President Donald Trump

[Hornsby]

There's zero quantifiable evidence that anything the Russians did impacted the election. To your point about vote count, the Clinton campaign's arrogance and stupidity impacted that orders of magnitude greater than any supposed Russian meddling. Thinking Wisconsin was in the bag? With a GOP governor and senate? Arrogant and stupid. Showing up in Michigan roughly much less than Trump? That may simply qualify as stupid. Ignoring Nate Silver's early warnings - for the third time in the last ten years, I'll add - that they were in trouble in both states? Arrogant and stupid. And knowing the Clinton campaign and DNC, they probably pissed all over Nate like they did the two previous times. Reducing advertising in Pennsylvania, on-line, print, and TV? LULZ.

I mean, geez, I could keep going. The list is not endless, but certainly deep, of issues the Clinton campaign and/or the DNC wholly botched that are vastly greater than any possible Russian influence.

Again, I think that it's disingenuous of people to attempt to pretend that the Russians had zero influence...to what degree it may have swung people is open to debate, but to pretend that nothing happened is naive.

[chancellor]

What about this brings out the glibness in people? There is nothing trivial about the harm that was done here.

Well, just to prove I’m consistent, I didn’t care about the Obama campaign receiving foreign donations, either. And it’s not just right-wing sites that claimed this; we’re talking Peter Boyer of Newsweek and Peter Schweitzer of The Daily Beast had well documented articles that illustrated how it was happening and that it likely did happen.

Best reference is found here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-il...donor-loophole

Now, they got off the legal issue via highly skilled legal work and settled the issue with a record fine (many links, here’s one: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...egal-donations). But that they accepted foreign money was agreed even by sites that clearly lean left. For example, from Politico: https://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...raising-137842

Money line in the opening paragraph: “Campaigns that aggressively raise money online are soliciting donations from people around the world — whether they intend to or not. People repost campaign solicitations on blogs that send them sprawling around the globe like digital kudzu. For example, an Obama campaign official posting ended up on Arabic Facebook, complete with a hyperlink to a donation page.”

But you know what? It’s a small fraction of what the Obama campaign raised. In terms of influencing the election, it was as negligible as the so-called “Russian influence”.

[chancellor]

Again, I think that it's disingenuous of people to attempt to pretend that the Russians had zero influence...to what degree it may have swung people is open to debate, but to pretend that nothing happened is naive.

If I haven't been clear, I'll clarify. The term I've used is "negligible". That's not zero, but it's an insignificant amount when compared to all other factors. Heck, as you noted (and I agree), Hillary could have overcome even the Comey announcement - which had hundreds more times effect that the Russian ads - had she and her campaign ran effectively.

[Hornsby]

If I haven't been clear, I'll clarify. The term I've used is "negligible". That's not zero, but it's an insignificant amount when compared to all other factors. Heck, as you noted (and I agree), Hillary could have overcome even the Comey announcement - which had hundreds more times effect that the Russian ads - had she and her campaign ran effectively.

Well, I THINK that this is you, unless someone hijacked your account. Post 3585...

There's zero quantifiable evidence that anything the Russians did impacted the election.

[chancellor]

Valid point, I should have used "near zero". Besides, I thought my fantasy baseball analogy was best anyway.

[In the Corn]

Seems I'm late to the party, but I've brought unopened bottles of booze to through in this White Russian party.

Can we also agree that President Obama should shoulder a lot of responsibility in this, as well. He was the President when this happened and he did virtually nothing to stop this. With the numerous cyber-attacks that happened during his tenure, he had to know this was possible. His timid response to those cyber-attacks didn't stop nations from continuing to interfere.

[Sour Masher]

Seems I'm late to the party, but I've brought unopened bottles of booze to through in this White Russian party.

Can we also agree that President Obama should shoulder a lot of responsibility in this, as well. He was the President when this happened and he did virtually nothing to stop this. With the numerous cyber-attacks that happened during his tenure, he had to know this was possible. His timid response to those cyber-attacks didn't stop nations from continuing to interfere.

Sure, I will agree this started on his watch and government agencies, on his watch, should have identified this attack and dealt with it. I also agree that HRC made tons of mistakes and she should live every day of the rest of her life regretting every vote she failed to win that led Trump the victory. She should be seen as worse than Buckner by all Dems for all time.

Can we also agree that Obama, or any other president in history, if in power right now, would be calling out these attacks (continued attacks that try to stir up anger, hate, and divisiveness in this country), and promising to stop them, rather than deny they have occurred, or minimize their importance? If we can agree Obama was timid on Russia, when he knew much less than we know about ow, what do we call Trump now?

