Putin: "I Wanted Trump To Win"

[PoliTalker]

Hello Lesh,

So you [Darth Omar] accept Russians hacking our election.

I wonder how you'd feel if it had hurt Trump rather than helped him.

No doubt that would make all the difference.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello tsuke,

of course he wanted the one who favors better relations with his country to win.

Everybody desires the best relations with all nations. But when those nations act to undermine our freedom we must take a stand against that.

If you have a neighbor who dumps their garbage on your lawn and you pretend that is OK, have them over for dinner, you are asking for them to keep dumping garbage on your lawn. This makes you a patsy.

I don't want the USA to be a patsy.

It is very disturbing that some Republicans want the USA to be a patsy.

We must question their loyalty.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Trump Diva,

It wasn't compromised and a single vote wasn't tampered with. You're repeating a lie which only dumb people believe.

It was compromised by outside influences swaying how people vote.

Trump said the election was rigged.

He just had it wrong which way.

 

[Stretch]

Hello Stretch,

If an election is compromised, why should we accept it as if it was legit?



There has to be a better way.

Until you can figure one out, take Hillary's advice and "accept the results."

 

[Lesh]

Hello Trump Diva,



It was compromised by outside influences swaying how people vote.

Trump said the election was rigged.

He just had it wrong which way.

Yup

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/07/how-russian-government-used-disinformation

 

[Gotcha68]

If election tampering had helped Hillary win instead of Trump you can bet that "we do it to other countries" crowd would be demanding her head.

 

[tsuke]

The dossier was originated by a Brit, and he was dead nuts accurate.
Nothing in it has been shown to be false yet.
Nothing.

normally you would have to prove an accusation not disprove a negative.

 

[Life is Golden]

Hello Trump Diva,



It was compromised by outside influences swaying how people vote.

Trump said the election was rigged.

He just had it wrong which way.

Prove it. This is comical.

 

[Darth Omar]

normally you would have to prove an accusation not disprove a negative.

Don’t tell him Scientology hasn’t been proven false yet, comrade lol.

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

I’m thinking the *Russian* Dossier didn’t do him any favors.

The Steele dossier was unknown to the public at the time of the election. The "fake news liberal MSM" wouldn't publish it because they had no way of fact-checking it. So it had no effect on Trump.

Why would the Russians put dirt out on Trump while they’re supposedly trying to help him at the same time?

The Russians didn't, if you mean the Kremlin. Steele was in the commercial intelligence business specializing in Russia.
He used his established network of "collectors" to find out what was known or suspected about Trump.

 

[Darth Omar]

A fair election is not compromised by Russian interference bent on getting Trump elected. The polls favored Hillary. Trump won in a surprise outcome. Putin is charged with interfering in favor of Trump.

Nate Silver does not have the final say, nor the power to decide that.

Whataboutism.



And also, we need a method for voiding election results when it becomes apparent the election was compromised.

Apparent to who lol?

Let me see if I got this right: you recognize that no one that should be taken seriously on the issue claims the Russians turned the election. Nate Silver is not a nobody—he’s a serious statistical thinker, and a liberal, who would probably prefer to call the election rigged, but he apparently values his reputation so he doesn’t make the claim.

In spite of this, you advocate negating the election outcome because a sufficient number of people agree with you? Or that your opinion matters so much that it holds more weight than that of 60 million Trump voters and the electoral college?

Which is it?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Trump Diva,

Prove it. This is comical.

I am under no obligation to do something just because you demand it.

And you may think it is more of a suspense thriller, if Mueller proves it.

And remember. If Mueller is not allowed to complete the investigation, that's obstruction, and grounds for impeachment.

 

[Nordberg]

no. Hillary would have us at war in Syria for humanitarian "reasons" just like she did in Libya

I did not know she was president and made those decisions. I am surprised.

 

[dukkha]

I did not know she was president and made those decisions. I am surprised.

then study up! tjhis is from her own Email
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23898
From: Jake Sullivan [mailtc
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 7:40 PM
To: Mills, Cheryl D; Nuland, Victoria
Subject: tick tock on libya
this is basically off the top of my head, with a few consultations of my notes. but it shows S'Clinton leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's libya policy from start to finish.

Secretary Clinton's leadership on Libya HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

Apparent to who lol?

Good question. Certainly a democracy is flawed if the majority of the populace does not believe the elections are fair.

Let me see if I got this right:

Usually, when somebody begins a comment like this it means they are about to form a strawman.

he’s a serious statistical thinker, and a liberal, who would probably prefer to call the election rigged, but he apparently values his reputation so he doesn’t make the claim.

In spite of this, you advocate negating the election outcome because a sufficient number of people agree with you? Or that your opinion matters so much that it holds more weight than that of 60 million Trump voters and the electoral college?

Which is it?

I called it. Straw man.

I never called for negating the 2016 election. I do not expect to make a law which retroactively applies to transpired events.

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.

As far as the 2016 election is concerned, we must complete the process of investigating what happened, to the satisfaction of the American public, and we must take appropriate actions to deal with the outcome of those investigations.

 

[Life is Golden]

Hello Trump Diva,



I am under no obligation to do something just because you demand it.

And you may think it is more of a suspense thriller, if Mueller proves it.

And remember. If Mueller is not allowed to complete the investigation, that's obstruction, and grounds for impeachment.

You made the claim. The onus is on you to prove it.

Of course, I understand why you can't.

 

[Micawber]

And we put Yeltsin in. Point?

Proof.

Arguendo, if you are dealing with a foe, you might do things to him/her/it that you don't want done to you.
"Love and war..." Would a boxing coach tell you not to punch on the principle that you don't want to be punched?

I wonder why America first Tumpkins would care about reciprocity, rule of law and fairness in international relations.
I say this knowing you aren't one of those, having read a few of your posts. So when they play that card in order to defend Trump, I say "huh?"
Sounds like international rules based order aka swampy and neocon-y

 

[Darth Omar]

Hello Darth,



Good question. Certainly a democracy is flawed if the majority of the populace does not believe the elections are fair.



Usually, when somebody begins a comment like this it means they are about to form a strawman.



I called it. Straw man.

I never called for negating the 2016 election. I do not expect to make a law which retroactively applies to transpired events.

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.

As far as the 2016 election is concerned, we must complete the process of investigating what happened, to the satisfaction of the American public, and we must take appropriate actions to deal with the outcome of those investigations.

In a prior post you claimed that a compromised election should require a do-over.

Do I need to copy and paste?

 

[Darth Omar]

The Steele dossier was unknown to the public at the time of the election. The "fake news liberal MSM" wouldn't publish it because they had no way of fact-checking it. So it had no effect on Trump.

The Russians didn't, if you mean the Kremlin. Steele was in the commercial intelligence business specializing in Russia.
He used his established network of "collectors" to find out what was known or suspected about Trump.

The Steele Dossier most certainly affected Trump.

Doesn’t Putin have people killed who act contrary to the Kremlin? Do these Russians in the Steele Dossier have names? Are they still breathing?

 

[dukkha]

The Steele Dossier most certainly affected Trump.

Doesn’t Putin have people killed who act contrary to the Kremlin? Do these Russians in the Steele Dossier have names? Are they still breathing?

Steele dossier was critical to the FISA - which allowed spying on the campaign thru acccess by Carter Page's Emails and electronic correspondence.

we still don't know what the EC says, and we may not ever if the Dems control the House.
They only care about shutting down Nunes,not finding out why informants were run at the Trump campaign
before the July 31, 2016 EC ( founding date) . Why was those earlier actions not part of the investigation? ( they were)