Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 36 to 63 of 63

Thread: Out Today

  1. #36
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    4,909

    Default Re: Out Today

    bobbys is no more a conservative than I am. Right now he has a new toy since L.W. blew up at him and he is going to use it to try to provoke people into losing their cool. There is no discussion, no argument, just constant misuse of an incident so he can play the victim in a situation he provoked.
    "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito"

    -Dalai Lama

  2. #37
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    3,037

    Default Re: Out Today

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbys View Post
    No doubt this entertains the peanut gallery but sometime one would expect one to actully engage with reasonable debate..

    Anything.
    So... Where was Obama born?
    \"A little too tall, coulda used a few pounds...\"

  3. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,210

    Default Re: Out Today

    Quote Originally Posted by Beowolf View Post
    So... Where was Obama born?
    Good question, wrong thread.
    So, did you order yours?
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  4. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pleasant Valley NS Canada
    Posts
    17,831

    Default Re: Out Today

    Sorry, mdh, but, like bobbys, you do not discuss in any form of good intent; you only quote right-wing media pundits, misdirect, erect straw men, and prevaricate. It is not worth my time and energy to engage with you. In fact, this is too much already. Feel free to post misstatements such as that I was being derisive in my post to bobbys, though; it is amusing to watch.
    Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

  5. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    24,275

    Default Re: Out Today

    I'm not sure "pundit" is the correct word while "Whack-job" still fills the bill.

  6. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,210

    Default Re: Out Today

    Quote Originally Posted by mmd View Post
    Sorry, mdh, but, like bobbys, you do not discuss in any form of good intent; you only quote right-wing media pundits, misdirect, erect straw men, and prevaricate. It is not worth my time and energy to engage with you. In fact, this is too much already. Feel free to post misstatements such as that I was being derisive in my post to bobbys, though; it is amusing to watch.
    That is pure projection. It is the fallacy of socialist/communist prosperity that belabors your engagement with different ideas. Other than the ‘feel good’ aspect of policies, even in the face of abject failure of realized effect, you’ve nothing to support your contentions. It has nothing to do with worth, it has all to do with ability.
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  7. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    23,976

    Default Re: Out Today

    Gobbledygook!

  8. #43
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    4,909

    Default Re: Out Today

    Quote Originally Posted by Beowolf View Post
    So... Where was Obama born?
    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    Good question, wrong thread.
    So, did you order yours?
    it was a question to prove a point. bobbys declined to comment, answer, or even acknowledge it. Sadly, that is how he "engages" in conversation and argument. There are times I want to ask if this is the five minute or the full course.
    "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito"

    -Dalai Lama

  9. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    23,976

    Default Re: Out Today

    It is a widely held belief among Reds that if two of their half-wits combine forces they equal one whole wit.

  10. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    23,976

    Default Re: Out Today

    Then they go through endless machinations to prove beyond all doubt that they are still two half-wits.

  11. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    16,733

    Default Re: Out Today

    Is the contraction for two wits a t’wit?

  12. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    23,976

    Default Re: Out Today

    Ha! If not, it should be!

  13. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    23,976

    Default Re: Out Today

    Don't feed the half-w...er, I mean the Troll!

  14. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    583

    Default Re: Out Today

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbys View Post
    No doubt this entertains the peanut gallery but sometime one would expect one to actully engage with reasonable debate..

    Anything.
    I agree with the Bobster here about the appellation "Red" - it is a bit confusing.

    Instead I use derivatives of "Reich" to describe his elk . .

    because (1) they totally deserve it, and (2) it drives them wild

  15. #50
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    4,909

    Default Re: Out Today

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbys View Post
    Being as you know so much about it, what is the point?
    The point is, you do not engage in conversation or argument, you deflect, change the subject, or throw out a non-sequitur to derail the topic.
    "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito"

    -Dalai Lama

  16. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    61,944

    Default Re: Out Today

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbys View Post
    I asked you the point of asking, where was Obama born. You seem to know, I'm curious to read your reasoning.
    Why should anyone bother to answer your pitiful questions when you habitually never answer ours bobbys? Also, if you dion't know, that's your problem; one of many actually.
    Last edited by S.V. Airlie; 08-16-2019 at 10:03 AM.

