Vladimir Putin

145679

Comments

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    This is all very compelling but completely extraneous to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Republicans make 5% or 50% of the population. The point is that they've fallen in line with Trump's love affair with Putin. Nothing changed in July 2016, geo-politically. They didn't pull out of Crimea. They didn't negotiate peace in Syria or the Middle East. The only thing that changed were Trump's words and it moved the needle dramatically. Sheeple.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,765
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    This is all very compelling but completely extraneous to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Republicans make 5% or 50% of the population. The point is that they've fallen in line with Trump's love affair with Putin. Nothing changed in July 2016, geo-politically. They didn't pull out of Crimea. They didn't negotiate peace in Syria or the Middle East. The only thing that changed were Trump's words and it moved the needle dramatically. Sheeple.
    They haven't fallen in line. They are waiting patiently as cabinet members are appointed and real policy is made. They are not making judgements based on tweets. I am anti-Putin and generally supportive of Trump...people like us exist and are awaiting hard policy positions. As I explained a long time ago it is quite possible that Trump's pre-election behaviour might actually be an asset when the push back against Putin and/or China and/or Iran comes. Don't confuse patience with "falling in line".
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    This is all very compelling but completely extraneous to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Republicans make 5% or 50% of the population. The point is that they've fallen in line with Trump's love affair with Putin. Nothing changed in July 2016, geo-politically. They didn't pull out of Crimea. They didn't negotiate peace in Syria or the Middle East. The only thing that changed were Trump's words and it moved the needle dramatically. Sheeple.
    They haven't fallen in line. They are waiting patiently as cabinet members are appointed and real policy is made. They are not making judgements based on tweets. I am anti-Putin and generally supportive of Trump...people like us exist and are awaiting hard policy positions. As I explained a long time ago it is quite possible that Trump's pre-election behaviour might actually be an asset when the push back against Putin and/or China and/or Iran comes. Don't confuse patience with "falling in line".
    So they all magically got patient in July? Please.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    This is all very compelling but completely extraneous to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Republicans make 5% or 50% of the population. The point is that they've fallen in line with Trump's love affair with Putin. Nothing changed in July 2016, geo-politically. They didn't pull out of Crimea. They didn't negotiate peace in Syria or the Middle East. The only thing that changed were Trump's words and it moved the needle dramatically. Sheeple.
    Ok but I read this...
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country.

