Sessions lied under oath!

[chrisrobin]

so if he didn't have the meetings why has he distanced himself from the enquiries - plus the meetings are noted even if the contents are not.

Fail.

That isn't the question. It was much more nuanced than that.

And yes it might have been nuanced but then semantics is a highly desirable asset to have when you are a leading politician who is trying hard not to be transparent and open in his working life.
Bill Clinton was right when he said he don't have sex with.... as sex equals fucking and his was only oral pleasure, but he did get caught out, so maybe others in this current administration will also be caught out for being "dishonest"

 

[KennF]

Russia DESPERATELY WANTS GOOD RELATIONS WITH THE US... why does everyone forget that or deliberately disbelieve it? Does anyone think that Russia WANTS to be nuked? It strains the logical mind.

Wow. This is an oversimplification of ignoring history.

No, no one really wants to be nuked. That's the idea behind becoming a "nuclear threat". Let us not forget, that Russia is also a "nuclear threat" country.

However, it is arrogant US exceptionalism speaking to think that Russia wants to be on good relations with the US out of fear of a nuclear attack. That is not now, nor ever been, the way that Russia, or the Soviet Union before them, felt about the US. They want good relations with the US in order to advance their own objectives and spread their values and power across the region and globe.

It strains credulity to believe that any country wants "good relations" because we have nuclear weapons. It is naïve to think otherwise. Or to believe that that is the only tool in the diplomatic chest. "Comply or we nuke you", doesn't advance US values.

It is clear that should the US launch such weapons, the world is more or less destroyed. US values would not, previously, allow that to happen unless US soil was directly attacked. Even Trump wouldn't first strike against a country over "poor relations", unless they posed an imminent and grave risk to the US.

Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc... will play a game of cat and mouse and pushing the boundaries until they get a reactions, knowing that NO ONE, not even the US, wants to destroy themselves with a nuclear war. They KNOW that should the US launch ONE attack, without clear and convincing provocation, that it starts WW3 and ends with global holocaust.

 

[tripod]

Wow. This is an oversimplification of ignoring history.

No, no one really wants to be nuked. That's the idea behind becoming a "nuclear threat". Let us not forget, that Russia is also a "nuclear threat" country.

However, it is arrogant US exceptionalism speaking to think that Russia wants to be on good relations with the US out of fear of a nuclear attack. That is not now, nor ever been, the way that Russia, or the Soviet Union before them, felt about the US. They want good relations with the US in order to advance their own objectives and spread their values and power across the region and globe.

Russia actually DOES NOT want to be nuked... that's what the missile defense system is all about. It's a threat to take out their nuclear first strike capability. Not wanting to be nuked is on the extreme side of things... ultimately, Russia just wants to be able to pursue what EVERY COUNTRY wants to pursue in life... Russia wants to the same thing that everyone wants... they are a country full of human beings who have had a particularly difficult history and would like to be able to relax a bit.

You speak with the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation in the same breath... and you stuck in their spreading power and "objectives" across the region and the globe.... just typical Neo-Liberal/Neo-Conservative views on the Soviet Union which you are projecting upon the Russian federation for no reason other than you are inherently suspicious and were conditioned to respond to Russia only out of fear and apprehension.

It strains credulity to believe that any country wants "good relations" because we have nuclear weapons. It is naïve to think otherwise. Or to believe that that is the only tool in the diplomatic chest. "Comply or we nuke you", doesn't advance US values.

Again, you are interpreting a worst case scenario and holding it up as a strawman so you can argue against a point I never really made.

Russia would like for the West to get it's foot off of it's neck. Get fucking NATO war machinery off of it's goddamn fucking border... Russia would like for the US to stop arming Nazis in Ukraine... Russia would LOVE for the US to stop sucking Saudi Arabia's terrorist sponsoring dick and allowing Wahhabism to spread ACROSS THE GLOBE and even inside of the Russian Federation (Chechnya anyone?)... Russia would like to be able to buy and sell goods across the globe... Russia would like to have ALL technology markets open to them... Russia would like for the Western Media to actually broadcast Russian statements when the Western media is doing it's usual hitjobs... when talking shit about Russia there should be at least SOMEONE who is allowed to speak for the Russian side of things and not allow the media to run roughshod with an enhanced one sided demonization campaign.

