+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Foreign Involvement in Presidential Elections

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    I'll assume that almost everyone is aware of the allegations of Russian involvement in the 2016 US Presidential election where the focus was to assist Donald Trump become president. Some (Republicans) are denying that but it's unquestionably true that illegally obtained emails were released to the media that harmed Hillary Clinton to some degree although evidence that the influence was enough to change the election results is non-existent. All we know is that illegal obtained emails that were publically exposed corrupted the 2016 Presidential election to some degree and that all of the US intelligence agencies are claiming that the evidence exists that the Russians were responsible.

    I believe that we can all state that foreign involvement in the domestic process for electing a president is wrong on all levels regardless of whether we believe that the Russians were involved in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

    If that is the belief, and arguably it is for most Americans, then we need to take a minute and think back a little historically.


    http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-..._boris-yeltsin

    So in 1996 the political team that worked for Republican Gov Pete Wilson went to Russia and through an intermediator, Yeltsin's daughter Tatyana Dyachenko, secretly provided advice to assist Boris Yeltsin win the election. This does not imply that the possible Russian involvement in our election somehow becomes magically acceptable but instead establishes that what the Republican political team did in assisting Boris Yeltsin in 1996 was wrong.

    This is a problem with many of the "positions" the US establishes that are unquestionable correct are compromised because we violate those same position making us hypocrites in he eyes of others.

    "Do as I say, not as I do" has never been a viable policy.
    And to those on the receiving side it is considered an act of war. That hasn't changed.

    Note that Trump finally admitted that the Russians did it.
    Last edited by HereWeGoAgain; Jan 11 2017 at 04:42 PM.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    I'd be glad to if you can provide link to any direct involvement by the US either by our government or by any of our political parties. It's bad enough that I believe (but can't prove) that there are Americans providing campaign funding to Israeli politicians.

    My biggest concern with Israel from an American perspective is that Donald (ignorant on all subjects) Trump and the GOP are going to flush 68 years of bipartisan foreign policy down the toilet but doing stupid things like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem that we haven't done because the Annexation of Jerusalem has been rejected by every US president (and the United Nations) or even worse by not exerting the full power of the United States to actually try to get Israel to start removing it's Israeli settlements in the West Bank and E Jerusalem because those settlements are illegal and are classified as war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law.

    When is the United States going to do what right with Israel and for Israel. Only the two-state solution based upon the pre-196u7 Israeli borders ends not just the grounds for hostility by the Palestinians against Israel but it also end the foundation for the hostility by the other Arab and Muslim countries. If Republicans are afraid of the threat Iran represents to Israel then the two-state solution based upon the pre-1967 Israeli borders ENDS that hostility.

    Of course Trump and some of the other potato head Republicans are so ignorant of the issues with Israel that they don't understand the fundamental problem
    Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu.
    The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last yearís Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.

    Some $350,000 was sent to OneVoice, ostensibly to support the groupís efforts to back Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement negotiations. But OneVoice used the money to build a voter database, train activists and hire a political consulting firm with ties to President Obamaís campaign ó all of which set the stage for an anti-Netanyahu campaign, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a bipartisan staff report.

    In one stunning finding, the subcommittee said OneVoice even told the State Departmentís top diplomat in Jerusalem of its plans in an email, but the official, Consul General Michael Ratney, claims never to have seen them.

    He said he regularly deleted emails with large attachments ó a striking violation of open-records laws for a department already reeling from former Secretary Hillary Clintonís handling of official government records.

