite being unconventional candidates? The reason is the US is turning into an oligarchy and people are waking up to that fact. Most politicians give the illusion of fighting for you when they're only enriching themselves on behests of their donors representing large coorporations. Like George Carlin said years ago, "It's a big club and you ain't in it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I've lived through the accusation that Nixon interfered with the end of the Vietnam War by discussions behind the scenes during his 1968 campaign, and that Reagan interfered with the hostages release from Iran during his 1980 campaign. Both were very serious accusations if true, both have never been proven, and it is far more likely that a cease-fire offer was just a gimmick by LBJ to help out Humphrey. Carter couldn't have negotiated anything in a useful fashion. So this isn't even an ant hill to the mountain of serious national interest. But snowflakes gotta snowflake. Carter negotiated the release of the hostages in Tehran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I believe there's a lot to this. And I think Don Jr. got played like a fiddle in that regard. I don't know that there is or not...but you really can't accept one and discount the other if you're a rational human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I don't know that there is or not...but you really can't accept one and discount the other if you're a rational human being. I hear that. It's just interesting that the Russian lawyer lady waited until after Don Jr. equivocated on his original story before speaking up. If she had before he changed his story, it would have been easier to accept. It's also interesting to see all the tapes of Don Jr. and Manafort from last July denying up and down any meetings with Russians, etc. AFTER they both attended this very meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) Have I railed against Republicans or Frump? The latter is the correct answer. And by doing so, you're playing into the partisan game, which only furthers the decline of the political discourse in this country and distracts the majority of people who aren't paying attention to the news outside the headlines. I've said since last year that if there is real evidence presented, I'll happily listen. And I mean it. Despite my out-of-the-box thinking in the Deep State thread, I have said repeatedly in that thread I'm open to new ideas and evidence and willing to admit I'm wrong. But so far, over a year into this investigation/narrative, there hasn't been any evidence of collusion or that the election "meddling" changed a single vote. (Conversely, there's been voluminous evidence proving the thesis of that thread that we are indeed in the middle of a deep state war since January... but I digress.) So if it's not stopping collusion, and if it's not about protecting the integrity of our elections -- what is it really about? Politics. Partisan politics. Mixed with an information war ongoing between oligarchs who are using their political parties and media outlets as their proxies to not just score points on their opponents, but to confuse and mislead the public in general. I'm arguing that by focusing on the noise, you're missing the signal. As Doc said, the signal is that our republic has fallen into an oligarchy. Until we fix that, everything connected to this Russia/Trump story is merely re-arranging the furniture in a burning house and pretending that'll put out the fire. This Russian narrative actively undermines an incoming administration and has undermined the confidence in our election process while those pushing the narrative claim they are trying to protect that very process. It's backwards. Who does that kind of narrative really serve? The oligarchs and industries who see Trump's nationalistic policies as a threat to exposing the whole ballgame. That doesn't mean I believe Trump is a chess master, that doesn't mean I even support the guy. It just means that this narrative stinks to high heaven and under the surface serves several different groups simultaneously - groups that very openly do not give a rat's ass about restoring our republic, protecting our country, or the peoples' interests. So why are you carrying the water for these groups? The only good thing to come out of this election cycle is that people are energized for real change. Now we just have to get people focused on the right issues. And the right issue has nothing - and I mean nothing - to do with Russian election meddling. imo of course. You're missing the point. You have to ask yourself how did Trump (and Bernie) on the other side got such support this election running populist campaigns despite being unconventional candidates? The reason is the US is turning into an oligarchy and people are waking up to that fact. Most politicians give the illusion of fighting for you when they're only enriching themselves on behests of their donors representing large coorporations. Like George Carlin said years ago, "It's a big club and you ain't in it." Edited July 11, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Sometimes it's fun watching Fox News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 11, 2017 Author Share Posted July 11, 2017 Yeah...but it's still 1) consistent with how the Russians operate, and 2) makes the most sense of everything we know. Any time Greg toasts me I get worried about my sanity. But still, every time I think this through, it best connects the bull **** we're hearing. Will you just !