Regardless of what we believe Trump did or did not do in terms of colluding with Russia prior to his election, his response to Intel about these attacks are all out in the open, and they have been an embarrassment to our nation. Instead of taking Russia to task for sowing the seeds of chaos in our discourse, and still doing that, he decides to attack our own government agencies and the press. Rather than criticize Putin, he'd rather say things like the US is just as bad, and Putin, murderer of the press and others that speak against him, is a great man.

[Bernie Brewer]

I have said a thousand times here, that HRC WAS the one responsible for her losses in the end. She admits it. She could have overcome the Russian interference, Comey, and the other issues if she had managed her campaign correctly. I don't know how much more clearly I can state it...

That’s why my post began with these words: “I know you acknowledge this”.

[Bernie Brewer]

Regardless of what we believe Trump did or did not do in terms of colluding with Russia prior to his election, his response to Intel about these attacks are all out in the open, and they have been an embarrassment to our nation. Instead of taking Russia to task for sowing the seeds of chaos in our discourse, and still doing that, he decides to attack our own government agencies and the press. Rather than criticize Putin, he'd rather say things like the US is just as bad, and Putin, murderer of the press and others that speak against him, is a great man.

I agree with this comment. I grew up in a family of 5 boys. We fought all the time but when one of us got into it with another guy at school, we would stop fighting each other and protect one another. As a country, we need to fight our differences at home but unify against foreign aggressors. Trump isn’t doing this and it is embassassing.

[In the Corn]

I agree with this comment. I grew up in a family of 5 boys. We fought all the time but when one of us got into it with another guy at school, we would stop fighting each other and protect one another. As a country, we need to fight our differences at home but unify against foreign aggressors. Trump isn’t doing this and it is embassassing.

Sour Masher -

Bernie stated it perfectly. Trump's response (or lack there of) is embarrassing and not in our nation's best interest.

[Bernie Brewer]

On Friday, the special counsel Robert Mueller filed an indictment of thirteen Russians, for meddling with the 2016 election. Over the long weekend, four ways of interpreting the document solidified. The White House focussed on a statement by the deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who said the indictment contains no allegation that any American knowingly colluded with the Russian effort. President Trump tweeted, “They are laughing their asses off in Moscow.” Rob Goldman, Facebook’s vice-president for ads, took to Twitter to assert that the primary purpose of Russian meddling was to “divide America,” not to influence the election. Meanwhile, most of the legacy media interpreted the indictment as a major blow to Trump, who, they write, can no longer dismiss the allegations of Russian meddling as a hoax. Here is the bad news: all of this is true at the same time.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...ia-indictments

With this, I agree.

[Sour Masher]

I have to give some credit to Trump for pushing to ban bump stocks, and maybe possibly tightening up background checks (I will believe it when I see it). Despite the ban having overwhelming support from citizens, I'm not sure who else in the GOP would have risked annoying the gun lobby. Although maybe it took so long, because they had to get permission from the NRA first. In any event, I'm happy to see this it happen,. Even though it leaves private sale loopholes, at least it is a first step.

[Bernie Brewer]

I have to give some credit to Trump for pushing to ban bump stocks, and maybe possibly tightening up background checks (I will believe it when I see it). Despite the ban having overwhelming support from citizens, I'm not sure who else in the GOP would have risked annoying the gun lobby. Although maybe it took so long, because they had to get permission from the NRA first. In any event, I'm happy to see this it happen,. Even though it leaves private sale loopholes, at least it is a first step.

Apparently this directive began in December in response to Vegas. And the while the NRA gets a lot of negative pushback from liberals, the majority of their membership agrees that it would be appropriate for more thorough background checks.

[Sour Masher]

Apparently this directive began in December in response to Vegas. And the while the NRA gets a lot of negative pushback from liberals, the majority of their membership agrees that it would be appropriate for more thorough background checks.

Yes, when I say the NRA in this context, I mean their leadership, which often stands with gun manufacturers rather than the majority of rank and file members, who, as you say, don't have a problem with such reforms.

[revo]

This question is for our right-leaners:
So Trump has come up with some ideas for this burgeoning gun control dilemma. I don’t want to debate those now, but I’d like to debate the source of these ideas. Apparently his ideas have come from, in no particular order, Marco Rubio, Geraldo Rivera, and whoever was in attendance at Mar-A-Lago when he was there this past weekend. Is this what you expected when you voted for him? That he would lean on friends, guests, dues-paying members, to influence his opinion, over let’s say, experts? Enquiring minds want to know.