Did Russian ‘Hacking’ Give Obama Two Election Victories?
If you are convinced that Russians “hacked” the 2016 presidential election to put Donald Trump in the Oval Office, then you need to consider the possibility that they also equally influenced the last two election cycles.
Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week raising concerns about foreign cybersecurity threats. In other words, the threat of foreign governments spying on America. What a surprise! Governments spy on each other and try to meddle in each other’s affairs. Color me shocked!
The difference now is in the methods. A popular TV show , The Americans , is set in the 1980s and features a married American couple living in the suburbs of Washington, DC with two children. The all-American family, except that Mom and Dad are deep-cover Soviet agents. They make phone calls, photograph documents, use a radio transmitter and make dead drops. Hardly sophisticated by today’s standards, but state of the art spycraft during the Reagan years.
Flash forward a few decades and we have Al Gore’s famous invention of the Internet, along with email, cyber networks and sophisticated computer systems. As technology advances, so does spycraft. Electronic infiltration and eavesdropping rather than recording devices hidden in lamps and spies meeting in dark alleys.
Russia has always been an adversary of the United States. China too. Adversaries that compete for world dominance and influence. You can throw smaller players into this mix including Cuba and North Korea, hardly superpowers, but thorns in the side of America. Spying and propagandizing are as old as time, practiced not only by the Soviets but also by us .
Now suddenly the Obama administration and intelligence community are shocked, shocked! to find gambling in Casablanca, that the Russians are spying and meddling in US affairs. And the outrage that accompanies such a revelation is ironic. Particularly from Democrats, who for much of the past century had a love affair with Russia.
Suppose Russia did try to influence this most recent election as Director Clapper asserts? Who’s to say they didn’t try to influence past elections? Such as the 2008 and 2012 US presidential elections. Preposterous suggestion? Or not?
Why would Russia want to influence a US election? For one of two reasons. Either they want a particular candidate to be elected, one who would further, or at least not impede, the Russian geopolitical agenda. Or simply to throw a wrench into an already chaotic and divisive political process to sew further social discord and distract the country from events happening elsewhere on the globe. We already have the fake news big media industry to accomplish the latter goal.
The Obama administration tried to hack the recent Israeli parliamentary elections, perhaps for the same reason the Russians might want to influence our election: to elect their preferred candidate. Obama wanted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to lose reelection, so he spent US taxpayer money trying to oust him. Perhaps the Russians are simply trying to emulate President Obama.
Who would the Russians have preferred as President in 2008? Barack Obama or John McCain? A malleable, unaccomplished and narcissistic community organizer with a soft spot for communist regimes and left wing causes? Or a crusty Viet Nam veteran and POW who would be no friend to the Russians. No reset buttons or talk of “flexibility after the election” with McCain. Instead a hard line approach to the Russians as he warned this week, "Every American should be alarmed by Russia's attacks on our nation." Which candidate would the Russians prefer to deal with for four years?
Flash forward to 2012. Another election. One candidate, Mitt Romney, called Russia, “Our No. 1 geopolitical foe. They fight for every cause for the world’s worst actors.” Or another candidate, Barack Obama, who responded to Romney with, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Who would the Russians want to contend with for the next four years? A patsy or someone who recognized the “evil empire” for what it was?
The Cold War may have been over in Obama’s mind during the third presidential debate in 2012, but since Hillary Clinton, his preferred candidate, lost in 2016, the Cold War has suddenly been resurrected, complete with diplomat expulsions and American military activities along the Russian border. If I didn’t know better, I would have thought Ronald Reagan was president today.
Did the Russians “hack” the elections in 2008 and 2012? I don’t know. Just as the intelligence bosses today don’t seem to know how the 2016 election was swayed by Russian influence. Or if it even was. But following the logic of the current news cycle claiming Russia hacked the 2016 election, it makes perfect sense that Russia interfered in our previous two presidential elections to trick America into electing Obama, their preferred candidate, twice to the presidency. Getting their wish a second time in 2012, they were feeling confident enough to celebrate by invading and annexing Crimea, with nary a peep from the Obama administration. Confirming the rationale for their 2012 election hack.
If the Russians did indeed hack the 2008 and 2012 elections, whom would they have preferred to win in 2016? A candidate so careless with national security and classified information that hacking was hardly even necessary? Her campaign manager, John Podesta, was not hacked. He gave up his email password in a classic phishing scheme. Would Russia favor a candidate that sold them uranium in exchange for a fat contribution to her family foundation? A candidate happy to parrot her boss’s “blame America first” mantra while making a mess of the Middle East?
Or would the Russians prefer to negotiate with a shrewd businessman, schooled in The Art of the Deal ? One who chooses a Defense Secretary with a nickname of “Mad Dog”? One who wants to rebuild the military in Ronald Reagan style? Do the Russians really think they can play Donald Trump as a fool? How did that work out for the 16 other Republican primary candidates? Or Hillary Clinton? Or almost all the mainstream media? Or the Hollywood crowd?
If I were Vladimir Putin, I would be much happier with Mrs. Clinton in the White House than Mr. Trump.
If our electronic and cyber infrastructure needs repair or an upgrade, by all means that should be a priority. But President Obama picking a fight with the Russians as he is leaving the White House is a bad idea. Especially over supposed election hacking, something he himself is guilty of. And why is this suddenly an issue to Obama with only weeks left in his presidential tenure? He had eight years to raise the issue and fix it. America selected Donald Trump as President. Time to stop the shame and blame game and get over it.
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
Has the Trump administration been tougher on Russia than Obama, as the president claims? Trump’s own boasting feels like a stretch, especially given how he seems to have gone out of his way to both disparage NATO and praise Putin during the course of his first year in office. Still, many of his administration’s good policies have been obscured by the politics of the Mueller investigation and the incessant furor kicked up by the president’s tweets. As Tom Wright has noted, the Trump administration seems to pursue two policy tracks at the same time: the narrow nationalism of the president’s inflammatory rhetoric openly clashing with the seriousness of his administration’s official policy decisions.
These tensions are real, but all too often they become the story. Glossed over is the fact that President Trump has appointed a string of competent and widely respected figures to manage Russia policy—from National Security Council Senior Director Fiona Hill to Assistant Secretary of State for European affairs Wess Mitchell to the Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker. The Trump administration is, in fact, pursuing concrete policies pushing back on Russian aggression that the Obama administration had fervently opposed. The National Security Strategy of 2017, bringing a much-needed dose of realism to a conversation too often dominated by abstractions like the “liberal world order”, singles out both China and Russia as key geopolitical rivals. During Trump’s first year, the administration approved the provision of lethal weapons to Ukraine, shut down Russia’s consulate in San Francisco as well as two additional diplomatic annexes, and rather than rolling back sanctions, Trump signed into law additional sanctions on Russia, expanded LNG sales to a Europe dependent in Russian gas imports, and increased the Pentagon’s European Reassurance Initiative budget by 40 percent. (A president who berated U.S. investments for European defense has actually dramatically increased American military presence on Europe’s threatened borders.) While many of these policies may have been implemented despite rather than because of the president—on the expansion of sanctions in particular, Trump faced a veto-proof majority in Congress—credit should be given where credit is due.
Read Entire Article
We know the left wingers have always played dirty and cheated, so heaven only knows how much they have sold us down the river. The best example of this is the Iran non-deal.
No kidding, giving Iran over a billion and who knows how much more in the cover of darkness. Obama didn't tell us anything about that, did he? Wasn't it discovered several months after the fact that we delivered over a billion dollars in hard cold cash to them. And look at it now, they are now telling us they knew what the Iranians were up to before they even pulled this corrupt deal off. Now that isn't very American, is it?
But Obama also tried to finance the Castro Communist Regime for another hundred years as well. I say Obama was a cool character, while he fooled his voters into believing he was something he wasn't, backing our enemies and putting our allies in danger. Wonder why he criticized Romney when he said Russia was a real threat? You think maybe he didn't want Russia to meddle in his election against him, since they did meddle in the 2008 election and 2012 election. Who do you think they wanted in the White House at that time?
We will never know since the MSM would never tell us anything even if they knew and all during that time we had the same leaders of the Intelligence Agencies who have proven to criminals.
Yeah, we were told when the agreement came out and the right made a huge deal of it when the money was delivered.
I remember this because the money was delivered in other currency than U.S.
The money was theirs, plus interest in a failed deal with the USA for arms sales. Also money they had in U.S. held banks they couldn't access.
But you seemed to have conveniently forgotten all that.
