Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
CptJake wrote: Can you give the links showing that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?
You do realize that not one of those articles (maybe the Financial Times, but don't have the subscription your link requires me to have) really states, with or without evidence, that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?
In fact, the opposite is true.
Direct collusion with the Trump campaign is probably not happening, Lewis said. “Let’s say you’re working with someone in the Trump campaign. How do you communicate with them? I think it’s unlikely given the practical difficulties.”
From another:
Trump and his aides have denied any connection, and there is no evidence linking Trump to the leak. ... And as Julia Ioffe writes in Foreign Policy, many companies pursued business in Russia, and Trump failed to make significant inroads in the country.
"The fact that Trump, after so many attempts and with such warm intentions toward the country, was not able to build anything in Russia- when Ritz Carlton and Kempinski and Radisson and Hilton and any number of Western hotel chains were able to - speaks to his abysmal lack of connections to influential Russians," she writes.
It's not unusual for real estate companies to receive significant Russian business but there's no evidence that Trump's political views have been bought.
And yet the email's linked DO show direct Clinton campaign collusion with the press.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Frazzled wrote: Supposedly Trump invited a Benghazi widow to the last debate.
Seriously?
I'd say Hillary now needs to invite all the female accusers, plus all his previous wives, BUT
We need to stop the crap and act like Presidential candidates (now HRC did actually start this with Cuban)
Even more reason Da Queen and the Queen's guards need to manage the next debate. She should start off by saying "since you have all buggered it up, in payment for your steadfastness in WWII we have come to sort you out." The moment tTrump interrupts her a Queen's Guard is ordered to immediately shout "RIGHT!" and stomp on his toe with that weird stomping salute you guys do.
I'd pay good money for that, and even support giving New Mexico to Britain in compensation.
They can have that dufus of an ex-NM governor as well and anybody that thinks he's POTUS material.
Why are we dragging Bill Richardson into this? Is it because the Bill Richardson vs Chris Christie pie eating contest never materialized?
You do realize that not one of those articles (maybe the Financial Times, but don't have the subscription your link requires me to have) really states, with or without evidence, that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?
In fact, the opposite is true.
Direct collusion with the Trump campaign is probably not happening, Lewis said. “Let’s say you’re working with someone in the Trump campaign. How do you communicate with them? I think it’s unlikely given the practical difficulties.”
I'm always amazed how many people just blindly believe people accused of crimes that there's good evidence for.
Oh trump says he's not a pedophile,
trumpers "well no need for a trial or investigation then."
skyth wrote: There is a decent candidate and a whackjob candidate. The choice is obvious.
Well I see only two bad candidates, if you want decent candidates you have to look outside the big two parties
Stein and Johnson are both gak choices if not worse than HRC and Trump (more so Stein that Johnson when compared to trump)
I don't believe either of them have been accused of crimes, unlike HRC/DT though.
I heard they were both cat lovers, which probably merits an investigation by congress at the very least.
Indeed, followed by nuking the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
You do realize that not one of those articles (maybe the Financial Times, but don't have the subscription your link requires me to have) really states, with or without evidence, that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?
In fact, the opposite is true.
Direct collusion with the Trump campaign is probably not happening, Lewis said. “Let’s say you’re working with someone in the Trump campaign. How do you communicate with them? I think it’s unlikely given the practical difficulties.”
I'm always amazed how many people just blindly believe people accused of crimes that there's good evidence for.
Oh trump says he's not a pedophile, trumpers "well no need for a trial or investigation then."
So investigate. It seems all the articles linked did attempt to tie Trump to the Russian attempt to influence the election,and all came up, as I quoted, as it isn't happening. Hell, get a special prosecutor to look at it, get the NSA to look at it. I could care less. My point is Killkrazy claimed there was evidence, and yet no one has any, his own links make that clear.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/18 15:06:27
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
But my response was to Frazz and the fact that Stein had been arrested and Johnson has openly admitted to using an illegal drug currently (albeit a one which will be legal soon). So you cannot use the "they haven't been arrested" line.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/18 15:16:39
You do realize that not one of those articles (maybe the Financial Times, but don't have the subscription your link requires me to have) really states, with or without evidence, that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?
In fact, the opposite is true.
Direct collusion with the Trump campaign is probably not happening, Lewis said. “Let’s say you’re working with someone in the Trump campaign. How do you communicate with them? I think it’s unlikely given the practical difficulties.”
I'm always amazed how many people just blindly believe people accused of crimes that there's good evidence for.
Oh trump says he's not a pedophile,
trumpers "well no need for a trial or investigation then."
So investigate. It seems all the articles linked did attempt to tie Trump to the Russian attempt to influence the election,and all came up, as I quoted, as it isn't happening. Hell, get a special prosecutor to look at it, get the NSA to look at it. I could care less. My point is Killkrazy claimed there was evidence, and yet no one has any, his own links make that clear.