    Mr. Netanyahu survived the election, and the U.S. spending was not deemed illegal because the State Department never put any conditions on the money. Investigators also said OneVoice didnít turn explicitly political until days after the grant period ended.
    Search Results
    Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu ...
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/.../o...er-money-oust-...
    Jul 12, 2016 - President Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ... Mr. Netanyahu survived the election, and the U.S. spending was not ...
    U.S. Has Interfered in Foreign Elections Multiple Times
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/.../24...oreign-electio...
    Dec 22, 2016 - In the last Israeli election, the Obama State Department funneled ... But why is it acceptable for the United States government to interfere in ...
    Obama State Dept: $350K For Campaign Infrastructure Used Against ...
    http://www.cnsnews.com/.../state-dep...n-structure-us
    Flashback: That Time The Obama Administration Spent Hundreds Of ...
    townhall.com/.../flashback-that-time-the-obama-administration-spent-hu...
    Dec 16, 2016 - ... Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's re-election bid in 2015. ... So, it seems that interference in other people's elections isn't really all that unusual. In fact, the CIA used to remove, sometimes violently, Latin American ...
    The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries ...
    http://www.latimes.com/.../la-na-us-...ns-20161213-st...
    Dec 21, 2016 - The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries .... In 1996, seeking to fulfill the legacy of assassinated Israeli Prime ...
    Would you like some more ?
    God knows what he's doin'. He wrote this book here.
    An' the book says: "He made us all to be just like him, "
    So...If we're dumb...Then God is dumb...
    (an' maybe even a little ugly on the side)

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    You know what's interesting is that I don't find a problem per se with Russia hacking the Democrats email.

    My problem is with the US media that published the illegally obtained emails knowing full well that the publication would corrupt the election. It's one thing if "mud" from both parties is covered in the media but when it's all one-sided then it really does corrupt the election process.
    So then you would have been against the Watergate scandal as it was stolen material and should never have been printed

    To try to say the media was on Trumps side is one of the funniest things Ive ever heard here
    God knows what he's doin'. He wrote this book here.
    An' the book says: "He made us all to be just like him, "
    So...If we're dumb...Then God is dumb...
    (an' maybe even a little ugly on the side)

  4. #14
    usa us arizona
    Location: Recent Immigrant to Arizona
    Posts: 44,594
    bestthread

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Penrod View Post
    Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu.
    The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.

    Some $350,000 was sent to OneVoice, ostensibly to support the group’s efforts to back Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement negotiations. But OneVoice used the money to build a voter database, train activists and hire a political consulting firm with ties to President Obama’s campaign — all of which set the stage for an anti-Netanyahu campaign, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a bipartisan staff report.

    In one stunning finding, the subcommittee said OneVoice even told the State Department’s top diplomat in Jerusalem of its plans in an email, but the official, Consul General Michael Ratney, claims never to have seen them.

    He said he regularly deleted emails with large attachments — a striking violation of open-records laws for a department already reeling from former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s handling of official government records.

    Mr. Netanyahu survived the election, and the U.S. spending was not deemed illegal because the State Department never put any conditions on the money. Investigators also said OneVoice didn’t turn explicitly political until days after the grant period ended.
    Would you like some more ?
    For whatever reason the links provided failed to work so I've only got this quotation to go by.

    I know of the work done by OneVoice that is an international organization dedicated to a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as noted on their website:

    From its inception in 2002, OneVoice has focused on leveraging a critical but largely untapped resource within the Israeli and Palestinian public: the centrist mainstream who support resolution of the conflict through a negotiated and mutually-acceptable two-state solution.
    http://www.onevoicemovement.org/history

    While promoting the peaceful resolution to the conflict based upon a fair and equitable two-state solution, a goal of the United States expressly established in UN Security Council Resolution 242 that the US supported in 1967, there would certainly be the necessity to voter database especially in Israel because the Palestinians haven't been able to vote in Israeli elections even though they've been subjected to Israel authority since 1967. they also need a voter base of Palestinians to support the Palestinian Authority that is already fully committed to the goal of OneVoice and more specifically to the goal supported by the United States and the United Nations Security Council. A significant percentage of Israeli citizens already support the two-state solution but they're still a minority so convincing more Israeli citizens to support the two-state solution obviously requires political activists that are trained as well as a strategic plan that could uses the services of an exceptionally good political consulting firm.

    So everything is above board in addressing the organizational aspects of OneVoice in Israel and Palestine that would be supplemental to the political opinion dissemination in support of the two-state solution as well as rebuttals to those that oppose a peaceful resolution based upon a fair two-state solution and rebuttal to demands that are unnecessary for a peaceful resolution. In all of this OneVoice would be performing a service advancing the position of both the United States that has remained unchanged since 1967 and supported by both Republican and Democratic administration.

