Did Russians interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections and is such interference acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Monte_RCMS said:
There is an important need here for the Democrats to shift the focus of this Original Post.

It is clear that the Russians were unsuccessful in interfering with our election.
HOWEVER, incidental information has now been revealed that Obama was using classified information AND was “unmasking” American citizens … which is a ten year felony for each count.

AND to make matters worse, Obama at the last minute changed the rules to allow 17 or 18 agencies to have highly classified information … IN ORDER TO DELIBERATELY allow the [basically] gossip to be leaked to the media.

Nunes visited the White House to inform the President and his staff that they had been compromised by Obama operatives who were leaking unmasked transcripts. [And the Democrats are attacking Nunes for trying to restore communications security.]

In addition, right after the election, Mike Rogers, Director of the National Security Agency visited Trump to inform him of the gross irregularities taking place within the Obama Executive Branch.

Trump sent out his famous “wire tap” tweet. BUT the words wire tap were within quotation marks. So clearly Trump knew his offices were being surveilled … regardless if the surveillance was a 1930’s movie wire tap or something more sophisticated.

AND, by being deliberately careless with classified material … by using the Russian ruse … the methods of surveillance were compromised.

So, we are talking about deliberate felonies by the Democrats.

Right now, it’s merely a matter of listing who will be treated to the perp walk. And which Federal prison in which they will be incarcerated. Close to home or someplace out in Kansas … Fort Leveanworth is not so delightful.*

Then I’m sure you would agree that it’s time for an independent commission and prosecutor to be appointed.
Click to expand...
 
Sojourner003 said:
Then I’m sure you would agree that it’s time for an independent commission and prosecutor to be appointed.
Click to expand...
Sure.

The problem is that classified methods may be disclosed; so the investigation might need to be done in closed session.

The “problem” is that it is in the process of backfiring on the Democrats.

What a can of worms this is going to create.

Maybe some bureaucrats need to quietly resign and go away … maybe a LOT of bureaucrats.

Maybe former President Obama should stay in Tahiti permanently.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Sure.

The problem is that classified methods may be disclosed; so the investigation might need to be done in closed session.

The “problem” is that it is in the process of backfiring on the Democrats.

What a can of worms this is going to create.

Maybe some bureaucrats need to quietly resign and go away … maybe a LOT of bureaucrats.

Maybe former President Obama should stay in Tahiti permanently.
Click to expand...
Who cares what can of worms is opened, if we are to find out answers to the original post
This is bigger than party issues.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
As a vet I’ve never really bought the idea that Donald Trump has an amazing record of supporting the military. It seems to be based mostly on him saying, “I like the military.”

I do know that during Vietnam he mysteriously developed bone spurs when his educational deferments ran out and it looked like he might be drafted. Interestingly, these bone spurs never prevented him from playing sports, and they mysteriously healed without surgery after the Vietnam War was over. Interesting timing…

And as a side note, I think people trash the VA too much. They really do have a huge task and they’re not always well funded.
Click to expand...
What sports?

Golf?

Seriously?

[Change focus to the VA? Trying to post a pivot?]
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The first statement does not follow from the second one.

We already went over why this does not define a mandate.

By your interpretation, every win of an election is a mandate. Can you cite one presidential election that was not a mandate for the winner?
Click to expand...
It is. Definition of a mandate:
  1. an official order or commission to do something.
2.the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election.

google.com/search?q=mandate+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
 
JonNC said:
It is. Definition of a mandate:
  1. an official order or commission to do something.
2.the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election.
Click to expand...
OK, so every winner has a mandate. Fine. As long as we understand what that means.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
Don’t try to move the goalposts to defend your poorly thought out, kneejerk “well what about Billl?” response. Failing to respond to a draft is way different than simply not volunteering. No one is obligated to volunteer. You are obligated not to skate out of a draft during war.
Click to expand...
You dislike Trump. I get that.

But you don’t want to discuss other politicians … whose public patriotic social offenses may be lesser or greater.

[Would you equate or characterize Bill Clinton’s avoidance of military service to Donald Trump’s avoidance?]

[Did Bill Clinton use the word “despise” at any time?]

1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm ]

[Did Donald Trump use the word “despise” at any time?]

OK.

Got it.
 
JonNC said:
It is. Definition of a mandate:
  1. an official order or commission to do something.
2.the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election.

google.com/search?q=mandate+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
Click to expand...
That’s not the way people use “mandate” and it’s certainly not what people mean when they say “popular mandate.” As Leaf said, used this way it’s completely redundant, because it just means whoever won.
Monte_RCMS said:
What sports?

Golf?

Seriously?

[Change focus to the VA? Trying to post a pivot?]
Click to expand...
Football. Tennis. Squash. Yes, seriously.

I’m not trying to change the focus to the VA: I’m happy to talk about Trump’s sketchy experience with the draft all day. Your original ode to Trump focused on him repairing the VA, so I mentioned my own take on it.
Monte_RCMS said:
You dislike Trump. I get that.

But you don’t want to discuss other politicians … whose public patriotic social offenses may be lesser or greater.
Click to expand...
I’m happy to discuss Bill Clinton: I have a very low opinion of him. On the issue of treatment of women, for example, I’d say he has a worse history than Trump. He’s not really the topic at hand anymore, since he’s not president. But yeah, Bill Clinton is a man of very low character. And?