When investigations turn up the same way about Hillary she's still guilty and those investigations are evidence. So those links are certainly evidence against Trump. Or you can admit that Hillary has no real evidence against her for the vast majority of accusations. Or you can ignore the double standard and keep worshipping your great leader
But my response was to Frazz and the fact that Stein had been arrested and Johnson has openly admitted to using an illegal drug currently (albeit a one which will be legal soon). So you cannot use the "they haven't been arrested" line.
Clinton, Obama and Bush II smoked da wacky weed. Thats no longer an issue.
Bush I, now he drank whisky like a manly man should.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
But my response was to Frazz and the fact that Stein had been arrested and Johnson has openly admitted to using an illegal drug currently (albeit a one which will be legal soon). So you cannot use the "they haven't been arrested" line.
Clinton, Obama and Bush II smoked da wacky weed. Thats no longer an issue.
Bush I, now he drank whisky like a manly man should.
It is Illegal still, so you cannot take the moral high ground of them not breaking the law making them better than the other two. Unless you really think not doing anything about global warming because the sun will engulf the earth anyways so why careor that nuclear power deserves to be banned is a good point .
But my response was to Frazz and the fact that Stein had been arrested and Johnson has openly admitted to using an illegal drug currently (albeit a one which will be legal soon). So you cannot use the "they haven't been arrested" line.
Clinton, Obama and Bush II smoked da wacky weed. Thats no longer an issue.
Bush I, now he drank whisky like a manly man should.
It is Illegal still, so you cannot take the moral high ground of them not breaking the law making them better than the other two. Unless you really think not doing anything about global warming because the sun will engulf the earth anyways so why careor that nuclear power deserves to be banned is a good point .
That argument does not hold merit, nor is it convinving to anyone but a fanatic. 1. I smoked weed...er yesterday? Today? Who the hell knows. Anyone got some chips? 2. I committed federal felonies related to secrecy laws and took bribes from Tyson Foods. 3. I groped da wimminz, lots of da wimminz. Thats why I am building a wall.
EDIT: Trump and HRC are fair game, but lets leave the childrinz (Stein and Whats his face) out of it. Attacking them is like attacking children selling lemonade.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/18 15:51:11
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
There is evidence that the Russians are trying to influence the election by hacking activities attributed to their intelligence agency, and that they are working against Clinton.
There is evidence that Trump and Putin are friendly, that Trump has connections with Russia, and that Trump asked for the Russians to work against Clinton by hacking the DNC emails, and has stated the election is being stolen away from him by foul means.
Once you put these two sets of facts alongside each other, the collusion between Trump and the Russians is pretty obvious.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is evidence that the Russians are trying to influence the election by hacking activities attributed to their intelligence agency, and that they are working against Clinton.
There is evidence that Trump and Putin are friendly, that Trump has connections with Russia, and that Trump asked for the Russians to work against Clinton by hacking the DNC emails, and has stated the election is being stolen away from him by foul means.
Once you put these two sets of facts alongside each other, the collusion between Trump and the Russians is pretty obvious.
Except "pretty obvious" is the standard of evidence used to 'prove' the Clinton Foundation of selling access.
There's volumes of existing, provable material to disqualify Trump from the White House, speculation about what is probably just his fawning man-crush on his dictatorial idol is not necessary.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Kilkrazy wrote: There is evidence that the Russians are trying to influence the election by hacking activities attributed to their intelligence agency, and that they are working against Clinton.
On one hand...
In the past, we've had allegations of China working to influence elections for Democrats. I would assume that some countries work toward electing Republicans. The question is, why is this tolerated? Yes, I know that neither side will actually get serious as long as the money is pouring in but I wish more people would take seriously attempts by foreign governments to influence our elections. As a patriotic American, this stuff really chaffs my arse.
On the other hand...
The US is certainly not innocent when it comes to electioneering in foreign countries. Recently President Obama was accused of trying to throw the Israeli election to Netanyahu's opponent. Through both the CIA and State Department, the US actively seeks to protect and promote government interests in other countries. Most of this is handled through legal means and at least some has been less than legal (regime change/Arab spring). So, is our complaining about Russia, China, etc. hypocrisy? Or is there something more complex to all this?
sirlynchmob wrote: Yes colbert is great, but lets hear from some other comedians
Maher is to the left what Hannity is to the right. He makes me ashamed to be dirty left wing socialist scum.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Frazzled wrote: Supposedly Trump invited a Benghazi widow to the last debate.
Seriously?
I'd say Hillary now needs to invite all the female accusers, plus all his previous wives, BUT
We need to stop the crap and act like Presidential candidates (now HRC did actually start this with Cuban)
Even more reason Da Queen and the Queen's guards need to manage the next debate. She should start off by saying "since you have all buggered it up, in payment for your steadfastness in WWII we have come to sort you out." The moment tTrump interrupts her a Queen's Guard is ordered to immediately shout "RIGHT!" and stomp on his toe with that weird stomping salute you guys do.
I'd pay good money for that, and even support giving New Mexico to Britain in compensation.
They can have that dufus of an ex-NM governor as well and anybody that thinks he's POTUS material.
Why are we dragging Bill Richardson into this? Is it because the Bill Richardson vs Chris Christie pie eating contest never materialized?