Russia would like for it's allies Syria and Iran to stop being targeted by the Western powers... Russia would ABSOLUTELY LOVE if NATO would stop arming ISIS, AL Qaeda and Al Nusra in Syria.

Russia would like the West to stop spending millions a year putting journalsists on the payrolls of their clandestine services to run negative story after negative story about United Russia in their news media.

It is clear that should the US launch such weapons, the world is more or less destroyed. US values would not, previously, allow that to happen unless US soil was directly attacked.

You are not understanding how close the Democrats are to pushing the United States to declare war on Russia. Allegations of interference in our election is tantamount to an "attack on our soil"... THAT'S WHY THE NEOCONS WANT AN INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP/RUSSIA. First objective would be to get Trump out via impeachment and install Pence as president... then you have an exhaustive investigation where a TON of fake evidence "proving" Russia's involvement in interference of our election... the next move would either be a retaliatory cyber attack like Stuxnet or an out and out declaration of war by the congress.

Of course... the missile defense system would have to be completely finished and it's currently not.

AND... the new H&K Automatic and Portable Grenade Launchers would have to be released by H&K and H&K is currently holding them back for a feared breech in 19th century treaty (1868 St. Petersburg International Law Convention). H&K was gleeful about selling them to the US under a Hillary presidency (so they can be used to blow up as many Russian soldiers as possible)... but are now fearful of how they could be used in a Trump presidency (NOT against Russian soldiers which is ALL they were designed for).

So... the US is not in a position to destroy Russia right now as it currently stands... but could H&K be persuaded to finish production of the XM25 Counter-Defilade Target Engagement System (CTDE) through prolonged negotiation? Probably

Could the Missile Defense system be fast tracked? Does the US actually need the missile defense system in order to militarily defeat Russia? No, it would just make it easier.

Even Trump wouldn't first strike against a country over "poor relations", unless they posed an imminent and grave risk to the US.

Agreed, that's why the NeoCons are FREAKING OUT over the Trump presidency. Pence and Clinton would both eagerly first strike Russia into a smoldering rock.

It's the primary reason that Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Rubio are all at Trump's throat instead of UNITING the GOP... Graham, McCain and Rubio are the GOP's most virulent and Russophobic Neo-Cons.

Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc... will play a game of cat and mouse and pushing the boundaries until they get a reactions, knowing that NO ONE, not even the US, wants to destroy themselves with a nuclear war. They KNOW that should the US launch ONE attack, without clear and convincing provocation, that it starts WW3 and ends with global holocaust.

North Korea isn't an ally of Russia... you are lumping them in together for what fucking reason other than for demonization purposes and to ratchet up the fear? Only 8 fucking percent of Russians favor supporting N. Korea in a military conflict... Russia cut N. Korea's debt by 90% and helps the country with food and oil... they cooperate with search and rescue missions but they just aren't a fucking evil cabal despite your fears and misguided apprehensions.

Russia sees NATO as pushing the boundaries towards Russia... overthrowing Yanukovych in a coup orchestrated by Neo-Con queen Victoria Nuland (which was primarily a pretext for cutting Russia's lease of their submarine port in the Black Sea and removing one strong aspect of Russia's strategic defense... leaving them belly up for an attack).

Russia sees NATO's embrace of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist ideology as VERY TROUBLING and a potential threat to the stability of their caucus region... Russia sees the Missile Defense Shield in Romania and Poland as a deliberate provocation on their fucking border.

Iran is also tied up in NATO's Zeal to adopt Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist ideology and their predilection to using Wahhabist militants as proxy fighters against Shias in the region (Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen)... Iran does NOTHING but protect it's borders against the EVIL Islamic State by sending in fighters to Syria and Iraq... the whole nuclear program thing is a canard designed as an eternal gift to Saudi Arabia for endless sanctions and their subsequent economic diminishment.

Dont forget that China and Russia still have payback in store for ANYONE who wants to fuck with them.. WWII is still fresh in everyone's minds in those countries and they have NOT yet forgiven the countries that either collaborated/betrayed them or who deliberately tried to kill off as many Slavs and Chinese as they possibly could. They will both stand strong in the next World War against the Fourth Reich... only someone as violent and insane as Pence or Clinton (in fact there were only 3 anti-war candidates - Paul,Sanders and Trump... ALL signed up to lead the 4th Reich in the next world war).

so if he didn't have the meetings why has he distanced himself from the enquiries - plus the meetings are noted even if the contents are not.

