(05-15-2017, 01:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Really? You're seriously going to sit here and say, paraphrasing here, no big deal because turn about is fair play? And how are we hypocrites? Point to anyone crying foul that has supported or advocated any activities in foreign elections by our government. Also, when was our government caught donating? Was unaware of this, so source please.
But one last thing, a question, yes or no answer: Are you comfortable with a foreign actor potentially altering, directly or indirectly, the results of our elections through their actions, either directly or indirectly?
You question has already been answered. If it means defending Trump and the GOP then 100% yes. Party over country is not a myth.
(05-15-2017, 12:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: I agree that we should not drop to the level of our enemies.
I disagree that because of our interference we should ignore the smoke that is rising from the Trump campaign and administration.
What do I read here so often? If you have nothing to hide just do what you're told and let the court sort it out.
Never said we shouldn't try to contain it. Just said that we need to be aware of it.
Hell we're "interfering" with the Dutch election right now. So is Russia.
(05-15-2017, 01:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Really? You're seriously going to sit here and say, paraphrasing here, no big deal because turn about is fair play? And how are we hypocrites? Point to anyone crying foul that has supported or advocated any activities in foreign elections by our government. Also, when was our government caught donating? Was unaware of this, so source please.
But one last thing, a question, yes or no answer: Are you comfortable with a foreign actor potentially altering, directly or indirectly, the results of our elections through their actions, either directly or indirectly?
That's right, Turn about is fair play. Never said I like it, but that's the way it goes.
Because Trump was not involved and Hillary was, it's only natural for Putin to favor Trump.
The Anti-Putin protests were partially funded by the US and Hillary herself told the People of Russia to protest against Putin.
Putin thinks the U.S. already did it to him first
As far as Putin and his inner circle are concerned, it was the United States that moved first to meddle in Russian politics when Putin decided to return for a third term. In 2011-’12, Russian demonstrators took to the streets to protest electoral violations in the parliamentary elections and the lack of alternative candidates to Putin in the presidential election. Putin and his inner circle believed the U.S. was to blame. Putin even asserted that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had either incited or directly financed the demonstrations.
So one of Putin’s primary objectives is to force Western leaders to back off in order to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Putin wants the United States and other Western governments to stop funding, as part of their foreign policies, organizations that promote political and economic transformations in Russia. He also wants to block U.S. officials from meeting with opposition figures and parties. From Putin’s perspective, democracy promotion is just a cover for regime change.
Putin thinks the U.S. already did it to him first
As far as Putin and his inner circle are concerned, it was the United States that moved first to meddle in Russian politics when Putin decided to return for a third term. In 2011-’12, Russian demonstrators took to the streets to protest electoral violations in the parliamentary elections and the lack of alternative candidates to Putin in the presidential election. Putin and his inner circle believed the U.S. was to blame. Putin even asserted that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had either incited or directly financed the demonstrations.
So one of Putin’s primary objectives is to force Western leaders to back off in order to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Putin wants the United States and other Western governments to stop funding, as part of their foreign policies, organizations that promote political and economic transformations in Russia. He also wants to block U.S. officials from meeting with opposition figures and parties. From Putin’s perspective, democracy promotion is just a cover for regime change.
I've actually laid all of this out before, you're not providing anything new. This is why Putin hates Clinton, but that doesn't provide any evidence that the US actually did get involved in that election. There was evidence of shady business at the polls, and the Russian people were documenting it and sharing it on social media. This was nothing new in Russia, but they were able to share it far and wide and it caused a stir. Putin thinks the US, and Clinton herself, was behind it. But you're not providing any evidence it occurred. That is what I was asking for. But what you have presented here is a portion of what I have heard McFaul discuss on the subject.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Putin thinks the U.S. already did it to him first
As far as Putin and his inner circle are concerned, it was the United States that moved first to meddle in Russian politics when Putin decided to return for a third term. In 2011-’12, Russian demonstrators took to the streets to protest electoral violations in the parliamentary elections and the lack of alternative candidates to Putin in the presidential election. Putin and his inner circle believed the U.S. was to blame. Putin even asserted that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had either incited or directly financed the demonstrations.