So... It's important to investigate Russian hacking now?
In spite of what the media would have us believe, I see no evidence that the Democrats actually care. If they did, I believe they would be talking about methods and solutions. Instead all they want to talk about is Trump, the people around him, and who they might have spoken to. Not a word about counter cyber espionage. Nothing about how they plan to tiptoe around the 1st Amendment to control who can post what on Facebook. Nothing about legitimate efforts to shield election processes from hacking or other interference.
From what I can see, Democrats only care about Russia to the extent that they can somehow undo the election of 2016.
The Democrats aren't in charge. The first thing that needs to happen is to find out what happened. The Mueller investigation is doing that. The Republican "investigation" is a farce
Right, the Democrats suddenly believe in Mueller and Comey after 8 years in the Bush administration- where the two were continuously demonized. Then again during the entire Clinton investigation Comey ran; even though he half-assed it.
Now suddenly the two are paragons of virtue and not part of the career political establishment. No agendas to be seen anywhere./S
weird how so many on NT sound just like Russian bots.
That's crazy, right?
No, Russian hacking did not give Obama two election victories.
The desperation is so thick. Mueller must be getting closer by the minute . . . tick, tock
On what specifically do you base your assumption on?
Just like it didn't give us President Trump?
Personally I have never believed that Russian hacking "gave" Trump the election. There seems to be a lot of evidence that it occurred though and that is a cause for concern. I think that Mueller is doing a fine job.
Why? Because what's obvious without evidence for Trump is impossible for Obama?
He's doing a great job at chasing shadows.
Those "shadows" seem to be pointing directly to the President.
And several indictments.
That's all it is. Shadows. No proof.
And those stand a VERY good chance of failing just like Mueller's "investigation".
Putin hated Obama and Hillary because he knew that they were intelligent enemies. Trump is a Putin chump.
Uh, uh, sure thing, champ!
Heck, Putin had the famous reset button, don't ya know!
Courtesy of Hillary and Barrack!
Which one? There are 22 indictments and 5 guilty pleas so far. This isn't over yet.
When you start going on what a hooker and ambulance chaser tell you, it's over.
You're the one that brought them up. I'm talking about the Mueller investigation.
So we ARE talking about the same (and I'll play your game) "investigation".
I'm not playing a game.
Are you?
Keep thinking that.
What a strange way to get out of a discussion.
Not trying to get out of it. I said I'd play your game so lets play.
Interesting article, deals more with whom the Russians prefer but, IMHO little to do with major events. In 2008, McCain was not really up to the task of defeating a charismatic, articulate Barak Obama (running with another advantage - to be our first black President). That being said, once the financial/housing crisis hit in October of 2008, it was an easy win for Obama.
2012 was a little different story. Obama, now the incumbent with a track record as President of hard left overreach was ripe for a defeat. However, I believe the two deciding factors were 1) the complacent behavior of Mitt Romney during the summer when the Obama campaign defined him as an out-of-touch millionaire. 2) The IRS was able to destroy the resources of the Tea Party.
I'm not saying there were not other factors in 2012 ( we are talking maybe 370,000 votes in key areas), but in the end you look at the factors I've listed and we also have to admit the GOP nominated two very moderate, establishment candidates who were simply not worthy of two of the most important elections of my lifetime.
I agree with you Vic. I didn't care for either McCain or Romney, but I didn't care for Obama more. Neither candidate showed any gusto in their campaigns. You're right in my opinion about the IRS. That wasn't really looked into until after the election and the comment Obama made, "Osama is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run" right before Benghazi and then the video wasn't really looked into until after the election and the media was complacent at the time because of course they wanted Obama to win.
But the Russians meddled in that election just like they had meddled in all the other elections, but do you think the media would have done anything different then than they are doing today? I don't think so and Facebook was working with Obama in both elections. Do you think they kept tabs on any unusual members or do you think YouTube or any sites that may have been Russian sites who promoted Obama got the MSM's attention? I don't think they would have said a word about it.
Oh puleeze! The Tea Party applications were among many others, and the Tea Parties were already having cash problems, unpaid vendors, etc.
Not true? Why was Palin demanding cash up front for speaking engagements at Rallies? The Tea party was meant to soak the rank and file for their cash, and they sure did, when the money was gone the names changed to the conservative caucus and
Why have so many groups ditched the Tea Party name?
You got taken.
sweet
Then why are Democrats still crying about the T-party?
And didn't the T-party shut Obama down for 6 years?
If that is being taken I'm cool with it.
So, you're saying that the Democrats should have found a bunch of ignorant bigots and soaked them for their money while making them drool ?
The right is obsessed with catch phrases, the left is not....or can you show how the left was at least in comparison to "Marxists, Statists, communists, Grubers, socialists, etc, etc..."
Every week some Radio douche would say a phrase, within minutes the parrots of the right were repeating it ad nauseum...
They were either jerking off over Glenn Beck or the Trump clone Sarah Palin.
I see that all the time here - especially Sean Hannity - what would they do if they didn't have their 'right' wing talking heads spoonfeeding their nonsense to them?
They don't even know what it means but they're good little parrots.
What 'single piece of legislation' are you talking about?
BTW, hyperbolic generalization.
IF Russia has been affecting our election we should be doing everything we can to stop them. We should be investigating just how wide spread this unacceptable behaviour is and what we need to do to never allow it to happen again.
Chrump cheered the Russians on and now his base does too. Who are the patriots ???
No Pat, we're not cheering the Russians on and Trump isn't being complacent with them either. You have it all wrong. I don't know what it takes for people to understand Trump. Sure, he did cheer the Russians on during the campaign, even more reason to realize he wasn't in collusion with them. He was blind to the fact Hillary and the DNC were colluding with the Russians. Only Obama and the top Officials of our Intelligence Agencies knew that.
I can understand though. John Brennan, Obama's CIA Director voted for a Communist in the 1976 Presidential Election. Obama was mentored by a card carrying Communist as a child and started his political career in Bill Ayers living room. Obama was in the company he preferred, but as all good Socialist do, Obama, took the Capitalist road for himself. You know Communism and Socialism is for the people, not for the Socialist.
Wow, that is one WARPED piece of logic....
He cheered on the Russians, asked them for help during the campaign, got exactly what he asked them for, but this is evidence he didn't collude???
He didn't ask them for help as much as he was poking fun at the FBI who was having "difficulty" finding Hillary's missing emails.
Not so much unless you've been conditioned to think in the box. You know how Trump runs his mouth. Anyone who would be colluding with the Russians wouldn't have said the things he did during the election. It's just human nature. What criminal have you heard convict themselves? Trump had no idea the Russians were doing anything and based on all the collusion and corruptness of the Intelligence Agencies and Hillary that has been exposed since the election, I'm glad for 3 reasons he won the election.
Before my two reasons were to keep Hillary out of the White House and appoint some real Constitutional Judges. Well, my desires were satisfied, but now I've found another reason I wasn't even aware of before the election and that is exposing all the corruption and collusion that went on before and after the election not by Trump, but by the Intelligence Agencies and Hillary's Campaign.
Get out of the box man!!!
Careful, you may get dizzy with that much spinning.
He made the comment to the Russians, if you have more evidence of the collusion between Hillary's Campaign and the Russians keep it coming, but anyone using a little common sense would see right through that. The Obama Administration had really known about Russia's meddling all along and Obama didn't do a thing about it, because he was convinced Hillary was going to carry on his legacy. They have a hard time dealing with reality.
Hillary was never hacked--according to Democrats.
Or was that untrue?
He was making fun of the whole thing, since Hillary had already shown she couldn't be trusted with Classified information and it was a joke to him.
Texan, who knows? I don't think anything came out, but they did say there was a high probability that she was since she was so slack and careless according to Comey with her unsecured private server. But we know the real reason for that server, don't we? I sure hope we get on with a real collusion investigation instead of this witch hunt to try and save the reputation of the corrupt Intelligence Agencies leader. It's a disgrace all the good agents have to be scrutinized because of the corruptness at the top.
Funny how Obama was "the most respected man in the world" but the Russians didn't seem to respect him AT ALL by "tampering" with our election on Obama's watch!
Obama took Putin to the woodshed for his bloody deeds (and HRC would have continued to do so which is the reason Putin desperately needed Trumpty Dumpty in charge). Putin was afraid of Obama. Trumpty Dumpty is afraid of Putin. Trumpty Dumpty is Putin's tool and people like you are giving it pass. There's the difference.
Obama was gone so why would it matter to Putin anyways?