He did have the meetings... just as a SENIOR MEMBER OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, not as a member of the Trump campaign. Nobody is saying that he didn't have the meetings.

 

[KennF]

@tripod Wow. You talk about me not understanding and you validated my point.

Good for you.

You, not me, made the point that Russia wants good relations with the US because they don't want to be nuked. You, not me.
You, not me, made the point that the US reaction to bad relations is nuclear holocaust, and now you are refuting that out of fear of Hillary Clinton or Mike Pence. Great deflection. But recall, it was your point, not mine that Russia is acting out of fear of a nuclear war.

I pointed out that the absurdity of the logic of that statement.

So, thank you.

 

[Industrialsize]

Russia would like for the West to get it's foot off of it's neck. Get fucking NATO war machinery off of it's goddamn fucking border... Russia would like for the US to stop arming Nazis in Ukraine... Russia would LOVE for the US to stop sucking Saudi Arabia's terrorist sponsoring dick and allowing Wahhabism to spread ACROSS THE GLOBE and even inside of the Russian Federation (Chechnya anyone?)... Russia would like to be able to buy and sell goods across the globe... Russia would like to have ALL technology markets open to them... Russia would like for the Western Media to actually broadcast Russian statements when the Western media is doing it's usual hitjobs... when talking shit about Russia there should be at least SOMEONE who is allowed to speak for the Russian side of things and not allow the media to run roughshod with an enhanced one sided demonization campaign.

Russia would like for it's allies Syria and Iran to stop being targeted by the Western powers... Russia would ABSOLUTELY LOVE if NATO would stop arming ISIS, AL Qaeda and Al Nusra in Syria.

Russia would like the West to stop spending millions a year putting journalsists on the payrolls of their clandestine services to run negative story after negative story about United Russia in their news media.

First Russia will need to give Crimea back to the Ukraine and then stop saber rattling at the Baltic States. Then only maybe.

 

[tripod]

You, not me, made the point that Russia wants good relations with the US because they don't want to be nuked. You, not me.You, not me, made the point that the US reaction to bad relations is nuclear holocaust.

A). You are placing the strawman that I said that Russia ONLY wants good relations with the US because they don't want to be destroyed. Nuclear deterrence is what it is... it's undeniable. You are asserting that I said that nuclear deterrence is the ONLY reason they want good relations which is pure bullshit. I provided many reasons that Russia would like good relations that have nothing to do with nuclear destruction and I never once asserted that nuclear deterrence is the only reason... nor did I even assert that it was the primary reason. I used as an extreme example so your sluggish brain could wrap itself around the reality that Russia has security concerns just like any other country.

B). What I was pointing out was that a nuclear war COULD POSSIBLY be the extent of this Red Scare/Cold War 2.0 that the Democrats/Neo-Liberals/Neo-Conservatives have been rolling out... the bad relations could certainly devolve into really bad relations quite quickly, especially with the West's bellicosity.

The rest is strawman bullshit with you assuming and asserting yourself into an illogical corner... you havent proven yourself to be versed in any way shape or form in geo-political dynamics... or that you even consider Russia to be a country full of human beings run in the best interest of those human beings... you seem bent on portraying them in a cartoonish light with a buffoonish understanding of actual Russian dynamics or even a cursory understanding of the actual history of US-Russia relations.

Bugger off... you are a waste of my time.

First Russia will need to give Crimea back to the Ukraine and then stop saber rattling at the Baltic States. Then only maybe.

A). Are you willing to FORCE the people of Crimea to re-join with Ukraine by gunpoint? Because they do NOT WANT to be part of Ukraine... what the fuck about freedom do yo not understand? if California did a Calexit, I'll bet that you'd support it wholeheartedly... don't be a fucking hypocrite when it comes to the ethnically Russian people of Crimea... they VOTED to become part of Russia... being Russian is their desire.

B). Show me ONE FUCKING example of Russian saber rattling towards the Baltics... all you'll be able to show me is defensive Russian responses to NATO aggression that you'll attempt to make look like aggression when they are merely defensive measures.

Show me ONE instance of Russian instigated aggression in the Baltics. You won't find ONE.

 

[KennF]

Bugger off... you are a waste of my time.

Agreed... you are a waste of my time.

 

[Industrialsize]

A). You are placing the strawman that I said that Russia ONLY wants good relations with the US because they don't want to be destroyed. Nuclear deterrence is what it is... it's undeniable. You are asserting that I said that nuclear deterrence is the ONLY reason they want good relations which is pure bullshit. I provided many reasons that Russia would like good relations that have nothing to do with nuclear destruction and I never once asserted that nuclear deterrence is the only reason... nor did I even assert that it was the primary reason. I used as an extreme example so your sluggish brain could wrap itself around the reality that Russia has security concerns just like any other country.

B). What I was pointing out was that a nuclear war COULD POSSIBLY be the extent of this Red Scare/Cold War 2.0 that the Democrats/Neo-Liberals/Neo-Conservatives have been rolling out... the bad relations could certainly devolve into really bad relations quite quickly, especially with the West's bellicosity.

The rest is strawman bullshit with you assuming and asserting yourself into an illogical corner... you havent proven yourself to be versed in any way shape or form in geo-political dynamics... or that you even consider Russia to be a country full of human beings run in the best interest of those human beings... you seem bent on portraying them in a cartoonish light with a buffoonish understanding of actual Russian dynamics or even a cursory understanding of the actual history of US-Russia relations.

Bugger off... you are a waste of my time.



A). Are you willing to FORCE the people of Crimea to re-join with Ukraine by gunpoint? Because they do NOT WANT to be part of Ukraine... what the fuck about freedom do yo not understand? if California did a Calexit, I'll bet that you'd support it wholeheartedly... don't be a fucking hypocrite when it comes to the ethnically Russian people of Crimea... they VOTED to become part of Russia... being Russian is their desire.

B). Show me ONE FUCKING example of Russian saber rattling towards the Baltics... all you'll be able to show me is defensive Russian responses to NATO aggression that you'll attempt to make look like aggression when they are merely defensive measures.

Show me ONE instance of Russian instigated aggression in the Baltics. You won't find ONE.

Lithuanian President Says Baltics Seek Greater NATO Security Ahead Of Russian Exercises

http://www.rferl.org/a/baltic-state-want-greater-nato-security-ahead-russian-exercises/28301351.html

 

[Bardox]

I keep hearing about this, but I watched the hearing Sessions was said to have lied in. The question, in context, was regarding meetings discussing the campaign itself. In that light, nothing has been revealed that suggests Sessions and the ambassador discussed the campaign or what would happen should Trump win. The media and dems are playing this up as if Sessions orchestrated, or had some role in, the hacking of the political parties.

Nothing that WikiLeaks published was ever disputed by the Clintons or the DNC. They simply go to the fact that the information was stolen. The truth of the information is never addressed. The horrible thing that the hackers and WikiLeaks did was show the American people what the Clinton campaign was saying to each other during the campaign showing what they really thought about the voters and the own staff. Oh my god. How evil. Putin hates Hillary and she hates him. There is no need for anyone to have asked him or anyone in Russia to do anything that they did. Just as there was no need for the American government to involve itself with Putin's last election bid. These two forces despise each other. The American government tries to influence governments and elections around the world. Most major powers do. Crying about some outside force trying to have some impact on Americas elections is so beyond hypocritical that it defies belief IMO. No one alter the election itself, the WikiLeaks info just showed the hypocrisy of the dems and how the took minority voters and the rustbelt states for granted.

I did not vote for Trump. I do not support him, but neither am I going to condemn him for anything this early in his presidency or buy into media hype about the latest outrage. I will give the guy and his appointees a chance to get their house in order and see what they actually do. Calm the fuck down.

 

[b.c.]

The nearly indestructible bond between Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"Jeff Sessions was the first senator to endorse Trump at a time when few Republican lawmakers supported the candidate. His early and fierce loyalty — and his ability to translate Trump’s nationalist instincts into policy — helped him forge a bond with the president, and he now enjoys access whenever he wants it, a privilege that few get, an official said.

Two of Sessions’s former Senate advisers — Stephen Miller and Rick Dearborn — hold key White House roles, and one official said Sessions still talks to them regularly. The attorney general also is friendly with Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and a powerful player in the administration who promoted Sessions for years on the Breitbart website."...

More, here >

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-nearly-indestructible-bond-between-jeff-sessions-and-donald-trump/2017/03/02/53aa4af8-ff59-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.7a1d989b0190

Thnx for the link. The article says Sessions and Trump bonded over their views on immigration and law and order. I suspect they have more than just THAT in common.

 

[b.c.]

People inherently dislike unfairness. And they inherently believe in measure for measure. When you hold one side accountable for a real or imagined set of rules, people want that same measurement applied to the other side. They may not articulate they are thinking this, but it is human nature.

I wouldn't be too sure of this. Time and time again conservatives have proven astounding (that is, astounding to SOME) hypocrisy if not outright BLINDNESS when it comes to what they accept from Trump, the GOP, and company. So I WOULDN'T expect much from THEM by way of condemnation or criticism, UNLESS of course, they need do so to save their own BUTTS.

I keep hearing about this, but I watched the hearing Sessions was said to have lied in. The question, in context, was regarding meetings discussing the campaign itself. In that light, nothing has been revealed that suggests Sessions and the ambassador discussed the campaign or what would happen should Trump win. The media and dems are playing this up as if Sessions orchestrated, or had some role in, the hacking of the political parties.

Nothing that WikiLeaks published was ever disputed by the Clintons or the DNC. They simply go to the fact that the information was stolen. The truth of the information is never addressed. The horrible thing that the hackers and WikiLeaks did was show the American people what the Clinton campaign was saying to each other during the campaign showing what they really thought about the voters and the own staff. Oh my god. How evil. Putin hates Hillary and she hates him. There is no need for anyone to have asked him or anyone in Russia to do anything that they did. Just as there was no need for the American government to involve itself with Putin's last election bid. These two forces despise each other. The American government tries to influence governments and elections around the world. Most major powers do. Crying about some outside force trying to have some impact on Americas elections is so beyond hypocritical that it defies belief IMO. No one alter the election itself, the WikiLeaks info just showed the hypocrisy of the dems and how the took minority voters and the rustbelt states for granted.

I did not vote for Trump. I do not support him, but neither am I going to condemn him for anything this early in his presidency or buy into media hype about the latest outrage. I will give the guy and his appointees a chance to get their house in order and see what they actually do. Calm the fuck down.

See what I mean?

 

[tripod]

Lithuanian President Says Baltics Seek Greater NATO Security Ahead Of Russian Exercises

http://www.rferl.org/a/baltic-state-want-greater-nato-security-ahead-russian-exercises/28301351.html

I said to link to a PROVOCATION THAT ISN'T THE RESULT OF A DEFENSIVE POSTURE AGAINST PRIOR NATO AGGRESSION... you failed to do that.

A senior Russian Defence Ministry official warned today (15 June 2015) that Moscow would boost its forces on its Western flank should the United States store heavy arms in the Baltic states and eastern Europe.

2015... 2015!!!!!!!!

This happened a few months before which clearly provoked that Russian statement...

4,000 troops are then deployed along with heavy weaponry in Lithuania right on russia's border...

... and then THIS happens a few months later

https://www.rt.com/news/367544-iron-sword-exercise-lithuania/

It's clear that NATO is provoking Russia with it's endless saber rattling and exercises on russia's border

I see TWO NATO threatening military exercises that provoked Russia into doing ONE military exercise in a defensive response.

NATO is doing the saber rattling and the bulk of the provocations... Russia's military exercises and small displays of defiance are ALWAYS in response to a NATO provocation.

 

[ActionBuddy]

Awesome!... Go, and grow!... Lithuania!... Latvia... Estonia!... Poland!... Finland!... etc.!

A/B

 

[Bardox]

I wouldn't be too sure of this. Time and time again conservatives have proven astounding (that is, astounding to SOME) hypocrisy if not outright BLINDNESS when it comes to what they accept from Trump, the GOP, and company. So I WOULDN'T expect much from THEM by way of condemnation or criticism, UNLESS of course, they need do so to save their own BUTTS.



See what I mean?

So you are going to lump a Bernie Sanders supporter (even despite his endorsement of Clinton at the end there) in with conservatives? Prime example of why I no longer call myself a democrat. If you don't tow the SJW line the regressives condemn and dismiss. This nations voting blocks are made up of about 30% liberal and 35% conservative. The 30-35% in the middle is what every campaign fights over ever couple of years. Trump didn't do much better than Romney did in 2012, yet he trounced Clinton in the electoral college as she and the SJW agenda she adopted lost her massive numbers of independent voters (largely libertarians) in the states she had to win that consistently voted for Obama. 2018, democrats are going to get another whoppin'. Can't be helped. a significant portion of the left ignores the mid terms. Why, I have no idea, but they do. Republicans are goin to pick up seats across the country in two years. If you want to have a chance in 2020 at winning back the White House or regaining any kind of legislative power, you have to stop demonizing left leaning centrists. At best we won't vote with you. At worst we will vote against you regardless of who the candidate if they embrace the SJW talking points. Basket of deplorable is what cost Hillary the presidency. If you write off the middle simply for not going along with whatever the outrage of the day is, centrists will do the same to you at the ballot box.

 

[ActionBuddy]

What SJW's?... Hold on a minute... Oh!... I thought I was in the Single Jewish Womens forum... My bad.

Oops!

 

[b.c.]

So you are going to lump a Bernie Sanders supporter (even despite his endorsement of Clinton at the end there) in with conservatives? Prime example of why I no longer call myself a democrat. If you don't tow the SJW line the regressives condemn and dismiss. This nations voting blocks are made up of about 30% liberal and 35% conservative. The 30-35% in the middle is what every campaign fights over ever couple of years. Trump didn't do much better than Romney did in 2012, yet he trounced Clinton in the electoral college as she and the SJW agenda she adopted lost her massive numbers of independent voters (largely libertarians) in the states she had to win that consistently voted for Obama. 2018, democrats are going to get another whoppin'. Can't be helped. a significant portion of the left ignores the mid terms. Why, I have no idea, but they do. Republicans are goin to pick up seats across the country in two years. If you want to have a chance in 2020 at winning back the White House or regaining any kind of legislative power, you have to stop demonizing left leaning centrists. At best we won't vote with you. At worst we will vote against you regardless of who the candidate if they embrace the SJW talking points. Basket of deplorable is what cost Hillary the presidency. If you write off the middle simply for not going along with whatever the outrage of the day is, centrists will do the same to you at the ballot box.

I can't tell from your response whether you're claiming to be a Bernie supporter or a left leaning centrists. I don't think you can be both. Nor am I, as you suggest, demonizing left leaning centrists, inasmuch as I consider myself to BE one.

My commentary was about how conservatives would most likely excuse Trump and company and dismiss the same things they've criticized Democrats and liberals of. And your commentary in post 49, imo, pretty much exemplifies that line of thinking in that you pretty much dismiss even the notion or the possibility of collusion and conspiracy involving the Trump campaign, a foreign adversary, and a hacker. One that MAY have changed the outcome of the election.

Instead you make mention of the FEW Clinton hacked emails, out of thousands, that showed one sender or another saying something unflattering about someone else. To quote YOUR words, "Oh my God, how evil."

How the fuck do you excuse foreign meddling in our election and in the next breath, make much ado about a couple of not too flattering emails sent by campaign underlings? You do so by being a HYPOCRITE.

Basket of deplorables cost Hillary the election? Really??

And not the bullshit false alarm memo dashed off by Comey a week before the election? Or the fact that a least one of Trump's associates foretold of it? Or not the thousands of fake news items leading up to the election, many of which came from Russian news sources? Or no problem with a candidate for the presidency exhorting Russia to hack American servers? How forgiving of you.

Your words: "I did not vote for Trump. I do not support him, but neither am I going to condemn him for anything this early in his presidency..."

You can't find ANYTHING he's done or said worthy of condemnation?? Seriously????

 

[Bardox]

I can't tell from your response whether you're claiming to be a Bernie supporter or a left leaning centrists. I don't think you can be both. Nor am I, as you suggest, demonizing left leaning centrists, inasmuch as I consider myself to BE one.

My commentary was about how conservatives would most likely excuse Trump and company and dismiss the same things they've criticized Democrats and liberals of. And your commentary in post 49, imo, pretty much exemplifies that line of thinking in that you pretty much dismiss even the notion or the possibility of collusion and conspiracy involving the Trump campaign, a foreign adversary, and a hacker. One that MAY have changed the outcome of the election.