So one of Putin’s primary objectives is to force Western leaders to back off in order to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Putin wants the United States and other Western governments to stop funding, as part of their foreign policies, organizations that promote political and economic transformations in Russia. He also wants to block U.S. officials from meeting with opposition figures and parties. From Putin’s perspective, democracy promotion is just a cover for regime change.
One of the 'memory-jogging' bits of info is Putin's history with the KGB, and the history of the KGB's activities into our elections dating back to the cold war. The 'who did it first or most' is almost moot considering this has occurred longer than most of us have been alive.
Some say you can place your ear next to his, and hear the ocean ....
(05-16-2017, 03:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Wow. I truly do not know what to say to this. That is, just, wow. I mean, especially if this is the answer to my question.
I've actually laid all of this out before, you're not providing anything new. This is why Putin hates Clinton, but that doesn't provide any evidence that the US actually did get involved in that election. There was evidence of shady business at the polls, and the Russian people were documenting it and sharing it on social media. This was nothing new in Russia, but they were able to share it far and wide and it caused a stir. Putin thinks the US, and Clinton herself, was behind it. But you're not providing any evidence it occurred. That is what I was asking for. But what you have presented here is a portion of what I have heard McFaul discuss on the subject.
What exactly has the Russians done that is considered interfering in our most recent elections?
Quotes don't count and it has to be proven.
(05-16-2017, 03:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What exactly has the Russians done that is considered interfering in our most recent elections?
Quotes don't count and it has to be proven.
Ah, so I take it that you have nothing. At least on the side of Russian interference there is the entire IC, on the side of your claim is "Putin thinks it happened."
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Quote:What would it take for Republican politicians to finally turn on Trump? What would it take for Republican politicians to finally turn on, or even gently criticize, the current president?
For context, here’s an example of righteous fury one Republican congressman levied at President Trump’s predecessor,
Barack Obama.
“There’s no way any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday,” said Peter King (R-N.Y.).
The unforgivable sin that triggered this rebuke?
Wearing a tan suit.
Other unacceptable scandals of the Obama administration vociferously condemned by right-wing politicians and pundits: asking for mustard on a burger, putting his feet on his desk, standing under an umbrella held by a Marine, playing too much golf.
By contrast, here are some of the actions Trump has undertaken that have not caused most Republican officials to abandon their support, or even offer especially sharp criticism (if any criticism at all): multiple attempts at a Muslim ban, boasts about sexual assault, mocking people with disabilities, attacking a Gold Star family, making baseless claims that Obama wiretapped him, making baseless claims that 3 million people voted illegally, comparing the intelligence community to Nazis, firing the FBI director investigating his campaign, betraying a critical ally by sharing highly classified information with the Russians. For comparison here’s tan-suit-loathing King’s reaction to Trump’s firing of FBI Director Jim B. Comey: “I can see why the President feels [Comey] came across as self-serving.” Dozens moreRepublican legislators said the action was appropriate, correct, even inevitable.
On the sharing of highly classified intel with the Russians, some Republican politicians have requested briefings or transcripts, but many have remained mum. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) today told reporters he did not have concerns about Trump’s ability to properly handle classified information and that he had not lost confidence in Trump. McConnell instead merely bemoaned that the “drama” from the White House was distracting from the Republican agenda.
So what would convince Republicans to stop circling the wagons? What would lead them to declare that some Trumpian transgression was comparable to, say, the horrors of a tan suit?
Maybe he’d have to shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue. But more likely, one of these conditions would also have to be met:
1. Trump’s approval rating plumbs depths so low, and association with him becomes so toxic, that he begins to drag down the rest of his party and costs Republicans elections around the country.
Trump’s approval rating is indeed very low — 38 percent according to Gallup, a record low for this early in a presidency.
But still perhaps not quite low enough for most of his fellow Republicans to feel they’re in imminent danger. Yet. Sources have told me that some in House leadership have begun to worry about holding onto their majority in 2018, something that was already a risk even without the unique wild card that is Trump (given the track records for previous midterms immediately following the election of a new president).
