whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Comrade Trump back to Believing Russian Interference is a Hoax

85,947 posts in this topic

Quote

 

Russia says it was in touch with Trump's campaign during election

By Andrew Osborn | MOSCOW

The Russian government was in touch with members of President-elect Donald Trump's political team during the U.S. election campaign and knows most of his entourage, one of Russia's most senior diplomats told the Interfax news agency on Thursday.

Accused by defeated Democratic contender Hillary Clinton of being a puppet of President Vladimir Putin after praising the Russian leader, Trump has dismissed suggestions he had anything to do with the Russian government during the campaign.

But in comments that could prove politically awkward for the president-elect, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said there had indeed been some communications.

"There were contacts," Interfax cited Ryabkov as saying. "We are doing this and have been doing this during the election campaign."

Such contacts would continue, he added, saying the Russian government knew and had been in touch with many of Trump's closest allies. He did not name names.

"Obviously, we know most of the people from his (Trump's)entourage. Those people have always been in the limelight in the United States and have occupied high-ranking positions," he said.

"I cannot say that all of them, but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives."

Moscow was just beginning to consider how to go about setting up more formal channels to communicate with the future Trump administration, said Ryabkov.

A spokeswoman for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

FBI INQUIRY

The Federal Bureau of Investigation opened a preliminary inquiry in recent months into allegations that Trump or his associates might have had questionable dealings with Russian people or businesses, but found no evidence to warrant opening a full investigation, according to sources familiar with the matter. The agency has not publicly discussed the probe.

The U.S. government has blamed Russia for cyber attacks on Democratic Party organizations.

Trump, who has spoken of his desire to improve tattered U.S.-Russia ties, has said he might meet Putin before his inauguration, but Putin's spokesman has said there are currently no plans for such a meeting.

Interfax reported on Wednesday that Dmitry Peskov, Putin's spokesman, would be in New York this week for a chess tournament, a few blocks from Trump Tower, where the president-elect has his office.

But it cited Peskov as saying he did not plan to pass any message to Trump from Putin.

The Russian parliament erupted in applause on Wednesday when it heard that Trump had been elected and Putin told foreign ambassadors he was ready to fully restore ties with Washington.

Ryabkov was more circumspect though, saying the Russian Foreign Ministry felt no euphoria about the Republican's win despite wanting to normalise relations with Washington.

Moscow and Washington are at odds over Syria, Ukraine and NATO.

Ryabkov said Trump's allies had made some tough statements about Russia during the campaign and that his ministry was therefore not harbouring any "rose-tinted" hopes.

"We are not expecting anything in particular from the new U.S. administration," Interfax cited Ryabkov as saying.

(Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-trump-idUSKBN1351RJ 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I'm back (maybe only briefly) and I wanted to offer an opinion here.

During the election, I was pretty consistent in dismissing the various Hillary scandals as unimportant, at least to me, particularly because there was no proof of her wrongdoing. To me this is not much different. Unless somebody produces proof that Trump was actively involved with Russia in hacking the DNC, I honestly don't see much of a story here. It's a distraction from more serious issues. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weebs210 said:

Man liberals are getting desperate. Guys, it's over.

They can't even make it 24 after same thread was banned , desperate for something to blame. :loco:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Hi guys, I'm back (maybe only briefly) and I wanted to offer an opinion here.

During the election, I was pretty consistent in dismissing the various Hillary scandals as unimportant, at least to me, particularly because there was no proof of her wrongdoing. To me this is not much different. Unless somebody produces proof that Trump was actively involved with Russia in hacking the DNC, I honestly don't see much of a story here. It's a distraction from more serious issues. 

Quote

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference here in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if there is a smoking gun here.  I will say there is a hell of a lot of smoke.  Much more smoke than there ever was about Obama being born in Kenya.

I have the feeling like we are at the tip of the iceberg. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Hi guys, I'm back (maybe only briefly) and I wanted to offer an opinion here.