He could always count on the great Obama's flexibility--especially since Obama had no more elections to win!
If you mean the many ways Obama put the hurt on Putin, you're right. How "patriots" can let themselves believe the Fat Slob and Putin's Toy now in the WH is anything but tells us everything about what "patriotism" means to them.
Sure he did.
Was that before or after his famous flexibility kicked in?
Seems as though if Obama was so respected and feared by the Russians, they wouldn't have messed with an election on HIS watch!
Hey, I've got a great idea. Why don't you tell us what this "flexibility" is that you imagine?
Why don't you ask your Messiah Obama--the one who actually SAID the words to the Russians and ask him EXACTLY what he meant by that statement?
Hear it straight from the horse's mouth!
That's a reason he didn't try it in 2012. You're really drowning here.
Did Putin tell you he didn't try in 2012?
Where did you get that piece of information from?
Source, please.
Why aren't you able to tell us? You're still drowning.
Did Putin tell you he did? Going down, down.
Why bother?
You and I both know you would simply attack my source if I provided you with one.
Why don't you get it straight form the man who actually MADE the statement?
Don't think you'll get a straight answer form him?
When the best you can do is personal insults, you've already lost the argument.
Sure thing, it was a joke........right!
Huh ???
I guess the fact that he's contemplating pleading the fifth means he's innocent too, right.
You make me laugh.
Especially when Donald Trump said pleading the 5th makes ‘you look guilty as hell.’ His lawyer just did that in Stormy Daniels case. And what Trump himself seems ready to do.
Trump’s lawyer said in a filing in Los Angeles federal court that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right, something Trump has bashed on a number of occasions.
During his run for the White House, Trump slammed Hillary Clinton staffers who invoked their Fifth Amendment rights when requested to testify during Clinton’s email scandal.
" So there are five of them taking the Fifth Amendment, like you see on the mob, right?” Trump said at campaign rally in Iowa. “The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”
Source:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karma......big mouth meet even bigger foot.
Now you don't know that to be true. If Putin wanted to meddle in our election, he certainly would have chosen to work against the man who said his country was one of our biggest threats instead of the man who said the Cold War has been over for 20 years. But none of us know whether he did or didn't choose sides just like it is with Trump. One thing we do know now the Intelligence Agencies have and had some pretty big liars and corrupt individuals running their operations and they were certainly working to keep Trump from winning in any way they could.
Well that's good. With all the hate festering in the Left these days, it's a good thing to make one of them laugh.
Remember he was a Democrat before he was a Republican and they either plead the 5th or say "I don't remember", you know. Old habits are hard to break.
Oh please.....get real......Trump was not a Democrat when he made that statement in Iowa. Stop trying to deflect to make Trump look good. It only tends to make you look the one that's a fool.
Sure about that? If they had your balls in a noose? If one of your appointees (Flynn) got caught on the phone telling the Russians not to worry about the sanctions? The President's son in law asking the Russians for a secure back channel? The infamous meeting at Trump Towers?
Yeah, nothing to see here folks...
Since you are literally have to resort to making things up, yeah, your post is a pretty good argument that's there nothing to see here.
Is there any Trumpty Dumpty BS rightwing TDToadies won't swallow whole and puke up on this site? Has the penny not dropped yet that TD's big mouth is not connected at all to the tiny shriveled walnut that serves as his brain? His own shit-filled mouth has left a long trail of self-incriminating statements and no amount of wishful thinking or imaginative explanations by his deplorables will make them go away.
So you don't believe any of those things happened? No wonder you're defending Trump....he was always a favorite when it comes to ignorance.
America's intelligence services monitor the communications of foreign agents, and the detail about Flynn's communication with Kislyak was reported (also in the Post) even before Trump took office. The Trump transition team said Flynn had only wished the ambassador Merry Christmas. Then the Trump camp said the two were making staff-level arrangements for a phone call between Trump and Putin. The Trump team talked about an invitation from Moscow for the U.S. to join Russian-led peace talks about the war in Syria. The timing of the conversations, as Pence explained on television on Jan. 15, was "strictly coincidental." Now Flynn has said they may have talked about sanctions, but he doesn't remember, and Pence is taking himself out of it, saying all of this is on Flynn. What also isn't clear is what Trump might have known or when he knew it. Did Trump order that these conversations take place? Or was Flynn acting on his own?
Did you say something?
You sure went to a lot of trouble to tell me you're ignoring me.
no trouble at all!
I absolutely agree Steve. It's no secret Russia has been meddling in our elections for decades. Whether they helped elect Obama will never be known as far as I'm concerned. The MSM would never do that to Obama.
This little tidbit is interesting.
You have to keep in mind, Obama had already been President for 4 years and no one can convince me he didn't know all about Russia's threat to our elections and other ways. The MSM didn't have anything to say about such a statement from Obama at that time. It should be pretty obvious who the Russians would have wanted in the Oval Office with that kind of statement and the rest is history, only we can see what happened, but weren't privileged to the real intelligence run by the same traitors that were in charge during 2016.
They will simply ignore that info because it doesn't fit in with Russia being so bad now after they denied it for so long.
They're conditioned to put it mildly and they are unable to think out of the box or Liberal cage.
2016 was the first time they actually got a major political party candidate, not just willing but eager to help them.
Wrong--again.
Sigh.
well if I'm not mistaken the powers to be have changed and any truly thorough investigation into outside interference with our elections should reveal previous wrong doings and the actors involved as well from either and or both parties.
Today we have a republican in charge of the country and the investigation both so we'll see where it leads. Hopefully any and all outside meddling in US elections can and will be stopped.
Psst......hey.......pssstt......HEY!
Wake up!
You are obviously dreaming again!
And down you go for the third and final time. RIP.
If that is what it takes to get you through the day, have at it!
I don't mind letting you "think" you "won".
And you refuse to accept that chump is a serial liar, grafter, con and thief, The right has been ignoring the obvious for long enough that it is ingrained that he is bigly awesome.
You don't know that either. Trump told them to bring it own, but that's not more than a Liberal would do, encourage people to do something and then look around to see who was going to actually help them.
I do. And one of the reasons I know it is that you lot have just started trying to suggest that it did. We've seen this pattern from you for years. After having to give up on the lie that there was no Russian collusion in 2016, you then go back to rewrite history to make it seem that it was no big deal. In gambling it's called a "tell." You lot are so easy to read I strongly recommend you never play poker--for real money at least.
Can I ask you a question .. just out of curiosity - Had H. won, would there still have been a special counsel investigation convened .. in you opinion?
Oh, hell yeah. Republicans pledged to keep investigating her forever despite have come up covered in shit after years and millions spent on investigations. No question that when those continued to find nothing they'd have forced a SC:
It's soooo adorable that you think writing that makes it true.
Yet you have no proof of it and STILL keep blathering on about it.
Here's the best metaphor to describe the fix you (and Trumpty Dumpty) are: You're blindfolded and sealed shut in a speeding car of which you have absolutely no control. It's careening along a winding road and there's a huge boulder around one of the bends coming up. You don't know which bend it will be but it will be there. The crash is unavoidable. The only good thing for you is that you can jump out now and save yourself. Trumpty Dumpty does not have that option.*
*I know what you're hoping and it won't happen. You're betting Trumpty Dumpty can make it all go away by firing everyone. Wrong. Oh, so wrong. So wrong, in fact, that I actually hopes he tries it. Because there's a stick of metaphoric dynamite (did I forget to tell you about the dynamite) that's attached to the car's undercarriage. It's will be triggered to explode (metaphorically, of course; all you know all of this has been metaphors, right?) if Trumpty Dumpty even tries to take controls of the car.
And you're still flapping your lips. Now throwing in hypothetical that have absolutely NOTHING do to with the seeded article telling me, you are going on and on and on and on and on and on and on about NOTHING.
Don't you get dizzy?
Consider THAT source for a mo.
As always, you and your lot are given the facts and simply ignore them which is the principal reason we have such a horrendous scumbag despoiling the WH now.
"Putin would be much happier with Clinton in the WH."
Uh, no.
Besides, Russian attacks on Ukraine are real. Pizza Gate was not real but the means justified the ends.
Pizza Gate has nothing to do with anything. I think that has been proven untrue, but you're right the attack on Ukraine was real. Who was President at that tme and what did he do?
no shit sherlock
"I think that's been proven untrue." What type of person could say that about that?
Again. 'no shit, Sherlock.
Well, maybe you need to take a laxative.
So glad you asked.