  17. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    61,944

    Default Re: Out Today

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbys View Post
    I did not believe anyone would reply anyways, certainly those making the inane comment, that was easy.
    Gobbldygook! As you a post that would only make sense in NEW Jersey!

  18. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    583

    Default Re: Out Today

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbys View Post
    It's a ad hominem attack such as saying, "You are just like Hitler and therefore whatever you are arguing for is wrong," without having any reasoning behind why this conclusion was reached. This poster does not even try to have any sort of reason or point , add a token insult and no other reason then to provoke and you pretty much have liberal debate tactics here.. .
    .
    If you quack like a racist fascist, support torture like a fascist, lock kids in cages like a fascist, love the oligarchy like a fascist . .

    You might well be fascist-like, and the label "Reich" fits you to a T.

    Ad Hominem? Not hardly. You work darn hard to earn that level of respect - in a negative sense.

  19. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,210

    Default Re: Out Today

    Plan A was to exonerate her and get her elected. Plan B, the failsafe, was an ‘insurance policy’ meant to destroy Trump.
    Editor’s note: Andrew C. McCarthy’s new book is Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. This is the first in a series of excerpts.

    There really was a collusion plot. It really did target our election system. It absolutely sought to usurp our capacity for self-determination. It was just not the collusion you’ve been told about for nearly three years. It was not “Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia.”


    Here is the real collusion scheme: In 2016, the incumbent Democratic administration of President Barack Obama put the awesome powers of the United States government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus in the service of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic party, and the progressive Beltway establishment. This scheme had two parts: Plan A, the objective; and Plan B, a fail-safe strategy in case Plan A imploded — which all the smartest people were supremely confident would never, ever happen . . . which is why you could bet the ranch that it would.

    Plan A was to get Mrs. Clinton elected president of the United States. This required exonerating her, at least ostensibly, from well-founded allegations of her felonious and politically disqualifying actions.

    Plan B was the insurance policy: an investigation that Donald Trump, in the highly unlikely event he was elected, would be powerless to shut down. An investigation that would simultaneously monitor and taint him. An investigation that internalized Clinton-campaign-generated opposition research, limning Trump and his campaign as complicit in Russian espionage. An investigation that would hunt for a crime under the guise of counterintelligence, build an impeachment case under the guise of hunting for a crime, and seek to make Trump un-reelectable under the guise of building an impeachment case.


    Upon becoming President Obama’s secretary of state, Clinton improperly set up a private, non-secure system for email communications. It featured her own personal server, stored in her home and, later, maintained by a private contractor. Secretary Clinton used this private email system for all of her official State Department communications, notwithstanding that doing so (a) violated government regulations (which, as the department head, she was responsible for enforcing); (b) violated governmental record-keeping and record-production obligations imposed by federal law; and (c) made it inevitable — due to the nature of her responsibilities — that streams of classified information would flow through and be stored in the non-secure system.


    This lack of security meant that top-secret intelligence — some of it classified at the highest levels, some of it involving Clinton’s communications with the president of the United States and other top national-security officials — became accessible to people who were not cleared to see it. Accessible not just to those lacking security clearance but also to hostile actors, including foreign intelligence services and anti-American hackers.


    When asked, nearly two years after leaving office, to surrender copies of her emails (by an Obama State Department under pressure from congressional investigators and Freedom of Information Act claimants), Clinton caused tens of thousands of her emails to be destroyed. Not just deleted. Destroyed. As in: purged with a special software program (“BleachBit”) designed to shred electronic documents. The aim was to prevent their being recovered. Ever. By anyone.

    In all, Clinton undertook to destroy over 30,000 emails, even though some of them had been demanded by congressional subpoena. And this would not be a Clinton story if we failed to note that, in the time-honored family tradition, Hillary lied her head off about the substance of the destroyed emails: We were to believe that, in thousands upon thousands of email exchanges, one of the busiest public officials and most obsessively political creatures on the planet had lolled her days away gabbing about yoga routines, family vacations, and her daughter’s wedding.

