Trump and Russia

[DC Tom]

 

One consistency with each president in regards to Putin is both Bush, Obama, and now Trump go down that same road is they're overly optimistic at the beginning of their administration in their ability to negotiate with Putin. They then slowly realize there's no negotiating with this authoritarian thug who puts on a good negotiating face at the beginning while behind the curtains is looking to increase his power and destroy Western democratic alliances.

 

I'd hesitate to call Obama "overly optimistic in his ability to negotiate with Putin." Since...y'know...he'd didn't actually negotiate anything, but actively, intentionally, and unilaterally threw out all of the Bush Administration's policies.

 

Really...do people forget this? A big part of the foreign policy platform the Democrats were pushing in 2008 was reversing the irresponsible policies of Bush in alienating Russia by taking a hard-line with them.

 

And hilariously...while making sure yet again that that was the case, I stumbled across an article about Putin attempting to influence the US presidential election to get a candidate in office friendlier to Russia...in the Huffington Post, from 2008. It's unreal...we're reliving the exact same issues from 2008 all over again.

[Tiberius]

I'd hesitate to call Obama "overly optimistic in his ability to negotiate with Putin." Since...y'know...he'd didn't actually negotiate anything, but actively, intentionally, and unilaterally threw out all of the Bush Administration's policies.

 

Really...do people forget this? A big part of the foreign policy platform the Democrats were pushing in 2008 was reversing the irresponsible policies of Bush in alienating Russia by taking a hard-line with them.

 

 

 

Where did the Democrats say that?

 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283

[PastaJoe]

And hilariously...while making sure yet again that that was the case, I stumbled across an article about Putin attempting to influence the US presidential election to get a candidate in office friendlier to Russia...in the Huffington Post, from 2008. It's unreal...we're reliving the exact same issues from 2008 all over again.

Not hilarious and not the exact same issues. It was an unprecedented level of interference in 2016 by Russia to get their preferred candidate elected, whose campaign had an unprecedented number of advisors with ties to Russia and didn't disclose all their meetings and attempts to bypass normal communication methods, thus leading to lying to Congress, firing only after it became public, recusals, and a president in denial. Not exactly the same by a long stretch. But of course you know that.

[GG]

Not hilarious and not the exact same issues. It was an unprecedented level of interference in 2016 by Russia to get their preferred candidate elected, whose campaign had an unprecedented number of advisors with ties to Russia and didn't disclose all their meetings and attempts to bypass normal communication methods, thus leading to lying to Congress, firing only after it became public, recusals, and a president in denial. Not exactly the same by a long stretch. But of course you know that.

 

It's "unprecedented" because your friendly allies in the press have highlighted their interference in much more detail in 2016 than they did in 2008 or 2012.

 

But carry on with your pity party

[4merper4mer]

Not hilarious and not the exact same issues. It was an unprecedented level of interference in 2016 by Russia to get their preferred candidate elected, whose campaign had an unprecedented number of advisors with ties to Russia and didn't disclose all their meetings and attempts to bypass normal communication methods, thus leading to lying to Congress, firing only after it became public, recusals, and a president in denial. Not exactly the same by a long stretch. But of course you know that.

Sounds like BS

[Nanker]

And which candidate did Putin favor, exactly? Supposedly they tried by phishing to get both the DNC and RNC emails. Only the Dems were stupid enough to ride bareback through the Intarwebs because they're sooooo damned smart it hurts. In effect Podesta got a case of the Internet clap and that was paraded around by Wikileaks. They tried to give Rience the same thing, but lo and behold he wore an Intarwebs condom on his computer.

 

Hillary has more ties to Russia than Trump does. They gave her foundation millions in exchange for our uranium. Who's kidding who about which of the two candidates Putin would like in the White House. He already rolled Hillary around on her back and stroked her fat belly like the dog she is. Trump isn't exactly an easy guy to get along with, and he's 100 times the negotiator that Hillary and the failed Obama administration's deal makers were. They absolutely sucked at it and gave away much of our treasure.

[IDBillzFan]

Not hilarious and not the exact same issues. It was an unprecedented level of interference in 2016 by Russia to get their preferred candidate elected, whose campaign had an unprecedented number of advisors with ties to Russia and didn't disclose all their meetings and attempts to bypass normal communication methods, thus leading to lying to Congress, firing only after it became public, recusals, and a president in denial. Not exactly the same by a long stretch. But of course you know that.

