Argus Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Just now, DogOnPorch said: It was rhetorical... I don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, BubberMiley said: Up to a few hours ago, Trumpsters were denying the possibility that anyone could know who did the hacking and saying the whole intelligence community are sore loser DNC operatives. Now that that's been totally discredited, you're going to complain that the people who raised red flags didn't raise them high enough? Who's denying the possiblity that anyone could know who did the hacking? That's rather a far cry from saying unless there's clear evidence that points to Putin, why should the USA antagonize Russia! Well? They did say that they suspected Russia in June! They said it was Russian Intelligence! Why raise hell only now that the election is over? Why have such a fit now - because that's what it looks like, Obama having a big fit - when he could've just as easily done it in June, when DNC was getting hacked! The comparison on how Obama treated China with its hacking has also been raised! Nobody saw Obama booting out Chinese diplomats within 72 hours! Edited January 7, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 50 minutes ago, Argus said: The scary thing is that's the kind of behavior I expect Trump to engage in, as well, only even moreso. He has shown in his life that he makes decisions without regard to actual evidence or information, and has an extremely low tolerance for anyone who tells him he's wrong. Actually, it's the Dems who're scary when it comes to instigating war! Obama lets his personal enmity with Putin cloud his judgement, that he's going out looking so pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, betsy said: Who's denying the possiblity that anyone could know who did the hacking? That's rather a far cry from saying unless there's clear evidence that points to Putin, why should the USA antagonize Russia! Well? They did say that they suspected Russia in June! They said it was Russian Intelligence! Why raise hell only now that the election is over? Why have such a fit now - because that's what it looks like, Obama having a big fit - when he could've just as easily done it in June, when DNC was getting hacked! The comparison on how Obama treated China with its hacking has also been raised! Nobody saw Obama booting out Chinese diplomats within 72 hours! Donald said it was ridiculous to say that Russia was involved, no one could ever know the truth, and that he didn't believe it, despite having the opportunity to be briefed on the evidence. Now that the evidence has been made public and it's clear what happened, he can't successfully lie about it anymore so he has conceded they were involved. Now he has switched to claims that the hacking had no effect on the election results. I don't know how he knows that. Obama and the Democrats did raise red flags about Russian interference before the election. Even if they didn't, that still doesn't make it okay. Edited January 7, 2017 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: Donald said it was ridiculous to say that Russia was involved, no one could ever know the truth, and that he didn't believe it, despite having the opportunity to be briefed on the evidence. Now that the evidence has been made public and it's clear what happened, he can't successfully lie about it anymore so he has conceded they were involved. Now he has switched to claims that the hacking had no effect on the election results. I don't know how he knows that. Obama and the Democrats did raise red flags about Russian interference before the election. Even if they didn't, that still doesn't make it okay. He said prior to the briefing that he's not jumping into conclusions unless he sees any evidence. Intelligence had not been able to provide the evidence until Friday - that's why Trump had said before that the report wasn't even finished yet! Well, maybe they did have something conclusive. And it's true what he said: the only reason there's so much uproar over Russian interference is due to the fact that the Dems had lost! Hackings happen everyday! Look at when North Korea hacked private emails and released embarrassing information! The media were more into the juicy details that got released rather than North Korea doing these hackings! Was there an uproar? You think Russia would be the only country who'll try to influence an election? This is our reality now! Nothing is safe due to technology. Edited January 7, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: Obama and the Democrats did raise red flags about Russian interference before the election. Even if they didn't, that still doesn't make it okay. Who's saying it's okay? If they didn't aggressively tackled it then the way they're tackling it now........obviously they didn't think it such a big deal UNTIL they realized they'd actually lost the election! They were reassured by the polls! They relied on the polls! There! Maybe those fake polls that showed Hillary winning by a landslide, they were done by the Russians! The mainstream media spread those fake polls around! Edited January 7, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Surely you guys don't want to go to war just because some country hacks into your system, do you? Are you willing to declare war just because you got hacked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 16 minutes ago, betsy said: If they didn't aggressively tackled it then the way they're tackling it now........obviously they didn't think it such a big deal UNTIL they realized they'd actually lost the election! They were reassured by the polls! They relied on the polls! Never mind the liberal democrats, why didn't and why isn't the conservative right attacking it, no hold-barred? They're the ones about to take power, and they're the ones who'll have to deal with Russia in the future - are they giving the 'nod' to political espionage by Russia? Why is the right still trying to shift blame, instead of dealing with facts? Можете ли вы говорить по-русски для новых русских повелителей? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, dialamah said: Never mind the liberal democrats, why didn't and why isn't the conservative right attacking it, no hold-barred? The Democrats are still officially the ones on the helm. What do you mean by no-holds barred? Bomb them? Boy.....imagine if Hillary was the one waiting to be sworn - we'd be right back in the old days of the cold war, if not outright war with Putin! We'll have to see how this will unfold when Trump takes office. Edited January 7, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, betsy said: The Democrats are still officially the ones on the helm. So? Putin is counting on Trump not to do anything about it even after he takes power in a couple of weeks, that's very clear. 11 minutes ago, betsy said: What do you mean by no-holds barred? Bomb them? No-holds barred, in the same way you defend Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 43 minutes ago, dialamah said: Never mind the liberal democrats, why didn't and why isn't the conservative right attacking it, no hold-barred? They're the ones about to take power, and they're the ones who'll have to deal with Russia in the future - are they giving the 'nod' to political espionage by Russia? Why is the right still trying to shift blame, instead of dealing with facts? Можете ли вы говорить по-русски для новых русских повелителей? Unneeded conflict isn't a conservative principle.......the further "right" you go and you will find isolationists. Conflict, with a country with nukes to boot, is a future unknown, conservatives favor incremental knowns....