    "I think you won, but I enjoyed the fight!"
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,765
    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    This is all very compelling but completely extraneous to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Republicans make 5% or 50% of the population. The point is that they've fallen in line with Trump's love affair with Putin. Nothing changed in July 2016, geo-politically. They didn't pull out of Crimea. They didn't negotiate peace in Syria or the Middle East. The only thing that changed were Trump's words and it moved the needle dramatically. Sheeple.
    They haven't fallen in line. They are waiting patiently as cabinet members are appointed and real policy is made. They are not making judgements based on tweets. I am anti-Putin and generally supportive of Trump...people like us exist and are awaiting hard policy positions. As I explained a long time ago it is quite possible that Trump's pre-election behaviour might actually be an asset when the push back against Putin and/or China and/or Iran comes. Don't confuse patience with "falling in line".
    So they all magically got patient in July? Please.
    Way before July. It began when he came down the escalator.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    This is all very compelling but completely extraneous to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Republicans make 5% or 50% of the population. The point is that they've fallen in line with Trump's love affair with Putin. Nothing changed in July 2016, geo-politically. They didn't pull out of Crimea. They didn't negotiate peace in Syria or the Middle East. The only thing that changed were Trump's words and it moved the needle dramatically. Sheeple.
    They haven't fallen in line. They are waiting patiently as cabinet members are appointed and real policy is made. They are not making judgements based on tweets. I am anti-Putin and generally supportive of Trump...people like us exist and are awaiting hard policy positions. As I explained a long time ago it is quite possible that Trump's pre-election behaviour might actually be an asset when the push back against Putin and/or China and/or Iran comes. Don't confuse patience with "falling in line".
    So they all magically got patient in July? Please.
    Way before July. It began when he came down the escalator.
    Yes.. when he came down the escalator, the masses were like.... wow....let's see who is cabinet picks are. Maybe I should like Putin nown.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,765
    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    This is all very compelling but completely extraneous to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Republicans make 5% or 50% of the population. The point is that they've fallen in line with Trump's love affair with Putin. Nothing changed in July 2016, geo-politically. They didn't pull out of Crimea. They didn't negotiate peace in Syria or the Middle East. The only thing that changed were Trump's words and it moved the needle dramatically. Sheeple.
    They haven't fallen in line. They are waiting patiently as cabinet members are appointed and real policy is made. They are not making judgements based on tweets. I am anti-Putin and generally supportive of Trump...people like us exist and are awaiting hard policy positions. As I explained a long time ago it is quite possible that Trump's pre-election behaviour might actually be an asset when the push back against Putin and/or China and/or Iran comes. Don't confuse patience with "falling in line".
    So they all magically got patient in July? Please.
    Way before July. It began when he came down the escalator.
    Yes.. when he came down the escalator, the masses were like.... wow....let's see who is cabinet picks are. Maybe I should like Putin nown.
    Uhhh...no. It was let's take a gamble and throw the bums out. We'll see what happens once he gets elected.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    edited December 2016
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    This is all very compelling but completely extraneous to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Republicans make 5% or 50% of the population. The point is that they've fallen in line with Trump's love affair with Putin. Nothing changed in July 2016, geo-politically. They didn't pull out of Crimea. They didn't negotiate peace in Syria or the Middle East. The only thing that changed were Trump's words and it moved the needle dramatically. Sheeple.
    They haven't fallen in line. They are waiting patiently as cabinet members are appointed and real policy is made. They are not making judgements based on tweets. I am anti-Putin and generally supportive of Trump...people like us exist and are awaiting hard policy positions. As I explained a long time ago it is quite possible that Trump's pre-election behaviour might actually be an asset when the push back against Putin and/or China and/or Iran comes. Don't confuse patience with "falling in line".
    So they all magically got patient in July? Please.
    Way before July. It began when he came down the escalator.
    Yes.. when he came down the escalator, the masses were like.... wow....let's see who is cabinet picks are. Maybe I should like Putin nown.
    Uhhh...no. It was let's take a gamble and throw the bums out. We'll see what happens once he gets elected.
    What does that have to do with Republicans' favorability for Putin jumping 50 points? Did these old ass voters suddenly forget about the Cold War? Sputnik? 1980 boycott? 1984? Cuba? KGB? NKVD? The Wall? Their hatred of socialism and communism? Nyet. Their preferred candidate has a different view (for some suspicious reasons of course) and suddenly they change their mind... just like that. Lemmings.
    Post edited by mrussel1 on
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,765
    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    This is all very compelling but completely extraneous to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Republicans make 5% or 50% of the population. The point is that they've fallen in line with Trump's love affair with Putin. Nothing changed in July 2016, geo-politically. They didn't pull out of Crimea. They didn't negotiate peace in Syria or the Middle East. The only thing that changed were Trump's words and it moved the needle dramatically. Sheeple.
    They haven't fallen in line. They are waiting patiently as cabinet members are appointed and real policy is made. They are not making judgements based on tweets. I am anti-Putin and generally supportive of Trump...people like us exist and are awaiting hard policy positions. As I explained a long time ago it is quite possible that Trump's pre-election behaviour might actually be an asset when the push back against Putin and/or China and/or Iran comes. Don't confuse patience with "falling in line".
    So they all magically got patient in July? Please.
    Way before July. It began when he came down the escalator.
    Yes.. when he came down the escalator, the masses were like.... wow....let's see who is cabinet picks are. Maybe I should like Putin nown.
    Uhhh...no. It was let's take a gamble and throw the bums out. We'll see what happens once he gets elected.
    What does that have to do with Republicans' favorability for Putin jumping 50 points? Did these old ass voters suddenly forget about the Cold War? Sputnik? 1980 boycott? 1984? Cuba? KGB? NKVD? The Wall? Their hatred of socialism and communism? Nyet. Their preferred candidate has a different view (for some suspicious reasons of course) and suddenly they change their mind... just like that. Lemmings.
    Either that or YouGov got it wrong again.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    This is all very compelling but completely extraneous to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Republicans make 5% or 50% of the population. The point is that they've fallen in line with Trump's love affair with Putin. Nothing changed in July 2016, geo-politically. They didn't pull out of Crimea. They didn't negotiate peace in Syria or the Middle East. The only thing that changed were Trump's words and it moved the needle dramatically. Sheeple.
    They haven't fallen in line. They are waiting patiently as cabinet members are appointed and real policy is made. They are not making judgements based on tweets. I am anti-Putin and generally supportive of Trump...people like us exist and are awaiting hard policy positions. As I explained a long time ago it is quite possible that Trump's pre-election behaviour might actually be an asset when the push back against Putin and/or China and/or Iran comes. Don't confuse patience with "falling in line".
    So they all magically got patient in July? Please.
    Way before July. It began when he came down the escalator.
    Yes.. when he came down the escalator, the masses were like.... wow....let's see who is cabinet picks are. Maybe I should like Putin nown.
    Uhhh...no. It was let's take a gamble and throw the bums out. We'll see what happens once he gets elected.
    What does that have to do with Republicans' favorability for Putin jumping 50 points? Did these old ass voters suddenly forget about the Cold War? Sputnik? 1980 boycott? 1984? Cuba? KGB? NKVD? The Wall? Their hatred of socialism and communism? Nyet. Their preferred candidate has a different view (for some suspicious reasons of course) and suddenly they change their mind... just like that. Lemmings.
    Either that or YouGov got it wrong again.
    Or they are following the pied piper. Do you really think that most voters are critical thinkers? Really?
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,765
    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    image

