An Important Question for Liberals

Why weren't you concerned about Obama's conversation with a Russian official

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."
President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"
President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.".
http://www.weeklystandard.com/obama...ection-i-have-more-flexibility/article/634473

OR this:
The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction because it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

And a side not, Obama did, in real world terms, absolutely ZERO to deter Russia from invading Crimea, help securing our allies in Europe against Russia or aiding Assad in Syria.

Oh, and how about Podesta + Russia? Any concerns, lib's?

 

My concern is that Trump is such a dumbass

 

Because its not illegal for a sitting president to negotiate with a foreign leader. It is illegal however for a general to receive payment from a foreign power, or to negotiate policies that undermine the current commander and chief's policies.

Imagine Democrats speaking to Russia in the 1980s telling them not to make any peace agreements with the Reagan administration because they promise to give them more if they help their political party regain office.

 

Or how about how Obama taps literally everyone. Merkel, Trump included.

 

Oh, so all of sudden Trump+Russia if off the table?

 

..& even the AP.

Lib's yawned.

 

Oh, nice dodge, but I didn't realize Clinton or Podesta = President?

Obviously, you people have a very peculiar way of defining reality and justifying for yourself the very actions you condemn from whoever you define as your opposition.

 

Imagine Clinton peddling access to China, Korea, and other foreign countries to fund his 1996 election campaign. Imagine a participant in that outrage being confirmed as Secretary of State on January 21, 2009 by the same Democrats who have dragged their feet confirming Trump nominees as a matter of principle. Foreign influence in the election doncha know.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/21/nation/na-fec21

 

We're not talking about Clinton, the Obama administration had just applied sanctions on Russia. Michael Flynn then made contact with a Russian official and told them that the upcoming president Trump was planning on removing said sanctions. It is important to note that this conversation occurred BEFORE the Trump administration had taken office, and then on top of this, he then lied to his superiors about said conversation with a Russian official. It also doesn't help that this was involving the very same country that Michael Flynn had illegally been accepting payments from.

 

Obama isn't the President.

Whatever Obama did is ancient history, so nobody cares.

 

but again, the conversation that Michael Flynn had with a Russian official occurred during the Obama presidency. That's what makes it illegal, then add to the fact that this was involving the very same country that Flynn was accepting illegal payments from, and the very same country that 17 intelligence agencies say were attempting to interfere with our elections.

Now Michael Flynn is saying he is willing to testify on the Trump campaign's ties with Russia in exchange for legal immunity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-flynn-testimony_us_58dd889fe4b0e6ac7093b323

 

If you remember, that's exactly what happened back in 1983, by none other than Teddy Kennedy, in an attempt to prevent Reagan's re-election.

Kinda strange how Democrats seem to forget who really gets along with the Russians...

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/t...eagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. 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. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

Kennedy’s motives? “Like other rational people,” the memorandum explained, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.

“Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memorandum continued. “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.”

Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov–the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring–at least in part to advance his own political prospects.

In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian’s story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. “The media,” Kengor says, “ignored the revelation.”

“The document,” Kengor continues, “has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I’ve ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy’s office did not deny it.”

Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum–within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead–and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator’s opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure–perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day–we need to consider his record in full.

Doing so, it turns out, requires pondering a document in the archives of the politburo.

When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov. On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong.

 

What a vapid consumately stupid remark. How old are you 12? Such a typical liberal weak hit and run attack.This is what bothers me most about liberals it's never about issues it's always a personal attack. Well before you call anyone a dumbass you should check your own resume. Donald Trump is very wealthy three point five billion wealthy. Owns multiple international corporations. Has lost and remade fortunes several times. His celebrity has no shelf life and that was before getting elected oh and he is now the leader of the free world. Not bad for a dumbass huh? How about your credentials hmmm? Put up or ...

 

So does four months conveniently make "ancient history" for you?

 

Well done sir. Drop the mic.

 

Was Russia involved in either Obama's 2008 or 2012 elections?
Did Obama openly invite Russia to hack into the other party during a rally?
Did Obama have business interests with Russia?

No? I rest my case.

 

Lol, yeah this is a crock of right wing bull.

Fact checked aaaaand, fake news from the right once again.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...gh-ted-kennedy-undercut-reagan-back-door-lin/

 

Well, the "fact check" source is from a 2009 Forbes article, not a 2017 CNN "news" story.

 

It debunks your entire story

 

Calling people names isn't going to change the fact that he's a dumbass

 

No no no the Trump Russia thing is just part of the dumbass thing

 

I don't recall calling anyone a name I was just pointing out your immature responses, your name calling. If President Trump is as you say he is please show us your proof like college transcripts or perhaps a genuine document stating his IQ. While you're at it please show us something that qualifies you to call the president a dumbass.

 

I sure hope democrats uncover the real identity of SkankHunt42, so he can be held accountable for Hillary being a lying self-serving scumbag.....

 

As a citizen born in the United States Ill call the dumbass anything I choose