 

Man, when you pick a losing cause, you really stick with it.

[Doc]

Not hilarious and not the exact same issues. It was an unprecedented level of interference in 2016 by Russia to get their preferred candidate elected, whose campaign had an unprecedented number of advisors with ties to Russia and didn't disclose all their meetings and attempts to bypass normal communication methods, thus leading to lying to Congress, firing only after it became public, recusals, and a president in denial. Not exactly the same by a long stretch. But of course you know that.

Even if it were "unprecedented" Barry did nothing about it. Do you wonder why?

[Doc Brown]

And which candidate did Putin favor, exactly? Supposedly they tried by phishing to get both the DNC and RNC emails. Only the Dems were stupid enough to ride bareback through the Intarwebs because they're sooooo damned smart it hurts. In effect Podesta got a case of the Internet clap and that was paraded around by Wikileaks. They tried to give Rience the same thing, but lo and behold he wore an Intarwebs condom on his computer.

 

Hillary has more ties to Russia than Trump does. They gave her foundation millions in exchange for our uranium. Who's kidding who about which of the two candidates Putin would like in the White House. He already rolled Hillary around on her back and stroked her fat belly like the dog she is. Trump isn't exactly an easy guy to get along with, and he's 100 times the negotiator that Hillary and the failed Obama administration's deal makers were. They absolutely sucked at it and gave away much of our treasure.

 

No. He preferred Trump although that may backfire on him. When the Russians were protesting Putin getting a third term on what they believed to be a fixed election Clinton supported the protesters and Putin accused her of exasperating the situation. He also didn't appreciate her rhetoric as she was the most outspoken critic of Putin in the Obama administration. Plus, he's known throughout the world to support populist right (and sometimes left) candidates in Western democratic countries and trying to influence it to the best of his ability.

 

That doesn't mean Trump in anyway colluded with the Russians as to me that's always seemed ludicrous to me. Despite Trump's stupidity of making himself look guilty and shooting himself in the foot multiple times, there still hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion. Also, it seems you've bought Trump's BS hook, line, and sinker about him being a great negotiator.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Doc Brown

[Nanker]

It ain't BS John.

[Benjamin Franklin]

I don't care who Putin backed. I do care that he tried to interfere.

[/dev/null]

I don't care who Putin backed. I do care that he tried to interfere.

So what do you find more disturbing, that Putin interfered in favor of the Republican candidate or that the Democrat administration failed in its responsibility to safeguard the electoral process?

[Deranged Rhino]

I don't care who Putin backed. I do care that he tried to interfere.

 

Do you care that the United States "tried to interfere" in the 2012 French elections? Or the Israeli elections?

 

I don't ask to be an ass, I ask out of genuine curiosity.

 

I believe that pretty much every major power attempts to exert influence on their friends and foes alike in a multitude of ways. The Russians undoubtedly tried to influence our elections in 2016 - and in 2012, and in 2008, and in 2004, et al. So did North Korea. So did China. So did (probably) Israel, UK, Saudi Arabia, Germany et al. That they "tried" isn't surprising nor alarming (at least to the level of the current investigation).

 

If they succeeded ... well, then that would be of utmost importance to discuss and analyze. That would warrant the endless investigations and even the re-birth of McCarthyism.

[Benjamin Franklin]

So what do you find more disturbing, that Putin interfered in favor of the Republican candidate or that the Democrat administration failed in its responsibility to safeguard the electoral process?

Both. Obama had a soft undefined relationship with Russia. And when he found out about the Russian attempts, he didn't tell the American people.

 

But let's acknowledge what happened here and call Russia out so we can quash the retard rodeo of Russian election interference deniers (yesterday's birthers).

[ALF]

Updated 12/16/2016

President Barack Obama said Friday that he told Russian President Vladimir Putin in September to “cut it out” in regard to allegations that his nation engaged in cyberattacks against the U.S. electoral process

Obama added that further hacking by Russia did not occur following Obama’s admonition.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/obama-putin-232754

[Nanker]

OMG! He drew a red line in the sand! What a leader!

[Tiberius]

OMG! He drew a red line in the sand! What a leader!

How many has Trump already drawn in the sand? Remember the serious consequences for North Korea?

