Special counsel Mueller charges 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking Democra

#502
#502
BowlBrother85 said:
The conclusion, which I cite, is not conjecture and it is certainly not paranoid. It is the same conclusion which Trump's own Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has also reached. Trump obviously respects Pompeo more than anyone else in his administration. Who else has been the head of both the CIA and also served as Secretary of State in just under a year and a half?
Click to expand...

Nah not conjecture at all. No one in the Trump administration or connected to it has been charged with any kind of crime having to do with “collusion” yet Trump is guilty of “collusion” and will be impeached if the Democrats retake the House according to your repeated statements. There has never been a shred of evidence presented that even remotely proves Trump “colluded” with the Russians other than in your fantasy world. If that isn’t conjecture and paranoia, I don’t know what is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#503
#503
BowlBrother85 said:
Smh. Why do I repeat myself so much? Because, apparently, you guys are not adept at reading comprehension! Trump's own Secretary of Freaking State, Mike Pompeo (Google him!), was also the CIA Director for a year and he believes that Russia was responsible for interfering in the 2016 US Presidential election and he also believes that Russia will interfere in other US elections in the future. Pompeo certainly has shared his evidence with Trump and if he has been politicized - then that makes him Trump's politician and he has NEVER attacked Trump. Trump must respect Pompeo. Why else would he have nominated him to two separate positions of such great importance? Unreal.
Click to expand...

Do you need a hug?
 
#504
#504
landscapingvol said:
Nah not conjecture at all. No one in the Trump administration or connected to it has been charged with any kind of crime having to do with “collusion” yet Trump is guilty of “collusion” and will be impeached if the Democrats retake the House according to your repeated statements. There has never been a shred of evidence presented that even remotely proves Trump “colluded” with the Russians other than in your fantasy world. If that isn’t conjecture and paranoia, I don’t know what is.
Click to expand...

Sshhhh. Keep that on the downlow. Starting to sound like Fox News with factual points like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#505
#505
It matters little what people believe if they offer no evidence to prove truth. Unless Russia was casting votes I question how much they "interfered" in the election. Did they run Facebook ads? Probably. Did they hack the DNC? Most likely. Was that embarrassing to Democrats? Most definitely. Did that truly "interfere" with the election? I'm not convinced. I believe Russia did wrong, but if you want a response, submit the evidence so all can see.

Quick hypothetical, if a reporter were given information on the primaries being rigged for Hillary by a whistleblower, and ran with the story, would that be considered "interfering" with the election or freedom of press?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#506
#506
BowlBrother85 said:
Smh. Why do I repeat myself so much? Because, apparently, you guys are not adept at reading comprehension! Trump's own Secretary of Freaking State, Mike Pompeo (Google him!), was also the CIA Director for a year and he believes that Russia was responsible for interfering in the 2016 US Presidential election and he also believes that Russia will interfere in other US elections in the future. Pompeo certainly has shared his evidence with Trump and if he has been politicized - then that makes him Trump's politician and he has NEVER attacked Trump. Trump must respect Pompeo. Why else would he have nominated him to two separate positions of such great importance? Unreal.
Click to expand...

Of course Russia has "interfered" in our elections, and, of course, they will do so in the future. Practically everybody in the VN PF "interferes" in our elections because we have the right to free speech in this country. As long as you have the right to say what you think and someone listens to your words, you have influence. It may not be official, it may not be binding in any way, but those words may still influence. The best way to handle that is consider who you are (or since the advent of the internet) who you may be listening to.

There is a very big difference, however, in saying and doing. Propaganda/advertising/selective editing are among the means someone uses to influence others; you can be a captive and rely on one source/party line or do some homework and act intelligently with more fact. Unless the Russians actively manipulate the voting process or hijack all forms of media they haven't actually done more than use the power of suggestion - just like everybody else with a message, and fortunately/unfortunately that's not illegal. I'll bet you believe that because of the separation of church and state, etc that a guy behind a pulpit has never interfered with an election either.
 
#507
#507
landscapingvol said:
Nah not conjecture at all. No one in the Trump administration or connected to it has been charged with any kind of crime having to do with “collusion” yet Trump is guilty of “collusion” and will be impeached if the Democrats retake the House according to your repeated statements. There has never been a shred of evidence presented that even remotely proves Trump “colluded” with the Russians other than in your fantasy world. If that isn’t conjecture and paranoia, I don’t know what is.
Click to expand...