2014:
2016:
NO wonder Putin had to do anything and everything to keep Clinton out of the presidency and Trumpty Dumpty was more than happy to help him out.
Six, you've been picked.....clean.
True, but you have to understand that a LOT of republicans believed it.
Which is why most of the Russian propaganda is directed at them. They want to believe what they want, and are easy to manipulate.
You did good, but it's not as plain as you would like to think it is. It is true, I was wrong by saying Obama didn't do anything, but the USA, EU, Japan, Albania, Iceland, Montenegro, Ukraine, banks and people suffered and are still under the sanctions, but as you will find out later in this comment falling oil prices have played a major role as well.
Here's some stuff from Wikipedia: You can look at the article. There's lot of stuff in it.
On 26 November 2017, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland stated that the Council of Europe considers lifting the sanctions on Russia due to concerns that Russia may leave the organization, which would be "a big step back for Europe". [73]
In April 2018, the German officials stated that Chancellor Angela Merkel and Germany's Finance Minister Olaf Scholz will be pushing the Trump administration to exempt German companies from the sanctions regime. [74]
The economic sanctions are generally believed to have helped weaken the Russian economy and to intensify the challenges that Russia was already facing.
A 2015 data analysis confirmed Russia's entry into a recession, with negative GDP growth of -2.2% for the first quarter of 2015, as compared to the first quarter of 2014. Further, the combined effect of the sanctions and the rapid decline in oil prices in 2014 has caused significant downward pressure on the value of the ruble and flight of capital out of Russia. At the same time, the sanctions on access to financing have forced Russia to use part of its foreign exchange reserves to prop up the economy. These events forced the Central Bank of Russia to stop supporting the value of the ruble and increase interest rates.
Russia's ban on western imports had the additional effect on these challenging events as the embargo led to higher food prices and further inflation in addition to the effects of decreased value of the ruble which had already raised the price of imported goods. [120]
In 2016 agriculture has surpassed the arms industry as Russia's second largest export sector after oil and gas . [121]
Effect on US and EU countries
As of 2015, the losses of EU have been estimated as €100 billion. [3] The German business sector, with around 30,000 workplaces depending on trade with Russia, also reported being affected by the sanctions. [122] The sanctions had an impact on numerous European market sectors, including energy, agriculture, [123] and aviation. [124] In March 2016, the Finnish farmers' union MTK stated that the Russian sanctions and falling prices have put farmers under tremendous pressure. Finland's Natural Resources Institute LUKE has estimated that last year farmers saw their incomes shrink by 40 percent compared to the previous year. [125]
In February 2015, Exxon Mobil reported losing about $1 billion due to sanctions. [126]
In 2017, the UN Special Rapporteur Idriss Jazairy published a report on the impact of sanctions, stating that the EU countries were losing about "3.2 billion dollars a month" due to them. He also noted that the sanctions were "intended to serve as a deterrent to Russia but run the risk of being only a deterrent to the international business community, while adversely affecting only those vulnerable groups which have nothing to do with the crisis" (especially people in Crimea, who "should not be made to pay collectively for what is a complex political crisis over which they have no control"). [127] [128] [129]
And there's more information:
How have U.S. sanctions impacted Russia's economy?
— Anthony Tata on Sunday, February 19th, 2017 in an interview on CNN
Our ruling
Tata said, "The sanctions that we put on (Russia) for the Crimea annexation and meddling in Ukraine ... have absolutely crushed the ruble by 50 percent. And GDP from 2014 to 2016 is 50 percent down in Russia, as well."
Russia’s ruble fell more than 50 percent in the year following the start of sanctions in 2014, but it started to regain value in 2016. There are no GDP figures yet for Russia in 2016, but from 2014 to 2015, it fell by about 35 percent.
It seems a drop in oil prices are the main driver of Russia’s problems. But sanctions play at least some role — though it’s hard to evaluate exactly how much given the country’s oil crisis.
Tata is right that Russia’s economy has struggled in recent years, though his numbers are a little off. More critically, sanctions are only part of the reason for Russia's economic troubles. We rate his statement Half True.
I know you like Punditfact owned and run by Politifact.
Now here is something that is quite interesting:
This link shows the trade deficit the United States has with Russia and you can see it from 1992 into 2018. Look at the totals for each year.
Now I was wrong to out and out say Obama didn't do anything, so I give you that. You did a good job and I feel a little sympathy as well seeing how Texan has been beating up on you all day.
I like it when you actually bring something to the table.
You say a lot of them believed it? Well, not me, but then again, I'm a Democrat.
And they used it...I remember many articles seeded by the conservatives at NV that originated from RT. Hell, Peach was churning them out almost as fast as she bit the hook...and they all chimed in with glee.
Instead of back-pedaling and back-filling you should have just stopped with:
I would have congratulated you for your honesty. Believe me when I say I know how hard that is as I've had to do it multiple times. Instead you veered off on multiple irrelevant and often meaningless diversions.
Now we have a second Newstalker seeding from American Thinker. Can the garbage dump be far behind?
I read the article and I nominate it as the stupidest article to appear on Newstalkers so far this year.
The premise is that the 2008 and 2012 elections must have been hacked and influenced by the Russians because their 'preferred' candidate won. Let's just say there isn't a scintilla of evidence offered to suggest this might be true. Just an allegation which is most likely just unsupported snark.
The political right has embarked on a gaslighting campaign the likes of which we have not seen til now. They must perceive that Mueller is getting close.
I know this goes against your firmly held beliefs John, but real facts are hard things to ignore and the article and the first comment are filled with them, unlike most of the stuff you've been reading lately.
Oh, I think HA has been giving that to us for some time, both here and at the defunct NV.
LOL
"BUT, but, but, OBAMA!"
Reminds me of the song, "Don't Say Nothing Bad About My Baby". You have to open your eyes Larry. Not all of us are fooled. I don't think you voted for Obama more than once or at all, if I'm not mistaken, but then again you may have, I don't know, but a childish comment like that one indicates you have been triggered, I guess.
Who was President the whole time the supposed hacking was going on?
Obama was the President during the hacking or whatever it was during 2016. What did he do to avert it?
Now you know as well as I do he didn't do anything. He felt just like everyone who had been told by polls and biased media Hillary was going to win the election and continue with his transformation of the United States. You see, those of us who were paying attention to the reality that Donald Trump, who was having thousands of people show up at his campaign events had a chance, our last chance,we thought.
While Hillary was holding her campaign events at the Rich and Famous homes and didn't draw near the number of people to her events when she was able to have them, people wanted a change of direction and Donald Trump was the only candidate who promised to change the direction of the country if elected from the dismal 20 to 25% of the people who thought we were heading in the right direction for the most part of 2016.
We don't all agree with Trump. He's following Obama's and Bush's path in getting us so far in debt we can never come out of it. His personality isn't the best, to say the least, but he made promises to his voters and he has accomplished more of them as they were stated than any President in recent history. And this has been with the most obstruction any President I can remember has had to deal with.
Here are a couple of things he has done.
600 regulations have been wiped out. 200 have been put on hold.
12 appointed and confirmed Appeals Court Judges
The main reason I voted for Trump was not because of his personality, but to keep Hillary out of the Oval Office and getting some Conservative Judges in place to slow down the Utopian State which seems inevitable. Did you know that 46% of voters are in favor of Bernie Sanders 100% employment idea, which means if you can't find a job, the government will hire you and I guess if they don't have anything for you to do, they'll pay you anyway, kind of like Communism. He looks pretty old already, but he may just be getting prepared for 2020, since he knows the USA isn't what it use to be. More and more people have turned that old Kennedy saying 'Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country' around.
It makes perfect sense when Russia meddled in our elections during 2008, they wouldn't want a warmonger like McCain, when they could have a community organizer, which they had something in common with, or in 2012 Obama kind of gave it away, but the MSM did the same thing they're doing now, telling the people what they want to accomplish their agenda. Wonder why they do that? Don't they know there can only be one media source in a Communist country? What am I talking about, that's almost what we have today. There is very little resistance to the MSM.
Of course you meant to write this:
Obama's deficits were very high in the first two years because of Bush's Worst Recession in 80 Years but came down dramatically after that--exactly the opposite of the Reagan and Bush II fiscal disasters. Now comes Trumpty Dumpty's turn to blow the lid off the deficits again. Those are facts. Yours are not.
Highest deficits in history were run under Democratic control.
That is a fact that the left doesn't ever wish to acknowledge.
yeah, that was our reaction when Democrats tried to claim the same thing for Obama.
That's makes no sense.
perhaps not, to you.