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Nobody is talking about war. Obama dealt with Russia's annexation of Crimea with sanctions. Trump could be talking about implementing further sanctions, rather than praising Putin. Do you have your talking points ready for when he removes Obama's sanctions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: Unneeded conflict isn't a conservative principle.......the further "right" you go and you will find isolationists. Conflict, with a country with nukes to boot, is a future unknown, conservatives favor incremental knowns....... Saying "They broke into our private network systems, and our country will not sit by and do nothing" is not the same as saying "Let's break out the nukes!" Saying "It didn't happen! Oh, it did happen? So what? Anyway, it was *the other American's* fault because we don't want any trouble with Russia" is not the same as saying "They broke into our private network systems, and our country will not sit by and do nothing" It's pretty amusing when a healthy segment of the American public uses the possibility of their own government's hostile actions against citizens as reason to 'bear arms', but dismisses a hostile act from a foreign power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, dialamah said: It's pretty amusing when a healthy segment of the American public uses the possibility of their own government's hostile actions against citizens as reason to 'bear arms', but dismisses a hostile act from a foreign power. Amusing to some, but should be a confirmation of decline (see your other thread)..........many see a Putin as less a threat to their lives then the political establishments and power brokers of their own country....Putin wants to make Russia "great again", just like Trump....."bearing arms", an enshrined right, is but a form of individual insurance, far more reliable then a policy from a broker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 15 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: Amusing to some, but should be a confirmation of decline (see your other thread)..........many see a Putin as less a threat to their lives then the political establishments and power brokers of their own country....Putin wants to make Russia "great again", just like Trump....."bearing arms", an enshrined right, is but a form of individual insurance, far more reliable then a policy from a broker. I disagree. I don't think the country is so terrible that treason is justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, dialamah said: So? Putin is counting on Trump not to do anything about it even after he takes power in a couple of weeks, that's very clear. That's Putin. Anybody can count on anything they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll get what we counted on. Quote No-holds barred, in the same way you defend Trump. I'm a civilian! My opinion won't create conflict among nations! Leaders have to be diplomatic. Edited January 7, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) It's not because Putin likes Trump. It's because Putin hates Hillary! Putin had accused Hillary Clinton of interfering with Russia's election! Quote Why Putin hates Hillary Behind the allegations of a Russian hack of the DNC is the Kremlin leader's fury at Clinton for challenging the fairness of Russian elections. When mass protests against Russian President Vladimir Putin erupted in Moscow in December 2011, Putin made clear who he thought was really behind them: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. With the protesters accusing Putin of having rigged recent elections, the Russian leader pointed an angry finger at Clinton, who had issued a statement sharply critical of the voting results. “She said they were dishonest and unfair,” Putin fumed in public remarks, saying that Clinton gave “a signal” to demonstrators working “with the support of the U.S. State Department” to undermine his power. “We need to safeguard ourselves from this interference in our internal affairs,” Putin declared. Former U.S. officials who worked on Russia policy with Clinton say that Putin was personally stung by Clinton’s December 2011 condemnation of Russia’s parliamentary elections, and had his anger communicated directly to President Barack Obama. They say Putin and his advisers are also keenly aware that, even as she executed Obama’s “reset” policy with Russia, Clinton took a harder line toward Moscow than others in the administration. And they say Putin sees Clinton as a forceful proponent of “regime change” policies that the Russian leader considers a grave threat to his own survival. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153 Edited January 7, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, betsy said: That's Putin. Anybody can count on anything they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll get what we counted on. I'm a civilian! My opinion won't create conflict among nations! Leaders have to be diplomatic. When the sanctions are removed, will you admit you were wrong or argue there never should have been sanctions in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: When the sanctions are removed, will you admit you were wrong or argue there never should have been sanctions in the first place? Explain. I don't get what you're saying. What's my comment got to do with that anyway? I'm stating the obvious - the difference between my public comment and that of a nation's leader. Edited January 7, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, betsy said: It's not because Putin likes Trump. It's because Putin hates Hillary! Putin had accused Hillary Clinton of interfering with Russia's election! True 'dat....payback is a bitch ! Now Trump will have to press the "reset" switch for U.S./Russian relations that Team Obama screwed up so badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, betsy said: I'm a civilian! My opinion won't create conflict among nations! Leaders have to be diplomatic. Except Trump, according to his supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Quote Putin is reported to have done this in revenge against Clinton for publicly questioning the integrity of Russian parliamentary elections back in 2011 US intelligence officials believe 'a high level of confidence' that Russian president Vladimir Putin was personally involved in ordering Russian operatives during the election hack. New intelligence reveals that Putin not only ordered the hack but also controlled the way that the materials obtained in the operation from was leaked and used during the election two senior officials told NBC News. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4035444/White-House-accuses-Trump-knowing-Russia-interfering-election-hurting-Hillary-Clinton-s-campaign-sources-claim-Russian-president-Vladimir-Putin-DIRECT-hand-it.html#ixzz4V7CrUC7P Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, dialamah said: Except Trump, according to his supporters. ????? Trump is being diplomatic. It's been explained over and over how! Edited January 7, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 10 minutes ago, betsy said: Explain. I don't get what you're saying. What's my comment got to do with that anyway? I'm stating the obvious - the difference between my public comment and that of a nation's leader. Are you aware of the sanctions against Russia? If so, read my question in that context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, betsy said: ????? Trump is being diplomatic. It's been explained over and over how! That's the irony of it all....Trump has a better relationship with Putin using anything but "diplomacy". Some of these folks just don't get it.....Trump is not a diplomat. Trump would never make a sorry ass video welcoming the Politburo. Edited January 7, 2017 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.