• 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

sailordeac said:
Russia has been meddling in other countries and their elections since at least the 19th century, I've said that for years, from the very beginning of this Trump-Russia collusion story

the lefties on here have insisted that Russia's history of meddling is irrelevant because they don't want their current hysteria understood in a wider perspective

there is no indication in the indictments from Muller that any Americans, including Donald Trump, colluded with Russia or that the Russian hacking resulted in any changed votes, as the Department of Justice has also said

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulro...the-russian-collusion-narrative/#157d162b2583
Click to expand...

Except where the indictments specifically list "US Person 1" or describe a politician who was in contact with indicted Russian interests.

I look forward to seeing the goalposts shift when Mueller starts naming names.
 
sailordeac said:
Russia has been meddling in other countries and their elections since at least the 19th century, I've said that for years, from the very beginning of this Trump-Russia collusion story

the lefties on here have insisted that Russia's history of meddling is irrelevant because they don't want their current hysteria understood in a wider perspective

there is no indication in the indictments from Muller that any Americans, including Donald Trump, colluded with Russia or that the Russian hacking resulted in any changed votes, as the Department of Justice has also said

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulro...the-russian-collusion-narrative/#157d162b2583
Click to expand...

1) Pretty much the only thing that the lefties have insisted on is that there needs to be an unimpeded independent investigation of the 2016 election, specifically on Russia's meddling.

2) As for collusion, or the lack there of, How do you explain person 1, person 2, and the mysterious congressman that sought stolen data?

3) What does it matter if it actually affected the outcome of the election or changed a single vote or not? I'm still pretty uncomfortable with simple attempted meddling and seems like sitting back and ignoring it would be incredibly stupid.

4) I am attempting to converse with a probably crazy person who rarely responds to any direct questions with substance, so what the fuck is wrong with me?
 
The guys on To Catch a Predator aren't actually setting up meetings with underage girls, its an undercover cop impersonating one.

So, you know, they are innocent and should be let go.
 
birdman said:
1) Pretty much the only thing that the lefties have insisted on is that there needs to be an unimpeded independent investigation of the 2016 election, specifically on Russia's meddling.

2) As for collusion, or the lack there of, How do you explain person 1, person 2, and the mysterious congressman that sought stolen data?

3) What does it matter if it actually affected the outcome of the election or changed a single vote or not? I'm still pretty uncomfortable with simple attempted meddling and seems like sitting back and ignoring it would be incredibly stupid.

4) I am attempting to converse with a probably crazy person who rarely responds to any direct questions with substance, so what the fuck is wrong with me?
Click to expand...

People aren't marching because an unimpeded independent investigation might be, but hasn't yet, been impeded. They're marching to impeach the President.
 
PhDeac said:
Except where the indictments specifically list "US Person 1" or describe a politician who was in contact with indicted Russian interests.

I look forward to seeing the goalposts shift when Mueller starts naming names.
Click to expand...

Anyone even halfway familiar with this story knows that Trump’s campaign colluded, or at the very least attempted to collude, with Russia. That’s purely based on publicly reported and admitted to facts.

The questions remaining are:

1. How much can Mueller prove?

2. Can he tie it directly to Trump?

3. Can he tie it to specific federal crimes?

4. Can he reconstruct the money trail?
 
palmab03 said:
People aren't marching because an unimpeded independent investigation might be, but hasn't yet, been impeded. They're marching to impeach the President.
Click to expand...

Sailor said "the lefties on here" and I have yet to see anyone (except maybe Ranger) demand impeachment on these boards.
 
birdman said:
Sailor said "the lefties on here" and I have yet to see anyone (except maybe Ranger) demand impeachment on these boards.
Click to expand...

Yeah I doubt that’s true. Trump should absolutely be impeached. The reason most “lefties” aren’t calling for it, on here or otherwise, is that it’s a better political move to just point out Trumps actual crimes and incompetence without taking a stand on what they might do when they regain the house.

Even without the Russia stuff Trump’s done more than enough to justify impeachment.
 
birdman said:
1) Pretty much the only thing that the lefties have insisted on is that there needs to be an unimpeded independent investigation of the 2016 election, specifically on Russia's meddling.

Not so. In the beginning the dems and the left insisted that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election and the independent counsel was needed because Trump could not be trusted to do the investigation and by firing Comey had impeded the FBI's investigation. So, an independent counsel was necessary. If the question was only one of Russia meddling in the election, which I think is a fair question and could best have been handled by an independent committee, or commission, no independent counsel would have been needed. Now that they are not finding Russia-Trump collusion to steal the election, they have taken to prattling about Russian meddling, as if that is all they had ever said, while not so secretly hoping the special counsel will find evidence to implicate Trump in something, anything.


2) As for collusion, or the lack there of, How do you explain person 1, person 2, and the mysterious congressman that sought stolen data?