    President Obama took care of undermining any prosecution for her mishandling of classified information. He had a deep interest in doing so: He had knowingly communicated with his secretary of state through the private system, and he had misled the public about it — claiming to have learned about Clinton’s private email practices from news reports, like everyone else. All of that could be neatly buried in two steps. First, invoke executive privilege (without calling it that — too Nixonian) to seal the Obama–Clinton emails from public view. Second, ensure that the Clinton-emails case would never be prosecuted: If Clinton was never accused of criminal conduct, then Obama’s role as a minor participant would not become evidence in a criminal case.


    In April 2016, on national television, the president made clear that he did not believe an indictment should be filed against former Secretary Clinton, who, by then, was the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee. Obama explained that, in his considered judgment, Clinton meant no harm to national security. Plus, the intelligence involved, though technically categorized as “classified,” was not really, you know, the super-secret stuff — “There’s ‘classified,’” Obama scoffed, “and then there’s classified.” It was a classic Obama straw man. The criminal provisions pertinent to Clinton’s case did not require proof of intent to harm the United States, only that she was trusted with access to intelligence and nevertheless mishandled it, either intentionally or through gross negligence. Moreover, no one was accusing Clinton of trying to damage national security. That is a different, more serious criminal offense that was not on the table. It was as if Obama were claiming that a bank robber was somehow not guilty of the bank robbery because she hadn’t murdered anyone while committing it.

    There was no way on God’s green earth that the Obama Justice Department was ever going to authorize a prosecution involving conduct that would embarrass the president. Nor was it ever going to indict Obama’s former secretary of state — certainly not after Obama, revered by Democrats and pundits as a first-rate lawyer, had pronounced her not guilty, had provided a legal rationale for exoneration, and had endorsed her as his successor.


    Wonder of wonders: The “no intent to harm the United States” rationale President Obama had glibly posited in insisting Clinton had done nothing wrong was echoed in the ensuing months by his subordinates. Justice Department officials leaked to their media friends that Clinton was unlikely to be charged because there was scant evidence of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, very shortly after Obama’s public statements about Clinton’s case, FBI director James Comey and his closest advisers began drafting remarks exonerating Mrs. Clinton. Over a dozen critical witnesses, including Clinton herself, had not yet been interviewed. Salient evidence had not yet been examined. No matter. With the end of the story already written, the rest was just details. When Director Comey finally announced that Clinton would not be indicted, his rationalizations were indistinguishable from Obama’s.

    Thus “exonerated,” the former first lady was on her way to the Oval Office — this time as president. Or so she thought — as did the Obama White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the intelligence agencies, every progressive activist from Boston Harbor to Silicon Valley, and every political pundit from the Beltway to the Upper West Side. Alas, there was just one problem — a problem the president and his myrmidons could not fix for Mrs. Clinton.


    That problem was Mrs. Clinton.
    (Cont’d)
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  20. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,210

    Default Re: Out Today

    That problem was Mrs. Clinton.

    As would have been manifest to less politicized eyes, she was an atrocious candidate. Clinton was the same fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, broadly unpopular candidate she had been in 2008, when she couldn’t convince Democrats to support her. You may recall this as the reason there was a President Barack Obama in the first place. You say, “Hey, wait a second. Donald Trump was fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, and broadly unpopular, too.” Maybe so, but if hammering away at an opponent’s malignance is the path to victory, shouldn’t you perhaps nominate a candidate who doesn’t mirror his defects?

    The only differences between the “It’s My Turn” Senator Hillary! of 2008 and the “Stronger Together” Secretary Clinton who expected a 2016 coronation was that she now had hanging around her neck the Benghazi debacle, a desultory tenure as secretary of state, a shades-of-2008 inability to convince Democrats that she was the preferable candidate (this time, not in comparison to a charismatic young progressive, but to a 75-year-old self-proclaimed socialist who had joined the Democratic party about five minutes before announcing his presidential aspirations), whispers that her health was deteriorating, and an email scandal that smacked of both national-security recklessness and rules-don’t-apply-to-me arrogance — precisely the kind of controversy that reminded Americans of how exhausting the last scandal-plagued Clinton administration had been.

