The Many Faces of US Politics...

[whitey]

So the Russians cheated by exposing the fact that the Clinton campaign was cheating....okay...

[J70]

So the Russians cheated by exposing the fact that the Clinton campaign was cheating....okay...

Who said the Russians "cheated"?

[seafoid]

The Russians supported Trump because he would weaken the US due to his incompetence .
And lookit.

[whitey]

The Russians supported Trump because he would weaken the US due to his incompetence .
And lookit.

No one thought he'd win....not even the Russians....they intercepted communications to that effect last August

The Russians were trying to de-legitimize President Hillary before she was even coronated, to stir up trouble for after she got it.

[foxcommander]

and finally

the hypocrisy of the democrats is unbelievable. Here they go bleating on and on about interference in the US elections from a foreign country and then Obama goes public and endorses a candidate in the French Election.

but that's ok, right?

Publicly endorsing a candidate = unleashing your minions to dig up and slowly release embarrassing information and emails from one side only.

Gotcha.

There's no such thing as "good" interference and "bad" interference. Obama purposely waded into foreign election with the intention of using his profile to endorse a candidate. How is that any different to what democrats claim (and again, Obama is the only one who is proven to have interfered in an election) Russia did in the US election? Seriously. Your explanation doesn't quite work.

The democrats will obviously fail to grasp reality yet again and there's more than a stink of hypocrisy coming from their side.

On the one hand, a very public, honest, endorsement, which could be taken or left, depending on one's attitude to the endorser. Just like George Clooney or Ted Nugent endorsing someone in the states. You know where they're coming from and why they're coming down on a particular side.

On the other hand, a hidden, unclaimed attempt to influence an election by secretly targeting one side only by slowly releasing embarrassing emails.

So why is Obama endorsing a candidate in a foreign election? is he not trying to use his 'influence'? Seriously?

Pop stars and actors have no real political credibility, you saw that in the US election. Obama on the other hand is a former 2 term kenyan president of the USA. That is massive, especially when you have naive young voters who will turn out because he's telling them to vote for all that politically correct nonsense he advocated.

Even if Russia was behind the wikileaks hacks all that did was inform voters of what was going on behind the scenes in the democrat camp. I fail to see how this was a bad thing.

[omochain]

and finally

the hypocrisy of the democrats is unbelievable. Here they go bleating on and on about interference in the US elections from a foreign country and then Obama goes public and endorses a candidate in the French Election.

but that's ok, right?

Publicly endorsing a candidate = unleashing your minions to dig up and slowly release embarrassing information and emails from one side only.

Gotcha.

There's no such thing as "good" interference and "bad" interference. Obama purposely waded into foreign election with the intention of using his profile to endorse a candidate. How is that any different to what democrats claim (and again, Obama is the only one who is proven to have interfered in an election) Russia did in the US election? Seriously. Your explanation doesn't quite work.

The democrats will obviously fail to grasp reality yet again and there's more than a stink of hypocrisy coming from their side.

On the one hand, a very public, honest, endorsement, which could be taken or left, depending on one's attitude to the endorser. Just like George Clooney or Ted Nugent endorsing someone in the states. You know where they're coming from and why they're coming down on a particular side.

On the other hand, a hidden, unclaimed attempt to influence an election by secretly targeting one side only by slowly releasing embarrassing emails.

So why is Obama endorsing a candidate in a foreign election? is he not trying to use his 'influence'? Seriously?

Pop stars and actors have no real political credibility, you saw that in the US election. Obama on the other hand is a former 2 term kenyan president of the USA. That is massive, especially when you have naive young voters who will turn out because he's telling them to vote for all that politically correct nonsense he advocated.

Even if Russia was behind the wikileaks hacks all that did was inform voters of what was going on behind the scenes in the democrat camp. I fail to see how this was a bad thing.

It's confirmed, Foxy is Cozy Bear.

[J70]

and finally

the hypocrisy of the democrats is unbelievable. Here they go bleating on and on about interference in the US elections from a foreign country and then Obama goes public and endorses a candidate in the French Election.

but that's ok, right?

Publicly endorsing a candidate = unleashing your minions to dig up and slowly release embarrassing information and emails from one side only.

Gotcha.

There's no such thing as "good" interference and "bad" interference. Obama purposely waded into foreign election with the intention of using his profile to endorse a candidate. How is that any different to what democrats claim (and again, Obama is the only one who is proven to have interfered in an election) Russia did in the US election? Seriously. Your explanation doesn't quite work.

The democrats will obviously fail to grasp reality yet again and there's more than a stink of hypocrisy coming from their side.

On the one hand, a very public, honest, endorsement, which could be taken or left, depending on one's attitude to the endorser. Just like George Clooney or Ted Nugent endorsing someone in the states. You know where they're coming from and why they're coming down on a particular side.

On the other hand, a hidden, unclaimed attempt to influence an election by secretly targeting one side only by slowly releasing embarrassing emails.

So why is Obama endorsing a candidate in a foreign election? is he not trying to use his 'influence'? Seriously?