LOL! Where did I say that anyone in the Trump administration had colluded with Russia? That is currently an unknown which is being investigated. Find even one post where I said that ... and I will never post in the politics forum on Volnation again! I have simply stated that Russia meddled.
 
Last edited:
#508
#508
Weezer said:
It matters little what people believe if they offer no evidence to prove truth. Unless Russia was casting votes I question how much they "interfered" in the election. Did they run Facebook ads? Probably. Did they hack the DNC? Most likely. Was that embarrassing to Democrats? Most definitely. Did that truly "interfere" with the election? I'm not convinced. I believe Russia did wrong, but if you want a response, submit the evidence so all can see.

Quick hypothetical, if a reporter were given information on the primaries being rigged for Hillary by a whistleblower, and ran with the story, would that be considered "interfering" with the election or freedom of press?
Click to expand...

... and you don't think that Pompeo has shared his evidence with Trump from the time he was the Director of the CIA? Once again, smh.
 
#509
#509
AM64 said:
Of course Russia has "interfered" in our elections, and, of course, they will do so in the future. Practically everybody in the VN PF "interferes" in our elections because we have the right to free speech in this country. As long as you have the right to say what you think and someone listens to your words, you have influence. It may not be official, it may not be binding in any way, but those words may still influence. The best way to handle that is consider who you are (or since the advent of the internet) who you may be listening to.

There is a very big difference, however, in saying and doing. Propaganda/advertising/selective editing are among the means someone uses to influence others; you can be a captive and rely on one source/party line or do some homework and act intelligently with more fact. Unless the Russians actively manipulate the voting process or hijack all forms of media they haven't actually done more than use the power of suggestion - just like everybody else with a message, and fortunately/unfortunately that's not illegal. I'll bet you believe that because of the separation of church and state, etc that a guy behind a pulpit has never interfered with an election either.
Click to expand...

Obviously, in this context, we are talking about illegal activity which involved Russia's hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's personal e-mails which Mike Pompeo has said that Russia was unequivocally guilty of doing.
 
#510
#510
Weezer said:
It matters little what people believe if they offer no evidence to prove truth. Unless Russia was casting votes I question how much they "interfered" in the election. Did they run Facebook ads? Probably. Did they hack the DNC? Most likely. Was that embarrassing to Democrats? Most definitely. Did that truly "interfere" with the election? I'm not convinced. I believe Russia did wrong, but if you want a response, submit the evidence so all can see.

Quick hypothetical, if a reporter were given information on the primaries being rigged for Hillary by a whistleblower, and ran with the story, would that be considered "interfering" with the election or freedom of press?
Click to expand...

And given your hypothetical, would a reporter not covering the story be guilty of interfering/meddling? There's also the other part to that - negative ads by by a candidate saying that an opponent voted against something when the opponent actually voted against a huge spending bill and the "something" was a minor adder to the whole bill. That one and news media that selectively report bother me much more than outside and totally unofficial opinion and gossip.

It's really sad that we've turned elections into clown shows and popularity contests devoid of real fact. That's probably intentional just like hiding unpalatable stuff in huge piles of crap formerly known as legislation ... makes it pretty much impossible to ever nail a politician on his record.
 
#511
#511
BowlBrother85 said:
LOL! Where did I ever say that anyone in the Trump administration had colluded with Russia? That is currently an unknown which is being investigated. Find even one post where I said that ... and I will never post in the politics forum on Volnation again! I have simply stated that Russia meddled.
Click to expand...

So, when you stated that Trump would be impeached if the Democrats regain the house, what were you implying he would be impeached for committing?
 
#512
#512
landscapingvol said:
So, when you stated that Trump would be impeached if the Democrats regain the house, what were you implying he would be impeached for committing?
Click to expand...

That the democrats would find him guilty of collusion (probably over the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower and his lies over it) but I never gave my own opinion that Trump was guilty of collusion - just that he could be and that is why we have an investigation - not a witch hunt.
 
#513
#513
BowlBrother85 said:
That the democrats would find him guilty of collusion (probably over the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower and his lies over it) but I never gave my own opinion that Trump was guilty of collusion - just that he could have been and that is why we have an investigation - not a witch hunt.
Click to expand...

