Trump congratulates Putin????

Trump has been much tougher on Russia than Obama was in his entire presidency with new sanctions and selling arms to Ukraine.

 

2012 is a different thing. We have no evidence about Russia intefering with any election other than 2016. You really have no points to make regarding the fact of Trump's call to Putin this election.

 

A president would have to have committed an impeachable offense first right? Even if 100% of senators wanted impeachment.

 

The answer is NO - Cameron did not congratulate him in 2012 and now neither has May this time. So in terms of Britain, why does the interference in the US election have any relevance?

 

I missed this. Can you expand on it or provide sources?

 

Corruption in what government?

 

Two assassination incidents in the UK? Surely you can't be serious. I was aware of only the one with the daughter.

 

That can't exactly be said for all heads of state when it comes to Russia! Heads of state in Canada, UK and Australia don't make a habit of congratulating Russian election winners! However, it does seem that the US does.

 

Obama Won’t Arm Ukraine Because He Led the Disarming of Ukraine
By Andrew C. McCarthy
July 23, 2014 5:13 PM

We should be arming the Ukrainians not only because it is in our national interest to repel Putin’s ambitions, but also because we are the ones who disarmed the Ukrainians. Yet, that goes a long way toward explaining the president’s reluctance: as I’ve pointed out before, the American government official who was at the forefront of disarming Ukraine was none other than Senator Barack Obama. (emphasis added)

As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition – weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea. In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site. The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds. After a stopover in London, the senators returned to Washington and declared that the U.S. should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...e-he-led-disarming-ukraine-andrew-c-mccarthy/

 

In the interest of brevity, I will not repeat my response to Russell Hellein. Yes. You should suppose that I can prove my comments.

 

Sure.
Maxine Waters: Obama Has a Database on Everyone
By S.Noble
February 8, 2013
“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin on Monday. “That’s going to be very, very powerful,” Waters said. “That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before ...."
http://www.independentsentinel.com/maxine-waters-implicates-barack-obama-spying-scandal/

Data You Can Believe In
The Obama Campaign’s Digital Masterminds Cash In
By JIM RUTENBERGJUNE 20, 2013
...............
A couple of weeks before Election Day, over drinks at the Pump Room in Chicago’s Gold Coast, a safe distance away from the re-election headquarters and its press minders, Grisolano and Erik Smith first let on that there was far more happening in the Chicago campaign office than any of us covering it truly understood. Grisolano told me that the campaign literally knew every single wavering voter in the country that it needed to persuade to vote for Obama, by name, address, race, sex and income. What’s more, he hinted, the campaign had figured out how to get its television advertisements in front of them with a previously inconceivable level of knowledge and accuracy.
...............
To understand how it works, you must first understand the vast technological engine that powered the campaign but remained largely out of view of the public and the press. Messina, the campaign manager, often boasted about how the Obama 2012 effort would be “the most data-driven campaign ever.” But what that truly meant — the extent to which the campaign used the newest tech tools to look into people’s lives and the sheer amount of personal data its vast servers were crunching — remained largely shrouded. The secrecy around the operation was partly because the president’s strategists wanted to maintain their competitive edge. But it was also no doubt because they worried that practices like “data mining” and “analytics” could make voters uncomfortable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaigns-digital-masterminds-cash-in.html

Are you uncomfortable yet? We don't have Facebook in my house anymore. Need to get rid of Google next and Twitter after that. Need some neutral services that won't abuse personal information for political purposes that are against my interests.

How the Obama campaign won the race for voter data

Engineers and developers work at President Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago in December 2011. (Joel Kowsky/BLOOMBERG)

From the moment Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, and every day thereafter, his team was always preparing for the 2012 campaign. Everyone said Obama’s 2008 operation had rewritten the book on organizing. But that was just a beginning, a small first step toward what the team envisioned when it began planning the reelection campaign.

In one of their first conversations about 2012, campaign manager Jim Messina said he told the president that they could not rerun 2008. Obama seemed puzzled. “You know we won that one,” Obama said. Messina said too much had changed. For one thing, Obama was now an incumbent with a record. But technology had also leapfrogged forward, with new devices, new platforms and vastly more opportunities to exploit social media. The whole campaign would have to be different.

The president sent the team off to Chicago, far away from the hothouse of Washington and Beltway chatter, to use 2011 to build the foundation and reassemble the army from 2008. As the Republican candidates were gearing up and then battling one another through the summer and fall of 2011, the Obama team was investing enormous amounts of time, money and creative energy in what resembled a high-tech political start-up whose main purpose was to put more people on the streets, armed with more information about the voters they were contacting, than any campaign had ever attempted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-obama-campaign-won-the-race-for-voter-data/2013/07/28/ad32c7b4-ee4e-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html?utm_term=.03f6a082f602

 

The most powerful Nation on earth has certain protocols that are appropriate to follow.

Lesser Nations can follow whatever protocols they choose.

 

There's no doubt there was pro-Putin voter fraud, but even without it, he would have won.
Russians love their country and they love that Putin is an alpha who puts country first. Trump should condemn the voter fraud, but it wasn't a stretch to congratulate Putin on his victory.

 

Sure but does this mean that a US President would congratulate a genocidal world leader on an election victory?

 

This is quite a bit bigger than just social media isn't it?

 

It's one of those things lesser minds probably have difficulty understanding.

 

What is?

 

Did Putin congratulate Bush Baby Jr. when he cheated in Florida to become president? Just asking.

 

Actually, it's not. Not when the winner won a corrupted election (Putin, not Don....as much). Not when the winner is an adversary (Putin, not Don....as much). Not when the winner just used a chemical weapon to try to kill an ex-spy in a foreign country and who routinely kills political opponents. What were you thinking!

 

The reason the President of the most powerful Nation on earth must congratulate the re-election of genocidal world leader.

Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It also supports nations and causes that are in conflict to US interests.

It does not serve a good long term strategy to ignore formalities while trying to maintain some level of diplomatic relations with them.

Apparently this is difficult for some people to understand. Of course, that uninformed position is not helped by the left's MSM partners who control how it's followers are to respond.

 

No, this post and your previous one clearly demonstrate you DO NOT understand that it is a formality.

This whole scandal exposes the wishes of the Deep State that Russia be marginalized and vilified at every single opportunity. I'm not Trump Fan by a long shot, but it was great to see him anger the Deep State.

 

Precisely. Every head of state ought to be compelled to congratulate. It's the same when they say the president "Expressed concern" whenever anything bad happens or when the government says "This has been a wake-up call". Or when people say, "Let's make sure they didn't die in vain and make certain it never happens again!" In Sweden, they say "This is unacceptable". Meaningless. Absolutely meaningless.

 

You don't think LACK OF PROOF has anything to do with it? Just asking.

 

You seriously think that this would happen? You may be right. I actually think that even though genocide is worse than rigging an election, if a genocidal world leader gets elected fairly then they are more deserving of being congratulated by their counterparts in other countries than a world leader who has been elected unfairly such as Putin, who doesn't deserve to win, much less deserve to be congratulated for it.

 

A President should really be on the side of their intelligence community, despite a lack of physical evidence.