As my colleague David Weigel writes, the outcomes of three upcoming special elections for congressional seats may well serve as a bellwether. If Republicans are able to pull those off, that may embolden them to stand by their man.
2. Tax cuts and/or other major items on the Republican agenda are finally achieved, or have been decisively proven to be hopeless.
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) appears to be holding his nose because he believes his great dream of tax cuts for the rich, and the dismantling of the social welfare state for the non-rich, is finally within reach. Turning on the president when the Republicans finally have unified control of government would cause even more chaos and jeopardize those dreams.
However, the drawn-out fight over repealing Obamacare — which is a key step in achieving massive tax cuts, thanks to arcane Senate budget rules — is already jeopardizing those dreams. So is the Trump administration’s obvious confusion about what it wants to do on either health care or taxes. Which could either mean that congressional Republicans give up and decide it’s time to cut bait (unlikely), or that they keep indefinitely delaying and delaying and delaying their decision to dump Trump, regardless of the mounting threat he presents to national security (more likely).
That latter outcome frightens me greatly. And it’s why, despite my public contempt for the Republican tax and health-care plans, there’s a teeny part of me that almost wants some part of this contemptible agenda to be passed and in the rearview mirror so Ryan et al. will finally feel liberated enough to criticize Trump — maybe even move to remove him from office.
But probably I’m too optimistic about the prospects for spine regeneration.
3. Republicans grow consciences and decide to put country before party, or even fiscal agenda, because they realize this president should not have continued access to the nuclear codes.
Yeah, that ship has probably sailed.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(05-16-2017, 08:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ah, so I take it that you have nothing. At least on the side of Russian interference there is the entire IC, on the side of your claim is "Putin thinks it happened."
I guess the Good Old American's (like Bill Clinton) never spent a penny or lifted a finger to help Boris Yeltsin defeat Zyuganov.
Yeltsin has been accused of stealing the election, much like Trump has been accused of stealing the US election.
Maybe that explains the hatred the Russians have of the Democrats.
(05-17-2017, 03:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I guess the Good Old American's (like Bill Clinton) never spent a penny or lifted a finger to help Boris Yeltsin defeat Zyuganov.
Yeltsin has been accused of stealing the election, much like Trump has been accused of stealing the US election.
Maybe that explains the hatred the Russians have of the Democrats.
I'm not disputing any of that, but it still does not prove the claim you made.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-17-2017, 04:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not disputing any of that, but it still does not prove the claim you made.
What I provided was that we have interfered in their elections, whether Putin thinks it or knows it is beside the point. You and I as Human beings know that the Left doesn't like Putin so it would be logical that they would somehow meddle into his re-election bid. You can deny it, that's fine, but I'm a little bit more of a realist to understand that we will mettle where ever it suits the current administration.
You're the one that can't seem to understand turnabout is fair play.
And we have no idea who started it first, but it just keeps on going and going. So there is that.
IF the IC report is so damning, then why didn't Obama step in while he had a chance?
Because
A) He thought Hillary would win anyways
B) He thought Hillary would win anyways
C) He thought Hillary would win anyways
D) Not enough there to really make much of a case against Russian interference in the elections.
Not a Republican or Democrat, but I am going to plop this down right here...
...of course the Republicans were also praising the shit out of Comey after he reopened the investigation of Hillary. So basically everyone is a bunch of hypocritical political jerkoffs whose opinion of the man is directly related to reflecting and advancing their own goals at the time.
(05-19-2017, 06:06 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What I provided was that we have interfered in their elections, whether Putin thinks it or knows it is beside the point. You and I as Human beings know that the Left doesn't like Putin so it would be logical that they would somehow meddle into his re-election bid. You can deny it, that's fine, but I'm a little bit more of a realist to understand that we will mettle where ever it suits the current administration.
You're the one that can't seem to understand turnabout is fair play.
And we have no idea who started it first, but it just keeps on going and going. So there is that.
IF the IC report is so damning, then why didn't Obama step in while he had a chance?
