So I know we're not supposed to talk politics - Presidential Election - Poll

Zero.

 

Flynn was National Security Adviser.

NOT a cabinet level position. Thus NOT confirmed by Senate.

Thus the choice to give him the job is SOLELY the President's.

 

So the minute Trump said "you're going to be my NSA" he for all intents and purposes had the job.

 

Could Flynn have had the EXACT SAME conversation on January 20 at 12:01 PM with nobody being able to say shit about it? YES.

 

Nobody cares if a President Elect starts doing presidential things a few fcuking weeks early... Especially when his predecessor is trying to leave him a shitstorm. A "relax Russia- he's an ass and we'll talk after he's gone in two weeks" is a non-event.

 

If you took a poll on the street and say "what day did trump become president" 90% will say "election day?" and look at you like you're stupid. People don't get their knickers in a twist over somebody doing something that's "illegal" if they did it two weeks later its totally legal. Its an eye roller...

 

The only thing this really speaks to, is we need to shorten up the period between election and inauguration.

 

So everybody getting a boner over this is delusional.

 

 

When the call was placed was irrelevant, the fact that he repeatedly lied about the content isn't. Democrats that argue one President at a time, pure idiocy during a transition, the incoming administration needs to reach out to all the world players and get up to speed asap. Plus Obama gave Russia a stiff arm on the way out the door which he should have months prior if he believed his intel. Either way, a good way to divert attention from the immigration ban mess.

Russian spy ship 70 miles off the coast of Delaware

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/14/russi...icials-say.html

Russian spy ship 70 miles off the coast of Delaware

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/14/russi...icials-say.html

 

Russia, just deployed a new medium range cruise missile. Admittedly they had been testing it for a couple of years which was also a treaty violation.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/eu...reaty.html?_r=0

Anybody see KellyAnne Conway today....looked like she'd been on a 2-day blow bender.

Anybody see KellyAnne Conway today....looked like she'd been on a 2-day blow bender.

 

:lol2: I couldn't have said it better myself haha

US Intelligence isn't done grinding its axe with Trump.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/don...x.html?adkey=bn

There has to be some algorithims that can track who and where these leaks come from and they need plugged. I couple messy ones to start and they fall in line. Send everyone remotely implicated to Alaska or some shit installation no one wants to go

There has to be some algorithims that can track who and where these leaks come from and they need plugged. I couple messy ones to start and they fall in line. Send everyone remotely implicated to Alaska or some shit installation no one wants to go

 

 

Plugged up to stop the truth coming out? I am assuming you are a Republican, are you comfortable with the Trump election campaign communicating with Russia?

Plugged up to stop the truth coming out? I am assuming you are a Republican, are you comfortable with the Trump election campaign communicating with Russia?

 

 

 

Could not care less about the calls. Should have been upfront about it from the beginning. He stepped down, we caved to the rabbid moles and we move on hopefully lesson learned. These hypocrites have lost everything so now they are hell bent on destroying what they can. We will see how it shakes out. I don't underestimate the lengths a wackjob that feels like they lost everything will go.

I don't underestimate the lengths a wackjob that feels like they lost everything will go.

 

Like electing Trump?

 

Not talking about post-election calls, calls (and potentially coordination) from the election campaign to Russia. Manafort? There is a pattern here I have never seen with any other US Presidential candidate in living memory. The only thing close is Nixon with North Vietnam.

 

Can you explain Trump's hard-on for Russia?

Omg can we start calling him Trumpski now, he is clearly Putin's bitch and Putin buys his suits with Trump shape pockets.

It will be just as hilarious as when they called Hilary Killary. That was hilarious that. No really. It. Was. Funny.

Could not care less about the calls.

 

This is interesting. Russia has eyes and ears inside the white house, the intelligence community believes the White House is compromised and no one cares?

 

This is interesting. Russia has eyes and ears inside the white house, the intelligence community believes the White House is compromised and no one cares?

 

Where's Mcarthy when you need him. Dude everyone has eyes everywhere, compromised is a pretty strong word...

It would be very interesting to see how those who say they "don't care" about suspected communication between Russian intelligence and Trump's network would have reacted to the same information during the Obama administration.