    The Obama administration’s exoneration gambit came up snake-eyes because of Clinton herself. Democrats can con themselves (and attempt to con everyone else) into believing that her failure is due to Vladimir Putin’s perfidy or Trump’s demagoguery. In the real world, though, Clinton lost because of her epic shortcomings.

    That loss made it inevitable that the Obama administration’s exploitation of counterintelligence powers to monitor the opposition party’s presidential campaign would come to light. That made it imperative to promote the notion that there had been a Trump–Russia scheme worth investigating — a dark cloud of suspicion that would straitjacket and shorten the Trump presidency.

    The collusion narrative.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...uins-the-plan/
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  21. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    61,944

    Default Re: Out Today

    National review is right up y]there with FOXYNEWS!

  22. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,210

    Default Re: Out Today

    They have tried to influence elections in Russia and Israel, and have sought the Russians’ help to get elected here.
    Editor’s note: Andrew C. McCarthy’s new book is Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. This is the second in a series of excerpts.

    ‘The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

    Thus spoke President Barack Obama just a couple of weeks before Election Day 2012. With the race still thought to be tight, he had come to the candidates’ final debate loaded for bear. Earlier in the campaign, his Republican rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, had had the temerity to pronounce that Russia was, “without question, our number-one geopolitical foe.” The incumbent president regarded this as an absurd anachronism. So that night, he brought the snark. Hadn’t anyone informed Romney that “the Cold War’s been over for 20 years”?


    Obama tut-tutted that this Republican nostalgia for the foreign policy of the 1980s was of a piece with the GOP’s desire to revive the “social policy of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.” Yes, that was your Democratic-party standard-bearer, what seems like only yesterday. No longer was this the party of Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy. To Obama-era Democrats, arguing that Russia was a real threat, that it longed for a return to Soviet hegemony, was akin to calling for the return of Jim Crow and the adoption of protectionist practices that helped ignite the Great Depression.

    But then Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, and Democrats decided they’d best return that call from the 1980s after all. It turns out Russia — the Russia against whose serial aggressions Obama took little meaningful action throughout his eight years in office — really is our Numero Uno geopolitical foe. Turns out the Cold War isn’t “so last century.” Since November 8, 2016, in ever-evolving Democratic dogma, Russia has gone from a quaint obsession of neocon warmongers to an existential threat on the order of Climate Change!


    As is generally the case, neither extreme of political posturing has been accurate. Romney was right that Putin’s Russia is a significant rival on the world stage. Whether it is “number one” on the tally sheet is debatable. To figure that out, we’d have to make judgment calls about all the threats we face — immediate versus long-term, forcible versus other forms of aggression, ideological versus transactional, and so on. No need to dawdle over that. It suffices to say that the Russian regime is a serious adversary. It has a formidable nuclear arsenal, as well as highly capable military and intelligence forces. Its default posture is anti-American (though it is biddable). It cooperates effectively with other anti-American regimes and factions. Its veto power in the United Nations Security Council complicates our government’s capacity to act in American interests. It has a Soviet iciness about the use of terrorism and forges alliances with terrorists in the pursuit of its interests. The regime is ruthless in its determination to remain in power, it has revanchist ambitions, and it is shrewd in testing the West’s resolve — or lack of same — to respond to incremental aggressions that implicate NATO and other commitments.


    At the same time, Putin’s Russia is not the Soviet Union. The Cold War really is over. We are not in a bipolar global order, rivaled by a tyrannical Soviet empire. Modern Russia is a fading country. Its first-rate weaponry, armed forces, and intelligence agencies scarcely obscure its third-rate economy, declining population, pervasive societal dysfunction (high levels of drunkenness, disease, and unemployment), and lowering life expectancy. Behind the façade of democratic elections and constitutional restraints, Russia has less a principled system of government than a marriage of rulers, oligarchs, and organized crime. To endure, Vladimir Putin’s regime must terrorize the Russian people. Nevertheless, it is a pale imitation of the brutal Soviet behemoth that imploded nearly 30 years ago when the Berlin Wall fell, the Iron Curtain lifted, and tens of millions of enslaved subjects broke free.


