• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Russian Election Interference Thread

They why did they help (allegedly) Trump?

I am sure they find Trump easier to work with. He is a deal maker and is not particularly ideological.

Personally, I hope we do have good relations with Russia. We deal with bad actors around the world all the time.

There are not a lot of Ghandis leading nations these days.
 
I mean it's obvious trump and his team would fight this tooth and nail. For him to admit the Russians were actively trying to get him elected, even if somewhere in his head he does know this, it would be admitting he's just a little bit less great than his massive ego lead him to believe. He would be acknowledging that an entire country thinks that he was the worse of the two candidates. He would also be admitting that just a small party of his victory is tainted. Though not illegitimate, this is the same person that despite winning took to Twitter to let us all know he would have won the popular vote easily if all the illegals he made up didn't vote.

Maybe so since Trump has such an ego. It really matters little.
 
Why does it follow that Russia would think he is the worst of the two candidates thinkingwithmydeac?
 
I am sure they find Trump easier to work with. He is a deal maker and is not particularly ideological.

Personally, I hope we do have good relations with Russia. We deal with bad actors around the world all the time.

There are not a lot of Ghandis leading nations these days.


Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave right now. Reagan wanted to defeat Communism because he believed in Democracy. Trump wants to befriend Russia because he believes in $$$$. Massive difference
 
Which is?

As we both have said previously, Putin wanted to deal with Trump over Hillary. I am sure he did what he could.

Too bad Hillary was such a poor candidate that exposing the truth about her was so harmful.
 
Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave right now. Reagan wanted to defeat Communism because he believed in Democracy. Trump wants to befriend Russia because he believes in $$$$. Massive difference

Reagan did defeat the Soviet Union. We can't fight the battles of the 1980's today. You gotta get past old grudges and live in today's world.
 
Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave right now. Reagan wanted to defeat Communism because he believed in Democracy. Trump wants to befriend Russia because he believes in $$$$. Massive difference

Although it is best for the United States, Democracy is not a great form of government for all countries/peoples/cultures/etc, imo. I think our Middle East ventures have proven this.

With Reagan, the Soviet Union/communism was a direct threat to us. I don't think Russia is anymore, personally.
 
Although it is best for the United States, Democracy is not a great form of government for all countries/peoples/cultures/etc, imo. I think our Middle East ventures have proven this.

With Reagan, the Soviet Union/communism was a direct threat to us. I don't think Russia is anymore, personally.


That's a good point. Maybe $$$ and staying in power are the new detente.
 
I am sure they find Trump easier to work with. He is a deal maker and is not particularly ideological.

Personally, I hope we do have good relations with Russia. We deal with bad actors around the world all the time.

There are not a lot of Ghandis leading nations these days.

Yep you're right on this. Trump will be a lot easier to work with than Hillary when it comes to invading more NATO allies.
 
Why does it follow that Russia would think he is the worst of the two candidates thinkingwithmydeac?

He is the easiest to control. This has been shown by having Flynn and Tillerson close to Trump. It's been shown by having more pro-Russian people in his inner-circle.
 
I posted this from a Guardian article earlier. It would suggest there is plenty of room for doubt:

"A second official familiar with the report said the intelligence analysts’ conclusion about Russia’s motives did not mean the intelligence community believed that Moscow’s efforts altered or significantly affected the outcome of the election.

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.


“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

The California Republican congressman Devin Nunes, chair of the House intelligence committee and a member of the Trump transition team, said: “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence – even now. There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
 
Didn't know he can't get a visa to enter the US or the country he was the ambassador to for England.
 
:rofl:
I thought Dems were supposed to be the anti-war party. I guess this is what happens when your beloved Hillary gets in bed with a bunch of neocons- you all end up sounding like deranged hawks.
6BYtVg.jpg
 
Looks like the FBI doesn't agree with the CIA assessment. What to do you folks who seem eager for WWIII suggest we do now?
 
Most of you have shown yourselves to be dopes, dupes, and shills of the establishment, immune to reason.
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.

Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.

In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.

The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
 
Back
Top