    July 2016, Al Gore invents internet and Republicans discover the truth about St. Putin.

    The charts shows opinion of a man, your comments involve a county, how do the two, man and country correlate?
    Can the correlation be applied to say opinions of George W Bush and the US? Barack Obama and the US?
    Furthermore, you reference republicans which account for only 25% of the registered voters in US. The chart has excluded 45% of registered voters, the 45% that likely determine the outcome of our elections.
    The point of the chart, in reference to my post, is that Republican voters are putting party ahead of country. What happened in July of 16? Oh yeah, Trump's public lover affair with Putin started. You seem to think Republican voters woke up and discovered the internet and the "truth" and post trite RATM lyrics as support. When this chart really proves the opposite; that the voters are sheeple and following the lead of a demagogue.
    I see things completely differently...I'm not sure how republicans put party ahead of country when they chose a candidate that ran on MAGA and US first. More telling is that the party wanted nothing to do with trump, in fact most republican leaders banded together to take trump down, vowed not to support him and openly endorsed Hilliary. Keep in mind that republicans make up 25% of voters so I'm not sure how 25% of party loyalists carried him? Why didn't these republicans vote Romney?

    As for unaffiliated or independent voters, they
    1. Stayed home
    2. Voted against
    3. Voted for
    We can argue which candidate received more votes against but I'm fairly certain trump won more voting for votes, ignoring the reasons why etc. Hilliary didn't run on anything except maybe I'm with HER, she received votes for being a women, what else? Experience?

    Now on to the internet, the internet Gore gave birth to is completely different than the internet now, even 10 years ago. There are many more discussion forums now Aaron Swartz, that never existed before with credibility ratings and up down votes. Hill bots are very familiar with this.
    There is no question some are sheep, many don't have the capacity to connect dots and decipher fact from fiction but that will never change. Both sides instead of investigating and having an open honest discussion of where our politics are use the tired lazy sheeple excuse. I could go on but my N'ice Chouffe was just served up. Cheers!
    This is all very compelling but completely extraneous to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Republicans make 5% or 50% of the population. The point is that they've fallen in line with Trump's love affair with Putin. Nothing changed in July 2016, geo-politically. They didn't pull out of Crimea. They didn't negotiate peace in Syria or the Middle East. The only thing that changed were Trump's words and it moved the needle dramatically. Sheeple.
    They haven't fallen in line. They are waiting patiently as cabinet members are appointed and real policy is made. They are not making judgements based on tweets. I am anti-Putin and generally supportive of Trump...people like us exist and are awaiting hard policy positions. As I explained a long time ago it is quite possible that Trump's pre-election behaviour might actually be an asset when the push back against Putin and/or China and/or Iran comes. Don't confuse patience with "falling in line".
    So they all magically got patient in July? Please.
    Way before July. It began when he came down the escalator.
    Yes.. when he came down the escalator, the masses were like.... wow....let's see who is cabinet picks are. Maybe I should like Putin nown.
    Uhhh...no. It was let's take a gamble and throw the bums out. We'll see what happens once he gets elected.
    What does that have to do with Republicans' favorability for Putin jumping 50 points? Did these old ass voters suddenly forget about the Cold War? Sputnik? 1980 boycott? 1984? Cuba? KGB? NKVD? The Wall? Their hatred of socialism and communism? Nyet. Their preferred candidate has a different view (for some suspicious reasons of course) and suddenly they change their mind... just like that. Lemmings.
    Either that or YouGov got it wrong again.
    Or they are following the pied piper. Do you really think that most voters are critical thinkers? Really?
    Nope...many just go on instinct.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Poisoned minds!


