|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
Receiving or soliciting a donation of information of value is flat-out illegal. How about a donation of MONEY?
Hillary's campaign paid (in part) for the Steele dossier. A normal commercial transaction that all campaigns do. Some or all of it coming from foreign entities is no problem. One party gets (presumably) legally collected information and the other party gets money. Nobody's done anyone any favors and Vito is stymied. If only the Steele dossier wouldn't have been full of lies, maybe Hillary would have had something.
The mendacity of the right-wing media is sickening. I've looked at a half-dozen or so web sites and seen several more quoted. All of them say "Hillary did it so nyah nyah nyah!" and none of them mention the fundamental difference. Here's one of them, get your barf bag out.
quote: More here; Democrats are Apoplectic That Trump Would Listen To A Foreigner With Dirt On An Opponent – RedState "Fundamental difference"? Or a liberal dance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
What HIllary did was legal and accepted practice for campaigns. As I explained, it was a straightforward commercial transaction that all campaigns do. Yes, as you said, she paid for the Steele dossier. You put it like this;
quote: So then to answer the Stephanopoulos question properly, Trump should have said, (when asked if he would accept dirt on a political opponent from a foreign entity) "hey, I'd PAY for dirt on a political opponent from a foreign entity", and that would have made all the Democrats happy? No negative reporting on him if he'd said that?
marc9000 writes: But he couldn't prove them. So case closed. Until Congress acts. Yes, the voters are watching, and the majority of them don't like what they see Trump and the Trumpettes doing. Do you think that's why CNN's ratings have dropped 26% so far this year? And Fox's have risen at least 11%?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
Hillary Clinton's campaign had no "foreign dealings" that anyone has ever reported. You have defeated me!! I'm not going to play your dishonest little bait games.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
If a foreign entity called Trump and offered him dirt on a political opponent (which was Stephanopoulos's question), and he accepted (which was Trump's answer), then that's unethical and illegal. If in addition Trump also offered to pay them for it, that's even worse. Trump didn't say "he'd accept", he only said he'd listen, and I think there's a difference. It's a new day in America when a president says he'd respond to something by "listening" to it, and gets wildly attacked by the press. In addition to losing freedom of speech, it looks like freedom to listen could also be coming under attack.
Trump also has this confusion that the nature of the information is a factor. He later modified his answer and said he'd look at the information and if it was bad then he might call the FBI. It doesn't matter if the information was good or bad (what does that even mean?). Accepting information from a foreign entity is illegal. He's still learning, understandably, about the intensity of the hate against him, and how he needs to be on his guard more in quickly answering loaded questions.
Certainly there are many nuances. If a political candidate runs into a Russian embassy official at a state dinner and the official says, "You might want to look into the finances of so-and-so," the candidate should probably steer the conversation to other topics and the FBI should probably be notified, though one could probably argue whether this is serious enough to notify the FBI. Agreed, but it makes one wonder how many dinners Hillary attended when she was Secretary of State, and how many suggestions she had to look into things from heads of socialist and communist nations, who agree with her on many things. How many times she called the FBI about it, and how diligently the news media focused on it.
But if Russians contact you and offer you dirt on a political opponent and you replied, "I love it!" and took the meeting and didn't notify the FBI then you're behaving unethically and possibly criminally. If you meet with a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence and provide them polling data so that they could potentially use (and likely did use) to inform their social media misinformation efforts, then you're again behaving unethically and possibly criminally. It seems to be taken as a given that Russia preferred Trump to be president over Hillary. I've never seen it made very clear, just why a socialist / communist nation like Russia would favor a free market capitalist like Trump over a socialist, big government advocate like Hillary.
For you what seems to matter most is who did it rather than what was done. Unethical and criminal behavior should be condemned no matter who does it. Unless they have a "D" behind their name. All the sensationalism, all the wasted time, all the confusion created by the phony Steele dossier wasn't condemned by the mainstream media to anywhere near the frenzy that two words from Trump; "I'd listen" did.