    So that basically leave us with comment, "all of which set the stage for an anti-Netanyahu campaign." This is rather baffling because Netanyahu is the prime minister and the prime minister isn't elected. The prime minister is usually the leader of the largest party in the governing coalition and Netanyahu is the Chairman of the Likud party.

    I don't see how a "campaign" can be created against Netanyahu when his position is completely unrelated to anything that the Israel people have a say in once the election of the Knesset is complete and the people don't even vote for candidates but instead vote for the political party in Israel and representation of the party is based upon proportional vote. Netanyahu, as the Chairman of the Likud party is at the top of the party candidate list and it's impossible to prevent him from being elected.

    So I'm not sure what kind of "campaign" they might be referring to and even more puzzling is that Netanyahu has expressed support for a fair two-state solution in general. The only problem with Netanyahu personal opinion is that he's repeatedly states that the territorial issue is open to voluntary negotiation and the Palestinians have simply held to the position of "Israel in the Israeli territory and Palestine in the Palestinian territory" so there's nothing to negotiate when it comes to territory.

    Israel does not now, nor has it ever had, any claim to any of the Palestinian territory.... but I would suggest that there's one territorial issue Israel could bring up that the Palestinians might be willing to consider. Israel could propose that Palestinians give up their claim to East Jerusalem and in return Israel would give up it's claim to West Jerusalem so that Jerusalem could become the "international city" that was recommended by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 181. This could have common support between both Israel and Palestine as both would benefit from Jerusalem being an International City as opposed to a divided city. They'd have to agree on how it would be administered and who would provide security but I'm sure the could find common ground on those issues or other minor issues that could come up. If Netanyahu wants to talk "territory" this is about the only territorial issue that he has any foundation to present to the Palestinians. He sure as hell can't use the threat of not withdrawing the Israeli military from Palestine for any territorial issues unless the Palestinians are demanding a part of Israel as a condition for peace but they're not.

    Netanyahu has also insisted that the nation of Palestine must be a demilitarized nation (i.e. have no military capable of attacking Israel) to ensure nation security for Israel. I believe the Palestinians actually welcomed this condition because it solves numerous problems for them. The Palestinian response was, "Oh hell yes, but we want US lead NATO forces to be stationed throughout the state of Palestine and we want them to stay indefinitely to not only insure Israel's security from a possible invasion but to also ensure that there are no Palestinians committing any act of aggression against Israel by launching rockets from the state of Palestine into Israel. They point out that this was a significant problem in Gaza because there was no one to prevent Hamas from attacking Israel. Of course this is all secondary to the fact that US lead NATO forces would also prevent a future invasion of Palestine that the Palestinians obviously have justification to fear considering the aggressive military behavior of Israel in the past.

    Last but not least is that Netanyahu imposed a condition that the Palestinians can't comply with. Not because they wouldn't be willing to comply but instead it's a condition they don't have the authority to comply with. Netanyahu insists that the Palestinians recognize a "Jewish State of Israel" but the Palestinians are limited to recognizing the "Sovereign State of Israel" because the nature of the state (i.e. Jewish) is a component of the "sovereignty" reserved exclusively for the Israeli people to decide. The people of Israel can call themselves the "Purple People" if they choose because only they have that sovereign right while no one else has the authority to call them anything except the People of Israel.

    In any case OneVoice does the United States a great service by addressing these different issues that are effectively blocking the peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    I don't see anything inappropriate about the US providing funds to OneVoice that is advancing not just our best interests as a nation but that is also advancing the mutual best interests of both Israel and Palestine as well. The claim that the some of the funds, without the US government's knowledge, were used for or against a specific candidate don't even fit with the election processes in Israel.