Just the noteworthy stuff. And yes, its gonna be HUGE

 

 

No, it's going to be very, very, very, much more huge!

It would be very interesting to see how those who say they "don't care" about suspected communication between Russian intelligence and Trump's network would have reacted to the same information during the Obama administration.

"Acting" presidential prior to actually being sworn in? If you'll recall, we were in the midst of a full blown economic crisis at the time. President elect Obama took a very active roll in the bank bailout and the auto industry bailout. And was lobbying congress for a stimulus before he took office. Nobody batted an eye about his involvement. People may have disagreed with the solutions but the idea that THE INCOMING president shouldn't be involved? Ludicrous.

This is interesting. Russia has eyes and ears inside the white house, the intelligence community believes the White House is compromised and no one cares?

 

Impeachable offense?

Imagine if the media spent 1/1000000 of the effort into keeping Obama out of the white house as they did Trump? You wouldn't even know who Obama is. How did TARP stimulate the economy for the average American?

"Acting" presidential prior to actually being sworn in? If you'll recall, we were in the midst of a full blown economic crisis at the time. President elect Obama took a very active roll in the bank bailout and the auto industry bailout. And was lobbying congress for a stimulus before he took office. Nobody batted an eye about his involvement. People may have disagreed with the solutions but the idea that THE INCOMING president shouldn't be involved? Ludicrous.

 

I do not have a problem with a *President-elect* seeking to solve domestic policy issues before inauguration. The incoming NSA contacting a foreign ambassador to speak about sanctions that the current administration had just placed on that country is a different story, but this does not relate to the thought I conveyed.

 

I am genuinely wondering if you, personally (and others who have said they don't mind), would have a indifference towards the thought of the Obama campaign supposedly being in contact with Russian intelligence officials and former government employees during the *campaign*. Trump was not elected when the supposed communication occurred. My gut tells me many of the people who are saying 'big deal' about this would have blown a gasket if Obama had put himself in the same situation (I am not talking about a media reaction). This includes 99% of my family members, both liberal and conservative. However, if I asked family members this same question, they would gawk at the question because identifying their own bias is not in their interest.

 

It is quite interesting to me to see if/when there is a switch in logic once a person's preferred candidate gets elected.

 

 

I do not have a problem with a *President-elect* seeking to solve domestic policy issues before inauguration. The incoming NSA contacting a foreign ambassador to speak about sanctions that the current administration had just placed on that country is a different story, but this does not relate to the thought I conveyed.

 

I am genuinely wondering if you, personally (and others who have said they don't mind), would have a indifference towards the thought of the Obama campaign supposedly being in contact with Russian intelligence officials and former government employees during the *campaign*. Trump was not elected when the supposed communication occurred. My gut tells me many of the people who are saying 'big deal' about this would have blown a gasket if Obama had put himself in the same situation (I am not talking about a media reaction). This includes 99% of my family members, both liberal and conservative. However, if I asked family members this same question, they would gawk at the question because identifying their own bias is not in their interest.

 

It is quite interesting to me to see if/when there is a switch in logic once a person's preferred candidate gets elected.

 

Can we please stop with the but. but. but. if it was X you all would have shit your pants. Hypotheticals are fraught with so many assumptions and unknowns it's pointless to even have the discussion. Even ceteris paribus it's meaningless, rational people do their best to remain objective, as soon as you start throwing out bullshit it falls on deaf ears and your entire argument is lost.

 

Or should we go over the things that did happen, like Clinton & Obama taking exactly the same stance on immigration yet nobody cared until it was Trump? This is the selective outrage I just referenced, when nobody cared and then now it's the end of the world, we all brush it off as a bitter tantrum.

 

Do we even know the course of these discussions? Who initiated it and what the response was? I expect Russia to bring it up, but it isn't like this guy had the authority to make any influential decisions, so what's the point?

 

Do I think Russia had any influence in Trump winning, not a bit. Would I be surprised if Russia, Saudi Arabia, China or the UAE attempted to influence our elections? fcuk no, of course they do. How many elections have we rigged in other places?, how many hundreds of millions of dollars did these countries funnel to Clinton?

 

 

Can I have some outrage please?

 

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/02...ked-hamas-iran/

 

 

I do not have a problem with a *President-elect* seeking to solve domestic policy issues before inauguration. The incoming NSA contacting a foreign ambassador to speak about sanctions that the current administration had just placed on that country is a different story, but this does not relate to the thought I conveyed.

 

I am genuinely wondering if you, personally (and others who have said they don't mind), would have a indifference towards the thought of the Obama campaign supposedly being in contact with Russian intelligence officials and former government employees during the *campaign*. Trump was not elected when the supposed communication occurred. My gut tells me many of the people who are saying 'big deal' about this would have blown a gasket if Obama had put himself in the same situation (I am not talking about a media reaction). This includes 99% of my family members, both liberal and conservative. However, if I asked family members this same question, they would gawk at the question because identifying their own bias is not in their interest.

 

It is quite interesting to me to see if/when there is a switch in logic once a person's preferred candidate gets elected.

 

There were two candidates for President this year (no... Jill Stein and Gary Johnson dont count).

 

 

Clinton was TAKING MONEY from Russia. AT LEAST a half a million bucks.

 

Trump was TALKING to them?

 

I know, right? Clearly, Trump has no financial ties to russia, because he disclosed all of his business dealings via his...........uh...........tax returns?

If it's no big deal then why lie about it?

Can you explain Trump's hard-on for Russia?

 

 

Ill give it a shot.

 

Russia and the U.S. had a pretty good relationship through the Bush years. We had a common enemy: radical Islam. And in some ways, Russia had been dealing with this shit longer than we have. Contrary to popular belief, the first Al Quada decapitation video was NOT that of Daniel Pearl. It was of a 19 year old Russian soldier, Yevgeny Rodionov who was taken prisoner in 1996 in Chechnya and beheaded because he wouldn't convert to Islam. The video was used by his captors in an attempt to extort money from his mother.

 

 

A quick history lesson:

 

Yugoslavia in the 90's- We fought on the wrong side. And a lot of the guys who were in that WAR and came back experienced a serious conflict of conscious. Because their chain of command and the world at large said we were doing the right thing. But when they got on the ground, and talked to the locals, including the people we were helping, the morality of the sides became very blurry. We fought for who at best turned out to be the greater of two evils. And in likely hood, stopped one side from defending itself against legitimate fcuking monsters, because the method of the majorities defense seemed outrageous to our uninformed eyes. Russia had kept a lid on the shit for 90 years. And as soon as the lid was lifted, the tribes went back to their old ways.

 

Flash forward to Obama. Obama didn't see radical Islam as the #1 evil in the world. Obama had a hard-on for "colonialism". Don't believe me? Read his fcuking book. Colonialism didn't give us radical islam. Colonialism gave us middle east dictators like Mubarak, Qaddafi, and Assad. And quietly overthrowing them became the goal of Obama. Why in the fcuk would we overthrow Mubarak? (or "allow" him to be overthrown? where's my Dr. Evil finger to lip gif) Or Qaddafi AT THAT POINT in time (and no need to play semantics here, that one was unapologetically US)? Yeah, they were shit heads, but Mubarak was OUR shit head... And Qaddafi had gotten religion after Iraq. But we overthrew them both and allowed for the more radical voices in both countries to take the reigns. We MOSTLY (luckily) failed in egypt. But it wasn't for a lack of trying. And then we went for Assad. We aided the "rebels" (who are often indistinguishable from Al Quada or ISIS), While at the same time allowing Turkey to radicalize more than it has since its inception, and become the Chicago-O'hare of radical islamic travel.

 

Russia has a big stake in that game. They are economically allied with Assad... And have ZERO interest in having Syria, Turkey, Georgia, Chechnya, and the caucuses from getting worse than they already are. And so, despite all the silly reset buttons, U.S. Russian relations have strained... When they shoudn't have been.

 

So yes. Perhaps a global realignment is in order. And candidate Trump has been talking about it from the start. Democratic foreign policy all to often comes down to "back the underdog!" which doesn't turn out too well when the underdog is rabid.