Because
A) He thought Hillary would win anyways
B) He thought Hillary would win anyways
C) He thought Hillary would win anyways
D) Not enough there to really make much of a case against Russian interference in the elections.
I applaud your efforts, here, and accept them as an admission that you were talking out of your ass. Keep on building that strawman.
And what was that thing about Obama and expelling Russian diplomats that I seem to remember? There was enough evidence for the entire IC to acknowledge interference. But, therr is not enough evidence to say it had a deciding impact and there was not evidence at that time of collusion between Americans and the Russian state. Because of that, the appropriate, measured actions were taken by Obama.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-19-2017, 06:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I applaud your efforts, here, and accept them as an admission that you were talking out of your ass. Keep on building that strawman.
And what was that thing about Obama and expelling Russian diplomats that I seem to remember? There was enough evidence for the entire IC to acknowledge interference. But, therr is not enough evidence to say it had a deciding impact and there was not evidence at that time of collusion between Americans and the Russian state. Because of that, the appropriate, measured actions were taken by Obama.
Oh jeez, he expelled them AFTER Trump won the GE.
We don't know if he would have or not if Hillary had won the GE. I'm gonna go with would not have done a thing.
The time to have expelled them would've been before the GE was over, so he could try to eliminate the interference, doing so after the GE is over and his side lost, reeks of Retaliation.
(05-13-2017, 08:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: A. Provide me with a list of those that have been fired to date
B. I really couldn't give a raw number as I would have to consider each individual firing on its own merit. I know that's not the rational way to do it; but it's how I roll.
Actually I'd say that *is* the rational way to do it. One firing should be enough, if the context is bad enough. And it looks a lot like this one is. Trump is looking shadier by the minute and you don't have to carry his water. That's the thing I'm wondering -- why stand-up for a guy who seems intent on imploding? The special prosecutor might not come up with anything and you still know Trump will cause other, totally new crises if this one doesn't do him in. But conservatives seem intent on going down with the ship either because A) They really don't have the whole story or B) They're so angry and partisan they can't stop themselves.
(05-19-2017, 06:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh jeez, he expelled them AFTER Trump won the GE.
We don't know if he would have or not if Hillary had won the GE. I'm gonna go with would not have done a thing.
The time to have expelled them would've been before the GE was over, so he could try to eliminate the interference, doing so after the GE is over and his side lost, reeks of Retaliation.
Foreign policy, well, any public policy, is not best done in knee jerk reactions. The expulsions would not have stopped the interference, anyway. Taking action earlier would have had more influence on the election.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-13-2017, 01:30 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: How many more people have to be fired by Trump, who are tasked with investigating Trump, will it take to make you feel concerned?
Just wondering how many more heads need to roll for/if/when the reality sets in?
Clean the swamp, took him long enough to fire the inept Comey. Should of fired him day one.
There is no Russia cover-up, the media and the dems have been lying about this forever and have found nothing.
Feinstein the gargoyle just said there is no proof the other day herself, they have rumors from the media though.
The media makes up shit, says its the truth and idiots believe it.
Quote:Why Does Obama Keep Bowing?
By Bradley A. Blakeman Published November 16, 2009 Fox News
There he goes again. The president, when he met the emperor and empress of Japan in Tokyo on Saturday gave the typical deep bow expected from subjects not peers.
You would think the president would have learned his lesson when he caught such wrath for "bowing" to the King of Saudi Arabia earlier this year. American presidents do not bow to anyone. They do not bow to heads of state, monarchs, potentates, popes or any other mere mortal.
When President Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia earlier this year the White House rushed to spin it away. They claimed that it was not a "bow" at all. The White House stated that the president was “stooping” to look the feeble king in the eye while shaking hands. Well, you can fool some of the people some of the time. The pictures and the video said it all. -- Obama bowed to the Saudi king.
The White House's take on the president’s latest “bow-movement” is that, while it was a bow, it was done pursuant to protocol. That is an outright lie. There is no such "protocol" for a president of the United States to bow to anyone for any reason.
