PDA

View Full Version : RussiaGATE? What Evidence? The Senate Hearing Yesterday Was a Joke.




AngryCanadian
03-31-2017, 08:07 AM
RussiaGATE? What Evidence? The Senate Hearing Yesterday Was a Joke.


It seems to me and anyone with a Brain that the Senate hearing yesterday was a complete Joke. For few hours they kept attacking independent journalists whom were critical of Hillary Clinton. And the majority of the senate members demanded that twitter hand overs user data to see whom were Russian bots?

The rest of the afternoon was wasted upon basing RussiaToday and Sputnik for their Anti Hillary news coverage.

Also at the senate hearing yesterday. So now if you are agaisnt Hillary on twitter that makes u a Russian Bot? :rolleyes:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8QD73yUwAAZxkl.jpg:large





Sen. Kamala Harris invoked the increasingly-popular phrase "act of war" ... "A foreign country, Russia, attacked the heart of our democracy"
:rolleyes:

Senate witness Thomas Rid reveals his list of Russia's present-day "unwitting agents": WikiLeaks, Twitter, and "over-eager journalists"

CPUd
03-31-2017, 09:06 AM
Yesterday was just Day 1. The chairs running it said it will take at least 6 months to complete the investigation.

dannno
03-31-2017, 09:39 AM
Yesterday was just Day 1. The chairs running it said it will take at least 6 months to complete the investigation.

6 months to investigate all the made up bullshit they have come up with in the last 6 months or so, without any actual real material evidence presented.

AngryCanadian
03-31-2017, 10:06 AM
6 months to investigate all the made up bull$#@! they have come up with in the last 6 months or so, without any actual real material evidence presented.

Agreed. They even had during the Summer to present any damming evidence and what we got from Yesterday hearing? BS. I am starting to think CPUd
is a Pro Hillary supporter while pretending to be a Paul supporter, just so he can fit in here.

AngryCanadian
03-31-2017, 10:07 AM
Yesterday was just Day 1. The chairs running it said it will take at least 6 months to complete the investigation.


"Yesterday was just Day 1"
dont get ur hopes up. If anything from Yesterday shows how BS the whole senate hearing was.

Athan
03-31-2017, 10:15 AM
Yesterday was just Day 1. The chairs running it said it will take at least 6 months to complete the investigation.

No you all are just a joke. There should be more news and ruckus being brought against the Senate selling user's internet information and if Donald Trump is going to veto that $h!t. When it comes to Russians, what people should be focused on are the UraniumOne deals where people got killed, land was being stolen, and other crimes against Americans. However that doesn't fit your shill agendas.

Everything that needs to be addressed by and regarding Trump's administration's handling because of legitimate concern is taking a back seat to your stupid little bull$h!t crusades against windmills. You idiots need to shut the f*ck up already because the joke is getting stale and bad.

TheCount
03-31-2017, 10:46 AM
There should be more news and ruckus being brought against the Senate selling user's internet information and if Donald Trump is going to veto that $h!t.

There was a thread about it. We were told that if our country is going to be great then it's gotta happen. The thread was pushed off the front page by the rapid, desperate posting of threads like this.



Everything that needs to be addressed by and regarding Trump's administration's handling because of legitimate concern is taking a back seat to your stupid little bull$h!t crusades against windmills. You idiots need to shut the f*ck up already because the joke is getting stale and bad.http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/popcorn_yes.gif

dannno
03-31-2017, 10:49 AM
There was a thread about it. We were told that if our country is going to be great then it's gotta happen.

That's not how it went at all. Amash and Massie voted for it and the OP was questioning why.

AngryCanadian
03-31-2017, 02:26 PM
No you all are just a joke. There should be more news and ruckus being brought against the Senate selling user's internet information and if Donald Trump is going to veto that $h!t. When it comes to Russians, what people should be focused on are the UraniumOne deals where people got killed, land was being stolen, and other crimes against Americans. However that doesn't fit your shill agendas.

Everything that needs to be addressed by and regarding Trump's administration's handling because of legitimate concern is taking a back seat to your stupid little bull$h!t crusades against windmills. You idiots need to shut the f*ck up already because the joke is getting stale and bad.

I hope CPUd is aware any war with Russia could go nuclear right?

dude58677
03-31-2017, 03:28 PM
This all started because Hillary got caught red handed trying stealing the nomination from Bernie Sanders and made the Russian scandal as a diversion. When she lost the election she then used it as an excuse for losing to Donald Trump. This is how it all began.

dude58677
03-31-2017, 03:29 PM
This all started because Hillary got caught red handed trying stealing the nomination from Bernie Sanders and made the Russian scandal as a diversion. When she lost the election she then used it as an excuse for losing to Donald Trump. This is how it all began.

If you have seen the movie "Man of the Year" you would see that this is where they came up with the idea.

acptulsa
03-31-2017, 03:34 PM
The joke is there are so few libertarians left on this forum that there's no one left to say, 'All the Russians did was what a vigilant free press should have done, if we had one--and the only reason it can be called 'interference' is because they only did it to one candidate, and the media wasn't allowed to do it to the other.

Oh, they attacked Trump, to be sure. But they never exposed him, even though there was plenty to expose.

dannno
03-31-2017, 03:40 PM
The joke is there are so few libertarians left on this forum that there's no one left to say, 'All the Russians did was what a vigilant free press should have done, if we had one--and the only reason it can be called 'interference' is because they only did it to one candidate, and the media wasn't allowed to do it to the other.

Oh, they attacked Trump, to be sure. But they never exposed him, even though there was plenty to expose.

There are plenty of libertarians who support Trump, if you can't see that the deep state and the establishment are trying to take Trump down, I don't know what to tell you. The establishment is the biggest enemy to libertarians, the ones who can see it are cautiously using his candidacy to help scale back the power the elite hold over us. Nobody thinks Trump is a libertarian, that doesn't mean we can't move in a more libertarian direction with his help.

There is nothing to expose Trump on. They tried. They even made up a bunch of stuff that wasn't even true and they still couldn't bring him down. 13 year olds being raped, hookers peeing on a bed.. are you fucking kidding me?? What a joke. If you are so sure they could have exposed Trump, then why don't you expose him?

acptulsa
03-31-2017, 03:47 PM
The media's job was to publicize Trump and Clinton, not expose them. They did not. Russia is only being accused of 'interference' because they only did half of our media's job for them.

This is not a partisan statement. But you must make it a partisan issue, because if you do not, then the electorate is not capable of looking beyond the candidates who get the most publicity, and therefore the nation is doomed.

You, dannno, cannot handle the truth. Which does not hardly make you unique. But it sure does lead you to come here and make a major ass of yourself in front of people who know better.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
03-31-2017, 04:05 PM
There was a thread about it. We were told that if our country is going to be great then it's gotta happen. The thread was pushed off the front page by the rapid, desperate posting of threads like this.


http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/popcorn_yes.gif


LOL. You should win the Roger Hollis MI 5 poster award of the month. I am negging garbage like this.

CPUd
03-31-2017, 05:20 PM
Trump Silent as Challenges from Russia Mount

Trump risks appearing disinterested in the myriad threats to the U.S. posed by Russia.
NOAH ROTHMAN / MAR. 30, 2017


The House review of the role Russia played in interfering in the 2016 presidential election has devolved into a partisan mess. The Senate’s investigation into the same allegations is unwieldy and reportedly consuming an inordinate amount of Intelligence Committee members’ time. The process is tainted with politics. Base Democratic voters continue to expect that these investigations will yield some silver bullet that renders the Trump administration impotent. If Devin Nunes inexplicable behavior is any indication, Republicans similarly appear to hope this effort exculpates the Trump White House. Secondary in all this is the pursuit of indisputable truth. Meanwhile, Russia is on the march. It’s military and diplomatic challenges to American interests are mounting. So far, the Trump administration’s response to those challenges has been conspicuously lethargic.

Donald Trump did not spend much time on the campaign trail talking about America’s ongoing commitments to the Afghan government in what has become America’s longest running war. Now in its 16th year, the mission to stabilize Afghanistan has a new obstacle: Moscow.

“I’ve seen the influence of Russia of late–increased influence in terms of association and perhaps even supply to the Taliban,” said Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. General Joseph Votel, Commander of United States Central Command, confirmed Scaparrotti’s assessment. “I believe what Russia is attempting to do is they are attempting to be an influential party in this part of the world,” he said. “I think it is fair to assume they may be providing some sort of support to [the Taliban], in terms of weapons or other things that may be there.”

This is not a new assessment by the U.S. military. In early February, Army General John Nicholson Jr. told a Senate panel that Russia, Pakistan, and Iran were working to “legitimize and support” Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, where over 13,000 NATO troops are operating in defense of Afghan sovereignty. According to Nicholson, that number is not enough—not with increased international support from the world’s revisionist powers for the insurgency. “It is very difficult to succeed on the battlefield when your enemy enjoys external support and safe haven,” he testified.

These challenges to NATO in Afghanistan mirror Russian actions that undermine NATO in Europe. In March, Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman General Paul Selva testified before Congress that Russia had violated the 1987 Intermedia Nuclear Forces Treaty by deploying nuclear-capable missiles to operational ranges in Central and Southern Russia. “We believe that the Russians have deliberately deployed it in order to pose a threat to NATO and to facilities within the NATO area of responsibility,” he said. The provocation weakens U.S. authority in Europe and makes it highly unlikely that there will be bilateral cooperation between Washington and Moscow on future diplomatic initiatives.

President Donald Trump called this violation of the INF “a big deal” that would come up in the president’s meetings with Putin “if and when we meet,” but that has been the last public response from the White House to this dramatic escalation of tensions.

From Syria, where Russia has substantial deployments, to Libya, where Russia is reportedly preparing them, to Europe, where Russia continues to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty amid a campaign of active measures and material support for separatists rebels; Moscow’s challenges to the West have taken on a military dimension. The Kremlin’s campaign of resurgence is largely unconcealed, but its covert elements are just as provocative.

It is the assessment of the FBI director that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to harm Hillary Clinton’s political prospects and to help Trump’s. Moscow is presently involved in an overt effort to support its ally Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election and to undermine its adversary, Angela Merkel, in Germany. It stands to reason that the American president interested in preserving the faith of its allies and the integrity of its domestic political process would at least weigh in on these disturbing developments, yet the president has remained silent.

Vladimir Putin’s regime is a threat to global stability and the geopolitical order from which the West benefits, but that regime may not be as stable as it appears. This week, approximately 60,000 young Russians took to the streets in cities across the Russian Federation to protest corruption, oppression, and, explicitly, the Putin regime. They were the biggest such demonstrations since those organized by the late Boris Nemtsov in protest of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—an act of political courage for which Nemtsov paid with his life. Hundreds of average demonstrators were arrested, along with journalists and political figures—including opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Again, as Max Boot noted, Trump said nothing. Only belatedly and after much apparent deliberation did the State Department deign to issue a statement in protest of this anti-democratic behavior.

There is so far too little evidence to support the fevered notion that Trump benefited from Russian intervention in 2016 and, so, has pursued a thaw in relations in pursuit of quid pro quo. The appearance of a collaborative effort—even if circumstantial—is, however, increasing. When President Barack Obama declined to issue timely criticisms of the governments of Iran and Venezuela amid violent anti-regime demonstrations, it served his political purpose. Obama didn’t want regime change; he sought to liberalize relations with both Iran and Venezuela via its chief patron, Cuba. Trump’s silence on Russia risks providing his political adversaries with potent ammunition.

Russia is and remains the West’s geopolitical adversary. Moscow is undermining American interests abroad and putting its soldiers in mortal danger. It’s not asking the American president too much to have something to say on these matters. As it is, his reticence speaks volumes.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/russia/trump-silent-as-challenges-from-russia-mount/

Athan
03-31-2017, 06:14 PM
The media's job was to publicize Trump and Clinton, not expose them. They did not. Russia is only being accused of 'interference' because they only did half of our media's job for them.

This is not a partisan statement. But you must make it a partisan issue, because if you do not, then the electorate is not capable of looking beyond the candidates who get the most publicity, and therefore the nation is doomed.

You, dannno, cannot handle the truth. Which does not hardly make you unique. But it sure does lead you to come here and make a major ass of yourself in front of people who know better.

To be fair, what has really crippled libertarians has been the long division present between purist and pragmatist that did exist subtlety on the board during Ron's time, but became much more noticeable when Rand Paul began running instead of Ron.