    Does Russia have the wherewithal to “interfere in our elections,” as the media-Democrat trope puts it? If by “interference” — or its frequently invoked synonym, “meddling” — we refer to the ability to inject propaganda and attempt to influence the campaign debate, then of course it can interfere. And it does. That is what capable governments do to other countries. It is not only what the Soviet Union always did, and what Putin’s Russia does throughout the West and in other parts of the world of consequence to Russian interests; it is what our own government does.

    The United States is among the most active participants in the election-interference game. “We’ve been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947,” Loch K. Johnson, an acclaimed scholar of U.S. intelligence, told the New York Times in 2018. “We’ve used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners — you name it. We’ve planted false information in foreign newspapers. We’ve used what the British call ‘King George’s cavalry’: suitcases of cash.”


    Democrats, moreover, conveniently forget that they’ve historically welcomed such mischief-making. As historian Steven F. Hayward recounts, President Jimmy Carter used such emissaries as billionaire industrialist Armand Hammer and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to seek Soviet accommodations that could help in the 1980 campaign against Ronald Reagan. This mirrored the tactics of the 1976 campaign, during which Democratic eminence Averell Harriman conveyed to the Soviet foreign ministry that Carter was anxious to negotiate and would be more agreeable to deal with than then-President Gerald Ford.

    By the 1984 campaign, it was the renowned “Lion of the Senate,” Ted Kennedy, pleading with Soviet leader Yuri Andropov for help in the Democrats’ futile effort to stop the Reagan landslide. The Hoover Institution’s Peter Robinson, a Reagan speechwriter, provided details of the unabashed quid pro quo, outlined in a 1983 KGB memorandum. Through his confidant, former California Democratic senator John Tunney, Kennedy told Andropov, “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet–American relations . . . These issues . . . will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”


    Kennedy offered to visit Andropov in Moscow to provide Soviet officials with pointers on the challenges of nuclear disarmament “so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Having thus offered to update their propaganda, Kennedy further proposed arranging to have television networks give Andropov air time for “a direct appeal . . . to the American people.” Tunney went on to advise the Russians that, while his friend wanted to run for president in 1988, “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against Republicans and elect their candidate president.”

    Now that’s some collusion right there.


    There is nothing unusual about it, though. President Bill Clinton labored to ensure that Russia’s reformer president (and Putin patron) Boris Yeltsin would not be defeated by a Soviet-style Communist in 1996. President Obama sedulously worked against Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, first attempting to force progressives into his right-leaning governing coalition, then dedicating U.S. taxpayer funds to a failed effort to defeat Netanyahu in 2015. Nothing new there: Clinton had unsuccessfully tried to defeat Netanyahu nearly 20 years earlier, later telling Israeli television, “I tried to do it in a way that didn’t overtly involve me.”

    As these things go, it would have been shocking if Moscow had not attempted to meddle in our 2016 election. Putting aside the Russians’ general penchant for anti-American mischief-making, in 2011 Putin had publicly blamed then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for inciting unrest following Russia’s typically rigged parliamentary elections. So, the 2016 campaign was not just business as usual. There was an element of score-settling. And Putin being a canny strongman, the point was to sow discord and make life difficult for what he fully expected would be the new Clinton administration.

    There are good reasons to doubt the sincerity of assurances by Kremlin-tied operatives that Putin wanted Trump to win. Russia’s modus operandi in the West is to agitate minority factions it believes are going to lose — whether it would prefer to see them to win or not. That is how Moscow promotes strife and makes it more difficult for the incumbent government to pursue its interests. But even if we accept at face value Russian assertions that Putin wanted Trump to win, there is no reason to think Putin believed Trump would win.

    Nobody did. Not even Donald Trump himself.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...tion-meddlers/
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  23. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    61,944

    Default Re: Out Today

    At least Hillary and Obama didn't cavort with Dictators who he believes over our own Intelligence Agencies.

  24. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,210

    Default Re: Out Today

    Democrats scoffed at charges of ‘election rigging’ until they needed an excuse for Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat.
    Editor’s note: Andrew C. McCarthy’s new book is Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. This is the third in a series of excerpts; the first can be read here and the second here.

