DNC sues Russia, Trump, Wikileaks
- Thread starter Bob the Citronaut
- Start date
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
And this is what it has come to.
It's lawyers not doing what's right, not remotely interested in the truth, but trying to 'game the system' in the civil corts, to force limitations on others.
I refuse to vote 'against' any party, but this does not leave me with a positive view of the DNC right now. Since 2006, they've done worse than the GOP.
And here I thought the GOP would 'take back my hate' with the lack of a solution for the ACA, and increased spending? Sigh ... DNC just 1'upd them, yet again.
It's lawyers not doing what's right, not remotely interested in the truth, but trying to 'game the system' in the civil corts, to force limitations on others.
I refuse to vote 'against' any party, but this does not leave me with a positive view of the DNC right now. Since 2006, they've done worse than the GOP.
And here I thought the GOP would 'take back my hate' with the lack of a solution for the ACA, and increased spending? Sigh ... DNC just 1'upd them, yet again.
Not according to them. According to them, Bernie Sanders is responsible for Donald Trump winning. Yep. That's what it's come to.
I couldn't believe it when most of my Progressives on social media said this on the anniversary of the MLK Jr. assassination. But sure enough, they were blaming Sanders for the loss, even though he endorsed Hillary.
Seems like they have a fair case. You do realize they were attacked by Russia right?
Why can't they sue their attacker and those who helped maximize the damage that attack did?
Why can't they sue their attacker and those who helped maximize the damage that attack did?
so is russia going to send those guys involved over here or make them pay monetarily?
Some of you claiming to be patriots are sticking up for foreign countries attacking American citizens and organizations and don't really care about solving the problem. You've sold out our America sovereignty for temporary political power.
Take political affiliation out of this and these are people and groups that are vital to American democracy hacked by a foreign nation. Harm was done to American citizens. It was coordinated by Russia and no one wants to punish them. No sanctions have been applied. No progress has been made to stop them. Its like we now welcome these attacks as long as they help your america and hurt the other guys. In fact, we ASK for Russia to do harm to Americans on TV.
All this in the name of temporary political power.
Take political affiliation out of this and these are people and groups that are vital to American democracy hacked by a foreign nation. Harm was done to American citizens. It was coordinated by Russia and no one wants to punish them. No sanctions have been applied. No progress has been made to stop them. Its like we now welcome these attacks as long as they help your america and hurt the other guys. In fact, we ASK for Russia to do harm to Americans on TV.
All this in the name of temporary political power.
The Russians have been attacking us since the Georgian War. They have directly influenced our media since then.
The Czechs have been -- publicly -- trying to tell us that since then, especially as the US media was blaming W. for the Georgina War and saying W. was trying to start one (don't get me started).
Romney was made fun of in 2012 for the same.
But it wasn't until the Russians started favoring the Republicans as the "more non-interference" party post-Ukraine, and no longer the "no longer non-interference" Democrats (although they still love us non-interference Libertarians), that the US media cared.
I warned and warned and warned everyone that Georgia was a "test" of how the US and NATO would respond. The Ukraine ended up being the "wake up call" for eveyrone else.
No but the people who coordinated the release of these illegally obtained documents for maximum damage might have to pay.
But why only 2014+?
Why not also going back a dozen years ago?
This "our Democracy has been attacked" argument started because of partisanship!
No one remembers the Georgian War, and how it started way, way back then.
Oh man, the irony of bob posting this after literally screaming about lawyers and hannity is just too much. This is amazing.
So you should still care that Russia is doing this. Why arent you welcoming democrats who are realizing this and having liberals admit that Romney was correct and unifying against russian interference? All the sudden this was just a big deal back in 2012 and now that dems are onboard you are against it?
Implementing some of the toughest sanctions in history on Russia = sticking up for them. Yeah OK.
You also said people in here were sticking up for Russia. Please name names so they can be called out.
Stop assuming what I'm saying, and actually read what I'm saying ...
I was screaming at the TV when the US media was using Russian-prepared "talking points" that W. was trying to 'start a war' by moving Coast Guard Cutters to deliver aid to Georgia. What the US media did not point out is that W. ordered NATO to remove the required number of NATO warships out of the Black Sea, so the Cutters didn't exceed the Treaty in delivering goods to Poti.
It was then I started searching, and found the Czech BIS reports that were being made public, in the hope of reaching the US media about how much Russia had shifted its influence efforts from central Europe to the US, in the hope of undermining US public opinion. This included not only the election of President Obama, but Obama's post-election moves in completely dismantling the Clinton-W. plans for missile defense installations, despite guarantees to both the Czechs and Poles.
It was then I said, "Wow!"
Because I'm a non-interference Libertarian, and more importantly, I'm against government and political entities limiting what we Americans can read, hear and see!
I'm against any "Ministry of Truth" and I want everything, unfiltered!