@#$ off already? Jesus... It's also consistent with the time it takes to develop sources and get verification on stories. When the pee video gets released, I'll be on your side. The ugly part of this is Baby Trump not disclosing this a long time ago. That's more than incompetence. It's not collusion with Ruskies but it is covering up stuff. Makes you wonder how much more is under wraps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Sometimes it's fun watching Fox News what will it take to keep you from ever posting here again? because, i'd like to make every effort possible to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 It's also consistent with the time it takes to develop sources and get verification on stories. When the pee video gets released, I'll be on your side. The ugly part of this is Baby Trump not disclosing this a long time ago. That's more than incompetence. It's not collusion with Ruskies but it is covering up stuff. Makes you wonder how much more is under wraps. It's not that he didn't disclose it a long time ago so much as he railed and denied any involvement with Russian contacts to no end weeks after the meeting took place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 11, 2017 Author Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) It's not that he didn't disclose it a long time ago so much as he railed and denied any involvement with Russian contacts to no end weeks after the meeting took place. Tree. . . . . . . Apple. Edited July 11, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 It's also consistent with the time it takes to develop sources and get verification on stories. Like any of this ****'s verified or developed. I particularly love the way this story came out over a weekend, and how CNN blatantly and partisanly spun it without even a hint of objectivity. They've raced past Fox's and MSNBC's standards of yellow journalism. The ugly part of this is Baby Trump not disclosing this a long time ago. That's more than incompetence. It's not collusion with Ruskies but it is covering up stuff. Makes you wonder how much more is under wraps. Or it's Hillary Clinton Syndrome: under such constant insipid attack that you cover up everything, thus ensuring you constantly look guilty as ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 It's not that he didn't disclose it a long time ago so much as he railed and denied any involvement with Russian contacts to no end weeks after the meeting took place. so, the trump campaign can't meet with russia to talk about the election or information about the opposition why exactly? and how do we actually know he said he had no involvement with the ussr? what woudl it take to get you to leave, as well? you're useless. at least tiberius was funny for a moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Carter negotiated the release of the hostages in Tehran. You're nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 It's not that he didn't disclose it a long time ago so much as he railed and denied any involvement with Russian contacts to no end weeks after the meeting took place. Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorbait Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 It could very well be that there is nothing there. After all this drip-drip crap maybe the end game is just terrible popularity ratings for Trump and his administration. But if there is something there and it ends in something drastic for Trump, reading all the posts from the deniers will be glorious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 You're nuts. You need history lessons, too. In September of '80, two months before the election, the Iranians called to make a deal. Chiefly, they were after the $12b in frozen assets Carter imposed; they had a war with Iraq to finance at the time. It took several months to complete and the Carter administration took it to the last hours of the night before Reagan's inauguration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 so, the trump campaign can't meet with russia to talk about the election or information about the opposition why exactly? and how do we actually know he said he had no involvement with the ussr? what woudl it take to get you to leave, as well? you're useless. at least tiberius was funny for a moment There are federal laws in place that strictly prohibit the acceptance or solicitation of anything of value from foreign nationals. Not saying that's what occurred or not, but there are rules in place that prohibit certain behaviors and I'll leave it to the legal beagles to parse that but he may have put himself in jeopardy. As for how do we know he said he had no involvement? He stood up in front of the news media last summer and vehemently declared that was the case. Same as Manafort. Media outlets have been showing that the last two days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Frankly, anyone who honestly believes the Russians influenced the election should also consider it a strong possibility that the Russians are manipulating this story as well - they derive little benefit from having a "stooge" in the White House, since the president isn't all-powerful, but significantly benefit from being able to weaken the president and distract Congress. I've been starting to think along these lines the last few days. This could be Russia's way of throwing a monkey wrench into the election. Throw out appearance of impropriety by getting meetings with candidates to throw a collusion cloud over the results of the election. We know what they did with Trump because he won. I wonder if they didn't try to do these same types of things with Hillary that we just don't hear about because she lost? The uranium deal comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 From what we know this isn't collusion, but a case of naivete and idiocy from Donald Jr. Or it's Hillary Clinton Syndrome: under such constant insipid attack that you cover up everything, thus ensuring you constantly look guilty as ****. That is what I believe it to be as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 There are federal laws in place that strictly prohibit the acceptance or solicitation of anything of value from foreign nationals. Not saying that's what occurred or not, but there are rules in place that prohibit certain behaviors and I'll leave it to the legal beagles to parse that but he may have put himself in jeopardy. As for how do we know he said he had no involvement? He stood up in front of the news media last summer and vehemently declared that was the case. Same as Manafort. Media outlets have been showing that the last two days. If anything he said that he didn't meet with any Russian government officials. The media was all up in arms regarding Jeff Sessions secret meetings with the Russian Ambassador too. He met with him at his Senate office on Senate business once where the meeting was recorded and shook hands with him at a reception. It should be obvious with anyone that has a brain that this whole Russian business