    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • vaggar99vaggar99 San Diego USAPosts: 2,817
    pootie is the man with a half body tan
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    image
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Russia’s Department for Presidential Affairs is preparing invitations for children of US diplomats in Russia to New Year celebrations in the Kremlin, a spokeswoman said Friday.

    President Vladimir Putin invited the children to a series of parties to ring in the New Year that are traditionally held at the walled government compound in the heart of Moscow.

    “The Department for Presidential Affairs and the Foreign Ministry are going through required procedures for the children’s participation in celebrations to make sure they will have a good time if they decide to go,” the Department’s spokeswoman Yelena Krylova told RIA Novosti.

    This came in response to US media reports that a school attended by children of US diplomats faced a shutdown in retaliation for the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the United States in the row over Russia’s alleged role in Donald Trump’s win. A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman denied the school would be closed.
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    JC29856 said:

    Russia’s Department for Presidential Affairs is preparing invitations for children of US diplomats in Russia to New Year celebrations in the Kremlin, a spokeswoman said Friday.

    President Vladimir Putin invited the children to a series of parties to ring in the New Year that are traditionally held at the walled government compound in the heart of Moscow.

    “The Department for Presidential Affairs and the Foreign Ministry are going through required procedures for the children’s participation in celebrations to make sure they will have a good time if they decide to go,” the Department’s spokeswoman Yelena Krylova told RIA Novosti.

    This came in response to US media reports that a school attended by children of US diplomats faced a shutdown in retaliation for the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the United States in the row over Russia’s alleged role in Donald Trump’s win. A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman denied the school would be closed.

    Quite the benevolent dictator. I'm sure the Kremlin assisted in the writing of this message.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Russia’s Department for Presidential Affairs is preparing invitations for children of US diplomats in Russia to New Year celebrations in the Kremlin, a spokeswoman said Friday.

    President Vladimir Putin invited the children to a series of parties to ring in the New Year that are traditionally held at the walled government compound in the heart of Moscow.

    “The Department for Presidential Affairs and the Foreign Ministry are going through required procedures for the children’s participation in celebrations to make sure they will have a good time if they decide to go,” the Department’s spokeswoman Yelena Krylova told RIA Novosti.

    This came in response to US media reports that a school attended by children of US diplomats faced a shutdown in retaliation for the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the United States in the row over Russia’s alleged role in Donald Trump’s win. A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman denied the school would be closed.

    Quite the benevolent dictator. I'm sure the Kremlin assisted in the writing of this message.
    My take: Putin used the "you go low, we go high" on Obama, gern-bernish!
    Obama is really going hard on Russia during his final days for some reason, the allegations of election hacking based on a phishing scheme, the executive order, tossing the Russian diplomats which some say violate Vienna Conventions (I have no idea if true or not).

    Notice also that the foreign ministry contradicts what many in the media have been reporting, diplomat shutdown.
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Russia’s Department for Presidential Affairs is preparing invitations for children of US diplomats in Russia to New Year celebrations in the Kremlin, a spokeswoman said Friday.

    President Vladimir Putin invited the children to a series of parties to ring in the New Year that are traditionally held at the walled government compound in the heart of Moscow.