During the election, I was pretty consistent in dismissing the various Hillary scandals as unimportant, at least to me, particularly because there was no proof of her wrongdoing. To me this is not much different. Unless somebody produces proof that Trump was actively involved with Russia in hacking the DNC, I honestly don't see much of a story here. It's a distraction from more serious issues. 

Glad you came back to tell us what you thought.  Folks were saying I was you, several of them.  Not sure if it was intended as an insult or not, but you seem like a nice enough person.  I agree in general though...seems like a lot of stretched connections at this point.  However, there is a lot of smoke around Trump and Russia, some of it created by Trump himself, some by past comments on the record about business holdings with Russia, some confirmed by the Intelligence Community about a covert operation to get Trump elected, and more concern based on how Trump has reacted to the claims. 

Now a reputable journalism source is reporting some troubling associations.  It's not proof, but it's more smoke in the same area where there's already a ton of it.  Most conspiracy theories start with just the most minor scent of smoke.  This is a suffocating amount of it right now.  No need to jump to conclusions just yet, but it's certainly starting to get hard to see anything else here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, packersfan said:

Conway says Trump may roll back some of Obama's sanctions against Russia once he takes office.

Gee, there's a shock.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/09/conway-trump-russia-probe-congress-hacking-obama/96338952/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The good news is, we won't have to guess for much longer how deep his ties are to Russia.  His actions after being sworn in as POTUS will tell us all we need to know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go further with this, and get to the heart of the matter:

Trump says he wants closer ties with Russia. But who the heck knows what that means? I don't believe that Trump would stand by and do nothing while Russia absorbs the rest of the Ukraine. I also don't believe that we're going to stop Russia from bombing the crap out of Syria. Perhaps we are going to end our current limited embargo on Russia, as it appears our new Secretary of State is keen on that- and maybe that's a good thing. But it's not, in the larger scheme of things, that important. 

In short, there's a lot of words being thrown around, both by Trump and his detractors, but in the end I don't see him being that much different from Obama and previous presidents.  when it comes to Russia.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the record, below is Schindlers tweet-storm.  Schindler may or may not be a reputable source, so let's keep that in mind.

============================

  • Kicking off with the below tweet - see whole thread - it's time to have an official CI Tweetstorm on this issue. /1 ( IOW, Trump Org has functioned as money-laundering front for Russia's biggest OC group, which is functionally RIS.)
  • Trump Org's secret ties to Russian OC are well known in certain circles, including some IC folks. But MSM has been (mostly) derelict. /2
  • MSM has been reluctant to seriously explore Trump's Kremlin ties because Don loves suing everyone. And his Russia mafia pals kill people. /3
  • Moreover, actually grasping what the Trump Org does -- which Don works hard at anyone getting a look at -- requires a lot of knowledge. /4
  • You need to understand real estate finance, and Russian organized crime AND Russian intelligence...if you do, the picture is quite clear. /5
  • Mogilevich is the biggest mob boss in Russia -- maybe the world -- and his capos+footprints are all over the Trump Org since early 1990s. /6
  • Mogilevich launders money in the West, including the USA, on a gargantuan scale; he is clever and good at this. FBI knows all about it. /7
  • In 1992, Mogilevich sent a capo to NYC to run his US show. That was Yaponchik AKA Vyacheslav Ivankov, who was murdered in Moscow in 2009. /8
  • Yaponchik/Ivankov -- for 3 years until the FBI caught up with him -- was dividing his time between Trump Tower & Don's Taj Mahal Casino. /9
  • There are literally dozens of Russian OC scams, some gargantuan, that we know were based at Trump properties -- quite a coincidence. /10
  • The real issue is how Mogilevich made the Trump Org one of his overseas subsidiaries, de facto, back in the 1990s. FBI knows this too. /11
  • Also, Mogilevich has a very cozy relationship with Putin & his special services, going back to KGB days. They help each other non-stop. /12
  • Not long after Sasha Litvinenko told reporters about Putin's close links to Mogilevich, FSB gave him atomic tea. Another coincidence. /13
  • There's an old IC joke about Russian organized crime: "Who do you think organized them?" Trump being in bed with ROC = in bed with FSB /14
  • End of Tweetstorm -- for now. Would be nice if Congress took a look at the evidence here, it's overwhelming. Very, very soon would help. /15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by moleculo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:
4 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

That's just talk, though. Trump throws out a lot of crap. 