I guess I should have spelled it out better for you.
here:
Democrats proclaimed that Obama was obstructed by the GOP.
We laughed at that notion, seeing as how he had a Democratic Congress for his first two years.
Just like now you are laughing at the notion of Democratic obstruction to trump.
Hope that clears it up for ya!
Yeah because the Republicans never said that they would block everything that President Obama did from day one. Never said it. Got it!
The GOP COULD NOT BLOCK EVERYTHING.
That is a simple, unassailable FACT.
If the GOP could have, we wouldn't have been saddled with Obamacare!
You can have the last word now pardner. I've got better things to do - like bang my head against the wall.
Still trying to knock some sense into your head?
Okay, now you can have the last word.
I know how important it is to you.
yes, I am quite concerned with your mental health, and am willing to help out when and where I can.
Huh? They controlled congress. And be careful there buddy, the right wing keeps saying that the only reason the economy recovered while Obama was in office was because the republicans in congress opposed everything he did. So which is it? They opposed everything they did or they did nothing at all? You guys really need to get your talking points straight.
gee, where was I when Obama was President for his first two years?
I could have SWORN Dems controlled Congress.
Wait a minute--they DID control Congress until the midterms of Obama's first term.
Might you be mistaken about that?
If you need a tutorial of why Obama only had the necessary super-majority for a short period over 4 months, here you go.
He's batting 100 and it's up above, but Bush and Obama increased the National Debt more than all the Presidents before them and Trump looks like he wants to get in on the game as well.
Obama had the MSM on his side the whole time he was in office.
These Democrats are spoiled. They don't know what it is like for the media to be against them. They've never experienced it in their life times.
Well, they lied. Boehoner and McConnel, along with others may have well had been Democrats.
.
What's that saying again? Oh ya, " Garbage In - Garbage Out ".
.
..............
...........................................................................
Still whining about a super majority?
Can you tell us when a GOP President had a super majority--as if it matters?
Obama had a Dem Congress his first two years.
You can argue that all you wish, but it is a FACT.
All well and good, but the fact remains--the highest deficits have occurred under Democrats. Now, you might want to tery and pretty it up and give a hundred of EXCUSES, but the facts remain.
FFS, can you EVER discuss what is happening NOW, with TRUMP and GOP in charge? Where the hell are your standards? Where the hell are your supposed ideals? Why do not expect to follow the very standards you set for the freaking rest of the world? Every time Trump and GOP are the topic, you pivot to Obama or Hillary. Why is that? Because you don't want to face the questions.
Poor thing, it seems like it is really, really bothering you.
I'll try to do better JUST FOR YOU, mmmmmkay?
Except the record holder for filibusters and judicial obstruction are the Republicans.
Don't you want people to be employed?
Sounds like a win-win to me.
I suppose you're going to use the massive WWII deficits to back up that bullSHIT. But that forces you to stop counting after that because ever massive deficit since then has occurred under or was due to a Republican administration including what's going to happen with the current one, under which the deficits have already started to increase in just its first FY. Again, I give you Christopher Chantrill, an economist whose main gig is with American Thinker:
The first column is Obama's last budget year (FY2017). The projected deficits will go back to $1T a year--an amount not seen since 2012. So in less than 2 years, Trumpty Dumpty and the republicans will be creating near record deficits after nearly six years of steady decline. Congratulations.
I am not defending wild spending by the GOP.
They are anything but fiscally conservative, and Democrats are no better.
What I wrote was the truth--the highest deficits have happened with Democrats in charge for the most part.
Your graph doesn't prove me wrong.
And?
Lol Six the only thing you triggered is my funny bone!
:~)
My eyes are fully wide open; and, observing a frenzy of all sortsa wackadoodle mental gymnastics taking place, all in an effort to back Trump and further partisan politics. Also this article, as well as the arguments that you and others have presented here sound more like "hey, but Obama mighta done the same thing too, so it's tit-for-tat, and that's just fine". Not only is that argument notably without any evidence (what mighta been compared to what we are learning did indeed take place) but even if it were true, is still doing nothing except making excuses for not dealing with the issue now.
What conspiracy? Uri Bezmenov said you're stuck with them. You can put the facts right in front of them and they will deny it. Everything you see I've put up in this is based on facts. We can't prove the Russians meddled in Obama's favor because all the people who are responsible for that information are corrupt, but we know any logical thinking person would think it would have been Obama since the other two candidates (2008 and 2012) criticized Russia and Obama downplayed it and really didn't do much the whole time he was in office to hinder Russia's aggression. That's enough for the Left, so shouldn't it be enough for us to assume it had to be Obama they would want in the Oval Office?
Anything that could possibly be considered a theory is based on facts and I think Russia would have preferred the Community Organizer over the warmongering John McCain and the Community Organizer over Romney who said that Russia was one of our biggest threats. Obama made a joke out of it and didn't do anything that was effective in stopping Russia's aggression the whole time he was in office except a political stunt the last month or so that he was in office You see, if John McCain wasn't against Trump the Left wouldn't give a crap about his health, but Liberalism trumps everything including race and gender. The reason I say that is we've seen it over and over. The Left has nothing to offer, but promises of more candy as long as you don't disagree with them and stay on the plantation.
You've been stuck on that conspiracy plantation for a long time...The truth will set you free.
I can't help you Kavika. Yuri Bezmenov said we'd be stuck with people who would be unable to use common sense or think logically. And when someone thinks the Russians, who have meddled in our elections for decades, would choose either the warmonger John McCain or Romney, who said Russia was one of our greatest threats, then I have to assume Yuri was right.
Thank goodness, I sure don't need or want help from a conspiracy master. And your right that is what Yuri did say, you may want to take heed of that and check out common sense.
But never with the eager assistance of one party's (Republican) candidate as was the case in 2016. There's the difference you're deliberately ignoring.
What did the Republican Party do?
Got any specifics?
Well since republicans hold the power, they aren't exactly on top of this, are they? But I'm sure somewhere the gears of justice are grinding away, following the money (check out new NRA/Russian money links, for example). There is a reason the GOP doesn't want campaign finance transparency. But I think Mueller or other investigations may be digging into a few things. Patience required.
Did Russian ‘Hacking’ Give Obama Two Election Victories?
That's what the article is about. Now if you want to say the Russians who have been meddling in our elections for decades decided to take off 2008 and 2012, then there is nothing stopping you from doing it. I don't think they did, but that doesn't mean they gave the election to Obama either any more than they gave it to Trump. Kind of like Harrison Ford said, "when they start walking, I will too", meaning all the people who were complaining about his airplanes flew everywhere they went and when they stopped flying, he would too.
When the Democrats stop believing conspiracies about Russia giving Trump the election, I will stop thinking the only person the Russians would want in office would have been Obama. Well, not really, I can't do that, since it is the only person they would have chosen at that time. It's only common sense.
You dare to talk about campaign funding?
Shall we ignore the $80+ million Hillary laundered through state parties and pacs to her campaign, against FEC rules?
They want you to: "pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain."
Squirrel? Can't answer for your own, can you? Always deflect.
it is the HYPOCRISY I am pointing out, and as usual, you missed it!
Whhhhhhhhooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Duck, girl, duck!
Nope. Not even with bold type.
Its clear to EVERYBODY who has a problem identifying hypocrisy, that was a circle jerk joke only you guys get.
Sorry you can't understand the basics.
Of course you can't prove it because it didn't happen. The information is now in the control of the party in charge. If proof existed of that bs, it would have been outed.
You see Larry, Trump didn't do it though. Funny bones usually act up when a person over exerts himself or herself. Does it happen when you hear something you don't like that makes your funny bone act up. By the way, I've had my elbow do that in the past. I suggest you put a pillow under your arm if that is the one that's bothering you so you don't pound you elbow on the table when faced with facts you don't like.
Did you know this?
While the media obsess over an alleged Russian conspiracy to collude with Donald Trump to affect America’s 2016 presidential election, what about Obama’s interference in the elections of other countries? Most Americans have no idea that President Obama meddled in elections all over the world. And apparently, the media decided there’s no reason for Americans to know about this illegal activity.
The Los Angeles Times reported that the “Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned islamist organization…” The MB’s mission statement states, “Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Sounds like a group Obama would support. Indeed, one of the Egyptian MB leaders, Gehad el-Haddad, was actually on the Clinton Foundation payroll while working to help bring the MB to power. Once Morsi appeared to win what was likely a rigged election, Obama poured in $1.5 billion in foreign aid.
