Umm...are you forgetting the Clinton campaign interacted with the Russians through Steele?
Like I said, the reason we don’t address it is because it falls on deaf ears.
If that were true wouldn’t Trump have been impeached months ago or even last year lol?
Be patient, Darthy. The wheels of justice turn slowly but surely.
You never explicitly mentioned the future but I’ll accept that.
We should learn a lesson from the 2016 election, and we should take steps to ensure that our future elections are not compromised, and that if they are, they can be negated and rescheduled.
You’re still asking for anarchy.
If 2016 is the standard for ‘compromised’ elections, [I didn't say that] where no serious commentators—or even the IC, claims that Russia affected the outcome, then any future election can be overturned for any number of reasons. [You're off into fantasy-land, here]
I linked a poll this morning that showed where 86% of Democrats believe the Russians affected the outcome of the election. [Guess why?] That’s an astounding number. And they have no evidence for it other than their opinions.
Or they can refer to no authority beyond Trump hating talking heads.
Let’s go back in time. Let’s say a sufficient number of people think the 2012 election was ‘compromised’ because Obama wasn’t born in the country. And they move to have the election over turned.
Keep in mind they would need no actual evidence—according to your own standards.
It’s loony.
Hello Darth,
I most certainly did, right here:
What? Did you conveniently block that out when you read it? Or did you totally miss it altogether. Doesn't matter. I said 'future.' You claimed I didn't, but oops there it is just like I said. What else did you get wrong?
I guess we didn't have to look far to see what else you got wrong. I am not asking for anarchy. Never did. Get real. You can't back up that claim with a quote of me asking for anarchy. I cannot be held responsible for your loose interpretations. I know we are both speaking English here, but we actually communicate in different languages. I speak literally, where the words have the same meaning as found in the dictionary. You converse in some kind of innuendo-speak, where all kinds of loose interpretations are possible, depending on who-knows-what. Since the meanings change depending on context it can mean lots of things and becomes too difficult to pin down. That's why I try to avoid that, myself.
There is plenty of evidence. That is why so many people are convinced. If you choose to ignore/disregard the mounting multitudes of evidence, look the other way, give Trump a free pass, that's your decision. The majority of the nation is convinced Russia helped Trump win the election. And hopefully Mueller will prove it and Trump will be ousted.
You cannot provide evidence that majority of main stream media pundits have proclaimed hatred for President Trump. That's propaganda. But they -have- reported on mountains of evidence supporting Russian election help bent on electing Trump. That's real. If you choose to ignore it, that's your choice.
Total straw man. Just like I said. STRAW MAN. You've made up everything you're trying to pin on me. I have not personally defined any such 'standards.' You can't quote me doing so. You made it up, not me.
Loony is a good description for a STRAW MAN argument. But that's what happens when we begin to believe our own BS. I would suggest taking far more care separating facts from fiction. Watching you do this with what I said only further convinces me that my approach to understanding the situation is far more precise than yours. And if that could be extrapolated into suggesting that Trump supporters treat the situation as you do, and Trump critics treat it like I do, then that explains how people can support President Trump despite the mounting evidence that he had help from Russia getting elected, and that he really has no idea what he's doing. He's over his head, screwing up a job that is above his qualifications and ability.
The following article appeared in the Guardian, April 2017. I have posted it on this board before, but no one on the Trump side ever addressed it.
British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia
Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.
<snip>
The Guardian has been told the FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump’s team and Moscow ahead of the US election. This was in part due to US law that prohibits US agencies from examining the private communications of American citizens without warrants. “They are trained not to do this,” the source stressed.
“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’
“The message was: ‘Watch out. There’s something not right here.’”
More:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
It wasn't Obama spying on Trump, or the Steele dossier which came later. It was a situation that had never arisen before - the possibility that a presidential candidate's campaign was collaborating with a hostile foreign power. I don't know if there's fire behind the smoke, but with intelligence like that coming in the FBI had to investigate it.
And we put Yeltsin in. Point?
Let’s start over.
What evidence do you have that Russians affected the outcome of the election? It’s the pertinent question because if the Russians didn’t affect an outcome, their efforts were annoying to us, but altogether in vain on their part.
So let’s see it.
Hello Darth,
Why? Because I've got you backed into a corner? Because I've shown how you have fallen for hopeless straw man propaganda? So you want to check out on that conversation just like you have done previously? Can't stick it out when faced with an adept opposing argument? You want a take-over with a different conversation? The way I see it, that's losing the debate.
