Get your popcorn out, the Mueller Report just dropped.

[01RedDX]

.

[04Terminator]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They were, the evidence is clearly laid out in the Mueller report, even in its redacted form.

You don't think there were casualties in Libya? Even in Egypt during the Arab Spring there were thousands of casualties.

It's not that they don't have similar capabilities, it's the fact that they have never leveraged them to this degree of success. As contentious as the 2016 election was, there was no bloodshed.



Again, it's not about who has the capabilities and who doesn't, it's about their use and effectiveness. Your Turkey example helps my point, their society is structured much differently, much more homogenous and therefore much harder to subvert.
America is a multicultural democracy with vast regional economic, political and cultural differences, rife with discontent. The Russians identified this vulnerability in American society, infiltrated and exploited it.



The only part that's been debunked is that Trump was a willing participant. He is simply not sophisticated enough and if he was active in the conspiracy, he would have been caught during the election.

But he is an unwitting pawn, not only because Putin knows his weaknesses and exploits them but also because (and this is becoming more apparent by the day) Putin has kompromat on him from his stay in Russia in 2013.

Trump is a lizard alien. Prove me wrong. Certain claims cannot be debunked, the whole prove a negative thing.

The story and notion is ridiculous.

[Gman.45]

They were, the evidence is clearly laid out in the Mueller report, even in its redacted form.

You don't think there were casualties in Libya? Even in Egypt during the Arab Spring there were thousands of casualties.

It's not that they don't have similar capabilities, it's the fact that they have never leveraged them to this degree of success. As contentious as the 2016 election was, there was no bloodshed.

You're somewhat correct about the casualties, but they weren't directly caused by US forces for the most part, and they certainly weren't "mass" when compared to countries where the US intervened directly with military force (millions in Iraq for example). You did specifically say -

That's kinda the point, the US has never been able to meddle in other regimes without huge military expenditures and mass casualties.

There was no huge military expenditure or US caused mass casualties in either Libya or Egypt, again, the USA primarily used intel ops and local forces, with a pretty small supporting NATO air contingent in LIbya's case. Defining pretty small - Canada's 1/3 of a squadron of CF18s dropped over 1/3 of the precision munitions in Libya.

America is a multicultural democracy with vast regional economic, political and cultural differences, rife with discontent. The Russians identified this vulnerability in American society, infiltrated and exploited it.

I already stated that US ops failed in both Syria and Turkey, but in the last 4 attempts, they were successful in 2 of them (Egypt/Libya). What exactly did the Russians identify and exploit in the case of 2016's election, other than possibly being behind the Wikileaks email hacks of the DNC and their release? What precisely did the Russians do in terms of infiltrating and exploiting how Trump ran his campaign, and how voters felt about Clinton? The hacked email dumps didn't add any false information, it exposed Clinton/Podesta/DNCs MO for all to see. So far as Trump's election team meeting with Russians, that's what politicians and ambassadors/etc do - they talk with one another. Clinton's team met with Russians too, as well as Canadians, British, French, etc etc etc politicians and political operators. Both sides spoke with every major nation's people. There isn't any proof that Trump directed or requested the Wikileaks email hacks, and that's the only thing I read in the 2016 report that could be considered criminal.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Meanwhile, Russia was able to weaponize an American social network to sow conflict and division and elected their preferred candidate with minimal effort.

Are you able to elaborate on this? Clinton didn't win, Trump did. By all measures, Clinton should be the preferred candidate for Russia if there was such a thing. Why would Putin want to play hardball with Trump? When alternatively he could work with Clinton and get anything done with a simple bribe.

[pheoxs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are you able to elaborate on this? Clinton didn't win, Trump did. By all measures, Clinton should be the preferred candidate for Russia if there was such a thing. Why would Putin want to play hardball with Trump? When alternatively he could work with Clinton and get anything done with a simple bribe.

Deutsche Bank loaned Trump 2 billion dollars when every single other bank refused to touch him. Meanwhile Deutsche bank is also under investigation for a massive Russian money laundering scheme. Even his son quoted “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.”

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are you able to elaborate on this? Clinton didn't win, Trump did. By all measures, Clinton should be the preferred candidate for Russia if there was such a thing. Why would Putin want to play hardball with Trump? When alternatively he could work with Clinton and get anything done with a simple bribe.

i think it's pretty much common knowledge that Clinton would have been way tougher on Russia and again is exactly the reason they chose to to support Trump. In fact Trump said a few things "we would be in a war with Russia right now if she won".

why do you think by all measures Clinton should have been better for Russia?

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

why do you think by all measures Clinton should have been better for Russia?

No kidding. Every piece of information out there indicates that Putin hates Clinton.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Please link me to non-biased podcasts I want to listen to them.

The one that I think is the best is called "All The President's Lawyers". It's basically a guy interviewing a former federal prosecutor (and current lawyer) who seems extremely knowledgeable on pretty much everything going on in regards to what things mean and how things are likely to play out. I like it anyway.

Another one that is really good for info only is "Mueller She Wrote". A bit too much "fluff" for my liking but they have good information, interviews, and solid research.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A bit too much "fluff" for my liking but they have good information, interviews, and solid research.

If your delusional ramblings in this thread are anything to go by, I sincerely doubt it

As to those who think Clinton would have been WORSE than Trump, I don't think anyone can claim one would be substantially better than the other.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

i think it's pretty much common knowledge that Clinton would have been way tougher on Russia and again is exactly the reason they chose to to support Trump. In fact Trump said a few things "we would be in a war with Russia right now if she won".

why do you think by all measures Clinton should have been better for Russia?

Common knowledge based on CNN rhetoric doesn't really help with any understanding though. As I mentioned in my post, being that Russia can basically do whatever the hell they want by simply donating to the Clinton Foundation, it would seem only natural that Putin would prefer to deal with Clinton more so than Trump(despite whether he likes her or not, I'm sure he isn't best buds with Trump either)

So I'm just curious what the basis is for the opinion that Trump is the "preferred candidate" for Russia?

[01RedDX]

.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/w...-protests.html

In before "fake/biased left-wing news".

[JRSC00LUDE]

If it's true then she got what she deserved, so what.

[sabad66]

Why bother? The dude seriously believes that if Clinton were POTUS she could be controlled by Putin by simply bribing her. You are wasting your time entertaining him

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why bother? The dude seriously believes that if Clinton were POTUS she could be controlled by Putin by simply bribing her. You are wasting your time entertaining him

The list of world leaders taht gave to the Clinton Foundation on a quid pro quo basis is long and varied. She basically sold influence for her personal enrichment.

[sabad66]

She had done some shady things with the pay for play stuff and I’m not implying she’s a saint by any means, but do you honestly believe Putin would have preferred Clinton expecting to control her with bribes?

[pheoxs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The list of world leaders taht gave to the Clinton Foundation on a quid pro quo basis is long and varied. She basically sold influence for her personal enrichment.

Yeah but there’s a difference in influence between donating for a quid pro quo and controlling someone through all their assets.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In before "fake/biased left-wing news".

I dont think anyone here is on putin's side, ever. I wouldn't expect such an empathetic, emotionally in tune liberal like yourself to actually understand other people though

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yeah but there’s a difference in influence between donating for a quid pro quo and controlling someone through all their assets.

Oh, is there? Man, that redline sure is awfully wobbly

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why bother? The dude seriously believes that if Clinton were POTUS she could be controlled by Putin by simply bribing her. You are wasting your time entertaining him

Yeah cause you know, she has never been apt to those type of antics before............................

Anyway, I see there is still nothing to indicate Russia preferring one candidate over another. So I'll just move past that rhetoric and we can carry on.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yeah but there’s a difference in influence between donating for a quid pro quo and controlling someone through all their assets.

Lol. Literally all the Clintons assets come from people paying for quid pro quo.

[msommers]

Mueller is going to be making statement about the Russian investigation at 9am. Will be a nail in the coffin or can opener.