This crap was asking Russia to do more of what they were already doing though.  We're expected to believe it's a coincidence that Trump was asking Russia to further intervene on his behalf.  Sure, it could be coincidence, but it also might be that he knew what they were doing and was asking them to do more of it.

Oh, and it's also perilously close to treason to encourage foreign acts of espionage against your political opponent for your own benefit.  But yeah, let's just dismiss it as though it happens all the time and give DJT the benefit of the doubt here because he so richly deserves it, based on other things we know about him and Russia, who was in his campaign and their ties to Russia, what came out from the IC about Russia influencing our election in his favor via hacking and propaganda, and his business ties, and his unfailingly positive comments about Putin...the list goes on.

At a certain point, one has to admit that there are a lot of threads, thin as some of them are, that are converging around something not being right around Trump and Russia and Putin.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, whoknew said:

Well I hope this doesn't get me banned, but its an important story that should be discussed.

John Schindler went on a tweet storm about Trump's Russian mob ties this morning. Here is the storified version.

The basic premise is that the Trump organization has had Russian mob ties since the 90s. And this is well known in the intelligence community.

 

Loving this Schindler guy. I feel like I need to read all his stuff quickly before he gets snuffed out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Hi guys, I'm back (maybe only briefly) and I wanted to offer an opinion here.

During the election, I was pretty consistent in dismissing the various Hillary scandals as unimportant, at least to me, particularly because there was no proof of her wrongdoing. To me this is not much different. Unless somebody produces proof that Trump was actively involved with Russia in hacking the DNC, I honestly don't see much of a story here. It's a distraction from more serious issues. 

Trump's affiliation with Putin and Russia is an incredibly serious issue in my opinion. As I said in the thread which no longer exists I'm not concerned about the results of the election. That's done. Trump won. But I am concerned with how Trump's relationship with Putin will impact his presidency and potentially shape his decision making. I consider that extremely serious. For me, none of this is about trying to dispute the results of the election and I think focusing on that ignores the greater concerns that should be prominent here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Let's go further with this, and get to the heart of the matter:

Trump says he wants closer ties with Russia. But who the heck knows what that means? I don't believe that Trump would stand by and do nothing while Russia absorbs the rest of the Ukraine. I also don't believe that we're going to stop Russia from bombing the crap out of Syria. Perhaps we are going to end our current limited embargo on Russia, as it appears our new Secretary of State is keen on that- and maybe that's a good thing. But it's not, in the larger scheme of things, that important. 

In short, there's a lot of words being thrown around, both by Trump and his detractors, but in the end I don't see him being that much different from Obama and previous presidents.  when it comes to Russia.

Do you think he would draw the line on NATO nations in the Balkans?  Or are his anti-NATO remarks to be disregarded?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Let's go further with this, and get to the heart of the matter:

Trump says he wants closer ties with Russia. But who the heck knows what that means? I don't believe that Trump would stand by and do nothing while Russia absorbs the rest of the Ukraine. I also don't believe that we're going to stop Russia from bombing the crap out of Syria. Perhaps we are going to end our current limited embargo on Russia, as it appears our new Secretary of State is keen on that- and maybe that's a good thing. But it's not, in the larger scheme of things, that important. 

In short, there's a lot of words being thrown around, both by Trump and his detractors, but in the end I don't see him being that much different from Obama and previous presidents.  when it comes to Russia.

Tim!!!!!!!! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Let's go further with this, and get to the heart of the matter:

Trump says he wants closer ties with Russia. But who the heck knows what that means? I don't believe that Trump would stand by and do nothing while Russia absorbs the rest of the Ukraine. I also don't believe that we're going to stop Russia from bombing the crap out of Syria. Perhaps we are going to end our current limited embargo on Russia, as it appears our new Secretary of State is keen on that- and maybe that's a good thing. But it's not, in the larger scheme of things, that important. 

