MeDotOrg wrote:... seems to have a distinct preference to Russian Oligarchs over asylum seekers....
Literally have Obama on tape pledging cooperation to Russia and you are relying on what actual "evidence" to support your hair fire judgment of "seems"?
Nope. Watch your tape again. Post it here, even. Pinpoint the pledge of cooperation. And tell us what ended up happening.
While I don't think Vlad will cut off our power, if you feel that there is nothing to worry about when Russians hack computer voting systems in Florida, we are not talking about a Russiagate Religion, we are talking about facts.
Do you think a foreign government ever tried to hack computer voting systems before Trump became a presidential candidate or is this something new that has never happened before? If cyber security is so important, do you have any concern with Hillary Clinton using a private server for government emails to avoid congressional oversight?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
While I don't think Vlad will cut off our power, if you feel that there is nothing to worry about when Russians hack computer voting systems in Florida, we are not talking about a Russiagate Religion, we are talking about facts.
Do you think a foreign government ever tried to hack computer voting systems before Trump became a presidential candidate or is this something new that has never happened before? If cyber security is so important, do you have any concern with Hillary Clinton using a private server for government emails to avoid congressional oversight?
People have been pointing out the vulnerability of voting machines to electronic tampering as far back as the Bush-Gore election. Since then, there’s been a push to use systems that generate a paper record that can be audited by hand count if necessary. But many states and counties still use electronic voting machines that have no audit trail if they are hacked and vote totals changed.
The 2016 presidential election was the first time I recall hearing that voting systems had actually been hacked.
As I recall, Clinton’s server was more secure than the State Department’s e-mail system. That’s why she used her server. There has never been any evidence that Clinton’s server was successfully hacked.
What evidence are you relying on to say that her motivation was to avoid Congressional oversight? I recall the Republican congress overseeing the hell out of her.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
It’s not Congressional oversight she could avoid with her server. It’s FOIA requests that got an additional layer of red tape. It was an inherited and expanded practice from the previous state dept.
One of the ironies of the story is the state dept. was successfully hacked while her emails were never touched.
Exiled wrote:"The most lawless President in history" seems a bit of an exaggeration. I don't like Trump, but how about we come back to what's real and leave Mormonism once and for all? Emotional reasoning doesn't work and I think it is a real problem with politics today. Russiagate became a religion with Maddow leading the case for fear every night. Do you think Vlad will cut off our power in the dead of winter? Was there any truth to the power grid being taken over in Vermont? Did Manafort visit Assange? Were there Nephites?
Of course, I'm the dumb one for bringing up these unworthy questions. Back to the impeachment drumbeat, no matter if it ultimately helps Trump.
While I don't think Vlad will cut off our power, if you feel that there is nothing to worry about when Russians hack computer voting systems in Florida, we are not talking about a Russiagate Religion, we are talking about facts.
Our Greatest Christian President seems to have a distinct preference to Russian Oligarchs over asylum seekers. The President has refused to say that he would not accept foreign intelligence on an opponent in 2020. If you are okay with that, basically you are saying 'welcome' to any foreign government to try to influence our elections.
As far as Trump being the most lawless President in our history: If that is an exaggeration, I am curious: Who do you say is the most lawless? Where does Trump fall on the list? I think he is UNQUESTIONABLY the biggest documented liar to ever hold the office.
He is also perfectly willing to destroy the reputation of anyone trying to investigate him. If you accuse Rachel Maddow of hyperbole, what about Trump himself? If you held the President to the same standards of truthfulness that you expect from Rachel, what about the statements Trump has made about Sessions, Mueller, Comey, et al?
And keep in mind the desperate battle to prevent Congress from seeing the unredacted Mueller report. If it's no big deal, why all the fuss?
I think my problem is with the hyperbole on both sides. The walls never closed in and it's only a matter of time until FOX says something nutty and outrageous. I don't think Trump is the worst president ever and I think what Israel does to influence our elections is far worse than the Russians. Trump would have to be in office longer to rival Bush II for the worst ever in my lifetime.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Exiled wrote:... and I think what Israel does to influence our elections is far worse than the Russians.
What about that is troubling?
If you are worried that they’ll end up helping someone in a contest who they believe would unquestioningly enact their desires, it’s looking like they’ll not have need to do so any longer with Trump in office.
As I recall, Clinton’s server was more secure than the State Department’s e-mail system. That’s why she used her server.
So she used her personal server because it was more secure than the State Departments server? It wasn't to hide her emails from congress as James Carville suggested?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Exiled wrote:I don't think Trump is the worst president ever
I have no idea how any sane person with even just a little openness cannot see he is the worst by far. Bush made some good mistakes that are still doing damage today, but Trump is doing far worse. Part of it is he is a huge Moron who doesn't listen or seek advice from the best minds and his corruptible nature that thinks almost only of what's in it for me. This should have been obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit about him long before he decided to run for president.
As I recall, Clinton’s server was more secure than the State Department’s e-mail system. That’s why she used her server.
So she used her personal server because it was more secure than the State Departments server? It wasn't to hide her emails from congress as James Carville suggested?
I remembered that last sentence wrong. The Russians did hack the State Department's server and there is no evidence they hacked Clinton's. But the reason for the decision at the time was convenience. You can see from her e-mails back and forth with Colin Powell what she was concerned about. Although Powell described what he did to keep certain conversations with foreign leaders "off the record," that's not what Clinton was asking about.
I suspect Carville's reference to "her" e-mails meant her private e-mails. Carville doesn't always make sense.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951