    ‘Horrifying!”

    As we’ve seen, candidates can get chirpy at final presidential debates less than three weeks from Election Day, and Hillary Clinton was no exception. What “horror” had her inveighing so? The very thought that her Republican rival would question the legitimacy of the presidential election.


    Donald Trump being Donald Trump, he wouldn’t budge. He would not pledge to accept the election results a priori. Okay, no, Trump didn’t use the phase a priori. But he did speculate that the electoral process could be rigged. Until he saw how it played out, the Republican nominee said, he could not concede that the outcome would be on the up-and-up.

    First, he reaffirmed an allegation for which he’d already been roundly condemned: Foreigners could swing the election — specifically, “millions” of ineligible voters, an allusion to illegal immigration, the piñata of Trump’s campaign. Second, he complained about the gross one-sidedness of the media’s campaign coverage: scathing when it came to him, and between inattentive and fawning when it came to his opponent, whose considerable sins were airbrushed away. Third, he claimed there was deep corruption: Clinton, he maintained, should not have been permitted to run, given the evidence of felony misconduct uncovered in her email scandal. Instead of prosecuting her, law-enforcement agencies of the Democratic administration bent over backwards to give her a pass, and congressional Democrats closed ranks around her, conducting themselves in committee hearings more like her defense lawyers than like investigators searching for the truth.


    A flabbergasted Clinton responded that she was shocked — horrified — to hear Trump “talking down our democracy” this way. This was a top theme in her campaign’s closing days: The election was absolutely legitimate; Trump was traitorously condemnable for refusing to say so.


    Of course, Clinton and the Democrats who parroted her would prefer that you forget that now. And given her strained relationship with the truth, they’re right to suspect that you’d never retain anything she said for very long. The media–Democrat caterwauling over Trump’s election-rigging spiel was not rooted in patriotic commitment to the American democratic tradition of accepting election outcomes. They said what they said because they fully expected to win. The polls all said they would. Mrs. Clinton and her backers, President Obama included, would not abide a taint of illegitimacy affixing itself to her inevitable presidency.

    Except it wasn’t so inevitable. And when Clinton lost, they changed their tune about election-rigging. Suddenly, the inconceivable, the heresy-even-to-hint-at, was to be taken as gospel: The outcome was illegitimate! Russia hacked the election!

    There was, however, a very inconvenient problem for this narrative: Everything of significance that is known to the U.S. government about Russian meddling was already known in those pre-election weeks when Clinton and the Democrats were vouching for the integrity of the process and condemning Trump for even hesitating to endorse it.


    By now, the story is well known. Russia’s cyberespionage operations began in 2014, long before Donald Trump’s entry into the race. By summer 2015, hackers believed to be connected to Russian intelligence agencies had access to DNC computer networks, and the FBI began warning DNC officials of this in September of that year — albeit with a lack of urgency that now seems stunning. In March 2016 came the hacking of a private email account belonging to John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, who was sufficiently versed in cyber privacy issues to have authored a 2014 report on the subject while serving as a top Obama White House adviser.

    U.S. intelligence agencies were intimately aware of the penetrations. Obama’s national intelligence director, James Clapper, publicly acknowledged that hackers appeared to have targeted presidential campaigns. By August 2016, CIA director John Brennan had interpreted streams of foreign intelligence to indicate that Putin had personally ordered the cyber thefts with the intention of at least damaging Clinton, if not flipping the election to Trump. In a phone call, Brennan is said to have admonished Alexander Bortnikov, the head of Russia’s security service (the FSB), to desist. The next month, in a face-to-face confrontation (through interpreters) at an international conference in China, Obama warned Putin that “we knew what he was doing and [he] better stop it or else.” Meanwhile, the administration conducted numerous high-level, close-hold meetings, weighing several options including retaliatory cyber attacks.


    Ultimately, Obama decided to do nothing. The president’s political allies and media admirers are now embarrassed about his inaction — “It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend. I feel like we sort of choked,” one anonymous senior administration official told the Washington Post. As ever, though, they remain apologists for their man, portraying a pained POTUS, fearful that any action he took would make matters worse, or be perceived as political, or otherwise undermine confidence in the election.