Pop stars and actors have no real political credibility, you saw that in the US election. Obama on the other hand is a former 2 term kenyan president of the USA. That is massive, especially when you have naive young voters who will turn out because he's telling them to vote for all that politically correct nonsense he advocated.

Even if Russia was behind the wikileaks hacks all that did was inform voters of what was going on behind the scenes in the democrat camp. I fail to see how this was a bad thing.

Is the "kenyan" bit supposed to be funny?

Of course Obama is trying to use his influence. Why else would he or anyone make an endorsement?

The difference between that and the Russian stuff (AGAIN!) is that he is doing so openly, just like Trump did with LePen.

If you can't see the difference...

And (AGAIN!), the issue with the leaks is that it was one-sided. We DIDN'T get to see what was going behind the scenes with Trump and the GOP. And given the cut-throat, back-stabbing, corrupt nature of politics across the board, its a guarantee that whenever the shit is let out in the open for the GOP, it will be embarrassing for them too.

[seafoid]

The Russians supported Trump because he would weaken the US due to his incompetence .
And lookit.

No one thought he'd win....not even the Russians....they intercepted communications to that effect last August

The Russians were trying to de-legitimize President Hillary before she was even coronated, to stir up trouble for after she got it.

It was a bet. Not expensive. with the payoff that Trump might end the sanctions
And by April everyone knew Trump would win the GOP nomination

The 3 horsemen of the Trump apocalypse were Vladimir Putin, Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer

[heganboy]

Foxy,
I suspect you must have been equally upset when Obama so successfully endorsed Clinton?

[Declan]

This is unreal stuff - Truly Alice in Wonderland

Trump bans American journalists, but not Russian press, from meeting with Russian foreign minister
It was Trump's only scheduled event the day after he fired the FBI director amid an investigation into his campaign's Russia ties.

President Trump talks to reporters during a meeting with Dr. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser under President Richard Nixon, in the Oval Office of the White House on May 10. CREDIT: AP Photo/Evan Vucci
The only public event on President Trump's calendar the day after he fired FBI Director James Comey amid an ongoing investigation into his campaign's ties with Russian officials was a White House meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
American media was banned from covering the event. A Russian photographer, however, was not, so the American public was able to see images of the meeting thanks to Russia's state-run press.

According to the White House press pool's report, American journalists were summoned into the Oval Office just after 11:20 a.m. for what they assumed would be a spray of Trump meeting with Lavrov. But when they entered, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was unexpectedly sitting next to Trump. Kissinger worked for President Nixon, who resigned from office in 1974 amid an obstruction scandal.

The White House's official readout of the meeting made no mention of Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak's attendance.
Lavrov traveled to the White House from Foggy Bottom, where he met at the State Department with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who received the Order of Friendship from Vladimir Putin in 2013.
During a brief appearance before journalists, Lavrov mocked an American journalist who asked him if "the Comey firing cast a shadow of your talks."
"Was he fired?" Lavrov said, sarcastically. "You're kidding! You're kidding!"

Lavrov's meetings with Trump administration officials came as the New York Times broke news that days before his firing, Comey "asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in money and personnel for the bureau's investigation into Russia's interference in the presidential election." Sessions, who said he would recuse himself from from any investigations involving Russia and the Trump campaign after his false statements about his meetings with Kislyak came to light a couple months ago, recommended that Comey be fired.
After Comey's firing, White House openly pushes for conclusion of FBI's Russia investigation

A Politico report about the chain of events that culminated in Comey's firing also connected it to Trump's concerns about the Russia investigations, noting that the president "had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn't disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said."
If Trump really wants it all to go away, meeting with Kissinger and numerous Russian officials the day after he fires the FBI director amid an ongoing investigation into his campaign's Russia connections is an odd way to do it.
The Trump administration's decision to ban American journalists from the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak comes a day after a journalist in West Virginia was arrested for asking questions to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. Trump has attempted to smear and discredit outlets that cover his administration critically, while praising and amplifying those that provide unquestioning support.
In early January, the U.S. intelligence community released its declassified intelligence report about Russia's meddling in the presidential election. A significant portion of it details Russian state-owned television station RT's efforts to help Donald Trump.

In addition to accusing RT employees of collaborating with WikiLeaks, the report said RT "consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional U.S. media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment."
Following Trump's victory, RT "hailed President-elect Trump's victory as vindication of Putin's advocacy of global populist movements — the theme of Putin's annual conference for Western academics in October 2016 — and the latest example of Western liberalism's collapse."

UPDATE: Jordan Fabian, a journalist for The Hill, clarified the matter of exactly who was and wasn't allowed to cover the Trump-Lavrov-Kislyak meeting.
From an email published by the White House press pool.
I've received multiple questions from my colleagues in the press corps about who was allowed into this morning's meeting with President Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The questions arose in part because TASS, the Russian state-owned news agency, published photos from the meeting, even though it was closed to the press.
This was the White House's response when I asked whether members of the Russian media were allowed into the meeting:
"On background, our official photographer and their official photographer were present, that's it."