In short, there's a lot of words being thrown around, both by Trump and his detractors, but in the end I don't see him being that much different from Obama and previous presidents.  when it comes to Russia.

Many folks in our intelligence community consider Russia and Putin to be our number 1 global threat.  Trumps team wants to treat them with kid gloves.  They consider ISIS the biggest global threat.  

It matters whether the person we just elected has had improper relationships with Russia in the past that would make him unfit to control our foreign policy as it relates to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, adonis said:

Glad you came back to tell us what you thought.  Folks were saying I was you, several of them.  Not sure if it was intended as an insult or not, but you seem like a nice enough person.  I agree in general though...seems like a lot of stretched connections at this point.  However, there is a lot of smoke around Trump and Russia, some of it created by Trump himself, some by past comments on the record about business holdings with Russia, some confirmed by the Intelligence Community about a covert operation to get Trump elected, and more concern based on how Trump has reacted to the claims. 

Now a reputable journalism source is reporting some troubling associations.  It's not proof, but it's more smoke in the same area where there's already a ton of it.  Most conspiracy theories start with just the most minor scent of smoke.  This is a suffocating amount of it right now.  No need to jump to conclusions just yet, but it's certainly starting to get hard to see anything else here.

Adonis, any comparison between you and I is a great compliment to me. 

Trump has troubling associations. More than any other guy we've had in the office in modern times, for sure. His background has all kinds of sleazy stuff to it. I didn't want him in there partly for that reason. I won't be surprised by anything we find out about him.

But- I also wrote on November 9, the majority of the voters who matter didn't care about this stuff. So be it. Donald Trump deserves a clean slate until he actually does stuff that negatively affects people. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Adonis, any comparison between you and I is a great compliment to me. 

Trump has troubling associations. More than any other guy we've had in the office in modern times, for sure. His background has all kinds of sleazy stuff to it. I didn't want him in there partly for that reason. I won't be surprised by anything we find out about him.

But- I also wrote on November 9, the majority of the voters who matter didn't care about this stuff. So be it. Donald Trump deserves a clean slate until he actually does stuff that negatively affects people. 

If there are legitimate issues that could threaten this country or impact his decision making I think the time to investigate and take action is before he does anything that negatively affects people. Not after. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Trump has troubling associations. More than any other guy we've had in the office in modern times, for sure. His background has all kinds of sleazy stuff to it. I didn't want him in there partly for that reason. I won't be surprised by anything we find out about him.

But- I also wrote on November 9, the majority of the voters who matter didn't care about this stuff. So be it. Donald Trump deserves a clean slate until he actually does stuff that negatively affects people. 

Not if it can be shown that he was colluding with Russia to win the presidential election.  Not if it can be shown that his various interests in Russia will cause him to have a conflict of interest with any dealings with Putin, regarding Ukraine/Crimea, regarding future aggressions, regarding sanctions being imposed/lifted, regarding what we do at the UN with respect to Russia.

This all matters, and if we have a president who can't be trusted to operate with a major foreign adversary without respect to a huge conflict of interest, that's a problem.  Like I said, there's so much smoke in this area, that it's certainly reasonable to be concerned about this playing a role.  

I would love to be able to just sit back and give Trump the benefit of the doubt here, and wait until he starts doing things, but these questions are only getting more numerous, as evidence comes out, strong evidence, to support more and more russian ties.  It's concerning, and there's really no reason to just sit and wait.  We should be aware of what's going on, what has gone on, and look to the future with this knowledge in mind as we see what he's doing as president.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Slapdash said:

Do you think he would draw the line on NATO nations in the Balkans?  Or are his anti-NATO remarks to be disregarded?

At the time that he made his initial comments about NATO, I regarded them as disqualifying him for the Presidency, over and above everything else the man said during the campaign. 