The Egyptian people were so upset with Obama’s intervention, they forcefully removed Morsi and installed a pro-American moderate Muslim named Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as president. Morsi was then arrested by the Egyptian military for treason. But even after that, as reported by Western Journalism , Obama’s “State Department hosts Muslim Brotherhood-aligned leaders” in order to “work against this world-be reformer’s government.”
So let’s get this straight. The media is hysterical about a flimsy conspiracy theory that Russia colluded with Trump to steal the 2016 election but was mostly silent about Obama’s efforts to control the outcome of elections in at least six countries during his tenure. Media bias, anyone? Let’s review the examples we know about:
Link
Do you remember to click your ruby slippers together three times every time you make that wish?
Sorry Atheist, but I don't know what you're talking about.
It really does not take much to be able to see the objectives of their end game here. They seem to think they are being so clever, when they are so truly transparent. It really is laughable to see them fail at their end game.
Raven, are you sure you know what you're talking about? Why don't you explain it to me. I assume you're talking about some end game I'm not aware of and I would hate to fail at something I don't even know what it is.
It doesn't take any wackadoodle mental gymnastics to think logically and use some common sense. We know the Russians have meddled in our elections for decades which logically would mean they meddled in both of Obama's elections. Let's get that straight first. Now that doesn't mean they meddled in favor of Obama, but if they wanted to influence the election, who do you think they would have chosen in each of Obama's elections?
Do you think it would have been Obama, the community organizer and considered most Liberal Senator in Congress or the warmongering John McCain who stressed the danger in Russia?
Do you think it would have been Obama or Romney who told Obama Russia was a great threat to the USA? Remember what Obama said to him about that, don't you? It's in the article.
And don't forget the old 'I'll have more leverage after the election'. You don't think they would have wanted Romney after that and after the previous 4 years of getting away with murder while Obama was in office. Wake up Raven. I don't care for Trump's personality, but I'm for doing what this country has done since the beginning. I'm not for Third World Politics as Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump and then turned around and along with the rest of the MSM and other Leftist do it themselves.
We voted for Trump because we were aware of the Left's end game and I know it only hinders it for awhile because too many American Citizens have been too complacent for too long and quite a few have been brainwashed since childhood, mostly by other Americans and these younger people will either wake up or the next 20 years are going to be pretty bad.
(Removed skirting the CoC) Telo
And no, I'm not a Democrat, so please don't play that game either.
Don't worry Raven. I have no end game. I'm only interested in facts, which I've given you per this article and the first comment. I know I win in with this information, but what is my prize? Nothing. Those who can't see or are unwilling to see will never see, so I don't gain anything other than time lost from doing something worthwhile. And that's not much of a prize for winning an end game or anything.
Kind of like those 'private' and 'public' speeches of Hillary.
The Republicans picked Trump, so you've already lost.
I don't know how you figure that, but I do know the Mueller Investigation has two purposes. The first one is to get rid of Trump and convince anyone who thinks they can challenge the Establishment it would be a very bad decision to try it and the second one is to stop the bleeding that the Intelligence Agencies are experiencing now before the American People really get down to the truth of how corrupt they are.
Raven, don't you think you could entertain the idea the Russians meddled in Obama's elections, since they've meddled in all our elections for decades. Do you think they took off those two years (2008 & 2012)?
It's pretty much the same thing. We'll all live through it, I hope. I'm just glad Trump won because if Hillary had won, we'd be dealing with open borders for all and taking our guns. If you want someone who would not listen to any input from anyone and probably be hiding out in the White House passing out the rules, not to mention working with all the corrupt people who have been exposed, then Hillary's your girl.
You're the one unable to see the HUGE difference between a sitting President who had every right to negotiate with foreign countries, who was speaking not to Putin but to the prior President Medvedev (albeit Putin's puppet) and a candidate on the campaign calling for an enemy foreign power to release illegally obtained emails in an effort to help him win an election. The only thing Trump didn't say in public was that he was willing to trade a reduction in sanctions and a repeal of the Magnitsky act in exchange. He let his campaign do that in what was supposed to be a private secret meeting with an admitted Russian government operative and informant. Then of course Trump tried to obfuscate the meetings purpose by claiming it was just about adoptions which was one tiny part having to do with the bans Russia put in place against the US adopting Russian children after the Magnitsky act was passed.
Except he did not do that. What he did was take a jab at the FBI inability to find the missing emails from Clinton's server
asked him to pass on a message for him to Putin, so essentially he was speaking to Putin.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
"asked him to pass on a message for him to Putin"
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” President Obama
“Yeah, I understand, I understand your message about space. Space for you ... .” President Medvedev
“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” President Obama
“I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” President Medvedev
So really, it was Medvedev telling Obama he would pass the message along, not Obama asking him to do that, but it makes sense since Putin had just won the election that week and would be taking over for Medvedev within a month.
Again, tell me how anything Obama did was wrong. He was the sitting President saying he did want to negotiate regarding missile defense, and this was 2012 two years before Putin invaded Crimea, lied about his "little green men" illegally crossing the borders, and started openly assassinating or jailing political opponents, journalists, former intelligence officers and dissidents, and now directly meddling in our national elections. This was when we still held out hope that Putin would actually support a separation of powers with an independent parliament and allow for free and fair elections. Obviously that was too much to hope for and Putin has decided we are the great enemy his country needs to vilify in order to rebuild the once powerful Russian empire.
"Yes you are"
No, I am not. And just because YOU say I am does not make me one. It merely makes you look like a dunce that does not know when they are ahead.
Not my problem. Pffft....
No. Why? Because Putin hates Obama. So why in the world would Putin try to get Obama elected instead of McCain or Romney? That makes no sense at all.
I remember that well. And President Medvedey said he would tell Putin. That little comment would be a good reason to meddle in Obama's 2012 election, wouldn't it? Reminds me of the little girl running for President of her class. She said, "If you vote for me, I'll give everyone candy." Of course she won.
At the time, he didn't think the Russians did anything and with all the corruption in the leadership of our Intelligence Agencies, I still wonder. Do you know if the DNC ever turned their servers over to the FBI? I don't think so. I think that Crowstrike still has them.
CrowdStrike: Five Things Everyone Is Ignoring About The Russia-DNC Story
I still wonder about Rich or Debbie Wasserman's boyfriend who got caught trying to get on a plane heading for Pakistan where he had been sending loads of money. Oh, and computers were found in his garage that belonged to the Democrats. I'm not totally confident things are exactly as they've tried to convince us they are, especially since I see all those top dogs with the Intelligence Agencies lying like they have been doing.
We should just stop having presidential elections and let Russia pick our Presidents for us unabated. You know - cut out the middle man. /s
They may have chosen our President the last two elections before Trump. I mean they've meddled in our elections for decades, so why would anyone think they would take a break during the 2008 election or the 2012 election. Heck, they do it every election, not just the Presidential election.
I just find it hard to believe some people would think Russia took a couple of holidays in 2008 and 2012. And both of those years I'm sure they got the candidate of their choice. Why would they want a warmonger like McCain instead of a Community Organizer who was considered the most Liberal Senator in Congress? Or why would they want someone who told Obama Russia was one of our biggest threats instead of Obama, who played Romney's comment down making a joke out of it, not to mention the 'Leverage after the election' private comment?
These are simple conclusions, although they aren't proven, it's not hard to put two and two together.
Right?! Plus I'm guessing that television advertising in Russia is cheaper than here; those poor politicians could save on some well needed cash.
;^)
Unless Russia was responsible for the GOP saddling McCain with the albatross Palin, then Russia was not responsible for the outcome of the 2008 election.
I don't recall 2012 as being a contentious election. The GOP chose a lackluster candidate to oppose an equally lackluster sitting president.
The 2016 election is definitely one for the history books. The money backed GOP candidate, Bush, lost handily to a Palin like candidate in male clothing. Clinton took over the DNC in order to secure the Democratic nomination in an almost non-existent field of contenders because she could not beat any real opposition from the Democratic party.
US media said Clinton absolutely had to win - 100%. And, of course, we all know that US media is always 100% right.
So, of course, this means that if US media tells us that Putin is responsible for Clinton losing to Obama and then Trump, that the US media is 100% right because it based all of this on our 100% accurate intel network.
The 2020 election is within viewing distance. And to date, the Clinton supporters have not learned a damned thing about why she was not electable to the office of POTUS. It was about domestic jobs - Wall Street against Main Street.