I was one of the first to insist that Al Franken should resign after information about his sexually questionable conduct became public, so I'm on record as not letting my like/dislike for a person influence me. You're on record as defending those you like no matter what they've done. In fact, you seem incapable of seeing any wrongdoing by someone you like. You could use a little objectivity. "On record"? What record is that? I voted against Mitch McConnel in his last election. I supported the Obama administration action that took out Osama Bin-Laden. Have you ever had anything good to say about Trump at all?
marc9000 writes: Do you think that's why CNN's ratings have dropped 26% so far this year? And Fox's have risen at least 11%? You're judging truth/falsity based upon TV channel ratings? Shouldn't you be judging the evidence on its merits? I'm not using ratings to judge what the truth is or is not, I'm using them to gauge how the general public is likely to vote in the next election.
I expect Fox News ratings to continue strong as long as they continue selling tall tales, conspiracy theories and white supremacy. Compared to all that drama, straight news is boring. Straight news from CNN, white supremacy from Fox News? Okay, not much to discuss there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
I'm again going to suggest that you should focus on facts. If you have factual information about "foreign dealings" of the Clinton campaign then you should describe it. quote:(bolded mine) Christopher Steele’s dossier on Trump and Russia, explained - Vox
quote: Republicans Defend Trump’s Election Interference Comments by … Blaming Hillary Clinton – Rolling Stone But the political masters at Rolling Stone magazine don't say much about our news media full of Democrat lackeys that have always done their best to cover up Hillary's games with foreign entities.
quote: CNN's Chris Cuomo denies Clinton campaign accepted foreign dirt on Trump, says there isn't 'any proof' | Fox News again;
Hillary Clinton's campaign had no "foreign dealings" that anyone has ever reported. I don't understand the purpose of statements like this, and not interested in learning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
Fusion GPS is a US company. But still, retaining a foreign company to do research for a fee is legal. He should have asked if you had any evidence of illegal foreign dealings. Got any evidence of illegality or a coverup? Didn't think so. Here's your evidence, you and Percy have been doing quite a dance to show a huge difference between what Hillary did, and Trump saying he would possibly do, if he was offered information. The following is from this link, that you showed in your Message 2901. Very straightforward, very hard to twist and distort;
quote: Nothing about whether or not the information is paid for, nothing about whether the foreign national is an ally or an enemy, nothing about if it involves solicitations or unsought offers, nothing about a third party being involved. Nothing that shows any difference between what Trump was asked, versus what Hillary actually did.
quote: Evidence? Didn't think so. That quote came from this news source. That's my evidence. Do you have evidence that it's false?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
What about the question made it a loaded question? I answered that in Message 2903.
quote: You really can't learn that it is illegal for a campaign to accept a donation form a foreign entity. In those instances she was not a campaign. I don't see any distinguishable difference in what Hillary's intentions could have been as Secretary of State as she was weighing her options in running for the presidency after Obama was through, versus Trump's intentions for possible re-election during the second year of his presidency.
quote: So what are some details of this "sound intelligence product"? That Russia believes in an unarmed citizenry, and Hillary and the Democrats also believe in and unarmed citizenry? That Russia believes in heavy government involvement in business, that Hillary and the Democrats also believe in heavy government involvement in business? There is so much similarity in Russian communism and U.S. Democrat socialism, when compared with Russian communism versus Trump's beliefs in smaller government involvement with business, Trump's belief in and armed citizenry etc. Is Russia happy that their young people, (those who have internet access) are able to see the U.S. prosperity under Trump, lowest unemployment in 50 years etc., and have them wonder if their country had less government meddling that maybe it could be more prosperous? Wouldn't Russia prefer that U.S. prosperity was stifled with a government that was more like their own?
The reason is obvious. Trump adores ruthless dictators. Is that why he favors smaller government, and armed citizenry, fewer regulations, lower taxes?
For which they are ridiculously unsuited. I see you have no comment on the polls I posted, including one from Fox. Those polls are laughable, I don't care where they come from. I'd bet they don't take the Electoral College into consideration at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
There's no difference. Once you say "I'm listening" you've stated that you're accepting the information provided. Once you've heard the information you can't unhear it. The acceptance of information from foreign agents creates vulnerabilities in the form of blackmail and extortion, and the agents will have hidden agendas. If that were true, then there would have to be laws prohibiting a lot of former cabinet members, including Secretaries of State, from ever running for the presidency. Maybe if Mike Pompeo decides to run in 2024, the Democrats will work to get that done.
If the press criticism was wrong then why was Trump also criticized by Republicans, some of them prominent like Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kennedy (R-LA), and why did Trump later change his answer to say that of course he'd notify the FBI? He didn't "change" his answer, he only expounded on it. There have always been ~business as usual~ Republicans who enjoy playing "moderate" when Trump says some things. Trump isn't focused on only doing things that please Republicans. That's what a lot of voters like about him, myself included.
Because of Trump's proclivity for giving voice to what he believes or wants to be true or what he wants people to believe to be true rather than to what is actually true, in this case what the law actually says (campaign laws and conspiracy laws), every question to Trump is a loaded question or a trap question. For people who don't lie they're just simple questions. Remember those polls that he told Stephanopoulos didn't exist? He just fired people for leaking information about those non-existent polls. Trump lies constantly, so every question is fraught with danger for him because the real world is full of facts that don't lie. Trump is the first person in American political history to give truth to the old joke, "If his lips are moving he's lying." Every single president in recent history is always accused of lying. Lying is always an accusation in discussions between Republicans and Democrats. The big difference today is all the lies that the supposed free press, the ones who are supposed to give unbiased information, are filling the airwaves with. People are getting wise to them - mainly because of the constant stream of lies for the past 2+ years that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election, something that the Mueller report disproved.
You continue to have trouble distinguishing between a government official and a candidate for office. The Secretary of State is not an elected position, and Hillary Clinton was not running for office while she was Secretary of State, resigning in 2013 well before the 2016 election. Do you think there was a chance that she had a run for president in mind for her future? Trump is in the second year of his presidency. Is the second year of a presidency now defined as a "campaign"?
That Russia greatly preferred Trump over Clinton has been proven and verified nine ways from Sunday. Lay it on me, you could start by explaining how Russian society benefits from a Trump presidency more than it would a socialist Democrat presidency. Does Russia want a second amendment now? More free markets? Don't get me wrong, I know this has all been carefully dreamed up. But I suspect it's only really intended to amuse Trump haters, I don't know that it would hold up to some common sense questioning.
marc9000 writes: I voted against Mitch McConnell in his last election. Why? He's doing everything Trump could ask, and you love Trump. That was 2014, Trump didn't have a thing to do with it. I didn't think McConnell's (seemingly forever) Senate leadership represented actual conservatism in how he dealt with the Obama presidency. I voted for Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes - if she'd have won, the Senate would have still had a Republican majority, and it would have had a new leader. Then in 6 years, Grimes could have been beaten by an actual conservative. Grimes wasn't the world's worst liberal, she supported Kentucky's coal industry, and actually invited McConnel to go shooting with her. Not sure what she had in mind, but however that turned out, it would have been a win/win for Kentucky.
I grew up in the New York metropolitan area where Trump was a known scumbag real estate developer from the early 1970's on. If you name some things he's done that you think are good I'll let you know what I think. How about a 3.2 GDP, lowest unemployment in 50 years, 500K new manufacturing jobs? Now I know the early talking point is that all this is due to the actions of Barrack what-magic-wand-do-you-have Obama, but after 2 + years, it's getting a little bit old. Getting taxes and regulations off the back of risk takers and job creators is what makes good economic things happen, everyone knows that, though some still stubbornly refuse to admit it. A "scumbag"? You have an unchangeable personal hatred? He's 73 now, you can't accept that maybe he's learned from a few actions of his past, and just might have a desire to do what's best for the country where his children and grandchildren live? He's recently done charitable things and admirable private things that go completely unreported by the press.
marc9000 writes: Straight news from CNN, white supremacy from Fox News? Okay, not much to discuss there. Tucker Carlson is responsible for the majority of the white supremacy talk on Fox News. Though as he'll tell you, you have to understand that making the point that this is a white country and all the other such points are not white supremacy talk. Glad it wasn't Harris Faulkner, or Charles Payne. Carlson is a very small part of Fox News, and I agree, his talk isn't white supremacy any more than the anti-America talk that comes from all the Hetrophobes at CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. Fox does seem to hire a lot of white people, and the mainstream media seems to hire a lot of hetrophobes. Balance makes the world go round.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
You are terribly confused. At least I'm not frantically piling on - piling on - piling on. I don't have near enough time tonight to sort through all this, including the links, and determine what, if anything, is worth responding to. I'll try to get to it this weekend. But I will touch on one glaring, wide open area tonight, that maybe you could work on filling before this weekend.
That Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign was an unambiguous conclusion of The Mueller Report:
quote: The CIA and FBI reached similar conclusions and have said so publicly. Where have you been? I've seen that very basic claim, and that's all. I've been watching around, (as my time allows) to see some DETAIL on just how Putin and the rest of the Russian politics believes their society would benefit from a Trump presidency over a Hillary presidency. The Russian and U.S. relationship can still be somewhat strained, but it's nowhere near the dangerous level it was during...the Reagan administration for example. So the first question would be, does Putin desire a stronger, or weaker U.S.? He could feel that a stronger U.S. could benefit his economy, with more efficient trading of goods and services etc. as one example. In that case it would be understandable why he preferred Trump over Hillary. Or he could feel that a weaker U.S. would make his country look stronger. In that case, he would have figured, rightly so, that Trump being elected would cause great division in the U.S., as it has, considering close to half the population not accepting his presidency, as has happened. Putin knows the left in the U.S. doesn't think much of the U.S. election process, considering their constant clamoring to eliminate the Electoral College, thereby giving the ghetto voters in L.A., Chicago, and New York total control on who the president would be. If Hillary would have been elected, he knew that even those who opposed her would have accepted her election like normal, mature human beings, and the U.S. would be much more united. I would probably agree that while Putin isn't necessarily an America hater, that he did hope a Trump presidency would weaken the U.S. in some ways. He got what he wanted in many ways - I see just today that some former Obama officials have been taking the side of Iran, in it's disputes with the U.S. and this probably figures greatly in the current tensions. Forbidden Probably no law against that, since they're Democrats. Your Mueller report link isn't specific on just where it says the Russian government "perceived it would benefit" from a Trump presidency. How about the CIA and FBI, did they just say Russia would "benefit" and not go into any detail about just what Russia was seeking? I've seen no discussion of it. I see a few more of your helpers have recently joined in - maybe you could all try to pile on so big that you could then further accuse me of "jumping around" as I try to condense it all this weekend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I quoted the full text of the FEC chair's comments in Message 2898 over a week ago where she spoke of the illegality of accepting foreign help. This refers to things that Trump did, such as meeting with Russians at Trump Tower about dirt on Hillary Clinton, and Trump campaign chair Manafort handing internal Trump polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence to be used in their social media misinformation campaign. It refers to Trump stating that he would listen to help offered by foreigners, then decide on his own whether it was good or bad before deciding whether to inform the FBI. There is, of course, no good or bad when it comes to such information. It's all illegal. Your link in message 2898 is to a Washington Post pay site that I can't access. But it looks to me like you're saying that "it's all illegal", that is, no foreign help period, when it comes to campaigns. Just like the summary statement that I quoted from the FEC chair. If there's something in your link that is a "yes, BUT", then I have to ask you to c/p it here.
It does not refer to the Clinton or Trump campaigns hiring opposition research firms who would obviously have to talk to foreigners in order to do their job, for instance, the Clinton firm talking to Russians and the Trump firm talking to Libyans (think Benghazi). The Trump firm talking to Libyans concerning a past action where Americans were killed, and the Clinton firm talking to Russians to get the Steele dossier, with no real purpose except to get dirt on Trump, form a foreign source. Okay.