But like so many other comments made by Trump, he quickly retracted them, and in various interviews has said many contradictory things. So here's the point: I think that in the end President Trump will stand by NATO, and I think that if he doesn't, there will be a revolt in Congress, led by Republicans. But I don't believe any of this will come about, because I don't think Putin will ever challenge NATO. He'll talk about it, and Trump will talk about it, but it won't happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

Not if it can be shown that he was colluding with Russia to win the presidential election.  Not if it can be shown that his various interests in Russia will cause him to have a conflict of interest with any dealings with Putin, regarding Ukraine/Crimea, regarding future aggressions, regarding sanctions being imposed/lifted, regarding what we do at the UN with respect to Russia.

This all matters, and if we have a president who can't be trusted to operate with a major foreign adversary without respect to a huge conflict of interest, that's a problem.  Like I said, there's so much smoke in this area, that it's certainly reasonable to be concerned about this playing a role.  

I would love to be able to just sit back and give Trump the benefit of the doubt here, and wait until he starts doing things, but these questions are only getting more numerous, as evidence comes out, strong evidence, to support more and more russian ties.  It's concerning, and there's really no reason to just sit and wait.  We should be aware of what's going on, what has gone on, and look to the future with this knowledge in mind as we see what he's doing as president.

Why?  So we can blog about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

Not if it can be shown that he was colluding with Russia to win the presidential election.  Not if it can be shown that his various interests in Russia will cause him to have a conflict of interest with any dealings with Putin, regarding Ukraine/Crimea, regarding future aggressions, regarding sanctions being imposed/lifted, regarding what we do at the UN with respect to Russia.

This all matters, and if we have a president who can't be trusted to operate with a major foreign adversary without respect to a huge conflict of interest, that's a problem.  Like I said, there's so much smoke in this area, that it's certainly reasonable to be concerned about this playing a role.  

I would love to be able to just sit back and give Trump the benefit of the doubt here, and wait until he starts doing things, but these questions are only getting more numerous, as evidence comes out, strong evidence, to support more and more russian ties.  It's concerning, and there's really no reason to just sit and wait.  We should be aware of what's going on, what has gone on, and look to the future with this knowledge in mind as we see what he's doing as president.

Regarding the bolded, it just seems so much like Hillary and the emails to me: you're never going to prove anything IMO. If you DO prove it, then sure it matters. But until then it doesn't. 

As for the rest of it, there's nothing there IMO until he actually does something in office that makes no sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

At the time that he made his initial comments about NATO, I regarded them as disqualifying him for the Presidency, over and above everything else the man said during the campaign. 

But like so many other comments made by Trump, he quickly retracted them, and in various interviews has said many contradictory things. So here's the point: I think that in the end President Trump will stand by NATO, and I think that if he doesn't, there will be a revolt in Congress, led by Republicans. But I don't believe any of this will come about, because I don't think Putin will ever challenge NATO. He'll talk about it, and Trump will talk about it, but it won't happen. 

This is an optimistic view.  He is already challenging NATO using propaganda, cyber-warfare, and financial ties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Adonis, any comparison between you and I is a great compliment to me. 

Trump has troubling associations. More than any other guy we've had in the office in modern times, for sure. His background has all kinds of sleazy stuff to it. I didn't want him in there partly for that reason. I won't be surprised by anything we find out about him.

But- I also wrote on November 9, the majority of the voters who matter didn't care about this stuff. So be it. Donald Trump deserves a clean slate until he actually does stuff that negatively affects people. 

I feel like I'm reading someone talking to themselves. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Hi guys, I'm back (maybe only briefly) and I wanted to offer an opinion here.

:pickle:  Hope you can rejoin us on a regular basis again!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, adonis said:

This crap was asking Russia to do more of what they were already doing though.  We're expected to believe it's a coincidence that Trump was asking Russia to further intervene on his behalf.  Sure, it could be coincidence, but it also might be that he knew what they were doing and was asking them to do more of it.