is totally media driven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 If anything he said that he didn't meet with any Russian government officials. The media was all up in arms regarding Jeff Sessions secret meetings with the Russian Ambassador too. He met with him at his Senate office on Senate business once where the meeting was recorded and shook hands with him at a reception. It should be obvious with anyone that has a brain that this whole Russian business is totally media driven. Did you read the emails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 If anything he said that he didn't meet with any Russian government officials. The media was all up in arms regarding Jeff Sessions secret meetings with the Russian Ambassador too. He met with him at his Senate office on Senate business once where the meeting was recorded and shook hands with him at a reception. It should be obvious with anyone that has a brain that this whole Russian business is totally media driven. Well, some legal experts disagree and I'll leave it at that. His email chain makes it pretty clear what he was after and who he was meeting with after the meeting was brokered by a high-powered Russian with close ties to the Kremlin and the Prosecutor General of Russia whom the lady lawyer worked for previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 **** Tucker Carlson has a story: Russia and Green groups, the real collusion story! Har har Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 So he got baited by someone claiming Hillary had Russian connections. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 It could very well be that there is nothing there. After all this drip-drip crap maybe the end game is just terrible popularity ratings for Trump and his administration. But if there is something there and it ends in something drastic for Trump, reading all the posts from the deniers will be glorious. In other words: the hobbling of an incoming administration (before day one in the office) by a group of unelected folks within the DNC, media, the USIC, and the MiC who didn't agree with the choice the American people made (for differing reasons). That's the real threat to the country. Not this Russian collusion narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorbait Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 In other words: the hobbling of an incoming administration (before day one in the office) by a group of unelected folks within the DNC, media, the USIC, and the MiC who didn't agree with the choice the American people made (for differing reasons). That's the real threat to the country. Not this Russian collusion narrative. I'm too high from inhaling chemtrails to follow this right now sorry. Didn't 70,000 people in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania combined decide the election? That isn't exactly the American people sticking it to the system. Maybe I will agree with this when the investigation is over, you are proven right that there is no collusion and I put on my tinfoil hat again because I feel like big brother is watching me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 In other words: the hobbling of an incoming administration (before day one in the office) by a group of unelected folks within the DNC, media, the USIC, and the MiC who didn't agree with the choice the American people made (for differing reasons). That's the real threat to the country. Not this Russian collusion narrative. How do you explain the fact that THREE leaks for this latest story came from the WH? You think the admistration is hobbling itself? Three different people in the WH gave this story to the times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Here's one of the other issues that no one considers: We're seeing lots of conjecture and narrative that's short of hard evidence - not one damn thing that's been released so far does anything other than reinforce everyone's preconceived notions. And it's being leaked slowly over a long time frame. This sort of slow-rolling of empty innuendo is exactly what you would do if you wanted to weaken the administration and the federal government. Call in to question the administration's credibility, and make the federal government focus on this to the exclusion of other issues. Frankly, anyone who honestly believes the Russians influenced the election should also consider it a strong possibility that the Russians are manipulating this story as well - they derive little benefit from having a "stooge" in the White House, since the president isn't all-powerful, but significantly benefit from being able to weaken the president and distract Congress. I believe there's a lot to this. And I think Don Jr. got played like a fiddle in that regard. It's also consistent with the time it takes to develop sources and get verification on stories. When the pee video gets released, I'll be on your side. The ugly part of this is Baby Trump not disclosing this a long time ago. That's more than incompetence. It's not collusion with Ruskies but it is covering up stuff. Makes you wonder how much more is under wraps. So for any of this to be true (a) Trump and his people couldn't possibly have been colluding with Russia on anything -- because the more important aspect is the manipulation of the story for the purpose of distracting the government from real issues that they should be focusing on, and (b) if the Russians are manipulating the story then whoever's doing the steady and well-timed leaking on their behalf is more guilty of treason than whatever anyone in Trump's campaign allegedly did. ...Unless (a) is actually the Russians capitalizing on the overblown reaction to the election results, which would be pretty deft on their part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fridge Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 So he got baited by someone claiming Hillary had Russian connections. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk If he just reported it and went on his way, that would be a valid argument. Conspiracy to commit election fraud by working with a foreign entity is a crime. It's actually pretty interesting to see all of the backtracking here as if it's still a non-story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts