The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
sturg33
I
If you have proof they stole data - please let me know.
In the meantime, we do have proof that the DNC is incompetent and corrupt. But let's quickly divert your attention over to RUSSIA!
You don't think NBC and NYT are trying to get one candidate elected?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
What is publicly known is that intelligence community (the FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA, et al) has expressed "high confidence" that the GRU was behind the hacking of the emails.
But you're banging on about the incompetence and corruption of the DNC. I'm just not sure what the relevance of that is.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
I really haven't figured out what way of life we are trying to protect by increasing military spending for no reason while cutting everything else?
A society where you only work to pay for health insurance till you are put in the ground sounds far from great and doesn't sound like it's worth increasing the military budget to protect either.
A society where you only work to pay for health insurance till you are put in the ground sounds far from great and doesn't sound like it's worth increasing the military budget to protect either.
sturg33
I
Sigh.
Because that is the information exposed!
That is what is supposedly "influencing the election"
The information was damning enough to "influence the election"
So why don't we discuss the information?
sturg33
I
I agree. Would be nice to drastically cut the defense budget.
Would have been nice during the Obama years. Good to have the anti-war libs back in the fold for 4-8 years.
So your previous crowing about Manafort, Page, Flynn, etc. in relation to Russia should now be considered as what, exactly, in relationship to your beliefs about this investigation? From what I recall you have been aggressively pushing the Russo-Trump conspiratorial narrative since October, so it comes as a bit of a surprise that you are now quietly conceding that the brouhaha surrounding said figures is more or less tantamount to political tripe.
In the meanwhile, you'll have to excuse me if Russian 'interference' not related to manipulating the vote count (which was expressly denied by Director of the NSA during the hearings today) doesn't exactly trigger much of a response, especially when the extent to which the 'interference' occurred is unknown (and, in all likelihood, menial).
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
So the NSA and FBI directors both just stated in testimony that:
1. Russia sought to undermine confidence and legitimacy of the election.
2. That they did so to hurt Sec Clinton and to
3. Help Trump.
And that means nothing to you, [MENTION=128]sturg33[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7]thethe[/MENTION] ?
1. Russia sought to undermine confidence and legitimacy of the election.
2. That they did so to hurt Sec Clinton and to
3. Help Trump.
And that means nothing to you, [MENTION=128]sturg33[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7]thethe[/MENTION] ?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Is that how it's supposed to work?
We didn't make a profit rebuilding Europe after WWII. Does that mean it wasn't worth it?
Didn't we make a lot on the Marshall plan?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
If you want to bring up my history posting about this, I'd bring up yours, which consistently pooh-poohed any connections at all between Trumpistas and Russia, and in fact Russian involvement in the election. You said more than once that the topic was exhausted. Seems like the confirmation of an ongoing investigation tends to deny that.
I think I'm standing closer to the objectively factual state of play than you are.
I've stated a skepticism that this investigation is going to find a smoking gun. It may or may not. I believed then and now that certain folks--Manafort, Page, Flynn, Stone,et al--have by their actions provided plenty of reasons to investigate. You disagree?
When have I ever said that Russia didn't do these things. I have always said it's far fetched to think it was a massive conspiracy. I think one can easily putt he dots toget her that Russia was involved. Even still I'd love to wee actual evidence as opposed to pronouncements.
Further...can't you substitute nbc and the NYT for 2 and 3 but the converse?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Um, I'm sure that the NYT editorial board preferred HRC. I imagine they endorsed her, huh?
Why is this relevant to a foreign power committing illegal acts to support one candidate over another. Seriously, I don't get it.
This concept of foreign power is to narrow minded if you ask me. There are global entities trying to sway influence. Russia is one. Massive media outlets are others. Large financial houses are examples of others. Do you think that NBC or the NYTs is better because they are "American". Don't don't care about america. They care about power. The same as russia.
This leads me back to my original comment: You are grasping - mightily and obviously - at straws.
If Stone sending a DM to Guccifer 2.0, Flynn/Page corresponding with the Russian ambassador, or Manafort working for Viktor Yanukovych, individually or collectively constitutes the trappings of a criminal conspiratorial enterprise then our respective abilities to interpret 'objectively factual state
Comey mentioned today that this investigation has been underway since July. If the FBI, NSA, or any one of the multitude of government agencies which have been tasked to explore this issue haven't been able to produce a smoking gun - or literally any other form of actionable intelligence/evidence - in the proceeding 9 months then I feel overwhelmingly comfortable saying that the topic indeed has been amply exhausted.
This is, and has always been, a complete sham that is not altogether much different than the Birther Movement.