    “The Department for Presidential Affairs and the Foreign Ministry are going through required procedures for the children’s participation in celebrations to make sure they will have a good time if they decide to go,” the Department’s spokeswoman Yelena Krylova told RIA Novosti.

    This came in response to US media reports that a school attended by children of US diplomats faced a shutdown in retaliation for the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the United States in the row over Russia’s alleged role in Donald Trump’s win. A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman denied the school would be closed.

    Quite the benevolent dictator. I'm sure the Kremlin assisted in the writing of this message.
    My take: Putin used the "you go low, we go high" on Obama, gern-bernish!
    Obama is really going hard on Russia during his final days for some reason, the allegations of election hacking based on a phishing scheme, the executive order, tossing the Russian diplomats which some say violate Vienna Conventions (I have no idea if true or not).

    Notice also that the foreign ministry contradicts what many in the media have been reporting, diplomat shutdown.
    Yes, although Putin's ploy is childishly transparent. As if the children of US Diplomats need someplace to go or someplace for school. It's all games.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Russia’s Department for Presidential Affairs is preparing invitations for children of US diplomats in Russia to New Year celebrations in the Kremlin, a spokeswoman said Friday.

    President Vladimir Putin invited the children to a series of parties to ring in the New Year that are traditionally held at the walled government compound in the heart of Moscow.

    “The Department for Presidential Affairs and the Foreign Ministry are going through required procedures for the children’s participation in celebrations to make sure they will have a good time if they decide to go,” the Department’s spokeswoman Yelena Krylova told RIA Novosti.

    This came in response to US media reports that a school attended by children of US diplomats faced a shutdown in retaliation for the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the United States in the row over Russia’s alleged role in Donald Trump’s win. A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman denied the school would be closed.

    Quite the benevolent dictator. I'm sure the Kremlin assisted in the writing of this message.
    My take: Putin used the "you go low, we go high" on Obama, gern-bernish!
    Obama is really going hard on Russia during his final days for some reason, the allegations of election hacking based on a phishing scheme, the executive order, tossing the Russian diplomats which some say violate Vienna Conventions (I have no idea if true or not).

    Notice also that the foreign ministry contradicts what many in the media have been reporting, diplomat shutdown.
    Yes, although Putin's ploy is childishly transparent. As if the children of US Diplomats need someplace to go or someplace for school. It's all games.
    I dont follow?? Ploy and children someplace to go??
    I admit, Im alittle foggy this morning. Not sure if it is do to GMO overload for the dirty draft beer lines. Roast pork sandwich with pepperoni and provolone cheese plus and assortment of beers, I think one was a pomegranate beer. Sorry for the digression.
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • Jason PJason P Posts: 17,246
    Putin owns Obama one last time on the world stage. One prefers chess while the other prefers checkers.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    Jason P said:

    Putin owns Obama one last time on the world stage. One prefers chess while the other prefers checkers.

    Yeah I'm not sure about that... But Putin will always have the advantage. He can be as ruthless as he wants because he has no political opponents and no press. Who is going to stop him from going into Crimea, for example? He knows we aren't going to take up arms for that reason. So sanctions and the like are the only weapons... minor economic weapons at best.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Russia’s Department for Presidential Affairs is preparing invitations for children of US diplomats in Russia to New Year celebrations in the Kremlin, a spokeswoman said Friday.

    President Vladimir Putin invited the children to a series of parties to ring in the New Year that are traditionally held at the walled government compound in the heart of Moscow.

    “The Department for Presidential Affairs and the Foreign Ministry are going through required procedures for the children’s participation in celebrations to make sure they will have a good time if they decide to go,” the Department’s spokeswoman Yelena Krylova told RIA Novosti.

    This came in response to US media reports that a school attended by children of US diplomats faced a shutdown in retaliation for the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the United States in the row over Russia’s alleged role in Donald Trump’s win. A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman denied the school would be closed.

    Quite the benevolent dictator. I'm sure the Kremlin assisted in the writing of this message.
    My take: Putin used the "you go low, we go high" on Obama, gern-bernish!
    Obama is really going hard on Russia during his final days for some reason, the allegations of election hacking based on a phishing scheme, the executive order, tossing the Russian diplomats which some say violate Vienna Conventions (I have no idea if true or not).

