Would you rather have Russians or liberals interfering in our elections?

Yes, I read the dossier that Comey labeled “salacious and unverified”. The same dossier that says Cater Page should be enjoying billions in Russian payouts. I've read the Mueller indictments, which to date show zero collision between Trump and Russia. The other reports you mentioned don't qualify as toilet paper for their significance and what they present. What world do you live in where any of that is meaningful??

My "usual tactic" is to tie you down to specifics, which you do you best to avoid. Your response above has nothing to do with what I asked you. All things I presented have been factual. I asked you why you're OK with Obama largely ignoring evidence of interference presented to him starting in 2014. You passed, which suggests "situation unawareness". I reminded you of the collusion between Hillary and the Russians to create a fictitious Dossier to undermine a Presidential election. You passed, which suggests another instance of "situation unawareness". I asked you, in your own words, to define exactly what "interference in our election" means without referring me to well rehearsed leftist talking points and useless reports. You passed for a third time, which suggests still another instance of "situation unawareness".

In baseball that would be three strikes and you're out. I don't want to write you off that easily. If you want to try again, here is the opportunity.

 

I think most Americans not just conservatives no longer pay attention to Russia. That was true of the left for a long time, but the right has made a major change in this regard. I don't believe that trump of Clinton colluded with the Russians.

 

Thanks for this OP. It really shows how half baked cons are, not realizing that Raygun tripled the national debt, Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years, Clinton actually did balance the budget, which Shrub Jr. destroyed in only six months, and then doubled the debt again and also destroyed the whole U.S. and global economies. Before Raygun, the national debt was less than one trillion dollars. And in Tramp's first year, he's already added $1.5 trillion with the tax scam, and plans to add another $7 trillion with his new budget.

If cons had a brain, they'd take it out and play with it.

 

Ever since Raygun, the cons have demonized libs to the point of actually calling them "treasonous" for not applauding Tramp's SOTU. That's the same thing the Nazi's did, outlawing all other parties.

 

Puleeze, how concrete can it get when EVERY SINGLE U.S. intelligence agency says the Russians interfered? Even Tramp has quit using the word "hoax".

 

Show some depth. In your own words, what was the specific interference, and what specific influence did it have on the election?? I'm not denying the Russians tried to do something, but exactly what was it?? If you're informed, you can articulate it in your own words, and provide some enlightenment.

FB is always a leftist favorite when it comes to "interference". As an informed citizen, you know that Rob Goldman, Facebook's head of advertising, said there are easy ways to fight the Russian campaign. What I found interesting is that is that he says it starts with having a "well educated citizenry". Rob Goldman, in his position, is more aware of what the Russians did and didn't do in Social Media than almost anyone on the Planet. So a serious person is going let this sink in.

Was this conclusion also in the US Intelligence agency assessments you reference?? Doubtful, but somehow I guess that since it doesn't fit your narrative, it's an insignificant detail. In any case, now that you have the opportunity to think about it, do you agree with Rob Goldman?? Do we in fact have a generation of indoctrinated snowflakes incapable of filtering the endless noise that they read??

 

Tramp claimed that if he ran for POTUS, he'd do it as a republican because they were dumb enough to vote for him.



The GOP is a pandemic of stupidity.

 

Diversion and deflection noted. You and I were conversing specifically about Russian interference. Your redirect to Trump is amusing, but completely off topic.

Care to try again, or do you go into the trash heap of leftists incapable of holding s train of thought?

Rewind and give it a go....

 

I answered your last question, so it's not deflecting. Your train of thought is off the rails, going from one question to another. As far as enlightening you, I suggest getting off the crazy Tramp train.
The interference is classified, except for the social media attempts at swaying public opinion, and holding pro-trump and anti-hillary rallies.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...how-russians-interfered-2016-election-n848746

 

My last question was clearly in the context of Facebook, and the army of leftist millennials who were leaning towards Hillary but were supposedly “swayed” through evil Russian manipulation to vote for Trump. You hijacked that piece of my post for your ideological spin. You can stop with that BS.