Even  better - White House suggests Deputy AG was responsible for FBI Director's removal
- Further time passes
- Deputy AG threatens to resign over slur.

[sid waddell]

Sean Spicer has announced that he'll be supporting Tyrone in this years All-Ireland football championship, because both himself and Tyrone are among the bushes.

[whitey]

The Russians supported Trump because he would weaken the US due to his incompetence .
And lookit.

No one thought he'd win....not even the Russians....they intercepted communications to that effect last August

The Russians were trying to de-legitimize President Hillary before she was even coronated, to stir up trouble for after she got it.

It was a bet. Not expensive. with the payoff that Trump might end the sanctions
And by April everyone knew Trump would win the GOP nomination

The 3 horsemen of the Trump apocalypse were Vladimir Putin, Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer

Main stream media pushed Trump as a legitimate candidate when most informed people know he's a fvckin clown.....reason.....they figured Hillary would have a much easier time beating him than a Walker or a Bush.  Unfortunately for them and the American people it backfired spectacularly

[foxcommander]

Foxy,
I suspect you must have been equally upset when Obama so successfully endorsed Clinton?

It was the US election. You expect a former presidents from one party to endorse whoever is running on their ticket.
Just so happens that Obamas failed legacy stained Clintons bid. Watching democrats cry on TV was the highlight of 2016.

[seafoid]

The Russians supported Trump because he would weaken the US due to his incompetence .
And lookit.

No one thought he'd win....not even the Russians....they intercepted communications to that effect last August

The Russians were trying to de-legitimize President Hillary before she was even coronated, to stir up trouble for after she got it.

It was a bet. Not expensive. with the payoff that Trump might end the sanctions
And by April everyone knew Trump would win the GOP nomination

The 3 horsemen of the Trump apocalypse were Vladimir Putin, Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer

Main stream media pushed Trump as a legitimate candidate when most informed people know he's a fvckin clown.....reason.....they figured Hillary would have a much easier time beating him than a Walker or a Bush.  Unfortunately for them and the American people it backfired spectacularly

Adlai Stevenson was the 1950s Democratic leader. On being told that he would have the support of "every thinking man in America," Mr Stevenson replied: "Yes, but I need a majority"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQv7Tr8HbGE

[foxcommander]

and finally

the hypocrisy of the democrats is unbelievable. Here they go bleating on and on about interference in the US elections from a foreign country and then Obama goes public and endorses a candidate in the French Election.

but that's ok, right?

Publicly endorsing a candidate = unleashing your minions to dig up and slowly release embarrassing information and emails from one side only.

Gotcha.

There's no such thing as "good" interference and "bad" interference. Obama purposely waded into foreign election with the intention of using his profile to endorse a candidate. How is that any different to what democrats claim (and again, Obama is the only one who is proven to have interfered in an election) Russia did in the US election? Seriously. Your explanation doesn't quite work.

The democrats will obviously fail to grasp reality yet again and there's more than a stink of hypocrisy coming from their side.

On the one hand, a very public, honest, endorsement, which could be taken or left, depending on one's attitude to the endorser. Just like George Clooney or Ted Nugent endorsing someone in the states. You know where they're coming from and why they're coming down on a particular side.

On the other hand, a hidden, unclaimed attempt to influence an election by secretly targeting one side only by slowly releasing embarrassing emails.

So why is Obama endorsing a candidate in a foreign election? is he not trying to use his 'influence'? Seriously?

Pop stars and actors have no real political credibility, you saw that in the US election. Obama on the other hand is a former 2 term kenyan president of the USA. That is massive, especially when you have naive young voters who will turn out because he's telling them to vote for all that politically correct nonsense he advocated.

Even if Russia was behind the wikileaks hacks all that did was inform voters of what was going on behind the scenes in the democrat camp. I fail to see how this was a bad thing.

Is the "kenyan" bit supposed to be funny?

Of course Obama is trying to use his influence. Why else would he or anyone make an endorsement?

The difference between that and the Russian stuff (AGAIN!) is that he is doing so openly, just like Trump did with LePen.

If you can't see the difference...

And (AGAIN!), the issue with the leaks is that it was one-sided. We DIDN'T get to see what was going behind the scenes with Trump and the GOP. And given the cut-throat, back-stabbing, corrupt nature of politics across the board, its a guarantee that whenever the shit is let out in the open for the GOP, it will be embarrassing for them too.

Trump did not endorse LePen. Please provide evidence where he did or retract your statement.

You've just said it - Obama used his influence in the french election. He interfered in an foreign nations election process by endorsing one candidate. I really don't know why you want to keep debating when you've already debunked your own argument. You're a decent guy J70, stick to the facts.

Look - democrats are clinging to the Russia myth as its the only strand of credibility they have left after the election.
America rejected them and they still can't believe it. Focusing on the bogeyman and how it interfered with the election is nonsense.

The biggest problem democrats have with the Russia myth seem to be just pissed that wikileaks highlighed the clinton campaign. You wouldn't have heard a peep out of them if it had highlighted trump. Sore losers. Sad.