    Notice also that the foreign ministry contradicts what many in the media have been reporting, diplomat shutdown.
    Yes, although Putin's ploy is childishly transparent. As if the children of US Diplomats need someplace to go or someplace for school. It's all games.
    I dont follow?? Ploy and children someplace to go??
    I admit, Im alittle foggy this morning. Not sure if it is do to GMO overload for the dirty draft beer lines. Roast pork sandwich with pepperoni and provolone cheese plus and assortment of beers, I think one was a pomegranate beer. Sorry for the digression.
    I"m saying the response to the sanctions is a little silly. It's fine, but I wouldn't exactly classify it as Obama went low, Putin went high. At the end of the day, I won't comment whether I think it was strong or weak enough because I hadn't really thought it through yet. But a response is warranted considering the situation. So I don't think Obama was going 'low'.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617

    One obvious answer is that the neoconized Obama regime is desperate to ruin US-Russian relations past the point that Trump can repair them. As the New York Times puts it, “Mr. Obama’s actions clearly create a problem for Mr. Trump.” The question the New York Times says, is whether Trump “stands with his democratic allies on Capitol Hill or his authoritarian friend in the Kremlin.”

    Can Trump’s foreign policy be controlled by false allegations? According to the New York Times, Trump has relented and agreed to being briefed by the CIA about the Russian hacking now that Republicans such as Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have lined up with Obama and the CIA in accepting charges for which no evidence has been presented. However, a briefing without evidence would seem simply to further discredit the CIA in Trump’s eyes.

    Facts no longer have a role in the United States and its empire. Allegations alone suffice, whether in court cases, interrogation centers, foreign and domestic policies, or classrooms.

    The US even bases its military invasions on false allegations—“weapons of mass destruction.” Indeed, the entirely of US foreign policy since the Clinton regime has been based on nothing but false allegations.

    The Russian government should have learned by now, but perhaps Moscow still thinks that facts matter in Washington’s decisions.

    Possibly we should consider that more is going on than meets the eye. Perhaps the propaganda about the Russian cyber threat to democracy is being used to prepare American and/or European populations for an incident. The CIA has morphed into a “deep state” that uses disinformation and propaganda to align decisions of Congress, the executive branch, and foreign governments with secret behind-the-scenes agendas. Many books, such as Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers and Douglas Valentine’s CIA As Organized Crime have described some of these secret agendas.

    In order to deter Trump from restoring normal relations with Russia, an incident would have to be severe and irreversible. Rather than accept defeat for their agenda of US world hegemony, the neoconservatives are prepared to take high risks. The willingness to take risks is demonstrated by the public effort of the CIA Director to discredit the president-elect.

    As expected, Putin’s response to the latest provocation is low key as the “sanctions” appear to be meaningless on the surface. However, in the event that something dangerous is below the surface, the Russian government might want to consider putting its military forces on alert.

    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    edited December 2016
    JC29856 said:


    One obvious answer is that the neoconized Obama regime is desperate to ruin US-Russian relations past the point that Trump can repair them. As the New York Times puts it, “Mr. Obama’s actions clearly create a problem for Mr. Trump.” The question the New York Times says, is whether Trump “stands with his democratic allies on Capitol Hill or his authoritarian friend in the Kremlin.”

    Can Trump’s foreign policy be controlled by false allegations? According to the New York Times, Trump has relented and agreed to being briefed by the CIA about the Russian hacking now that Republicans such as Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have lined up with Obama and the CIA in accepting charges for which no evidence has been presented. However, a briefing without evidence would seem simply to further discredit the CIA in Trump’s eyes.

    Facts no longer have a role in the United States and its empire. Allegations alone suffice, whether in court cases, interrogation centers, foreign and domestic policies, or classrooms.

    The US even bases its military invasions on false allegations—“weapons of mass destruction.” Indeed, the entirely of US foreign policy since the Clinton regime has been based on nothing but false allegations.

    The Russian government should have learned by now, but perhaps Moscow still thinks that facts matter in Washington’s decisions.

