Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The curious popularity of Putin by Republicans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    But it wasn't the "Russian playbook" that defeated Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Hillary won the popular vote -- by nearly three million votes. It was Hillary's campaign that chose not to visit Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin when all polls showed that the Rust Belt was up for grabs in the last few weeks before Election Day. You can blame Putin 'til the cows come home, but the fact is is that Hillary had every advantage of a candidate backed by big money and her party's machinery -- not to mention nearly three decades' worth of experience and political contacts in those very states -- and she still blew it. Putin's playbook may have made it interesting, but this was still Hillary's election to lose. Can't pin that one on Vladimir Vladimirovich.

    I think that was the point I was trying to make earlier: while certainly a sinister figure, Putin simply isn't a bogeyman for all seasons. While it's no doubt soothing for the Democrats to blame their 2016 defeat on nefarious outside influences, by refusing to accept some measure of responsibility they're merely setting themselves up for more defeat later on down the road.
    I agree with you on Hillary not paying attention to the rust belt. One other thing not mentioned was the Comey bombshell. You can't create a police state without the police, can you?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
      I agree with you on Hillary not paying attention to the rust belt. One other thing not mentioned was the Comey bombshell. You can't create a police state without the police, can you?
      Considering Obama was still President at the time of the Comey bombshell, are you suggesting Obama was operating a police state?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
        I agree with you on Hillary not paying attention to the rust belt. One other thing not mentioned was the Comey bombshell. You can't create a police state without the police, can you?
        Comey was in a no win situation. Scuttlebutt has it that agents in the NY field office were in a state of near mutiny, accusing the Director of not investigating allegations against Hillary in good faith. Word on the street is that the agents in the NY office are former NYC mayor and US Attorney for the Southern District of NY Rudolph Giuliani's boys -- and since Rudy was for Trump, that the NY field office was for Trump too. Those are the rumors, at any rate.

        What's not speculative is that, when the FBI is investigating a major political figure, the Director keeps that information to himself at his peril. Comey had little choice but to inform the oversight committee of the Bureau's renewed look at Hillary. Can you imagine the shtstorm that would have resulted had it come out that the Bureau was investigating Hillary but didn't report it to the oversight committee? Comey would have been accused of being today's J Edgar Hoover, running a shadow agency, out of public scrutiny, and accountable to no one. Maybe Comey's manner of reporting the Bureau's activity was clumsy and hamfisted, but there's no doubt in my mind that the Director was compelled to report it.

        Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
        Considering Obama was still President at the time of the Comey bombshell, are you suggesting Obama was operating a police state?
        Since J Edgar's death, the Director is usually appointed to a ten year term, in order that his position be above politics, but not long enough to cultivate a perpetual satrapy. That's the theory in any case, so regardless of who occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Comey was obliged to report the Bureau's renewed investigation of Hillary Clinton to the appropriate congressional oversight committee. Perhaps he could have done that behind closed doors, but either way, he had to report it.
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
          I agree with you on Hillary not paying attention to the rust belt. One other thing not mentioned was the Comey bombshell. You can't create a police state without the police, can you?
          Comey wasn't a bombshell. The die was already cast at that point.

          The Hillabeast ran a lackluster campaign besieged by the truth.

          As Slick noted, she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

          She went six weeks without a personal appearance while Trump was wearing out shoes. You simply do not come back from that.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
            Comey was in a no win situation. Scuttlebutt has it that agents in the NY field office were in a state of near mutiny, accusing the Director of not investigating allegations against Hillary in good faith. Word on the street is that the agents in the NY office are former NYC mayor and US Attorney for the Southern District of NY Rudolph Giuliani's boys -- and since Rudy was for Trump, that the NY field office was for Trump too. Those are the rumors, at any rate.

            What's not speculative is that, when the FBI is investigating a major political figure, the Director keeps that information to himself at his peril. Comey had little choice but to inform the oversight committee of the Bureau's renewed look at Hillary. Can you imagine the shtstorm that would have resulted had it come out that the Bureau was investigating Hillary but didn't report it to the oversight committee? Comey would have been accused of being today's J Edgar Hoover, running a shadow agency, out of public scrutiny, and accountable to no one. Maybe Comey's manner of reporting the Bureau's activity was clumsy and hamfisted, but there's no doubt in my mind that the Director was compelled to report it.
            That's a relief to hear that defense of Comey, an unbiased FBI right is surely needed now to get to the bottom of the Russian involvement in the US election and Trump's relationship to Russia. I will be very content to accept wherever the facts lead. I hope a full investigation totally exonerates Trump, I really do, and put my strong suspicions of him to rest.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
              Considering Obama was still President at the time of the Comey bombshell, are you suggesting Obama was operating a police state?
              No.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                No.
                So what were you suggesting when you posted this:
                One other thing not mentioned was the Comey bombshell. You can't create a police state without the police, can you?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                  So what were you suggesting when you posted this:
                  I was trying to be cute.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                    I was trying to be cute.
                    As a Canadian, isn't "cute" against your religion?
                    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                      As a Canadian, isn't "cute" against your religion?
                      Mountie-Cat disagrees...


                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                        I guess you missed it when I posted this before-- Russia is an economically challenged nation of 145 million, less than half of America’s population and much less than half of Europe’s. Its economy is a small fraction of the combined economies of Europe and America.
                        Doesn't matter, Russia has nukes and lots of them. Can turn anything into an existential crisis if it pleases. Forcing you to stand down since far away events around Russia's periphery are not really existential crises for you.

                        Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                        It is not on a war footing. It is not moving forces into position for an invasion. It is not mobilizing. To satellite photography, to NSA these things would be as obvious as leprosy on a prom queen. The Establishment would be screaming to high heaven if there were the slightest trace of preparation for war. The whole business is manufactured.
                        Are those things not valid in what concerns the US/NATO too? Then why the Russian Establishment's hype accepted as fact but the US Establishment's is not?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                          Timing matters.

                          Prior to 2014 there were no Russian "troll factories" and the Russian government wasn't trying to destabilize political systems (other than their own).

                          (Also, last time I looked, the Clinton Foundation doesn't constitute the US government.)
                          Obvious corruption you ignore and the fake news variety you lap up.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Imperial View Post
                            ...
                            Are those things not valid in what concerns the US/NATO too? Then why the Russian Establishment's hype accepted as fact but the US Establishment's is not?
                            Grammatically, this sentence makes no sense to me.
                            "Why is the Rum gone?"

                            -Captain Jack

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                              Grammatically, this sentence makes no sense to me.
                              Grammatically, those are several sentences, not one.

                              I presume what was unclear for you was this part of the message, but it's easy to figure out it was just missing an "is":

                              Then why is the Russian Establishment's hype accepted as fact but the US Establishment's is not?

                              I was referring to the fact that every time US/NATO sends a meagre amount of soldiers and equipment for some exercises in the Baltics, Poland, Romania or the Black Sea, some pick up the Russian establishment's hype and start whining about preparations for war, provoking Russia, and, until recently, Obama's/Clinton's push for WW3.

                              As if for Russia it is not clear that US/NATO is not on a war footing. It is not moving forces into position for an invasion. It is not mobilizing. To satellite photography, to GRU and SVR these things would be as obvious as leprosy on a prom queen.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X