It's Mueller who needs to explain. I am waiting for him to do so. When he does, I'll let you know what I think.

3) What does it matter if it actually affected the outcome of the election or changed a single vote or not? I'm still pretty uncomfortable with simple attempted meddling and seems like sitting back and ignoring it would be incredibly stupid.

Because the dems keep refusing to admit that they lost the election fair and square and want to keep using the Russia investigation to hamstring Trump. They have managed to lose majorities in many elected bodies, including both houses of Congress, and they are desperate and need to try to interfere, slow, obstruct, derail the pubs in every way possible, especially with the Russian investigation. Having said all that, I think we should put the whole fixing the election story to rest because it seems improbable, no reasonable evidence has been produced to support it, and none of the intelligence services claim that it is true. Obama said, no reasonable person would believe it. And I think he was right.

4) I am attempting to converse with a probably crazy person who rarely responds to any direct questions with substance, so what the fuck is wrong with me?
Click to expand...

I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you. You'll have to ask someone else. I am not a crazy person, and if you think I rarely respond, be happy I responded this time.

On a side note: lots of times people don't respond very reasonably or coherently to me, if at all. People trying desperately and regulalrly to misrepresent what others are saying are not trying to engage in a reasonable conversation. Why should anyone respond to them? In any event, I'll decide what I want to respond to and when I want to respond to it.

 
Last edited:
sailordeac said:
I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you. You'll have to ask someone else. I am not a crazy person, and if you think I rarely respond, be happy I responded this time.

On a side note: lots of times people don't respond very reasonably or coherently to me, if at all. People trying desperately and regulalrly to misrepresent what others are saying are not trying to engage in a reasonable conversation. Why should anyone respond to them? In any event, I'll decide what I want to respond to and when I want to respond to it.
Click to expand...

What did Strzok lie about?
 
birdman said:
What did Strzok lie about?
Click to expand...

that would require a long answer

but one starter might be that his biases did not interfere with his work, that's just obviously not true, and he is not so dumb as to believe it

second, that he respected Trump voters, that's an obvious "smelly" lie

but I doubt anyone finds him credible, and no lawyer would be foolish enough to put him on the stand in support of his case, there is not a jury in the country that would accept the testimony of a witness so tainted

you'll have to content yourself with those for the time being
 
sailordeac said:
that would require a long answer

but one starter might be that his biases did not interfere with his work, that's just obviously not true, and he is not so dumb as to believe it

second, that he respected Trump voters, that's an obvious "smelly" lie

but I doubt anyone finds him credible, and no lawyer would be foolish enough to put him on the stand in support of his case, there is not a jury in the country that would accept the testimony of a witness so tainted

you'll have to content yourself with those for the time being
Click to expand...

Pretty weak sailor.

How did his bias interfere with the investigation? Please provide specifics. No one seems to have specifics on this assertion.

How do you know he does not respect Trump voters? Has he done something disrespectful? Do you have a link?
 
birdman said:
Pretty weak sailor.

How did his bias interfere with the investigation? Please provide specifics. No one seems to have specifics on this assertion.

How do you know he does not respect Trump voters? Has he done something disrespectful? Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

[sailor]Do your own research[/sailor]
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

Can anyone on the boards remember a single Podesta email?

Trump seemed more open to the intelligence findings, but continued to qualify his remarks. “I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place,” he said. “Could be other people also. A lot of people out there.”
Click to expand...

Just hilarious
 
sailordeac said:
that would require a long answer

but one starter might be that his biases did not interfere with his work, that's just obviously not true, and he is not so dumb as to believe it

second, that he respected Trump voters, that's an obvious "smelly" lie

but I doubt anyone finds him credible, and no lawyer would be foolish enough to put him on the stand in support of his case, there is not a jury in the country that would accept the testimony of a witness so tainted

you'll have to content yourself with those for the time being
Click to expand...

I'll give you the second one. He has to be lying about that. Completely meaningless, but he's definitely lying. Otherwise, you ain't got shit, you clueless Trumpcuck.
 
sailordeac said:
that would require a long answer

but one starter might be that his biases did not interfere with his work, that's just obviously not true, and he is not so dumb as to believe it

second, that he respected Trump voters, that's an obvious "smelly" lie

but I doubt anyone finds him credible, and no lawyer would be foolish enough to put him on the stand in support of his case, there is not a jury in the country that would accept the testimony of a witness so tainted

you'll have to content yourself with those for the time being
Click to expand...

That is pretty weak. A person can have an opinion and still do their job effectively. You need to prove how it affected the investigation...essentially innocent until proven guilty. The onus is not on him to prove he is innocent. If he did partisan sand-bagging, it should be easy to find. I have not seen proof of anything but his dislike for Trump and his affair. If the GOP is going to put all their apples in the infidelity, they need to look in the mirror...that goes for Washington in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top