What evidence has ever been submitted to the public to prove anything nefarious about that meeting? Do you have personal access to evidence that we don’t? Since the previous question isn’t true, then wouldn’t an investigation launched against the President without any real evidence be the very definition of a “witch hunt”?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#514
#514
BowlBrother85 said:
Obviously, in this context, we are talking about illegal activity which involved Russia's hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's personal e-mails which Mike Pompeo has said that Russia was unequivocally guilty of doing.
Click to expand...

OK. Who had the responsibility for securing the information? Theft is a fact of life; protecting your possessions may be optional; protecting what is considered the sensitive materials of others isn't optional. Sorry, but one thing that is acknowledged as illegal, bad form, or any other names - theft - has to be accepted as a fact of life whether prosecuted or not. Lax security(governmental, political or corporate) that compromises anyone else is never acceptable - doesn't matter if it's Equifax, the IRS, or the DNC; but in the end unless you hold the loser strictly and personally accountable for failing to lock the damn vault, security will never improve.
 
#515
#515
AM64 said:
OK. Who had the responsibility for securing the information? Theft is a fact of life; protecting your possessions may be optional; protecting what is considered the sensitive materials of others isn't optional. Sorry, but one thing that is acknowledged as illegal, bad form, or any other names - theft - has to be accepted as a fact of life whether prosecuted or not. Lax security(governmental, political or corporate) that compromises anyone else is never acceptable - doesn't matter if it's Equifax, the IRS, or the DNC; but in the end unless you hold the loser strictly and personally accountable for failing to lock the damn vault, security will never improve.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no it doesn't. You hold those responsible for the theft accountable and you take measures to ensure that you are better protected in the future.
 
#516
#516
BowlBrother85 said:
Sorry, but no it doesn't. You hold those responsible for the theft accountable and you take measures to ensure that you are better protected in the future.
Click to expand...

Of course you hold people responsible for crime accountable, but that won't stop it, so you have to accept that crime will happen. You have the choice personally with your own stuff to decide what kind of risk you will accept. If, however, you hold someone else's sensitive information then there is no option about how much risk to accept - none is the appropriate answer although I'll admit nothing is foolproof. The only option is whether to hold someone else's information at all.

If the fox eats the chicken, is it the fox's fault that nature programmed him that way or the guy who could have done a better job on the chicken coop? Security belongs to the person who has something to lose. Prosecution belongs to the cops. It's hard to assess blame for defective personal wiring that makes someone a criminal, but deterrents can make him less capable. And anyway aren't you one of the group that claims genetics decides which of the 52 sexes someone is regardless of the originally installed hardware, and one that says we should accept their flawed wiring for not accepting OEM equipment?
 
#517
#517
landscapingvol said:
What evidence has ever been submitted to the public to prove anything nefarious about that meeting? Do you have personal access to evidence that we don’t? Since the previous question isn’t true, then wouldn’t an investigation launched against the President without any real evidence be the very definition of a “witch hunt”?
Click to expand...

If nothing was nefarious about the meeting, then why were lies told regarding who was in attendance and what was discussed?
 
#518
#518
Roustabout said:
Yup, hard to have any credibility when you said nothing about ACORN.
Click to expand...

Dang....I had forgotten all about ACORN, even using fed taxpayer dollars for opposition. I mean we were pretty overwhelmed for 8 years.

Here is fact for what the public knows:

More fraudulent votes have occurred by the DNC than the Russians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#522
#522
BowlBrother85 said:
If nothing was nefarious about the meeting, then why were lies told regarding who was in attendance and what was discussed?
Click to expand...

Maybe because it was insignificant and they forgot the details because it was unimportant? You don’t investigate the President of the United States because some details of an insignificant meeting weren’t remembered correctly. All the details of that meeting have been released to the public. This is the very definition of a witch hunt
 
#524
#524
landscapingvol said:
Maybe because it was insignificant and they forgot the details because it was unimportant? You don’t investigate the President of the United States because some details of an insignificant meeting weren’t remembered correctly. All the details of that meeting have been released to the public. This is the very definition of a witch hunt
Click to expand...

That is a giant stretch. Trump Jr was very excited about the prospect of receiving dirt at that meeting. He didn't forget what was discussed or who was there.
 
#525
#525
BowlBrother85 said:
That is a giant stretch. Trump Jr was very excited about the prospect of receiving dirt at that meeting. He didn't forget what was discussed or who was there.
Click to expand...

Do you know Don Jr. personally? I'm just curious how you can speak so confidently to his mindset? Or are you stating your opinion as fact?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement













Back
Top