Because the only way we remain free, is to remain educated!
Now beyond that ...
If people want to be ignorant, and assume the Russians weren't an issue before 2014 -- of which every single Progressive I know refuses to admit this, and Romney was correct, Obama was a puppet at times (don't get me started). I am not going to join the Republicans with the Democratic and US media BS on this.
The American people wanted an alleged pro-Russian puppet in Obama.
Then they wanted an alleged pro-Russian puppet in Trump. Why?
They want non-interference. Even the EU sees this, which is why they are building a standing army! As one Dutch paper put it, even if Trump doesn't win, the attitude in America is turning to non-interference.
We're tired of it. We were tired of it during the Georgian War. We are tired of it in the Ukranian conflict. We're tired of European affairs once again!
I've been against it altogether! I'm a non-interference Libertarian! Didn't you hear?
We Libertarians are the biggest of the "Putin puppets!"
The thing I hate most is hypocrisy. Either do something, or don't. Don't promise our allies one thing, and then screw them over. Don't promise to do one thing, and then not do it. I'd rather us not do it in the first place.
Like not selling THAAD to our allies, all while Russia sells S-400 to the Iranians, Chinese, North Korea, etc...
It gets old, and everyone hates us for it. Jimmy Carter was the first, best example of this, and a colossal screw-up on the world stage as a result. "If I become President, I will work ... to increase the emphasis onpeace and to reduce the commerce in weapons."
Either be non-interference, or not half-@$$es. Obama was the latter, not the former. Trump is show-casing, ironically, that he's the former, but ready to go full tilt the latter. Americans actually prefer that.
And they are tired of the partisan US media. Sorry, but that's the case. It's after-the-fact, but we all knew back during the Georgina War. We saw it. And then into the missile defense policies of the Obama administration, because the Russians had already controlled the US media.
All while Russia and China developed not just new defensive systems, but offensive ones. W. was demonized by the US media for trying to 'keep up.' In the end, I'm for new systems (deterrence), but not new interference (FoBs, carrier deployments, etc...).
Capability, but not use.
And you know who else thinks that way? Veterans.
Okay @fried-chicken, now you're sounding like US media sheep. I know most people are now just 'waking up to' the realities of the US over the last 20 years, but for those of us exposed with the tactical and strategic defense of the US during that time, it was "common sense" that the US media, then Obama, nuked.
Listen, it's really this simple ...
- The 2 prior Republican candidates have recognize Russia is the world's largest geo-political threat, and not China (which is a geo-economic one)
- Trump is not a Republican, he was a non-interference candidate with a quasi-Libertarian economic and even (back in 2000) freedom ("New York Values") history too (which has not shown up in 2017), while pro-military R&D (but anti-deployment)
- The US media has been more than a non-interference Russian mouthpiece, but a anti-R&D Russian mouthpiece since the mid '00s, causing W. to get nothing during a late, partially Democratic Congress, and a completely appeasing Obama administration that crossed all our allies
- We Libertarians are only non-interference, and we are against large military-industrial-Congressional pork, but not against Missile Defense and new, offensive weapons systems and ballistic missiles
But it doesn't mean we should not continue R&D for ourselves, which is all we've done until Obama kickstarted things after 2014 proved not just his foreign policy 100% wrong, but holding off on any R&D for even ourselves. I mean, even the US GAO lambasted him on Missile Defense, let alone offensive weapon systems that W. argued for (and the US media lambasted him over).
Oh you mean these sanctions?
www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-04-16/russian-assets-rally-on-report-trump-to-roll-back-new-sanctions
U.S. President Donald Trump will roll back new sanctions on Russia
Trump did take away existing sanctions, just didn't implement the new ones they were planning on. Thanks for trying though.
I literally just proved your "buy muh sanctions reeeeee" argument bunk, and that's the best comeback you have? You just admitted he took away existing sanctions and didn't implement new ones. So you are just flat out wrong.
I'll side with @NinjaKnight on this. In fact, the White House didn't look very good in failing to communicate this to Haley in time.
Now I fully admit that has happened in other administrations, and the US media didn't make as big of a deal about it. But it still didn't look good.
At the same time, one can't say the Trump administration and his approach to high turnover isn't transparent. I'd argue they've been almost "too transparent" compared to the "not-so-transparent" Obama administration.
Having a campaign message is no longer enough for pathetic Democrats. They need to stage a faux lawsuit to make themselves a campaign message.
“Look- we had to sue them it’s so bad!”
If these cretins are doing this why do we need Mueller? Absolutely pathetic
“Look- we had to sue them it’s so bad!”
If these cretins are doing this why do we need Mueller? Absolutely pathetic
It was obviously a typo. Trump did not roll back any sanctions, he also didn't implement new ones. You are wrong, sorry. If Trump rolled back existing sanctions feel free to share some evidence and have an adult debate instead of acting like a toddler.
