Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Russian interference with the 2016 election
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostOne would think that would be a no-brainer.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
-
Suppose in 2020, the Trump administration conspires against and plants spies inside his opponent's campaign, and then when caught, he dismisses it with the wave of a hand and says, "No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, we weren't spying on him per se -- in fact, I don't even like to use the word 'spying'. We simply had 'informants' looking for any attempts by foreign governments to influence his campaign. It was all very benign. He should be happy about it."
How do you think liberals would respond?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostSuppose in 2020, the Trump administration conspires against and plants spies inside his opponent's campaign, and then when caught, he dismisses it with the wave of a hand and says, "No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, we weren't spying on him per se -- in fact, I don't even like to use the word 'spying'. We simply had 'informants' looking for any attempts by foreign governments to influence his campaign. It was all very benign. He should be happy about it."
How do you think liberals would respond?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by lao tzu View PostIf the FBI had been working to sabotage Trump, they would have leaked the existence of the Russia investigation.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostSending a spy into Trump's campaign to gather dirt hardly constitutes "monitoring what Russian agents were doing"Originally posted by rogue06 View PostI think even you can understand there is a profound difference between a campaign sending someone to spy on their opponent's campaign is a whole lot different than the government sending someone to spy on a campaign
"Hillary, via, Obama, via the intelligence agencies, was spying on the Trump campaign."
So if you and MM could stick to the facts rather than peddling incredible and false conspiracy theories, that would be preferred."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThey did. Remember the reference to the "17 intelligence agencies" that Hillary randomly dropped in the second debate? That was the opening shot from the Deep State, and it started the "Trump is colluding with Russia" lie. And now we have Brennan on record admitting that the Obama administration planted spies inside the Trump campaign, and we know for certain that those moles attempted to entrap low-level staffers. You want serious discussion? Then start dealing with the facts!"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Follow the links I've posted throughout this thread. Read the facts for yourself, and stop playing dumb.
Although it occurs to me that it may not be an act.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThey did. Remember the reference to the "17 intelligence agencies" that Hillary randomly dropped in the second debate? That was the opening shot from the Deep State, and it started the "Trump is colluding with Russia" lie. And now we have Brennan on record admitting that the Obama administration planted spies inside the Trump campaign, and we know for certain that those moles attempted to entrap low-level staffers. You want serious discussion? Then start dealing with the facts!
Again, personal attacks are not allowed in this thread.
Certainly there were references to Russian interference during the campaign, and to the fact that the Russians had hacked numerous political organizations. The scope of this information, as laid out after the election, but before the inauguration, differed widely from the scope of the information made available before the election.
In particular, the following synopsis, known well prior to the election, which would almost certainly have prejudiced the outcome, was not released.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
I'd be willing to read whatever sources you care to present on Clapper's admission, but to date no sources available to me confirm the characterization, either to the roles or to the number of actors. I do not object to mischaracterizations, per se, but they must be attached to sources that can serve to buffer against personal attacks.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostSo if you and MM could stick to the facts rather than peddling incredible and false conspiracy theories, that would be preferred.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI know it's a lot to ask, given it's you, but could you please stop making such absurdly false statements continually?
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostRead the facts for yourself, and stop playing dumb.
Although it occurs to me that it may not be an act.
Thank you both for your cooperation.
Comment
-
There is no evidence for ‘Spygate’ — but there is a reason Trump invented it
“Spygate” made its debut on Wednesday morning during Trump’s “executive time,” the period during which he watches “Fox and Friends” before starting his official day. The term is a shorthand meant to refer to a scandal that Trump has insisted is potentially the worst in American history, easily eclipsing Watergate.
Not to damp his enthusiasm or anything, it’s also a scandal for which there’s no public evidence.
Trump’s claim is that the FBI put a “spy” in his campaign at the behest of Barack Obama’s White House as part of an effort to undercut his candidacy by alleging collusion with the Russians. It’s hard to square that claim with 1) Trump’s repeated insistence that the Russia investigation began only after he won as an excuse for the Democrats’ loss, and 2) the fact that America only learned about the investigation into Russian collusion after voting had already occurred. If Obama and the Democrats put a spy in his campaign to undercut his chances, they made a small strategic error by not mentioning anything publicly before votes were cast. But that’s the claim, because internal consistency is not a requirement for any conspiracy theory, much less this one.
If Trump's long line of baseless conspiracies, from birtherism, to millions of fraudulent voters denying him the popular vote, to tapping the phones in Trump tower, means anything, it's that when Trump announces a new conspiracy theory, it's not enough for his supporters to attempt to muster evidence after the fact.
Because the evidence is clear. Trump makes it up as he goes along, helped along by intelligence briefings from Fox and Friends.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lao tzu View PostThere is no evidence for ‘Spygate’ — but there is a reason Trump invented it
“Spygate” made its debut on Wednesday morning during Trump’s “executive time,” the period during which he watches “Fox and Friends” before starting his official day. The term is a shorthand meant to refer to a scandal that Trump has insisted is potentially the worst in American history, easily eclipsing Watergate.
Not to damp his enthusiasm or anything, it’s also a scandal for which there’s no public evidence.
Trump’s claim is that the FBI put a “spy” in his campaign at the behest of Barack Obama’s White House as part of an effort to undercut his candidacy by alleging collusion with the Russians. It’s hard to square that claim with 1) Trump’s repeated insistence that the Russia investigation began only after he won as an excuse for the Democrats’ loss, and 2) the fact that America only learned about the investigation into Russian collusion after voting had already occurred. If Obama and the Democrats put a spy in his campaign to undercut his chances, they made a small strategic error by not mentioning anything publicly before votes were cast. But that’s the claim, because internal consistency is not a requirement for any conspiracy theory, much less this one.
If Trump's long line of baseless conspiracies, from birtherism, to millions of fraudulent voters denying him the popular vote, to tapping the phones in Trump tower, means anything, it's that when Trump announces a new conspiracy theory, it's not enough for his supporters to attempt to muster evidence after the fact.
Because the evidence is clear. Trump makes it up as he goes along, helped along by intelligence briefings from Fox and Friends.
You guys really are unbelievable. Here you have Obama's Director of National Intelligence bluntly admitting to potentially criminal acts, and you call it a conspiracy theory!
What's the point of even trying to have a rational conversation with you?
As I asked previously, suppose we found out in 2020 that Trump had planted spies inside the campaign of his Democrat challenger, and when caught, he dismisses it with the wave of a hand and says, "No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, we weren't spying on him per se -- in fact, I don't even like to use the word 'spying'. We simply had 'informants' looking for any attempts by foreign governments to influence his campaign. It was all very benign. He should be happy about it."
Would you really yawn and pretend it was nothing? I doubt it.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 03:46 PM
|
0 responses
40 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by KingsGambit
Yesterday, 04:11 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 01:52 PM
|
1 response
29 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 10:46 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:08 AM
|
6 responses
58 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Yesterday, 10:30 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
22 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:04 AM
|
29 responses
199 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 02:59 PM
|
Comment