    What, then, is the collusion narrative? And what’s their story now? It is pretty much the same story they rebuked Trump for telling. They peddle a three-part rigged-election claim: (1) foreign interference, not by illegal aliens who may have voted but by Russians who did not affect the voting process; (2) one-sided press coverage — they mean the Russian propaganda press and the WikiLeaks release of DNC and John Podesta emails, which they’d now have you believe had more influence on Americans than did the media-Democrat complex and the grudging State Department release of Hillary Clinton’s own emails; and (3) the corruption that lifted a low-character candidate who should not have been allowed to run but who received extraordinary government assistance — not from the Obama Justice Department but from the Putin regime.


    To assess the Democratic narrative as bunk is not to excuse Russian duplicity, which many of us were warning about while Bush was embracing Putin as a strategic partner and while Obama was “resetting” with all due “flexibility.”

    By late October, the Russian “cyberespionage” effort to meddle in the election was well known. In the same debate in which Clinton rebuked Trump for refusing to concede the election’s legitimacy, she attacked her rival as “Putin’s puppet” and cited the finding of government agencies that Russia sought to interfere in the election. Clinton was not at all concerned that Putin’s shenanigans would have any actual impact on the election. She invoked them because she thought it was helpful to her campaign — an opportunity to portray Trump as ripe for rolling by the Russian regime.


    And how could she have taken any other position? None other than President Obama himself observed that there was nothing unusual about Russian scheming to influence American elections, which he said “dates back to the Soviet Union.” Obama deftly avoided mentioning that past scheming had never gotten much media traction because the Soviets had been more favorably disposed towards Democrats. While he blamed the Putin regime for hacking emails during the 2016 campaign, Obama described this as “fairly routine.” He acknowledged, moreover, that it was publicly notorious well in advance of the election — which, of course, is why Clinton had been able to exploit it in a nationally televised debate three weeks prior to November 8.

    What happened here is very simple: Russia was unimportant to Democrats, and was indeed avoided by Democrats, until they needed to rationalize a stunning defeat. Prior to the election, Democrats had little interest in mentioning “Russia” or “Putin.”

    Attention to the Kremlin was bad news for Clinton. It invited scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation’s suspicious foreign dealings, Bill Clinton’s lucrative speech racket, Hillary’s biddable State Department, and Russia’s acquisition of major U.S. uranium supplies. It conjured embarrassing memories of the “Russia Reset,” during which the supine Obama administration watched Putin capture territory in Eastern Europe and muscle his way into the Middle East, all while arming and aligning with Iran. It called to mind the intriguing relationship between Podesta (the Clinton-campaign chairman and former Obama White House official) and Putin’s circle — specifically, a $35 million investment by a Putin-created venture-capital firm, Rusnano, in a small Massachusetts energy company, Joule Energy, just two months after Podesta joined Joule’s board.

    So, while Donald Trump’s Russia rhetoric ranged from the unseemly (blowing kisses at an anti-American thug) to the delusional (the notion that Russia, Iran’s new friend, could be a reliable ally against jihadism) to the reprehensible (moral equivalence between the murderous Putin regime and American national-defense operations), Clinton’s own Russia baggage rendered her unable to exploit it.

    It was only afterward, after she lost a contest she thought she had in the bag that the election turned illegitimate.
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  25. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    96,533

    Default Re: Out Today

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    Democrats scoffed at charges of ‘election rigging’ until they needed an excuse for Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat.
    bull****
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  26. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,210

    Default Re: Out Today

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    bull****
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MzFdMy4gIdQ
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  27. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    61,944

    Default Re: Out Today

    FOXNEWS mdh! WHEEEEEEE! Entertainment at best, news not at all.You might get more out of the National Enquirer. I saw a copy in the checkout line with a picture of Hillary having sex with a green space alien.
    Last edited by S.V. Airlie; 08-17-2019 at 08:22 AM.

  28. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern NY
    Posts
    2,405

    Default Re: Out Today

    Useless -- pages too small for wrapping fish, and too slick for outhouse duty.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •