US Senator colludes with Soviet Union

C

canceled.2021.3

Former Vice President
Yes, ladies and gentleman. Chappaquidick Teddy tried to collude with the former Soviet Union to interfere in a Presidential election. It's all true. There is verifiable proof from memos of KGP agents. Where is the liberal outrage? Where is the condemnation? Where are the investigations? Why is Teddy Kennedy still lionized? Yes, he is called "The Lion of the Senate"

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2015/03/did_ted_kennedy_seek_soviets_h.html

I am going to suspend thread ban rules because I really want to see libtards try to defend this given their outright hysteria the last five months.

This is your chance libbies. No APP. No thread bans except of course the real retards of JPP.

Bring it on bitches. Show me what you got
 
"Kennedy's message was simple," former Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson wrote in Forbes in 2009. "He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election."
Click to expand...

No quid pro quo by the Clinton Foundation ( just the usual Clinton sleeziness of pay for play access)

No quid pro quo in the "Russian Collusion "investigation.

It was a giant waster of time fueled by the resistance and Russiaphobes
 
I would have thought that this would have been a great topic for our liberal friends to discuss given their disdain for all things Russian and their notable aversion to possible collusion in a Presidential election.

Thingy?
Nomad?
Archives?

Anyone on the left? Someone? Anyone?
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
You are showing how very frightened you are of Mueller...
Loser...
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's why you haven't come and tried to take down flags you call traitorous. You posted pictures YOU claimed of where I lived then pretended you didn't know. Where are you, pussy?
 
CFM said:
Perhaps that's why you haven't come and tried to take down flags you call traitorous. You posted pictures YOU claimed of where I lived then pretended you didn't know. Where are you, pussy?
Click to expand...

Crackah-boy wants attention...

Crackah-boy is crying.
 
Exhibit A your honor highlighting my use of thread ban. Libtards almost always derail the thread

That is why they stay away from APP


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
How is it that lefties are not willing to talk about a former presidential candidate colluding with the Soviet Union aka Russians at the height of the Cold War in an effort to impact a presidential election.

No thread bans. So no excuses




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Two completely different scenarios.

What Kennedy ALLEGEDLY proposed, was a series of open, up front TV interviews with the Soviet leader, with the hope that the American people would watch them and lose some of the paranoia and fear of the USSR, that Reagan had ginned up and manipulated for his own political advantage.

What the Trump campaign is alleged to have done, is directly coordinated with the Russians to strategically release illegally hacked and stolen communications in order to damage his opponent's public image enough to throw the election to himself.

In the case of Kennedy, the SUPPOSED plan was to present a more realistic, less exaggerated view of the Soviets, which might result in less support for Reagan.

In the case of Trump, the alleged plan was to directly coordinate with Russia, for the release of illegally obtained communications to present a negative view of his opponent.

And btw, Ted Kennedy was not the Democrats candidate in 1984, so he wasn't "colluding" for his own political gain.

Another major difference.
 
Nomad said:
Two completely different scenarios.

What Kennedy ALLEGEDLY proposed, was a series of open, up front TV interviews with the Soviet leader, with the hope that the American people would watch them and lose some of the paranoia and fear of the USSR, that Reagan had ginned up and manipulated for his own political advantage.

What the Trump campaign is alleged to have done, is directly coordinated with the Russians to strategically release illegally hacked and stolen communications in order to damage his opponent's public image enough to throw the election to himself.

In the case of Kennedy, the SUPPOSED plan was to present a more realistic, less exaggerated view of the Soviets, which might result in less support for Reagan.

In the case of Trump, the alleged plan was to directly coordinate with Russia, for the release of illegally obtained communications to present a negative view of his opponent.

And btw, Ted Kennedy was not the Democrats candidate in 1984, so he wasn't "colluding" for his own political gain.

Another major difference.
Click to expand...

So if others collude on behalf of another then it is OK

Also when you say more balanced view it seems to imply the Soviet Union wasn't a threat?
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
So if others collude on behalf of another then it is OK

Also when you say more balanced view it seems to imply the Soviet Union wasn't a threat?
Click to expand...

The USSR and now Russia, has always been a "threat" to the US. The issue is how much of a threat. Reagan painted an exaggerated picture of them as having the potential to start a nuclear war with us without provocation.

Russia today, is seen as more of a threat to us in terms of lowering our global economic power and status over the long term, and influencing politics in other regions of the world that might be detrimental to our own interests.

What Kennedy proposed, if the allegation is true, was to invite the Soviet leader to speak directly to the public for the purpose of showing us he wasn't a mad dog intent on wiping America off the map.

And though the alleged plan obviously would have helped the Democrat candidate in the upcoming election, that in itself being an obvious motivation on Kennedy's part, it did not rise to the level of subversiveness, of Trump's own campaign coordinating the strategic release of illegally obtained private communications for the direct purpose of destroying his opponent's reputation in order to help ensure his own victory in the upcoming election.

Two completely different scenarios in terms of level of severity, direct involvement and personal political gain.
 
Nomad said:
Russia today, is more of a threat to us in terms of lowering our global economic power and status over the long term.
Click to expand...
explain. you are full of it. The world is not a US mono-polar power.
and Russia is a superpower with it's own legitimate sphere's of interest and security needs.

"Russia is a glorified gas station" (McCain)
 
anatta said:
explain. you are full of it. The world is not a US mono-polar interest.
and Russia is a superpower with it's own legitimate sphere's of interest and security needs.

"Russia is a glorified gas station" (McCain)
Click to expand...

Which are in direct conflict with our own spheres of interest and security needs.

Hence... WHAT I SAID.

Thanks for answering your own question, dumbass.
 
Nomad said:
Which are in direct conflict with our own spheres of interest and security needs.

Hence... WHAT I SAID.

Thanks for answering your own question, dumbass.
Click to expand...
no they are not. we cooperate on terrorism
we had some (limited )cooperation on the Geneva Syrian talks.

IT'S THE RUSSIAPHOPBIA that drove NATO expansion.
It is not an innate hostility, we chose this path. And by doing so are cementing a Sino-Russian partnership
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top