Sorry but I consider both the dnc and the rnc to be a huge detriment to the well being of our country . Our political problems start with these 2 organizations
No, it's even worse ...
They are doing it for political strategy reasons, not so much valid, legal ones, about as far from civics (let alone ethics) as one can get. They are literally trying to inhibit operations in the administration with civil lawsuits.
They've really opened themselves up to some legal scrutiny now, and it might backfire.
Damages? Seriously? Can you present a valid argument for the victim here and measure that in dollars lost? Hillary Clinton lost out on a 250k /year job but it certainly didn't diminish her earning capability. Nevermind, just sue. Sue anyone and everyone because something didn't go as planned and there are hard feelings about it. Boo frigging hoo.
In other news, yesterday I missed out on a 900,000 dollar contract. Should I sue for damages because the customer didn't select my company?
How the hell am I supposed to have an adult debate with someone who doesn't even know WTF they are trying to argue for.
You obviously are in over your head here, just like every other debate I've tried to have with you.
I actually like you, but even putting your trolling aside, you absolutely infuriate me at times (causing me to side with others) when ...
you spew, what I can only surmise at times, came from Progressive media.
Especially when I ask you to correct a gross attack on the 2nd Amendment, coming out of the Progressive media, that defies physics and anyone with a modicum of firearms knowledge can easily refute, when you know the truth, and you refuse to.
Especially when I ask you to correct a gross attack on the 2nd Amendment, coming out of the Progressive media, that defies physics and anyone with a modicum of firearms knowledge can easily refute, when you know the truth, and you refuse to.
I didn't put it in terms of "wrong."
I put it in terms that the White House has not implemented the new, tough sanctions, Haley stated they would. So anyone saying they were implemented were just as "wrong" as Haley -- i.e., just out-of-the-loop. The White House bungled, the US media is in a frenzy.
But yes, I backed your view on that matter. And I'm sticking to it too.
Even Forbes had an interesting take on the Russian "sanctions" from an "investor" standpoint that has a lot of great info the US media is not covering ...
'First, Russia did not fire back as threatened ... Two points worth making here:
Putin shot down his parliament’s bill to add sanctions against the U.S. and
...
According to an article in The New York Times, Trump rejected any new sanctions over Russian support for Bashar Assad, keeping with his campaign promise to work with Russia to defeat Muslim terrorism.'
Putin shot down his parliament’s bill to add sanctions against the U.S. and
...
According to an article in The New York Times, Trump rejected any new sanctions over Russian support for Bashar Assad, keeping with his campaign promise to work with Russia to defeat Muslim terrorism.'
Including the White House confirming ...
'“The policy was changed, and [Haley] wasn't told about it,” Kudlow reportedly said.'
But yes ...
- Trump is not going "tough" on Russia, at the same time ...
- Putin is not allowing his own parliament to get "tough" on us either, and ...
- And Haley did not screw up, the White House did ... and admitted it
In this case, it's more open, transparent, which isn't always a bad thing, even if embarrassing. I'm all for blunt transparency at times.
I mean, how many times did we see issues in the Obama administration spill out into the press, and there were denials, but later total confirmations? Especially in Defense Department, but also even at State (especially post-Clinton)?
In any case ...
This is far from simple. Not everyone agrees with Trump, including Haley and Pence being at odds. The rest of the article, even some detail in those same paragraphs I quoted from, explains a lot about many things.
Let's not over-simplify things. Let's not try to prove each other 'wrong.' Let's discuss the facts.
But yes, @NinjaKnight was right. We did not get tough on Russia.
LOL. And letting millions of illegal aliens into the country to establish a permanent voting base in the name of long-term political power is way better.
He also flat out lied saying no sanctions have been applied to Russia. For Christ’s sakes, we just sanctioned nearly everyone related to Putin’s inner circle.
FC has long been presenting falsehoods as fact here under the guise of partisan rancor.
Yeah we sanctioned like a dozen companies owned by half a dozen people. Wow so strong. Very hard on Russia.
I know you actually know next to nothing, but we’ve been sanctioning Russia since 2014. Many times. There is virtually nothing and nobody left to sanction that will matter at this point. Have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?
In the meantime we’ve expelled 60 of their diplomats, given their enemy iN Ukraine advanced weapons (something obama refused), put more combat brigades in Eastern Europe, AND it was just announced that we will leave a carrier fleet over there to counter Russia.
But yes- totally appeasing Russia. If you live under a rock, and have a partisan axe to grind
Merely fixed an oversight from the rushed Obama sanctions, which disrupted ongoing American business to Russia, that Obama’s own ambassador to Russia endorsed as needed.
Next.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2017/02/02/us-rolls-back-some-sanctions-against-russia/amp/
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24...lary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/
could they be doing this to cover for hillary's campaign money shell game?
could they be doing this to cover for hillary's campaign money shell game?