I have been to Japan numerous times with a vice president and president of the United States and never once did they bow to the emperor and nor were they told to do so. -- Leaders shake hands while looking each other in the eye with a warm smile. That is the proper protocol.
Why is this so important? Why should it matter?
Words and deeds are ways in which foreign governments size up their friends and their enemies. Obama’s silent bow is yet another way of apologizing for America’s misperceived arrogance and superiority. Our president has found yet another way to pander and apologize without ever uttering a single word.
America has nothing to apologize for. We are the most generous, compassionate nation on the planet. We are willing to sacrifice our people and treasure to come to the aid of those oppressed or in need. We have crossed oceans to free Continents from brutal dictators. We are the first to respond to disasters that befall our friends and allies or for that matter, our enemies too. We have sent millions of dollars in humanitarian aid for the people of North Korea in spite of the unlawful actions of a rogue regime that calls for our destruction.
When we have fought on foreign soil we never did it to stake a claim to more land for our country. We fought for principle. The only foreign land we took as our own was land that was needed to bury our fallen.
When the president bows to heads of state, various representatives of foreign governments or any other “leader” he sends a message that America is weak and subservient.
Either President Obama does not understand or he does not appreciate what exactly he represents by these wrongful misplaced gestures of “respect.” Or maybe he does and he simply does not care.
America at this time in world history is a great power that commands respect. We are the last best hope for a more peaceful and democratic world.
Our leaders do not bow out of arrogance -- we do not bow because as a free and democratic nation we do not dip our flag or bow our head to any other for any reason.
The fact that a president of the United States does not appreciate this most basic of all protocols is very troubling. It reminds me of his initial refusal to wear a flag pin as a candidate for president and his unwillingness to put his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem.
Why is he so ashamed of the country he now leads?
And lest you think FOX has forgotten!
FOX says not bowing is better...although I don't think they mentioned the curtsy.
Quote:Trump shakes hands with Saudi leader, doesn't bow as Obama appeared to do
Published May 20, 2017 Fox News
President Trump upon arriving in Saudi Arabia on Saturday did not bow to the Gulf leader as former President Barack Obama appeared to do -- a move interpreted as American weakness.
In 2009, Obama appeared to bow to then-Saudi leader King Abdullah at a G-20 summit in London.
Videos show Obama bending at the waist toward the king. The White House at the time purportedly denied that the president had bowed, with a source saying Obama was taller than the king, so he had to lean.
Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia marks the start to his nine-day, overseas tour that will also take him to Israel and Europe. The international trip is Trump’s first since taking office in January.
Trump was greeted at the Saudi airport with an elaborate ceremony, punctuated by a military flyover and a handshake from Saudi King Salman.
First lady Melania Trump wore a black pantsuit with a golden belt and did not cover her head for the arrival, consistent with custom for foreign dignitaries visiting Saudi Arabia.
The 81-year-old King Salman greeted Trump at the airport. The two leaders exchanged pleasantries and Trump said it was "a great honor" to be there.
“Two things need to happen,” Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told Fox News on Saturday about Trump’s trip. “President Trump needs to shore up our alliance with the Sunnis who feel abandon, and that starts with Saudi Arabia. And in the short-term, he needs to create a coalition that will decimate and defeat ISIS.”
Obama critics said the former president suggested several times in 2009, just after getting elected, that the United States owed the Arab world an apology.
“There have been times when America has shown arrogance … even dismissiveness,” Obama said that year in France.
Upon Trump’s arrival Saturday, Several jets then flew overhead leaving a red, white and blue trail.
Saudi Arabia offered Trump the elaborate welcome ahead of his two-day stay. Billboards featuring images of Trump and the king dotted the highways of Riyadh, emblazoned with the motto "Together we prevail."
Trump's luxury hotel was bathed in red, white and blue lights and, at times, an image of the president's face.
Trump and the king met briefly in the airport terminal for a coffee ceremony before the president headed to his hotel before the day's other meetings.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 6QSgU8D.gif?1]](https://i.imgur.com/6QSgU8D.gif?1)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