    Possibly we should consider that more is going on than meets the eye. Perhaps the propaganda about the Russian cyber threat to democracy is being used to prepare American and/or European populations for an incident. The CIA has morphed into a “deep state” that uses disinformation and propaganda to align decisions of Congress, the executive branch, and foreign governments with secret behind-the-scenes agendas. Many books, such as Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers and Douglas Valentine’s CIA As Organized Crime have described some of these secret agendas.

    In order to deter Trump from restoring normal relations with Russia, an incident would have to be severe and irreversible. Rather than accept defeat for their agenda of US world hegemony, the neoconservatives are prepared to take high risks. The willingness to take risks is demonstrated by the public effort of the CIA Director to discredit the president-elect.

    As expected, Putin’s response to the latest provocation is low key as the “sanctions” appear to be meaningless on the surface. However, in the event that something dangerous is below the surface, the Russian government might want to consider putting its military forces on alert.

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/30/what-is-the-obama-regime-up-to-paul-craig-roberts/
    At least give credit.

    But at the end of the day, you are arguing that the US Gov't lies about everything and therefore must by lying about Russian hacking. It never happened, but you have no evidence other than saying the US lies. You (or Paul Roberts actually) don't have access to the raw intelligence. You don't know that the conclusions are false, but they must be because the US lies. Ergo, Russia is the good guy here, and US is the bad.

    Okay, There's no way to counter this line of arguing. I don't have access to prove you wrong. I can only say that while I believe the US gov't has lied and may lie in the future, I think Putin is a lying piece of shit ex-KGB colonel. Therefore I choose to believe, in this case, the country that provides me a blanket of freedom and prosperity vs the one that has 120 years of genocidal and murderous actions of the belt. What confuses me is why you don't renounce your citizenship and move east to the better country.
  • InHiding80InHiding80 Upland,CAPosts: 7,623
    Don't you just love how the party that calls liberals commies are in a bromance with one?

    White republican male privilege y'all!
    RIP America (1776-2016)
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:


    One obvious answer is that the neoconized Obama regime is desperate to ruin US-Russian relations past the point that Trump can repair them. As the New York Times puts it, “Mr. Obama’s actions clearly create a problem for Mr. Trump.” The question the New York Times says, is whether Trump “stands with his democratic allies on Capitol Hill or his authoritarian friend in the Kremlin.”

    Can Trump’s foreign policy be controlled by false allegations? According to the New York Times, Trump has relented and agreed to being briefed by the CIA about the Russian hacking now that Republicans such as Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have lined up with Obama and the CIA in accepting charges for which no evidence has been presented. However, a briefing without evidence would seem simply to further discredit the CIA in Trump’s eyes.

    Facts no longer have a role in the United States and its empire. Allegations alone suffice, whether in court cases, interrogation centers, foreign and domestic policies, or classrooms.

    The US even bases its military invasions on false allegations—“weapons of mass destruction.” Indeed, the entirely of US foreign policy since the Clinton regime has been based on nothing but false allegations.

    The Russian government should have learned by now, but perhaps Moscow still thinks that facts matter in Washington’s decisions.

    Possibly we should consider that more is going on than meets the eye. Perhaps the propaganda about the Russian cyber threat to democracy is being used to prepare American and/or European populations for an incident. The CIA has morphed into a “deep state” that uses disinformation and propaganda to align decisions of Congress, the executive branch, and foreign governments with secret behind-the-scenes agendas. Many books, such as Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers and Douglas Valentine’s CIA As Organized Crime have described some of these secret agendas.

    In order to deter Trump from restoring normal relations with Russia, an incident would have to be severe and irreversible. Rather than accept defeat for their agenda of US world hegemony, the neoconservatives are prepared to take high risks. The willingness to take risks is demonstrated by the public effort of the CIA Director to discredit the president-elect.

    As expected, Putin’s response to the latest provocation is low key as the “sanctions” appear to be meaningless on the surface. However, in the event that something dangerous is below the surface, the Russian government might want to consider putting its military forces on alert.

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/30/what-is-the-obama-regime-up-to-paul-craig-roberts/
    At least give credit.