Putin is not responsible for unfair trade agreements that made enough voters so desperate for jobs that they voted for the idiot that promised them the return of their jobs. Putin does make a handy scapegoat inside the US, but I wonder how well it is playing out on the international stage as the Clinton supporters clamor to punish Putin for our corrupt financial policies.
A recent article that is direct opposition to what US government and US media have been promoting as the "truth" about manufacturing jobs in the US.
I think the point was being made that Russia might have been more than willing to help Obama get elected and re-elected because of his know "flexibility".
Why would Russia want a warmongerer like McCain?
Why would McCain want a war with Russia?
She's right to a great extent in my opinion. The media and the Democrats had convinced the public Bush was totally responsible for the recession and a Republican didn't have much of a chance in 2008, but McCain didn't show much desire to win the election either. He was Obama's biggest supporter, just like now.
Actually there was a lot of blame to go around about the recession, but....
I didn't say McCain wanted a war with Russia.
But I doubt he would have stood idly by while Russia attacked our election.
Because he's a warmonger. You don't know that? His first option has always been let's go war.
Wouldn't he have required concrete proof?
Also, what should happen to US citizens when our government attacks other countries' elections?
Should we be starved to death via sanctions or bombed?
I would like to think that ANY President would require proof before sanctions are taken.
Why would US citizens be affected by our attacks on foreign elections?
We can't be starved into submission, and only a fool would attack the US.
Why shouldn't US citizens receive the same treatment that we give the citizens of other countries when our government does the exact same thing (such as interfering with elections)?
See, there is where I differ from some.
I don't go around bitching about Russia placing some freaking ads on Facebook and how it is a calamity that Russia did the EXACT same things WE do.
Anyone who doesn't think we have tried to influence elections in other countries should have their heads examined--just like the people who look the other way when WE do it but are aghast when it is done to us.
Influencing elections pales in comparison to what the US government has done to the citizens of other countries.
The US government has overthrown their governments to protect US economic interests.
I'm not arguing with you.
I find it slightly humorous that some people think that the US has never done the exact same shit they bitch about Russia doing.
Outside of actual vote tampering or changing, i find it to be a little tedious.
but running ads on social media? Come on!
That used to be (and still is) an accurate charge the left in this country has made and it's amusing to see where it's coming from now--the people who used to call the left commies and traitors for saying the same thing. Don't get me wrong--it's nice that you're finally opening your eyes to this reality but, of course, we know it isn't meant sincerely and as soon as there a Dem in the presidency again you'll change your tune.
Only an idiot could or would think the US has never tried to influence foreign elections.
That is pretty well known fact.
Who is this mysterious person you claim is denying that fact?
But it is awfully funny to hear some get worked up so much over some social media ads.
Now you're on to something there Mocowgirl.
Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples
Looks like it's just not that unusual. Of course we've known about Russia and the Soviet Union for decades and they've known about us.
Joel, that's the way it has always been for as long as I can remember or started paying attention to it. I don't think a lot of the Democrats can see it. They've become to use to seeing it and it's natural to them.
I voted for Bill Clinton both times. He was Presidential, a nice looking man, well spoken and I felt qualified to do the job. It was only later I got to know Bill Clinton like I do today. That's the way I see a lot of Democrats. They see a person who they think looks Presidential, not bad looking, well spoken and qualified for the job, but I can spot Bernie Madoff a mile away now when I couldn't before.
I still do, but not because they say we interfere in other countries elections, because they seem to want bigger and bigger government to run our lives. I don't think they are aware it would include their lives as well.
There's a whole lot of truth in your comment mocowgirl.
I tend to think analytically instead of emotionally.
Our election cycles are about fearmongering of the "other".
Since Bill Clinton introduced the Wall Street Democrats, there has been zero fiscal difference in the financial agenda for both major political parties in the US.
These means the candidates are relegated to campaigning on social issues.
The GOP campaigns on representing and defending Christian religious law and fighting wars to spread Democracy and Christianity.
The Democrats campaign on defending civil rights for women and homosexuals, and opening US borders to downtrodden unskilled workers from south of the border and fighting wars to spread Democracy and defend religious freedom.
Is it any wonder that most US citizens do not bother to vote?
It's hilarious to see that is just recently (as in the last two years) that your side has begun saying it. Do you think you're invisible (as opposed to transparent)?
begun saying it??
Or did you FINALLY listen?
I think that is the best way personally. I don't think there is anything wrong with thinking with a little emotion, but when emotion rules you and it's the total basis for you decisions, it gets out of hand. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.
Well, I have to get on with my day. Time just flies by when I'm on here. I don't want to close the article down. Please be civil while I'm gone. If there are no more comments there won't be a problem, this article will be off the Front Page. Just be civil if you comment. We can do that.
Me, too. There is garden to plant and painting that needs to be done.
Have a wonderful day.
You too Mocowgirl.
There is no basis to this article, yet it has 83 comments. Low moment for this forum.
Sixpick is a longtime conspiracy theorist who has been seeing communists under his bed for years and years. While that is not a crime, it is not something to be encouraged either.
Wow. Thanks for your input.
Next?
I wonder if he was counting his comment.
Really?
Then why did Clinton lose the nomination to the unqualified community organizer in 2008?
Wouldn't those same reasons be why Clinton lost to the unqualified idiot in 2016?
If not, then one conspiracy theory is just as valid as any other conspiracy theory if people will not, or cannot, face the facts.
Huh?
I know you hate the Clintons and establishment Democrats but embracing ridiculous unsupported conspiracy theories is not the answer.
The premise of the seeded article is the snarky allegation that the Russians must have hacked the 2008 and 2012 elections because Obama won them, and , according to the writer, he was the preferred candidate of Russia in those elections.
That is it. No evidence that there was this hacking or interference, just the conspiracy theory.
It is a nothing article.
So you are naïve enough to believe that the very first time Russia tried to influence an American election was in 2016.
Got it.
SMDH
And there is no evidence that Russia changed one single vote in the US....just the conspiracy theory that it is Russia's fault that Hillary Clinton is POTUS.
Clinton supporters refuse to deal with the FACT that Clinton was not electable to the office of POTUS and play the blame game 24/7.
I agree with you 1000% on this matter. This 'piece' is just a conspiracy theory, nothing else.
All rump supporters seem to have is these conspiracy theories and nothing burgers.
Our intelligence agencies and the special prosecutor's office all believe that Putin directed Russians hacked both the DNC emails and John Podestas emails and disseminated 'embarrassing' information about Clinton from that hacked material.
All that 'embarrassing' information was in the forefront of the national media for weeks during the election. To expect that the information had no effect on the vote at all would be bizarre.
So we should just assume that Obama's elections were hacked by the Russians for Obama's benefit , because people like you say so? LOL. I've seen a lot of silly things, but this is right up there.
Of course not. It's was the first time they had help from the a candidate, though. We have Trumpty Dumpty on video enthusiastically, in fact, gleefully, encouraging Russians to release the stolen emails--a criminal act--to help him.
Well, that isn't what he said.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said at a press conference in Doral, Florida, Wednesday morning after the second night of the Democratic convention. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens.”
Now, since Hillary was never hacked, and those emails in question were deleted by Hillary's team of lawyers, how did Trump call for hacking them or for them to release STOLEN emails--since they never stole her emails to begin with?
Tell me, how do you release what you don't have and never had?
As silly as assuming that Russia never tried to influence an American election until 2016??????????
LMAO!
Well, to be 100% honest, prior to 1990 it was the officially the Soviet Union that was doing that not Russia.
Why do you assign personal emotion to opposition of Clinton policies?
I don't hate NAFTA. However, I do not believe it was beneficial to US workers.
I don't hate the XL pipeline. However, I do not believe that it is beneficial to the world's environment.
Okay.
Fact still remains that other countries have and will attempt to mess with our elections, just like we mess with theirs.
Lol I know, i agree and was just messing with ya.
I grew up and served during the "better dead than red" era. It tickles me to no end when some of the NT jack-wagons in here accuse me of being a Russian bot.
Nothing and i do mean NOTHING could be further from the truth and only proves how out of wack some of them are.
Shouldn't they all have proof that Putin" did whatever?
Without proof then why should anyone believe that Putin was responsible any more than anyone should believe that Clinton is responsible for any of the things that people claim that she did? Isn't proof required?
In 2016, we were supposed to vote for Clinton because she lied less than Trump, because she was "centrist" and a whole host of other things that were put out by mainstream media in the US.
The conspiracy theory that Putin had more power over the US voters than mainstream media and domestic opposition to the Clintons that had occurred over decades is ridiculous.