    PS - Like you I'm concerned about the retention of records but the elephant in the living room is the former Bush Administration where apparently 22 million government emails were stored on the RNC private server that was widely used by the Bush Administration and somehow those emails have "gone missing" and have not been recovered. They cover some very critical time in American history including the days leading up to the Invasion of Iraq and the firing of US attorney's by the Bush Administration.
    Last edited by Shiva_TD; Jan 12 2017 at 11:32 AM.
    Why do Republicans oppose things that are clearly CONSTITUTIONAL and support things that are clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

    "Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence." Thomas Jefferson

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    For whatever reason the links provided failed to work so I've only got this quotation to go by.

    I know of the work done by OneVoice that is an international organization dedicated to a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as noted on their website:


    http://www.onevoicemovement.org/history

    While promoting the peaceful resolution to the conflict based upon a fair and equitable two-state solution, a goal of the United States expressly established in UN Security Council Resolution 242 that the US supported in 1967, there would certainly be the necessity to voter database especially in Israel because the Palestinians haven't been able to vote in Israeli elections even though they've been subjected to Israel authority since 1967. they also need a voter base of Palestinians to support the Palestinian Authority that is already fully committed to the goal of OneVoice and more specifically to the goal supported by the United States and the United Nations Security Council. A significant percentage of Israeli citizens already support the two-state solution but they're still a minority so convincing more Israeli citizens to support the two-state solution obviously requires political activists that are trained as well as a strategic plan that could uses the services of an exceptionally good political consulting firm.

    So everything is above board in addressing the organizational aspects of OneVoice in Israel and Palestine that would be supplemental to the political opinion dissemination in support of the two-state solution as well as rebuttals to those that oppose a peaceful resolution based upon a fair two-state solution and rebuttal to demands that are unnecessary for a peaceful resolution. In all of this OneVoice would be performing a service advancing the position of both the United States that has remained unchanged since 1967 and supported by both Republican and Democratic administration.

    So that basically leave us with comment, "all of which set the stage for an anti-Netanyahu campaign." This is rather baffling because Netanyahu is the prime minister and the prime minister isn't elected. The prime minister is usually the leader of the largest party in the governing coalition and Netanyahu is the Chairman of the Likud party.

    I don't see how a "campaign" can be created against Netanyahu when his position is completely unrelated to anything that the Israel people have a say in once the election of the Knesset is complete and the people don't even vote for candidates but instead vote for the political party in Israel and representation of the party is based upon proportional vote. Netanyahu, as the Chairman of the Likud party is at the top of the party candidate list and it's impossible to prevent him from being elected.

    So I'm not sure what kind of "campaign" they might be referring to and even more puzzling is that Netanyahu has expressed support for a fair two-state solution in general. The only problem with Netanyahu personal opinion is that he's repeatedly states that the territorial issue is open to voluntary negotiation and the Palestinians have simply held to the position of "Israel in the Israeli territory and Palestine in the Palestinian territory" so there's nothing to negotiate when it comes to territory.

    Israel does not now, nor has it ever had, any claim to any of the Palestinian territory.... but I would suggest that there's one territorial issue Israel could bring up that the Palestinians might be willing to consider. Israel could propose that Palestinians give up their claim to East Jerusalem and in return Israel would give up it's claim to West Jerusalem so that Jerusalem could become the "international city" that was recommended by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 181. This could have common support between both Israel and Palestine as both would benefit from Jerusalem being an International City as opposed to a divided city. They'd have to agree on how it would be administered and who would provide security but I'm sure the could find common ground on those issues or other minor issues that could come up. If Netanyahu wants to talk "territory" this is about the only territorial issue that he has any foundation to present to the Palestinians. He sure as hell can't use the threat of not withdrawing the Israeli military from Palestine for any territorial issues unless the Palestinians are demanding a part of Israel as a condition for peace but they're not.

    Netanyahu has also insisted that the nation of Palestine must be a demilitarized nation (i.e. have no military capable of attacking Israel) to ensure nation security for Israel. I believe the Palestinians actually welcomed this condition because it solves numerous problems for them. The Palestinian response was, "Oh hell yes, but we want US lead NATO forces to be stationed throughout the state of Palestine and we want them to stay indefinitely to not only insure Israel's security from a possible invasion but to also ensure that there are no Palestinians committing any act of aggression against Israel by launching rockets from the state of Palestine into Israel. They point out that this was a significant problem in Gaza because there was no one to prevent Hamas from attacking Israel. Of course this is all secondary to the fact that US lead NATO forces would also prevent a future invasion of Palestine that the Palestinians obviously have justification to fear considering the aggressive military behavior of Israel in the past.