If I asked too many related questions of you, I apologize. At a very early age, I learned to touch my head and chew gum at the same time. I assumed others could too.

So let me get this straight. You directed me to the volume of intelligence reports, but the real answers on interference are classified. Didn’t Mueller, in the recent indictments, refuse to conclude the Russians changed the outcome of the election? What could be classified that is so earth shattering?

But let’s keep it simple. I don’t want you overwhelmed by more than one question, so please focus on this: Is Mr. Goldman correct? If leftist snowflakes were more part of an “informed citizenry”, would the social media impact be nothing more than a footnote?

 

The OP asks "Would you rather have Russians or liberals interfering in our elections?"

My response - I trust Russians more - the Democrats have no honor.

 

1. the dossier was not labeled salacious and unverified. The item about pissing was salacious and unverified. Too nunanced a difference for you?

2. the dossier doesn't say page should be enjoying billions in russian payouts. That is simply an outright lie.

3. The DNI report doesn't qualify for toilet paper? What kind of clownish dismissal is that? Boy that sure is based on nothing but bullshit.

4. Your usual tactic is obfuscation and nonsense. Obama did a lot. He would have done a lot more with bipartisan support but mcconnel blocked a bipartisan statement. YOu might want to look at the time line. Obama imposed sanctions, he initiated a interagency task force, he expelled a bunch of russians, he imposed additional sanctions, he seized russian property. And trump has done exactly NOTHING. But of course regurgitating right wing russian bullshit bumperstickers is a major tactic as well it seems.

5. As for hillary whataboutery. Yet another "their bad is worse than my bad" skoolyard whinge. Very appropriate.

As for situational awareness, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to identify your lack thereof, which I am pretty damn sure is by design

 

So many points, so little accuracy....

1) Regarding "salacious and unverified", there is a lot of discussion about the scope of what Comey meant, and what he didn't. Regardless, the fact is that there is a lot of salacious and unverified material in the dossier, including a lot that has already been debunked. In any case, it was paid for Hillary's campaign and the DNC. Christopher Steele, who's on record for hating Trump and wanting to do anything he could to keep Trump from being POTUS, was eventually fired for lying to the FBI and overall, being unreliable. The WSJ rightfully calls reading the dossier "a swan dive into a cesspool". I gave it a quick scan and that was enough. Something tells me you spent far too much time cuddling up to what appears to be mostly fiction.

2) According the the Dossier, Page and his associates were offered the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft for getting Trump to lift sanctions. We know the sanctions are still in place, and that Page wasn't paid a dime. He's not swimming in the billions he would have been worth. So much for what you call an "outright lie". More important, so much for collusion....

3) The DNI Reports regarding hacking are a summary of failure, considering Obama had warning of what was coming since 2014. They add nothing to discussion of collusion, and therefore have little interest to me.

4) Oh, so "Obama did a lot". What did he do?? You're really good at making these pronouncements but fail to back them up with any substance. We do know the Russians seemed to do whatever they planned without much resistance from Obama or his Intelligence community. So Obama doing "a lot" actually wasn't very much at all.

5) Sorry, it's impossible to discuss the dossier without reminding you (or anyone) that it was a Hillary bought and paid for fictitious hit piece. It's integral to evaluating the content. If that realty disturbs you, so be it.

Everything I pointed should have been known to you and the starting point for any intelligent discussion. It's disappointing that you're struggling with basic facts.

 

Ya know what cost Bernie the NOMINATION?

Lack of votes

 

It didn’t hurt the DNC originally scheduled a paltry three debates in time slots guaranteed to produce pitiful viewing numbers.

It was clear the DNC crowned Hillary before the process started. Who knows what the final outcome would have been with an honest Democratic Party contest.

Do you approve of how Hillary was fast tracked through the primaries?