Move over Joey Chestnut, that would have been a competitive food eating match I'd have paid to watch. A missed opportunity, for sure! I like Bill, he makes me smile for some reason. Gary, on the hand, I just want to throw a tennis ball for him to fetch.
sirlynchmob wrote: Yes colbert is great, but lets hear from some other comedians
Maher is to the left what Hannity is to the right. He makes me ashamed to be dirty left wing socialist scum.
I would not make that assertion. Not by any stretch is he the left's Hannity. He's left, but he's also ripped into Obama rather sharply over the years, as well as other Democratic politicians and the DNC. Hannity, well, it hurts my head to listen to him on the occasions when I've actually tried to sit through one of his fantasy rants.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/18 17:06:14
Kilkrazy wrote: There is evidence that the Russians are trying to influence the election by hacking activities attributed to their intelligence agency, and that they are working against Clinton.
There is evidence that Trump and Putin are friendly, that Trump has connections with Russia, and that Trump asked for the Russians to work against Clinton by hacking the DNC emails, and has stated the election is being stolen away from him by foul means.
Once you put these two sets of facts alongside each other, the collusion between Trump and the Russians is pretty obvious.
Except "pretty obvious" is the standard of evidence used to 'prove' the Clinton Foundation of selling access.
There's volumes of existing, provable material to disqualify Trump from the White House, speculation about what is probably just his fawning man-crush on his dictatorial idol is not necessary.
I think there's plenty of evidence that Russia was behind the hacks, that the Russian government is trying to influence the election, and that Trump is a-okay with it.
None of that however is actually evidence of collusion, and I don't think such evidence exists because I doubt there is any. The far simpler solution is to play connect the dot;
Russia has based much of its international propaganda and disinformation campaign around "whataboutisms." What better ammunition could they possibly have than Trump? He's a PR dream for Putin's government before even taking into account that he's predictably insane.
Honestly I think Trump is too moronic to realize the Russians are manipulating him, but I really doubt it goes further than that. I simply find it hard to believe that Trump is competent enough to even engage in secret schemes with Russia like that. He's demonstrated pretty clearly that he's terrible at everything but reality TV.
Obama just mentioned Trump in a speech and whatever, no one cares about that, teams have been picked. What was interesting to me, and saddening, was to see how goddamn old Obama looks now.
He's been in office 8 years and looks like he's aged 30.
December 2007:
Spoiler:
2016:
Spoiler:
I remember this happened to W as well, although not quite as bad.
It makes me wonder more than ever why anyone would even want this gakky job
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: Obama just mentioned Trump in a speech and whatever, no one cares about that, teams have been picked. What was interesting to me, and saddening, was to see how goddamn old Obama looks now.
He's been in office 8 years and looks like he's aged 30.
December 2007:
Spoiler:
2016:
Spoiler:
I remember this happened to W as well, although not quite as bad.
It makes me wonder more than ever why anyone would even want this gakky job
you'll have to be more specific, I've seen Obama rip into trump on 3 different occasions
Ouze wrote: What was interesting to me, and saddening, was to see how goddamn old Obama looks now.
It happens to every two-term President. Look at pictures of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton on their initial inauguration and their last days in office. Most of it is because we elect people when they are late middle-age, the greying is just beginning, and skin is only starting to lose elasticity. They leave almost a decade later with full onset of old age. Stress is also a factor.
Even more reason Da Queen and the Queen's guards need to manage the next debate. She should start off by saying "since you have all buggered it up, in payment for your steadfastness in WWII we have come to sort you out." The moment tTrump interrupts her a Queen's Guard is ordered to immediately shout "RIGHT!" and stomp on his toe with that weird stomping salute you guys do.
I'd pay good money for that, and even support giving New Mexico to Britain in compensation.
I think we can do much better than that, Fraz.
Spoiler:
Perfect! Every time one of the candidates...and let's face it, it's really just one that does this regularly during the debates...doesn't answer a question directly as it's posed by the moderator, Jules draws his .45 and does the 'Pulp Fiction' bible quote.
Nah, all he has to do is randomly yell "English, motherfether, do you speak it?" every couple minutes and he'll pretty much be on point.
Anyway, yeah, being President prematurely ages you. You pretty much have to live with the fact that half the country will just blindly hate you and everything you do. You'll get blamed for every failure of government, no matter who really is at fault. You'll know and see terrible things you can't tell anybody else. You're the one who gets blamed for not ordering the military into action when the people want it, and when you do, you get blamed for every soldier's death. Being President in this post 9/11 world really just sucks.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Anyway, yeah, being President prematurely ages you. You pretty much have to live with the fact that half the country will just blindly hate you and everything you do. You'll get blamed for every failure of government, no matter who really is at fault. You'll know and see terrible things you can't tell anybody else. You're the one who gets blamed for not ordering the military into action when the people want it, and when you do, you get blamed for every soldier's death. Being President in this post 9/11 world really just sucks.
Which could be a factor in why our current selection of candidates is less than desirable. No one sane wants the job.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/18 19:12:29
3000
4000 
Gary, on the hand, I just want to throw a tennis ball for him to fetch. 