    Last but not least is that Netanyahu imposed a condition that the Palestinians can't comply with. Not because they wouldn't be willing to comply but instead it's a condition they don't have the authority to comply with. Netanyahu insists that the Palestinians recognize a "Jewish State of Israel" but the Palestinians are limited to recognizing the "Sovereign State of Israel" because the nature of the state (i.e. Jewish) is a component of the "sovereignty" reserved exclusively for the Israeli people to decide. The people of Israel can call themselves the "Purple People" if they choose because only they have that sovereign right while no one else has the authority to call them anything except the People of Israel.

    In any case OneVoice does the United States a great service by addressing these different issues that are effectively blocking the peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    I don't see anything inappropriate about the US providing funds to OneVoice that is advancing not just our best interests as a nation but that is also advancing the mutual best interests of both Israel and Palestine as well. The claim that the some of the funds, without the US government's knowledge, were used for or against a specific candidate don't even fit with the election processes in Israel.

    PS - Like you I'm concerned about the retention of records but the elephant in the living room is the former Bush Administration where apparently 22 million government emails were stored on the RNC private server that was widely used by the Bush Administration and somehow those emails have "gone missing" and have not been recovered. They cover some very critical time in American history including the days leading up to the Invasion of Iraq and the firing of US attorney's by the Bush Administration.
    So your Basically saying its ok when we do it. Most of it is you liberal opinion.

    The best interest in the region is for the UN and everyone else to get the hell out and let the two parties resolve the issue. The only thing stopping the Palestinians from condescending is backers like you. Losers do not make the terms of peace
    God knows what he's doin'. He wrote this book here.
    An' the book says: "He made us all to be just like him, "
    So...If we're dumb...Then God is dumb...
    (an' maybe even a little ugly on the side)

  6. Default

    On the plus side, George Soros lost a billion dollars so he might not be interfering for a while.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    For whatever reason the links provided failed to work so I've only got this quotation to go by.

    I know of the work done by OneVoice that is an international organization dedicated to a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as noted on their website:


    http://www.onevoicemovement.org/history

    While promoting the peaceful resolution to the conflict based upon a fair and equitable two-state solution, a goal of the United States expressly established in UN Security Council Resolution 242 that the US supported in 1967, there would certainly be the necessity to voter database especially in Israel because the Palestinians haven't been able to vote in Israeli elections even though they've been subjected to Israel authority since 1967. they also need a voter base of Palestinians to support the Palestinian Authority that is already fully committed to the goal of OneVoice and more specifically to the goal supported by the United States and the United Nations Security Council. A significant percentage of Israeli citizens already support the two-state solution but they're still a minority so convincing more Israeli citizens to support the two-state solution obviously requires political activists that are trained as well as a strategic plan that could uses the services of an exceptionally good political consulting firm.

    So everything is above board in addressing the organizational aspects of OneVoice in Israel and Palestine that would be supplemental to the political opinion dissemination in support of the two-state solution as well as rebuttals to those that oppose a peaceful resolution based upon a fair two-state solution and rebuttal to demands that are unnecessary for a peaceful resolution. In all of this OneVoice would be performing a service advancing the position of both the United States that has remained unchanged since 1967 and supported by both Republican and Democratic administration.

    So that basically leave us with comment, "all of which set the stage for an anti-Netanyahu campaign." This is rather baffling because Netanyahu is the prime minister and the prime minister isn't elected. The prime minister is usually the leader of the largest party in the governing coalition and Netanyahu is the Chairman of the Likud party.