I don’t understand is why this excuses Trump. Every time someone brings up something negative about Trump, the response is always to try to change the subject to some other politician. That’s not a response.

I don’t know why this keeps coming up. It’s not a see saw, where if someone is up, someone else must be down. It’s not like if I say I dislike Trump, I am necessarily saying I like Clinton. They can both be down simultaneously.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
That’s not the way people use “mandate” and it’s certainly not what people mean when they say “popular mandate.” As Leaf said, used this way it’s completely redundant, because it just means whoever won.

Football. Tennis. Squash. Yes, seriously.

I’m not trying to change the focus to the VA: I’m happy to talk about Trump’s sketchy experience with the draft all day. Your original ode to Trump focused on him repairing the VA, so I mentioned my own take on it.

I’m happy to discuss Bill Clinton: I have a very low opinion of him. On the issue of treatment of women, for example, I’d say he has a worse history than Trump. He’s not really the topic at hand anymore, since he’s not president. But yeah, Bill Clinton is a man of very low character. And?

I don’t understand is why this excuses Trump. Every time someone brings up something negative about Trump, the response is always to try to change the subject to some other politician. That’s not a response.

I don’t know why this keeps coming up. It’s not a see saw, where if someone is up, someone else must be down. It’s not like if I say I dislike Trump, I am necessarily saying I like Clinton. They can both be down simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Using different criteria.

Got it.

[They used to beat up on Reagan for making movies during World War Two. Conveniently omitting that he had PREVIOUSLY served in the horse cavalry.]

So … different criteria.

Got it.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Using different criteria.

Got it.

[They used to beat up on Reagan for making movies during World War Two. Conveniently omitting that he had PREVIOUSLY served in the horse cavalry.]

So … different criteria.

Got it.
Click to expand...
Can you please spell out your reasoning instead of just declaring victory with “got it” and moving on? How am I using different criteria? What criteria?
 
It’s beginning to look to me that a lot more Republican politicos were in on this Russian interference thing, from their actions and positions. I’m thinking Nunes (who is acting strangely AND was on the transition team), perhaps Paul Ryan (who is okaying whatever Nunes does & refuses to replace him).

It seems to me the Russians, who may have started their efforts over a year ago and wouldn’t have known who was going to win the primaries, may have become “friendly” and contributed to at least several of the Republican front-runners. Looks like the Supreme Court a few years ago made that very possible (and likely) with their campaign contribution decision. (Maybe they are on the take as well :eek:) Be on the look-out for SC justices with 2nd and 3rd yachts 🙂

(Someone mentioned that Hillary was also taking from the Russians…and that may have been true in the past, but since it didn’t seem to influence her actions and attitudes against Russia, that money flow and “friendliness” may have dried up.)

I was just telling my husband about how I thought there could be a lot more congressmen and senators in on this Russian thing, maybe even up to a third of them, bec they don’t seem to be taking the FBI & NSA concerns seriously, brushing them off, not up to a good investigation, deflecting it into Obama did something wrong, and now the only way we can tell if they are not in on it is if they vigorously speak out against the Russian interference, like John McCain did.

Just at the moment, a Republican congressman came on TV to say he thought Nunes should step down or recuse himself and there should be a better investigation, that it was abhorrent that the Russians had interfered.

I said, “Okay, there’s one Republican who is NOT in on the Russian interference thing. Let’s see if there are more.” 🙂

This is becoming reminiscent of the McCarthy era in the 50s when my mom suspected all sorts of people of being communist, including our next-door neighbors (who had meetings Saturday nights), Catholics (which is why I was always sort of attracted to the Catholic Church), and various others. :eek: 🙂
 
Throw em all in jail! We have no evidence, unlike a woman I know, but lets make up theories and throw them in jail. Evidence doesn’t matter anymore and even then you can get out of jail by beinng a confused old lady who happens to be runninng for President.
 
lynnvinc said:
It’s beginning to look to me that a lot more Republican politicos were in on this Russian interference thing, from their actions and positions. I’m thinking Nunes (who is acting strangely AND was on the transition team), perhaps Paul Ryan (who is okaying whatever Nunes does & refuses to replace him).
Click to expand...
There it is, then. Everybody who is acting strangely is in league with the Russians. And anybody who doesn’t recognize that those people are acting strangely is in league with the Russians as well. And nobody who is acting strangely or refusing to recognize that they’re acting strangely should be able to investigate anything. Only those who express conviction that Trump is in league with the Russians regardless of there being no evidence that there was, should be allowed to investigate.

Obviously, that would disqualify Clapper, Comey and just about anybody but Schiff, Pelosi, Waters, and Schumer.
 
JonNC said:
Yes. It means Trump has a mandate to enact the policies he ran on, just like every president before him did.
Click to expand...
You’re using the idea of a popular mandate in a totally unique way that is different from the way 99% of people understand the term, but at least this is consistent.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
Don’t try to move the goalposts to defend your poorly thought out, kneejerk “well what about Billl?” response. Failing to respond to a draft is way different than simply not volunteering. No one is obligated to volunteer. You are obligated not to skate out of a draft during war.
Click to expand...
Excuses excuses! :rolleyes:

Hypocrisy!
 
7_Sorrows said:
Excuses excuses! :rolleyes:

Hypocrisy!
Click to expand...
I assume you’re unwilling/unable to flesh this thought out more? Or are we just going to hide behind name calling?

Either engage in a discussion or don’t, but don’t just take potshots that fail to address what I said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top