What exactly was Putin's propaganda? What lies did Putin spread on social media that were more potent than the damage that Clinton had actually done to herself with Democratic voters? And why should any Republican ever vote for Clinton? Why should any Obama supporter ever vote for Clinton after the lies and propaganda that Clinton and her team smeared Obama with in 2008? Also, why did Clinton lose to Obama? Was it because her lies and propaganda was not enough to sway Obama voters to her camp? How about Bernie Sanders? Didn't Bernie Sanders have a role in costing Clinton the election? Also, Bernie Bros? Bernie voters? Millennials? Clinton's support of trade deals that cost US workers their jobs?
All of those questions should be answered before laying Clinton's loss at Putin's feet if a person really truly wants to deal in facts and truth. It is imperative that we understand exactly what (if any) foreign propaganda was spread and why it was more effective than the domestic lies and propaganda that is spread by US candidates themselves about their opponents.
You are too anti-Clinton to be rational about this. I get it, the "Bernie Bros, elements of the left, anti-establishment progressives, have all been pooh poohing the Putin/Russian involvement for a long time. They would rather have a president Trump than a Clinton (See Susan Sarandon in 2016). How the f is that working out?
Wait... Then why did 17 republican candidates lose to a guy that lies 80% of the time and has cheated on all three of his wives?
Because it was his "turn"?
You are too pro-Clinton to be rational about this. LOL!
I am pro-Democratic candidates. I would have been more than happy if Bernie had won the nomination.
Me, too.
I am an independent. A candidate has to earn my vote. I campaigned for Obama in a Republican stronghold in 2008.
My dearly departed father-in-law was a lifelong Democrat. He said the one vote that he regretted was ever voting for Bill Clinton for POTUS.
My father-in-law and I agreed that history would show that Carter was one of the better Democratic presidents and better human beings than mainstream had pictured him.
Reading some of your comments, you seem to be more or less "progressive". You are not going to find too many progressives among the Republicans in this day and age.
I don't vote for the lessor of two evils. I don't vote against the "other".
I vote for politicians to represent my interests. If there isn't a candidate that does represent my interests, then I don't vote for that office.
That is why I like the ballots that do not allow a person to just check Democrat or Republican. A person should have to vote for each candidate.
Thank you Mocowgirl for that comment, but you should know you're not allowed to do such things at that. That's almost as bad as walking off the plantation. There are severe consequences for those who do not conform.
You don't think Facebook would turn anyone in, do you? After all didn't they have something to do with the 2008 election? Didn't one of the founders take leave to help Obama win the election. You don't think he left all his contacts behind, do you?
Do you think the Russians took off in 2008 and 2012?
Something that I have been well acquainted with all of my life.
I'm not even saying that John, but it stands to reason if the Russians didn't take off 2008 and 2012 they continued to do what they always do, try to disrupt American elections. And I think Putin was pretty angry at Hillary Clinton. Didn't Putin accuse Hillary of being behind the protest during his election? I think she challenged the fairness of his election or something like that as well. She was probably right about that. I think, if anything, Putin would not be working to getting Trump elected, but was actually working to keep Hillary from winning instead, no matter who she was running against.
That's me, sitting on the box. Which one is you Tessylo?
It's nothing like....
NBC News : Top Adviser Called Trump An "Idiot"
Now that is something we can all put our thinking caps on for.
Yes, but that's the way Atheist translates it to...
He got a hole in one on the ninth hole, but the rest of his balls went into the ruff.
This is the premise of the seeded article
Did Russian ‘Hacking’ Give Obama Two Election Victories?
There is no evidence in the article that such hacking to benefit Obama took place.
This seed now has over 100 comments, many of them agreeing with this non existent premise.
As I said, a low point for this forum, although I myself am now guilty of making a half dozen comments on this seed.
Then why did Clinton lose to Obama?
As the campaign unfolded a lot of people who were not familiar with Obama began to see him as someone who fit the popular imagination of what the first black president should be like, and more people decided that they preferred a first black president to a first woman president at that time.
Because she was a crappy candidate in 2008 also. She is a bad candidate no matter when she runs
It shouldn't have ever come down between a choice of the first woman or first black to win the Oval Office. it should have come down to best candidate--period.
Sorry the Democrats were such lemmings and deprived Hillary of "her TURN"!
Because she voted for Bush's invasion of Iraq and was a far less charismatic and engaging candidate.
I think my answer in 12.1.2 is more accurate.
Had her political history changed in 2016?
Was she more charismatic and more engaging in 2016?
Was she still carrying the same unsavory baggage in 2016 that she had carried for decades on the national stage?
Do you believe that her stunt of equating wiping a window with wiping her email server helped her ethics rating with computer savvy voters?
What other Democratic candidate would have possibly lost to Trump? Biden? Warren? Or even another unknown charismatic, energetic community organizer of any color or gender? Would Clinton even had the 2016 Democratic nomination if she had been challenged for the nomination?
This is why I find it irrational to lay Clinton's loss at anyone's feet other than Clinton herself.
The office of President of the United States is not a child's game where people take turns. Clinton was not owed a turn.
Clinton unsuccessfully tried the "I am the most qualified candidate to ever lived and breathed" tactic against Obama.
Maybe the Clinton supporters will never ever be able to accept that Clinton is not electable to the office of POTUS. I don't remember anyone being this upset when Gore lost. I don't remember anyone being this upset when Kerry lost. However, the Clinton supporters seething over her 2008 during Obama's 8 years in office. And, now it's going on 2 years since her last loss. This would be almost a decade of seething over one politician's election loss.
Now that was quick and a very good joke. Well, it's not exactly a joke or maybe it is. But it was good and very true!!!
Damn good comment!!! I see what you're talking about by analytical thinking.
They'll never accept it as being true, but the Democrats get as much credit as the Trump voters for Trump being our President today.
Are you working for the Washington Post? They keep count too.
Well since republicans hold the power, they aren't exactly on top of this, are they? But I'm sure somewhere the gears of justice are grinding away, following the money (check out new NRA/Russian money links, for example). There is a reason the GOP doesn't want campaign finance transparency. But I think Mueller or other investigations may be digging into a few things. Patience required.
I remember when Obama agreed to take the government money with McCain, but as usual, he did exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do.
Oh yes if you had BO's word you really had something./s Patriot act, transparency oh hell why waste my time we all know the rest.
Really, really, REALLY want to "follow the money"?
How about starting here:
What's behind the claim that Hillary Clinton got '$84 ...
...
It was the first time a member of Congress had referred to a Federal Election Commission complaint ... Clinton’s campaign created a Hillary Victory Fund ...
FEC hit with lawsuit over ignoring civil complaint ...
...
The Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee allegedly used state chapters as strawmen to launder as much as $84 million in an effort to circumvent campaign donation limits, and the Federal Election Commission ignored complaints exposing the practice, a lawsuit filed Monday claims.
FEC complaint accuses Clinton campaign, DNC of violating ...
...
Oct 25, 2017 · Hillary Clinton's campaign and the ... according to a complaint filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. ... The Washington Times is ...
About that FEC lawsuit - PatriotRetort.com
patriotretort.com/about-that-fec-lawsuit
Pro-Trump PAC files a lawsuit against FEC for failing to act on complaint against the DNC and Clinton campaign.
FEC hit with lawsuit over ignoring civil complaint ...
...
Apr 16, 2018 · Source FEC hit with lawsuit over ignoring civil complaint accusing Clinton, DNC in election scheme EXCLUSIVE: The Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee allegedly used state chapters as strawmen to launder as much as $84 million in an effort to circumvent campaign donation limits, and the Federal Election Commission ...
And I apologize in advance for so many right-leaning sources, but the mainstream media has largely ignored this (who'd a-think it!)
Well since this 'revelation' is over a year old, one would think, were it true, that Trump's DOJ would have at least SAID something about it. It just amazes me how many 'rock solid' [/s] accusations have come to light, dropped right into the lap of Trump's DOJ, and not a damn thing has been done.
I await with bated breath the deluge of seeds demanding Session appoint a Special Counsel to investigate why HE hasn't acted on any of the plethora of 'rock solid' cases, against prior the Administration's officials, that frequent the FP of NT.
I've always wondered why y'all actually think that posting a cartoon is an appropriate reply. I suppose we should follow your lead and view your seed with the same disregard as your cartoon replies deserve.
Well it would explain quite a bit. Maybe they decided to double cross Hillary even after she gave them a bunch of uranium because they already knew what a bat shit crazy backstabber she was so they figured they were better off taking their chances with Trump. LMAO