    I don't see how a "campaign" can be created against Netanyahu when his position is completely unrelated to anything that the Israel people have a say in once the election of the Knesset is complete and the people don't even vote for candidates but instead vote for the political party in Israel and representation of the party is based upon proportional vote. Netanyahu, as the Chairman of the Likud party is at the top of the party candidate list and it's impossible to prevent him from being elected.

    So I'm not sure what kind of "campaign" they might be referring to and even more puzzling is that Netanyahu has expressed support for a fair two-state solution in general. The only problem with Netanyahu personal opinion is that he's repeatedly states that the territorial issue is open to voluntary negotiation and the Palestinians have simply held to the position of "Israel in the Israeli territory and Palestine in the Palestinian territory" so there's nothing to negotiate when it comes to territory.

    Israel does not now, nor has it ever had, any claim to any of the Palestinian territory.... but I would suggest that there's one territorial issue Israel could bring up that the Palestinians might be willing to consider. Israel could propose that Palestinians give up their claim to East Jerusalem and in return Israel would give up it's claim to West Jerusalem so that Jerusalem could become the "international city" that was recommended by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 181. This could have common support between both Israel and Palestine as both would benefit from Jerusalem being an International City as opposed to a divided city. They'd have to agree on how it would be administered and who would provide security but I'm sure the could find common ground on those issues or other minor issues that could come up. If Netanyahu wants to talk "territory" this is about the only territorial issue that he has any foundation to present to the Palestinians. He sure as hell can't use the threat of not withdrawing the Israeli military from Palestine for any territorial issues unless the Palestinians are demanding a part of Israel as a condition for peace but they're not.

    Netanyahu has also insisted that the nation of Palestine must be a demilitarized nation (i.e. have no military capable of attacking Israel) to ensure nation security for Israel. I believe the Palestinians actually welcomed this condition because it solves numerous problems for them. The Palestinian response was, "Oh hell yes, but we want US lead NATO forces to be stationed throughout the state of Palestine and we want them to stay indefinitely to not only insure Israel's security from a possible invasion but to also ensure that there are no Palestinians committing any act of aggression against Israel by launching rockets from the state of Palestine into Israel. They point out that this was a significant problem in Gaza because there was no one to prevent Hamas from attacking Israel. Of course this is all secondary to the fact that US lead NATO forces would also prevent a future invasion of Palestine that the Palestinians obviously have justification to fear considering the aggressive military behavior of Israel in the past.

    Last but not least is that Netanyahu imposed a condition that the Palestinians can't comply with. Not because they wouldn't be willing to comply but instead it's a condition they don't have the authority to comply with. Netanyahu insists that the Palestinians recognize a "Jewish State of Israel" but the Palestinians are limited to recognizing the "Sovereign State of Israel" because the nature of the state (i.e. Jewish) is a component of the "sovereignty" reserved exclusively for the Israeli people to decide. The people of Israel can call themselves the "Purple People" if they choose because only they have that sovereign right while no one else has the authority to call them anything except the People of Israel.

    In any case OneVoice does the United States a great service by addressing these different issues that are effectively blocking the peaceful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    I don't see anything inappropriate about the US providing funds to OneVoice that is advancing not just our best interests as a nation but that is also advancing the mutual best interests of both Israel and Palestine as well. The claim that the some of the funds, without the US government's knowledge, were used for or against a specific candidate don't even fit with the election processes in Israel.

    PS - Like you I'm concerned about the retention of records but the elephant in the living room is the former Bush Administration where apparently 22 million government emails were stored on the RNC private server that was widely used by the Bush Administration and somehow those emails have "gone missing" and have not been recovered. They cover some very critical time in American history including the days leading up to the Invasion of Iraq and the firing of US attorney's by the Bush Administration.
    They sure dont sound impartial to me.