What is true is that the Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump, and they in turn hired Daniel Steele to carry out Russian-related research. Steele was not informed who was funding the research, though it seems likely he would have assumed it was the Clinton campaign. His ignorance of who was funding the research doesn't lessen the fact that foreign help was used to obtain dirt that was used in a political campaign. So Clinton ~indirectly~ gets foreign sourced dirt on a political opponent - indirectly because she hired a U.S. firm to do it, and that's okay, but if she'd have directly done it herself, that would have been illegal? So in answer to the Stephanopoulos question, if Trump would have said "I'd hire a U.S. research firm to listen to the information offered to me, and let them relay it to me, that would have been okay?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
You can't tell the difference between donations to a campaign and donations to a charity? Really? You accept the Clinton foundation as being squeaky clean with no suspicions of corruption and fraud?
Does it truly have to be explained that donations to legitimate charities do not flow to the people running them? The Clinton Foundation is a legitimate charity still in operation. Would you like for me to load you up with links on just how legitimate it is?
The Trump Foundation was forced to shut its doors when it was discovered that the Trumps were using it as a personal piggy bank. Need links to the Clinton's piggy bank use of the Clinton Foundation?
Neither Hillary Clinton nor the Democrats advocate an unarmed citizenry. They advocate improved gun control laws, including improved backgrounds checks, registration, licensing and training. If that were true, they could end all the mistrust of themselves by announcing that if they can get one more round of background checks, registration, licensing and training, THEN THEY'D STOP with more calls for gun control in the future. It could be in the form of a new Constitutional amendment. "No more calls for gun control". But they'll never do that. Because they advocate incrementalism .
You have it backwards. It is the Republicans who get in bed with big business and vote them massive benefits from the public troughs. Democrats believe businesses should not be the beneficiaries of government largesse and that regulation should serve to rein in unrestrained capitalism with it's exploitation of workers and the environment. It's true that that happens. But the question is, will it get better, or worse, with a bigger government? The rest of your message is just standard liberal talking points, that have been endlessly discussed by millions of people, I have neither the time nor the interest to get into it further here, but this one sentence is worth addressing;
Trump favors lower taxes on businesses and the rich paid for by the government in the form of much higher deficits, nearly a trillion dollars in additional debt since the Trump tax cuts went into effect. The national debt went up nearly $9 trillion under Obama, almost double what it was, I don't think trying something just a little different is completely uncalled for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
You like that Trump is just out for himself? Why? That's only your statement, anyone can be accused of only being out for himself.
One of the great ironies of the Trump phenomena is that his policies treat his supporters worse than anyone else. This is finally beginning to dawn on some people, farmers suffering due to Trump tariffs, for example. Temporary hardships on farmers, yes that's about the only example you've got. There are countless examples of workers all through the economy who are benefitting from what he's done. I'm sure one of them, that's the reason I have so little time to play here.
Trump isn't just accused of lying, he's been shown to be lying or misleading 10,800 times so far according to the Washington Post. Yes, that's one of the many ways the mainstream media amuses itself and it's base, I know. Guess they didn't gather figures for Obama.
If you find a lie or misrepresentation in the Washington Post database that you think they got wrong, you let us know. My most memorable Trump lie is when he said he had no knowledge of the Cohen payoffs to purchase silence about his affairs, then was caught on tape talking about them, and then watched as his court jester Rudy Giuliani said on TV that of course Trump knew about the payoffs. My most memorable lie of Obama's was "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan." I guess I could spend days looking for ALL the NY Times and WP coverage on that. Probably wouldn't find much.
Trump filed his papers for the 2020 election the day after his inauguration. He's been holding campaign rallies all across the country ever since he took office. He never stopped running. Wow, he'll then have a major monkey off his back if he wins a second term, won't he? No more campaign, he'll be able to listen to foreign governments all he wants without fear of criticism from the news media.
The economy began growing way back in 2010. Obama managed to maintain a growing economy for 6 years. The economy soured late in the Bush administration, and early in the Obama administration largely because of one thing, high oil prices, something practically out of the control of anyone in the U.S. including the president. It began growing in 2010 IN SPITE of Obama, not because of him. He did nothing to incentivize job creation and risk taking, with the possible exception of not completely lowering the boom on business with as crippling of environmental regulations as most of his Democrat allies wanted.