That's really why you don't see many libertarians left. They got tired of the stupid infighting which makes the liberty movement pretty much on par with having a car with no engine block. This is why the "alt-right" took off and left the liberty movement pragmatist and purist stay behind in the mudpit fighting each other like fooking idiots. It seems all the purist and pragmatist did was principle punch each other into impotence. We always joked it was "like herding cats" and were happy Ron could unite us, but now we have to look elsewhere for serious classical liberal, paleo-conservative, Constitutional Conservative, and libertarian viewpoints. Because this forum has become a hotbed of nonsense squabbling.

Every thread discussing Trump is laced with a subtle snide remark. There are more tabloid threads on Trump than there are serious issues and events. The media is finally weakened to the point where we can mount a better alternative and destroy their b.s. behavior and the board is mired in "Trump said, Media said". They effectively got their ass handed to them, and distracted a supposedly better user base into allowing them enough reprieve to become relevant again.

The shills here which the mods have allowed to remain unchecked and unbanned can easily take advantage of the division because of the naivete of the community base and their ignorance of the easily identifiable "cracking concensus/division" "degradation" shill organization tactics.

It isn't "Trump supporters" and "Trump Haters" or their opinion that are the problem. Both sides have conflicting feelings of the current administration. So it isn't the opinions that are the problem. It is specific individuals contaminating the well.

CPUd
03-31-2017, 06:18 PM
847798690932703233
https://twitter.com/businessinsider/status/847798690932703233

AngryCanadian
03-31-2017, 06:19 PM
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/russia/trump-silent-as-challenges-from-russia-mount/

"Trump Silent as Challenges from Russia Mount"
Ah more BS spamming fake news articles are we?

AngryCanadian
03-31-2017, 06:19 PM
847798690932703233
https://twitter.com/businessinsider/status/847798690932703233
That was fake idiot troll.

AngryCanadian
03-31-2017, 06:20 PM
847798690932703233
https://twitter.com/businessinsider/status/847798690932703233

You should problary that avatar that you stand with rand because after ur posting clearer u stand with Hillary and gang. :rolleyes:

CPUd
03-31-2017, 06:26 PM
847480700747915265
https://twitter.com/TAPSTRIMEDIA/status/847480700747915265

Jamesiv1
03-31-2017, 07:33 PM
Back in 1992 I predicted all this bullsh!t would go down exactly like it is.

AngryCanadian
03-31-2017, 09:09 PM
847480700747915265
https://twitter.com/TAPSTRIMEDIA/status/847480700747915265

Devastating what?:rolleyes:
Still no evidence. wont hold my breath.

timosman
03-31-2017, 09:13 PM
Agreed. They even had during the Summer to present any damming evidence and what we got from Yesterday hearing? BS. I am starting to think CPUd
is a Pro Hillary supporter while pretending to be a Paul supporter, just so he can fit in here.

Really?!:eek:

Champ
03-31-2017, 10:52 PM
To be fair, what has really crippled libertarians has been the long division present between purist and pragmatist that did exist subtlety on the board during Ron's time, but became much more noticeable when Rand Paul began running instead of Ron.

That's really why you don't see many libertarians left. They got tired of the stupid infighting which makes the liberty movement pretty much on par with having a car with no engine block. This is why the "alt-right" took off and left the liberty movement pragmatist and purist stay behind in the mudpit fighting each other like fooking idiots. It seems all the purist and pragmatist did was principle punch each other into impotence. We always joked it was "like herding cats" and were happy Ron could unite us, but now we have to look elsewhere for serious classical liberal, paleo-conservative, Constitutional Conservative, and libertarian viewpoints. Because this forum has become a hotbed of nonsense squabbling.

Every thread discussing Trump is laced with a subtle snide remark. There are more tabloid threads on Trump than there are serious issues and events. The media is finally weakened to the point where we can mount a better alternative and destroy their b.s. behavior and the board is mired in "Trump said, Media said". They effectively got their ass handed to them, and distracted a supposedly better user base into allowing them enough reprieve to become relevant again.

The shills here which the mods have allowed to remain unchecked and unbanned can easily take advantage of the division because of the naivete of the community base and their ignorance of the easily identifiable "cracking concensus/division" "degradation" shill organization tactics.

It isn't "Trump supporters" and "Trump Haters" or their opinion that are the problem. Both sides have conflicting feelings of the current administration. So it isn't the opinions that are the problem. It is specific individuals contaminating the well.

Can we sticky this on the front of the website? :D Could not have summed it up better myself, especially the snide remarks part. It sometimes feels like I am reading a YouTube comments section.