Oh, and it's also perilously close to treason to encourage foreign acts of espionage against your political opponent for your own benefit.  But yeah, let's just dismiss it as though it happens all the time and give DJT the benefit of the doubt here because he so richly deserves it, based on other things we know about him and Russia, who was in his campaign and their ties to Russia, what came out from the IC about Russia influencing our election in his favor via hacking and propaganda, and his business ties, and his unfailingly positive comments about Putin...the list goes on.

At a certain point, one has to admit that there are a lot of threads, thin as some of them are, that are converging around something not being right around Trump and Russia and Putin.  

Yes because if I wanted to get a secret message out to my spy buddies from Russia, I'd just just blurt it out on international TV.  Good plan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously nobody cares who Donald's in bed with.  None of this makes one whit of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Quez said:

It's as if the hacking allegations aren't panning out, so they decided to go back to the drawing board.  I'm sure everyone of the conspiracy theorists peddling this is just as familiar with Hillary Clinton's ties to the Hot Springs Arkansas mob...  Where was the outrage about that?  One could piece together an extravagant, loosely based story on that as well.

They are panning out just fine.  It's just there is so much corruption and filth associated with Trump that we need to have multiple streams going at once.  Think of it as one of those giant trough urinals like they used to have at sports arenas.  Lots of streams going at once.  But they all end up in the same spot, the sewer.  In this example, think of Trump as the sewer.  

 

 

Edited by Sabertooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, adonis said:

Many folks in our intelligence community consider Russia and Putin to be our number 1 global threat.  Trumps team wants to treat them with kid gloves.  They consider ISIS the biggest global threat.  

It matters whether the person we just elected has had improper relationships with Russia in the past that would make him unfit to control our foreign policy as it relates to them.

Your buddy Obama mocked that statement.

Edited by BassNBrew
bad grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:
33 minutes ago, adonis said:

Many folks in our intelligence community consider Russia and Putin to be our number 1 global threat.  Trumps team wants to treat them with kid gloves.  They consider ISIS the biggest global threat.  

It matters whether the person we just elected has had improper relationships with Russia in the past that would make him unfit to control our foreign policy as it relates to them.

You're buddy Obama mocked that statement.

Adonis = Obama confirmed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

You're buddy Obama mocked that statement.

Your sure about that?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Your sure about that?

Facts are irrelevant.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

This is an optimistic view.  He is already challenging NATO using propaganda, cyber-warfare, and financial ties.

This is where we respectfully disagree. 

Sure, Putin is doing all that stuff, and he'd love to weaken NATO. But a true challenge to NATO means invading a NATO country, testing our willingness to live up to our pledge. And I don't think Putin will ever do that. 

But, that being said, it was unwise policy IMO of Presidents Clinton and Bush to extend NATO to several of the eastern European nations that border the former Soviet Union. I'm not sure why we did that, and hopefully we won't regret it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Your sure about that?

I see what you did there. I kinda like it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sabertooth said:

Facts are irrelevant.   

I recall a moment during the 2012 campaign where Romney said Russia was USA's top geopolitical foe, and Obama was dismissive of that claim.

I was making fun of BassNBrew failing the "your/you're" test.

Edited by Bruce Dickinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

I feel like I'm reading someone talking to themselves. 

:goodposting:

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

This is where we respectfully disagree. 

Sure, Putin is doing all that stuff, and he'd love to weaken NATO. But a true challenge to NATO means invading a NATO country, testing our willingness to live up to our pledge. And I don't think Putin will ever do that. 

But, that being said, it was unwise policy IMO of Presidents Clinton and Bush to extend NATO to several of the eastern European nations that border the former Soviet Union. I'm not sure why we did that, and hopefully we won't regret it. 

That is fine.  

A thread @Rich Conway started a while back had this article in it has a much darker take:  http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war

Curious on your thoughts on it (can't find the thread right now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

I recall a moment during the 2012 campaign where Romney said Russia was USA's top geopolitical foe, and Obama was dismissive of that claim.

I was making fun of BassNBrew failing the "your/you're" test.

Which Bruce Dickison are you?  Iron Maiden or Chris Walken? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now