    But at the end of the day, you are arguing that the US Gov't lies about everything and therefore must by lying about Russian hacking. It never happened, but you have no evidence other than saying the US lies. You (or Paul Roberts actually) don't have access to the raw intelligence. You don't know that the conclusions are false, but they must be because the US lies. Ergo, Russia is the good guy here, and US is the bad.

    Okay, There's no way to counter this line of arguing. I don't have access to prove you wrong. I can only say that while I believe the US gov't has lied and may lie in the future, I think Putin is a lying piece of shit ex-KGB colonel. Therefore I choose to believe, in this case, the country that provides me a blanket of freedom and prosperity vs the one that has 120 years of genocidal and murderous actions of the belt. What confuses me is why you don't renounce your citizenship and move east to the better country.
    PCR answered my question above...what's Obama up to? Makes some sense.

    You also believed your freedom and prosperity government when it said Iraq had WMDs?
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,924
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:


    One obvious answer is that the neoconized Obama regime is desperate to ruin US-Russian relations past the point that Trump can repair them. As the New York Times puts it, “Mr. Obama’s actions clearly create a problem for Mr. Trump.” The question the New York Times says, is whether Trump “stands with his democratic allies on Capitol Hill or his authoritarian friend in the Kremlin.”

    Can Trump’s foreign policy be controlled by false allegations? According to the New York Times, Trump has relented and agreed to being briefed by the CIA about the Russian hacking now that Republicans such as Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have lined up with Obama and the CIA in accepting charges for which no evidence has been presented. However, a briefing without evidence would seem simply to further discredit the CIA in Trump’s eyes.

    Facts no longer have a role in the United States and its empire. Allegations alone suffice, whether in court cases, interrogation centers, foreign and domestic policies, or classrooms.

    The US even bases its military invasions on false allegations—“weapons of mass destruction.” Indeed, the entirely of US foreign policy since the Clinton regime has been based on nothing but false allegations.

    The Russian government should have learned by now, but perhaps Moscow still thinks that facts matter in Washington’s decisions.

    Possibly we should consider that more is going on than meets the eye. Perhaps the propaganda about the Russian cyber threat to democracy is being used to prepare American and/or European populations for an incident. The CIA has morphed into a “deep state” that uses disinformation and propaganda to align decisions of Congress, the executive branch, and foreign governments with secret behind-the-scenes agendas. Many books, such as Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers and Douglas Valentine’s CIA As Organized Crime have described some of these secret agendas.

    In order to deter Trump from restoring normal relations with Russia, an incident would have to be severe and irreversible. Rather than accept defeat for their agenda of US world hegemony, the neoconservatives are prepared to take high risks. The willingness to take risks is demonstrated by the public effort of the CIA Director to discredit the president-elect.

    As expected, Putin’s response to the latest provocation is low key as the “sanctions” appear to be meaningless on the surface. However, in the event that something dangerous is below the surface, the Russian government might want to consider putting its military forces on alert.

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/30/what-is-the-obama-regime-up-to-paul-craig-roberts/
    At least give credit.

    But at the end of the day, you are arguing that the US Gov't lies about everything and therefore must by lying about Russian hacking. It never happened, but you have no evidence other than saying the US lies. You (or Paul Roberts actually) don't have access to the raw intelligence. You don't know that the conclusions are false, but they must be because the US lies. Ergo, Russia is the good guy here, and US is the bad.

    Okay, There's no way to counter this line of arguing. I don't have access to prove you wrong. I can only say that while I believe the US gov't has lied and may lie in the future, I think Putin is a lying piece of shit ex-KGB colonel. Therefore I choose to believe, in this case, the country that provides me a blanket of freedom and prosperity vs the one that has 120 years of genocidal and murderous actions of the belt. What confuses me is why you don't renounce your citizenship and move east to the better country.
    PCR answered my question above...what's Obama up to? Makes some sense.

    You also believed your freedom and prosperity government when it said Iraq had WMDs?
    Negative. I was vehemently anti-war. I believed Scott Ritter and everything he said during his time as inspector. You can also read the PNAC open letter to Clinton and compare the signers of the document to who was in the Bush administration. The PNAC made the argument that we had to take out Iraq to make the region safe for Israel. This was always the real purpose in my mind.
Sign In or Register to comment.