"vlad and his evil band"?
That's funny.
That was supposed to be funny wasn't it?
'Splain. I'm having an attack of dense.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
U.S. Punishes Russia for Election Hacking, Ejecting Operatives
- Thread starter sovietchild
- Start date
"vlad and his evil band"?
That's funny.
That was supposed to be funny wasn't it?
'Splain. I'm having an attack of dense.
esmith
Veteran Member
Seems that there are those that can't put the past behind them as far as the election goes. The subject of the post is the belated action taken by the Obama. Ask yourself why he didn't do it before this.
Well I suspect the Obama didn't figure the Russian hacking of the emails would make any difference. Didn't he say this election was about continuing his legacy. Whoops, how did that work out? Now he is frustrated and throwing a temper tantrum making he much harder for the incoming President to do his job.
Yes the Russian's should be dealt with for their hacking along with every other country that is doing it. So he expels a few Russians and closes some safe house. Guess what, I'm willing to wager that a few (34 or more) U.S. personnel will be asked to leave Russia.....Children in a playground environment. He says he will do more but he won't say what....Of course not because he only has 20 days left in office. But I'm sure his temper tantrum has not run it's course.
ByeBye Obama....It's good to see you go.
Well I suspect the Obama didn't figure the Russian hacking of the emails would make any difference. Didn't he say this election was about continuing his legacy. Whoops, how did that work out? Now he is frustrated and throwing a temper tantrum making he much harder for the incoming President to do his job.
Yes the Russian's should be dealt with for their hacking along with every other country that is doing it. So he expels a few Russians and closes some safe house. Guess what, I'm willing to wager that a few (34 or more) U.S. personnel will be asked to leave Russia.....Children in a playground environment. He says he will do more but he won't say what....Of course not because he only has 20 days left in office. But I'm sure his temper tantrum has not run it's course.
ByeBye Obama....It's good to see you go.
That what jeager106 said was wrong.
Not just a difference of opinion, but factually wrong.
One of the big problems I see going forward is that facts and evidence don't seem to matter much to Trump supporters.
Tom
It could have been Hillary that the Russians backed. The point is, who the Russians backed for is arbitrary. The fact that they breached our security is the focal point which we are now addressing.
Unless you can prove to me that trump was involved in the hacking, then I stand on original comment that this is not about Trump.
esmith
Veteran Member
So, let me get this straight
In 2012 a President and his party mocked a challenger for saying that Russia was America's number one geopolitical foe. Didn't the incumbent President say, and I quote "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Then I do believe the loser in the 2016 elections said that this idea was "somewhat dated", Then in 2012 we had the now Sec of State say of the challenger and I quote "“Mitt Romney talks like he’s only seen Russia by watching ‘Rocky IV,’” Then we have the current Vice President, in 2012, suggesting that the challenger assertion might’ve been either a slip of the tongue, or an indication that he belongs to “a small group of Cold War holdovers.” Then we have the Dem's most ardent media hacks, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow both mocking Obama’s then-opponent, claiming he was merely trying to copy Ronald Reagan.
“He read about Reagan’s private, outside-the-CIA cabal of team-B zealots who were telling him that Russia had all the stuff they didn’t have so he could justify a giant defense budget,” Maddow said.
“I don’t know what decade this guy’s living in,” Matthews said. “Is he trying to play Ronald Reagan here, or what?”
So I ask this bumbling current administration and their ardent supporters and media hacks if they now want to retract, no make that eat, their words?
some of the above material was copied from: This Source some copied directly others copied and reworded.
In 2012 a President and his party mocked a challenger for saying that Russia was America's number one geopolitical foe. Didn't the incumbent President say, and I quote "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Then I do believe the loser in the 2016 elections said that this idea was "somewhat dated", Then in 2012 we had the now Sec of State say of the challenger and I quote "“Mitt Romney talks like he’s only seen Russia by watching ‘Rocky IV,’” Then we have the current Vice President, in 2012, suggesting that the challenger assertion might’ve been either a slip of the tongue, or an indication that he belongs to “a small group of Cold War holdovers.” Then we have the Dem's most ardent media hacks, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow both mocking Obama’s then-opponent, claiming he was merely trying to copy Ronald Reagan.
“He read about Reagan’s private, outside-the-CIA cabal of team-B zealots who were telling him that Russia had all the stuff they didn’t have so he could justify a giant defense budget,” Maddow said.
“I don’t know what decade this guy’s living in,” Matthews said. “Is he trying to play Ronald Reagan here, or what?”
So I ask this bumbling current administration and their ardent supporters and media hacks if they now want to retract, no make that eat, their words?
some of the above material was copied from: This Source some copied directly others copied and reworded.
Facts are adjustable things.
Just imagine what can be done with them!
Trump is Hitler.
Hillary is accomplished.
Obama fixed the economy.
Al Gore is a brilliant intellect.
Bill Clinton was framed by the vast right wing conspiracy.
Kerry is a war hero.
The financial crash was due to deregulation.
The moon landing was faked.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yep. Remember Trump saying that he could shoot someone right in the fact and his supporters would still vote for him. His gullible groupies have shown that he was exactly correct on that.
What's so pathetic about this is that the Trump supporters keep trying to have us "lefties" saying that we are pushing this in order to delegitimize Trump's victory, whereas the reality is that I do believe most of us are mainly concerned about electioneering security.
Trump won-- we know that, and there's no indication that the ballots were hacked into. The real importance is that if the Russians or other country gets away with this with no repercussions, what's going to be hacked into next that could be even more devastating?
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Why are you genuinely concerned about the "electioneering" security. Are you concerned that the 2016 elections didn't reflect the will of the people (vote tampering) or are you concerned that the will of the people was affected by the exposing of truth about DNC shenanigans?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As one who taught political science for some 25 years, any threat to our electioneering process should be taken very seriously. To not do so invites some serious problems, even including the chance of civil war.
I made it clear where I was coming from, so why are you questioning that?
Thanda
Well-Known Member
I'm questioning what you see as the threat. Why is the revealing of the truth a threat to America's election process? Indeed if the revealing of truth is a threat to the American election process, then is the process really worth defending?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Real people?
Same can be said of Hillary supporters.
So what? Trump played the game according to the rules. It's like a team losing a baseball game then claiming they should have won because they had more hits. Wrong! You play by the rules of the game. If the rules were win by popular vote then we have no idea who would have won because the campaigns would have acted differently. For example, Trump spent zero time in California during the general. Do you think he would have done that if it was based on popular vote? Unlikely. So, we don't really know who would have won if the rules called for winner by popular vote.
So what jeager106 said was wrong, and demonstrably so. And nobody seems to care. I find that very typical of Trump supporters. The facts and evidence don't matter as long as the lies and dissembling are attractive.
Tom
Wrong! You conveniently ignored the rest of my post.
It was irrelevant to the post you responded to.
And frankly, it's a matter of opinion whether Trump played by the rules or not. The Russian attacks were illegal. But Trump supporters don't seem to care about that.
Tom
Wrong. The Russian attacks merely revealed the truth about Hillary. Trump got the electoral votes necessary, and the popular vote is meaningless because they aren't part of the rules of the game. You gonna go on trumpeting the meaningless popular vote?
This is what jeager106 said.
That's what I responded to. I am well aware of how the system works.
Tom
Then you know trumpeting the popular vote is meaningless.
It is not entirely meaningless. But it isn't really important in this election either.
Do you agree that what jeager106 said was demonstrably wrong?
Tom