Man, if you haven't paid any attention to the mountains of evidence already presented, I can't imagine you would seriously consider any of it now. Just the way you've tried to reset our conversation simply because I've shown your line of thinking is so flawed, suggests you're not going to accept anything which indicates Russia influenced the 2016 election in order to get Trump elected.
Putin himself said he wanted Trump to win. Putin is KGB. KGB people make things happen. They use dirty tactics. That's how they operate. How do you think Putin got to be ruler for life in Russia? That's his KGB ways in action. It only stands to reason he used his tactics to get Trump elected. Any objective mind, upon learning just this much, would be highly suspicious. But you don't have an objective mind. You have a mind bent on supporting Trump and denying anything which even hints at his impropriety.
I come here to understand why people think what they do. I believe I have determined rather accurately how you can continue to support Trump. You block out anything negative about him and instead focus only on what you see as positive. I've challenge you previously which resulted in you ending the conversation because no matter what you said I had a convincing argument otherwise. If you want to block me out, even place me on Ignore, I will certainly understand why. I say things you don't want to hear. I voice the truth you are trying so hard to ignore.
I am not trying to be mean or disrespectful. We simply believe very differently, and my thought process is as logical to me as yours appears to be flawed. You are entitled to believe whatever you wish. That's your right. I think I understand more accurately why you believe what you do than you understand why I believe what I do. Just all the straw man things you make up about my positions shows that much. I don't have to make up straw man arguments. You give me plenty to go on. I am beyond that. If you ever catch me making up a straw man, please point it out. I would want to know so I can try to avoid it going forward. Self improvement begins with admitting mistakes. But I don't see you doing that. You want to 'start over.'
Donald Trump was a bad choice for the job, plain and simple. He was regarded as an impulsive kook by most of America until he did that TV reality show. That's a strange effect, but there is something about seeing a familiar face on TV regularly. People are prepared to give a TV personality all kinds of benefit of the doubt. A TV personality can act like a real jerk in reality, but people will look the other way and continue to support that TV personality just because they are on TV. Look at Cosby. Look at Barr. I heard Jackie Gleason was a real jerk, too. I don't watch TV. I didn't fall for it. To me, Trump is the same kook he always was, making the same kind of outlandish statements he always did. The only difference is now people want to believe in him because he was on TV.
If Donald Trump never did 'The Apprentice,' He would not be president right now.
I hear Mullet will be investigating Trump’s junk food diet next lol.
All of that posturing and no evidence lol. I’ll quote you verbatim this time:
“It only stands to reason he used his tactics to get Trump elected.”
The people who voted for Trump got Trump elected.
Why is it even Mullet won’t go as far as to claim that the Russians are responsible electing Trump?
Because it takes evidence to make that claim.
Basically, you make a logical error with Putin. Ok, let’s stipulate that ‘Putin wanted Trump to win’.
How many things do you think that could mean? Let’s go through them.
A) Putin didn’t like Hillary and/or didn’t think he could manipulate her
B) Putin thought he could manipulate Trump
C) Putin has something on Trump so Putin would be in a position to influence policy if Trump won
C is the crowd favorite on the Left lol. But look at what’s happened. Trump is arming the Ukrainians. Trump’s policy has made us energy independent. He castigated Germany for getting their natural gas from Russia. Trump tore up the Iran Treaty. He’s sanctioned Russia. He’s even done something no other president in the past decades has done—Trump has killed Russian mercenaries in Syria with bombs.
Stop me when I get to something Putin should be pleased with.
You get the idea. Perhaps you should step back and ask yourself why you believe what you believe.
Hello Darth,
And some of them were influenced by Russian social media disinformation campaigns. Other Americans tried to vote for Hillary but learned their names had been removed from voter roles by draconian Republican voter restriction laws.
Special Investigator Mueller has not concluded his investigations. You show obvious bias by slandering his name.
You don't know that Mueller doesn't have any evidence.
We don't have to stipulate anything. Putin said he wanted Trump to win.
I believe what I do because I believe the main stream media is not our enemy. Propaganda is. Strictly Trump-loyal media is the enemy of the people. Our republic requires multiple sources of information. It is dangerous to our democracy to limit the power of the free press. The President must be subjected to fair criticism.
Reasonable suspicion exists that President Trump coordinated with Russian efforts to win the election. We have a fair and official investigation digging into that right now. That investigation needs to be allowed to complete it's process. If President Trump is not guilty he needs to allow that investigation to prove it. He is acting very guilty by calling for an end to the investigation. He is acting very guilty by disparaging Mueller and the legal investigation. He is setting himself up at odds with the law of the land. That is not a good position to be in.