Do you care that the United States "tried to interfere" in the 2012 French elections? Or the Israeli elections?

 

I don't ask to be an ass, I ask out of genuine curiosity.

 

I believe that pretty much every major power attempts to exert influence on their friends and foes alike in a multitude of ways. The Russians undoubtedly tried to influence our elections in 2016 - and in 2012, and in 2008, and in 2004, et al. So did North Korea. So did China. So did (probably) Israel, UK, Saudi Arabia, Germany et al. That they "tried" isn't surprising nor alarming (at least to the level of the current investigation).

 

If they succeeded ... well, then that would be of utmost importance to discuss and analyze. That would warrant the endless investigations and even the re-birth of McCarthyism.

 

Three top Trump officials have lied about their contacts with the people who tried to hack our election. This goes beyond simply interfering in the election.

[B-Man]

The Antithesis of Obstruction

by Andrew C. McCarthy

 

Original Article

 

The “collusion” narrative was a fraud, plain and simple. We know that now.

 

Hopefully, it won’t take another six months to grasp a second plain and simple truth: Collusion’s successor, the “obstruction” narrative, is a perversion. The Left loves narrative. The ever-expanding story manipulates time, space, and detail to fit a thematic framework. Political narrative has some surface appeal, but it is deeply flawed. It obscures plain and simple truth. So let’s stick with the plain and simple:

 

The essence of obstruction is to frustrate the search for truth. Its antithesis is to demand the exposure of fraud.

 

Donald Trump’s political enemies are trying to build an obstruction case on the antithesis of obstruction: the president’s insistence that the collusion fraud be exposed.

 

Over a period of weeks, Trump came to understand what was being done to him. His exasperation was evident in his every bull-in-a-china-shop turn. An ardently pro-law-enforcement candidate, he came to office believing the FBI was in the fraud-exposure business. He thus could not comprehend why then–FBI director James Comey would not assure the public of what Comey was privately assuring both the president and the public’s representatives in Congress, namely: The notion that the president was a suspect was false. Implicitly, the narrative that Trump had colluded with Putin to steal the election was false.

 

To be clear, the Russia investigation is not a fraud.......................... The Trump collusion narrative is. Russia did try to interfere in our election, as it always does.

 

And there were associates of Trump’s who had business with Russian interests. Nothing unusual about that either. No one had shadier business with Kremlin cronies than Bill and Hillary Clinton. The difference is that the Clintons did collude in the Russian regime’s acquisition of American uranium assets. There is no evidence that Trump colluded in Russia’s election meddling. To stoke suspicions to the contrary was fraudulent.

 

The president justifiably believed this cloud of suspicion was grievously harming his fledgling administration. Despite both the dearth of collusion evidence and Comey’s acknowledgment — in non-public Capitol Hill briefings — that Trump was not a suspect, congressional Democrats continued to peddle the collusion narrative. The narrative became the rationale for “The Resistance.”

 

After the flame-out of the “Electoral College has destroyed democracy” storyline, the Left moved on to “collusion” as the Original Sin that rendered Trump illegitimate. Thus, Democrats rationalized, it was imperative to deny cooperation with Trump on any matter of governance — the approval of executive officials needed to run the government, the confirmation of judges, the Obamacare collapse, tax reform, Syria, debt ceiling, Afghanistan, jihadist attacks in the U.S. and Europe. Anything. The point of the collusion narrative was to delegitimize Trump in the public mind; cooperating with him, treating him as the legitimate president of the United States, was out of the question.

 

More at the Link................

[Nanker]

And it all begins to become unravelled now. It was just a simple slimy sleazy smear job by Dem operatives who hate Trump and love Hillary.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What is freaking wrong with our "blame culture!"

 

Trump is now admitting that the Russians and he colluded to hack the election... BUT HE IS BLAMING OBAMA!

 

If he would have lost?

 

Wow! Trump is like Bill Belicheat admitting he cheated but is blaming Roger Goodell for not stopping it!

 

If Trump would have lost, he would have looked like Belicheat after the Gints beat him twice... You know that look, like somebody gave him the wrong answers to the math test.

 

I am sure logic is not the strong suit with the Little Trumpamaniacs from Cedar Rapids to (with a tack around Illinois) Harrisburg, so no worries... March on you crooked colluding cheats! It's only right!