 

Didn’t Mueller, in the recent indictments, refuse to conclude the Russians changed the outcome of the election? What could be classified that is so earth shattering?
Dutch lawyer pleads guilty to lying about interaction with Rick Gates
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/politics/robert-mueller-rick-gates/index.html

The classified stuff exposes the operations of intelligence agencies to the Russians.

If leftist snowflakes were more part of an “informed citizenry”, would the social media impact be nothing more than a footnote?

It's not the left, but the Trampets that were influenced by the Russians.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ng-contacts-former-trump-campaign-aide-gates/

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/trump-russia-indictment-mueller-probe-384969

Russians Staged Rallies For and Against Trump to Promote Discord, Indictment Says
http://fortune.com/2018/02/17/russian-organized-rallies-election-meddling/


Hope this isn't too much for your to wrap your head around.....

 

What's hard for me to wrap my head around is the various links you posted. They either say nothing that's important to what we were discussing, or they're completely unrelated to your specific points. Very perplexing, or maybe not.

Whats most important is that I implored you to focus on one single question. Remember, I concluded by asking you just the following:

"But let’s keep it simple. I don’t want you overwhelmed by more than one question, so please focus on this: Is Mr. Goldman correct? If leftist snowflakes were more part of an “informed citizenry”, would the social media impact be nothing more than a footnote?"

All the whining and sniveling from the left is how the Russians, using social media like FB, snookered Hillary leaning voters to Trump. That's an irrefutable fact. So how is your statement of "It's not the left, but the Trampets that were influenced by the Russians" possibly true? No self respecting Conservative, much less a "Trampet", was going to vote for Hillary under any circumstances. They knew her history of corruption, dishonesty, and absence of real accomplishment without needing any outside help. What possible influence from the Russians on conservative voters could there possibly have been??

 

No self respecting Conservative, much less a "Trampet", was going to vote for Hillary under any circumstances. They knew her history of corruption, dishonesty, and absence of real accomplishment without needing any outside help. What possible influence from the Russians on conservative voters could there possibly have been?

You are obviously drunk on the koolaid, so there is no chance you can know it's propaganda of the "fake news" by the extremist right. Thanks for proving the influence.

 

CNN are Trump supporters?

Michael Moore et al are Trump supporters?

 

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

Rod Rosenstein Bombshell: 13 Russians Indicted For Election Meddling To Help Donald Trump

http://deadline.com/2018/02/rod-ros...-kellyanne-conway-hillary-clinton-1202291725/

 

Nope, no Russians interfering with America here, folks.....just their agents

Funny how someone who sides with and backs and supports Russia talks about our Constitution.....hilarious!

 

Not. At. All.

Are those people not acting under the influence of THE RUSSIANS! to nullify the result of an election?

 

what in the dossier has been debunked? Oh exactly nothing. And steele was ALARMED by what he learned about trump. He didn'thave it in for him before he INVESTIGATED his russian ties. But don't let that little fact get in the way.

What is offered and what is delivered are two different things. Are you suggesting that a guy like page could actually get the sanctions lifted? Have you seen this guy? Don't be ridiculous.

Oh facts are simply dismissed. First you demand evidence and then you dismiss them. Typical bullshit.

Er, there was considerable resistance. Way more than trump has displayed or didn't you notice. At least Obama had the good sense to ensure all the evidence gathered up to the day of the inauguration was documented and registered.

So what? WTF does the intelligence gathered have to do with who paid for it? Oh right NOTHING.

and projection is your last retreat. Truly a pathetic intellectual performance.

 

No, they are under the influence of the intelligence agencies that exposed the Russian influence in the election. It was rigged, that simple. And you can't justify the corruption by blaming the democrats that were the victims, not the perpetrators.

 

If they were supporters of Hillary I doubt very much that Comey's letter or some garbage on social media persuaded them. At least not many. It was the people who were undecided until near the end of the campaign who were susceptible to being influenced.