Since when does the truth ever get old? Obama wasn't telling the truth when he was strongly implying that it wouldn't be possible in the future to see the economic activity that we're actually seeing today.
I wasn't expressing any personal feelings toward Trump. I was merely describing him. He's a scumbag real estate developer from New York City who lied and cheated and exploited and discriminated, sort of the definition of a scumbag. You really don't think people can change over a period of decades? I think Trump is proving that he has different motives and goals in mind than he did 30 years ago. The people of West Virginia gave Robert Byrd second chances after his time in the KKK. I've no doubt that Trump has done some sleazy things in his past. But I'm only worried about his leadership qualities NOW, what he'll do for the country now. During the election and at the beginning of his presidency, there was a lot of mistrust of just what Trump was going to do, among many conservatives. Prominent ones, like Mark Levin, or Glenn Beck, and countless voters. Levin and Beck are Trump backers now, and I've seen a change of heart from many of my social media friends. He's proven to be much more than just an arrogant reality tv guy.
Trump's actions indicate he does not care about the country. His family effectively lives in a different country, insulated and isolated from the problems everyone else has to deal with, from salaries too low to afford the rents near where they work, to decaying infrastructure, to poor water quality, to poor air quality, to rising sea levels, to changing and more unpredictable and more violent climatic events. Yes, things Obama came up a little short on. But we saw in the debate a few nights ago what the Democrats all agreed they do to get these problems solved, they'd give free health care to illegal immigrants!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I agree about Marc jumping around. If you'll forgive me for jumping around, I'll forgive you for answering my messages to JonF, as if you are him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Name six. Sorry, only 5. So you defeated me!! I could have won if I had more time. Page not found | IJR
White supremacists hail him as a white supremacist. They should know. Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke declared last year that Carlson is one of “the voices we have in the media on our side.” Ever hear of the Daily Stormer? The most well known neo-Nazi white supremacist site on the Internet? Do they really hail him as a white supremacist, or do they just see him as not being a black supremacist threat to them? With todays burning hatred of Trump, it's going to be interesting in the future to see what the Democrats do with their traditional superiority on opposing "hate" groups.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: I've been watching around, (as my time allows) to see some DETAIL on just how Putin and the rest of the Russian politics believes their society would benefit from a Trump presidency over a Hillary presidency. A somewhat interesting question, but not relevant to the fact that Russia interfered in our election on Trump's side, and will do so again bigger and better in 2020. Sorry, but it's completely relevant, especially if there are going to be discussions about whose fault it is.
quote: Okay, so I'll agree that Russia and Putin wanted trump to be elected, and played on the internet to try to help him. But the FBI, CIA, and NSA don't seem to go any further in explaining WHY they wanted to. The reason they said no more is probably explained in the following paragraphs;
quote: It's understandable, most of what they did is highly classified, if they declassified all of it, it could start a media frenzy and political firestorm that those agencies want no part of. So there are several possibilities of WHY Putin favored Trump over Hillary; 1) Russia hates the U.S. and knew Trump would be worse for its well being than Hillary. If that's true, so far it's not working out for them. 2) Russian watched all the mocking and laughing at Trump during the campaign and knew that the U.S. would be far more divided with him as president than Hillary, because Republicans would behave more like adults and accept her presidency. If that's true, it's working for them very well. 3) Russia doesn't hate the U.S. near as much as it did 30 years ago, and realizes a vibrant U.S. economy benefits the Russian economy, more than a Hillary big-government, big global warming, big environmental presidency would. I could probably think of more, but it doesn't matter. New technology is here, the internet makes the world much smaller. If Russia, or any foreign country uses the internet to meddle in U.S. elections. it's no more the Republicans fault than it is Democrats. AT&T isn't attacked because people are playing with their phones and get into car wrecks. All this implication that it's Republicans fault that Russia meddled in the elections is 100% false. But we also have evidence that Google also meddled in the election in Hillary's favor, possibly more than did Russia in Trump's favor. 96 Percent of My Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Were from Liberal Media Outlets – PJ Media This is a U.S. company, maybe we should take a look at meddling within the borders of the U.S., and not all around the world. The U.S. might be the policeman of the world, but it doesn't own it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024