All of that posturing and no evidence lol. I’ll quote you verbatim this time:
“It only stands to reason he used his tactics to get Trump elected.”
The people who voted for Trump got Trump elected. Why is it even Mullet won’t go as far as to claim that the Russians are responsible electing Trump?
Because it takes evidence to make that claim.
Basically, you make a logical error with Putin. Ok, let’s stipulate that ‘Putin wanted Trump to win’.
How many things do you think that could mean? Let’s go through them.
A) Putin didn’t like Hillary and/or didn’t think he could manipulate her
B) Putin thought he could manipulate Trump
C) Putin has something on Trump so Putin would be in a position to influence policy if Trump won
C is the crowd favorite on the Left lol. But look at what’s happened. Trump is arming the Ukrainians. Trump’s policy has made us energy independent. He castigated Germany for getting their natural gas from Russia. Trump tore up the Iran Treaty. He’s sanctioned Russia. He’s even done something no other president in the past decades has done—Trump has killed Russian mercenaries in Syria with bombs.
Stop me when I get to something Putin should be pleased with.
You get the idea. Perhaps you should step back and ask yourself why you believe what you believe.
Yes...Putin admitted he wanted Trump to win in Helsinki, and there have been indictments of his people who put efforts into that desire.
So what were you saying?
I went to some length to give some options for why Putin would support Trump in the election [do you always believe Putin, btw lol?] and you didn’t say you liked A, B or C.
Might I suggest you assume it’s C because that’s all the media has harped on for over 2 years?
‘A’ was that Putin simply didn’t care for Hillary—that’s certainly plausible lol.
‘B’ was that Putin was led to believe he could manipulate Trump based on some of Trump’s pre-election rhetoric. If so, Trump punked Putin into helping him beat Hillary. I say ‘helping to beat Hillary’ for the sake of discussion since no one has any evidence that Putin was a measurable factor in the election—just a lot of baseless speculation. Essentially, just a bunch of Alex Jones stuff.
‘C’ was the crowd favorite on the left: Putin helped Trump because Putin HAS something on Trump. Except no one has the foggiest idea of what that ‘something’ is.
So, is it A, B or C? Pick one and tell the class why you believe it.
Hello Darth,
You're trying to control the conversation. I'll address your points if you address mine.
I believe Putin wanted Trump to win for a combination of reasons. Like so many things the reality is more complicated than a simple sound byte.
Putin and Clinton are well acquainted. Putin already understood that Hillary is quite intelligent, ready and able to put America first. She already came down on his case as Sec of State. He already knew she was going to rightly take a hard line against his advances. He knew she was not going to let him get away with anything. Putin knew a lot about Trump also, (from his KGB.) Putin calculated that he could get better treatment from Trump than he knew he would get from Clinton. He knew that Clinton is smarter than Trump. He wanted the dumber of the two.
Now, when are you going to drop your bias and look at the Special Investigation with a fair mind? (never, I presume.) That begins with recognizing Robert Mueller's actual name and giving his function the respect it deserves. He is serving our country. We are lucky to have him doing that. He is part of our system of checks and balances which prevent us from having a dictatorship. Anyone who does not recognize that is not looking at the situation realistically. You can't just wish this away. Mueller has a function. He is doing it quite well. He needs to complete his work to the satisfaction of the American people. The President is out of line to call for that investigation to be ended prior to it's completion.
Hello Darth,
You're trying to control the conversation. I'll address your points if you address mine.
I’m not going to parrot the media accolades of Mullet—because he has so few of them lol. I posted a piece on Mullet from HuffPo on another thread. Do you recall hating Mullet for taking part in the deceptions which led to the Iraq war? How do you know he’s not taking part in another deception?
I’ve already gone over the damage Trump has done to Putin and you just ignore it. Face it: it just doesn’t square with the theory that Putin has something on Trump.
And if Putin was helping Trump over Hillary, he miscalculated.
Hello Darth,
OK, this isn't working very well. I am acknowledging your points, but you aren't even addressing mine. So, I take it, your prefer the dysfunctional type of conversation where both parties talk AT one another? Where neither party even pretends to act like the other person even said anything? If that is the only way you will discuss this, then I could really say anything. It wouldn't matter. Even if I made a good point, you would not even stop to think about it, much less comment on your take on it.
You have no problem if I want to talk about your points, but you have no intention to talk about mine. Got it.
OK, well, if it doesn't really matter what I say, then my response to your last is that the moon is pale.
Because the moon is pale, that proves the President is dirty; he's lying and should be impeached.
OK. Your turn.
Ok, what would Trump have to do to Putin that would convince you that Trump isn’t under Putin’s thumb?