Instead you make mention of the FEW Clinton hacked emails, out of thousands, that showed one sender or another saying something unflattering about someone else. To quote YOUR words, "Oh my God, how evil."

There has been no direct evidence of collusion. Only conjecture and supposition that the left is taking as gospel and running with. Putin would have done what he did regardless of who Hillary's opponent was. This was little more than pay back for the meddling she lead during Putin's election. The whole mess started during the primary. If this WikiLeaks email dump was designed to help Trump then one must conclude that it was meant to help Bernie as well. Even Julian Assange despises the Clintons. The so called enemies list of the Clintons has quite a few names on it. Regardless of Trumps candidacy, they were bound to come crawling out of the wood work.

As for the oh my god bit, that was meant as sarcasm towards the Russian involvement that simply gave a look into the mentality within the campaign. It was not meant to be a critique of Hillary's aids.

How the fuck do you excuse foreign meddling in our election and in the next breath, make much ado about a couple of not too flattering emails sent by campaign underlings? You do so by being a HYPOCRITE.

I didn't excuse anything. Meddling is other countries elections is bad. I don't condone it when done by any country, including ours. Every major nation does it, to one extent or another, though. The media just happened to hype it up this time as it would get more internet hits. Same reason they are obsessed with Trumps tweets. Are the 3 am brain fart tweets really that important?

Basket of deplorables cost Hillary the election? Really??

Yes, really. Basket of irredeemable deplorables. If you are not "with her" then your are just evil to be over come by we the good people.

And not the bullshit false alarm memo dashed off by Comey a week before the election? Or the fact that a least one of Trump's associates foretold of it? Or not the thousands of fake news items leading up to the election, many of which came from Russian news sources? Or no problem with a candidate for the presidency exhorting Russia to hack American servers? How forgiving of you.

The campaigns were at their end by the time Comey's letters to the Congress came out. He didn't send them to the press, the press went looking for them. And members of Congress and their staff were all too happy to share. By that time everyone's minds were made up. At least, I don't know anyone whose mind was made up about who they were voting for or not voting for. And do many Americans pay attention to RT? Maybe you watch it, but I don't know anyone who does. And the Hacking was Putin wanting to embarrass Hillary Clinton. Trump or no Trump. As I said above, I do have a problem with other nations meddling with other countries elections. I'm just not blaming Trump for it.

Your words: "I did not vote for Trump. I do not support him, but neither am I going to condemn him for anything this early in his presidency..."

You can't find ANYTHING he's done or said worthy of condemnation?? Seriously????
[/QUOTE]

Of course I can. You can find words worthy of condemnation from almost anyone if you look hard enough. Even the executive orders as easy enough to take issue with. Every President has a learning curve when entering the White House. They all think that "I have finally broken the code and now everyone will listen to me."... Bull shit. That is usually the first myth that is to be broken and they too must learn the ways of political theater to manage the Congress and the rest of the governments power brokers. I'm simply reserving judgement until we actually see what he does when he gets his full cabinet and staff and really lays into things. I still say the man is bat shit crazy. What kind of President is he going to be? I have no fucking idea.

 

[Redwyvre]

I doubt Trump will fire Sessions and I believe Trump will continue to make the case that we should trust Russia.

 

[Bardox]

I doubt Trump will fire Sessions and I believe Trump will continue to make the case that we should trust Russia.

I don't know about trusting Russia, but Sessions has stood by Trump when it wasn't politically beneficial to do so. He is going to stick by him no matter how hot it gets.

 

[Heat]

I wouldn't be too sure of this. Time and time again conservatives have proven astounding (that is, astounding to SOME) hypocrisy if not outright BLINDNESS when it comes to what they accept from Trump, the GOP, and company. So I WOULDN'T expect much from THEM by way of condemnation or criticism, UNLESS of course, they need do so to save their own BUTTS.



See what I mean?

I agree with you. I probably didn't state my opinion very well: What I meant is that the majority of people (voters) dislike unfairness. And no one -- especially the GOP -- should NEVER fucking forget: Trump didn't just lose by 3 million popular votes. There were 3.5 million votes that went to made up names, including Mickey Mouse.
Right now the GOP is living in a fog of power. But 2018 is coming and the polls are showing that the majority of people are ready to take them to the gallows -- because they are liars, cheats, traitors to America and the American Dream, and sociopaths when it comes to abusing power.