    Its the Palestinians who are trying to claim Israeli territory. They like you and the UN have it all backwards
    God knows what he's doin'. He wrote this book here.
    An' the book says: "He made us all to be just like him, "
    So...If we're dumb...Then God is dumb...
    (an' maybe even a little ugly on the side)

  8. #18
    usa us arizona
    Location: Recent Immigrant to Arizona
    Posts: 44,594
    bestthread

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Penrod View Post
    So then you would have been against the Watergate scandal as it was stolen material and should never have been printed
    The Watergate break-in involved illegal wiretapping (phone tapping) of the Democrats offices at the Watergate. I don't recall seeing any documents revealing what information was obtained but there might have been. The Republican wiretapping itself. was certainly newsworthy because it was illegal but nothing was illegal about what the Democratic leadership was involved in during the Democratic primary. The only thing illegal related to the Democrats emails was that they were obtained illegally.

    In spite of revelations following the Watergate break-in all of which related to criminal activities, including the fact that it was a coordinated effort by the Committee to Re-elect the President, Nixon was never linked to it in any manner prior to the election and it didn't cause him seem to adversely effect his election. The actual break-in wasn't even the scandal. It was Richard Nixon's abuse of power in obstructing the investigation that turned out to be the Watergate Scandal and that wasn't revealed until well after the election.

    Quote Originally Posted by Penrod View Post
    To try to say the media was on Trumps side is one of the funniest things Ive ever heard here
    It's not so much that the media was on Trump's side but instead that the media, in attempting to be neutral, simply over-looked virtually all of the reasons that Donald Trump was unfit to hold office and not qualified to hold office. The only place I actually saw this addressed was by the highly qualified conservative editorial board across the nation. When I read the Arizona Republics editorial board's candidate comparison they clearly laid out the case that Donald Trump has serious mental disorders that we witness daily as well as lacking any qualifications to be president it was a scathing report two-page report. This was from conservatives on a newspaper that had never supported a Democrat for president since it was founded in 1890 and the editors flatly admitted that while the opposed virtually all of Hillary Clinton's political agenda and policies that she was qualified while Donald Trump was not.

    The main stream media failed miserably when it came to the necessity to point out that Trump's behavior was clearly reflective of an extreme narcissistic personality disorder. While mental health professionals are prohibited by their own ethics standards from making this statement the press is not under that restriction and the press failed. The main stream media failed to repeatedly point out that "money does NOT indicate executive ability" and that base upon the criteria of "good v bad executives" Donald Trump has always been one of the worst executives in the United States. He was actually good on the Apprentice because he was such a horrible executive. I doubt that there's even one independent board of directors in any corporation in the United States that would appoint Donald Trump to an executive position in the corporation.

    Yes, the media did "fact check" Donald Trump and that consistently reflected that Donald Trump was completely ignorant about virtually everything he discussed. His supporters didn't seem to care because, like the best of con men, Trump fed their prejudice as opposed to telling the truth because he didn't know the truth but he knew their prejudice. Given the choice of believing Trump that mirrored their prejudice or believing the facts the supporters always accepted the "lie" because they didn't want admit they were wrong also.

    No, the media didn't "support Trump" but it failed the American public by not addressing those attributes of Donald Trump that revealed how unfit and unqualified he really is.

    Here's the deal, forget everything else about Donald Trump and just pay attention to what he does. He attacks anyone for the most petty of reasons constantly. He never admits he's wrong even when we have it on video tape when he says one thing one day and then denies he said it the next. He takes credit for the accomplishments of others and even claims success when he fails.

    If you just watch Donald Trump seriously you will notice that there's something very strange in his behavior. There's something that's just not right. Don't worry about his policies, just pay attention to his behavior because it soon becomes evident that Donald Trump is not a normal person because he does really strange things that no one else we can think of would ever do.

    After watching Donald Trump for any period of time it's unavoidable to come to any other conclusion except he's seriously mentally ill. I'm not condemning him for it but he does need help because his behavior is irrational.

    And the main stream media failed to warn the American people as many times as necessary that Donald Trump is suffering from a serious mental illness and that places not just the United States but the entire world in great jeopardy.

    This is a man that's so mentally unstable that he arguably represents a greater threat of nuclear war than N Korea and we elected him to the office where, without anyone being able to stop him, he could start that nuclear war.
    Last edited by Shiva_TD; Jan 12 2017 at 12:32 PM.
    Why do Republicans oppose things that are clearly CONSTITUTIONAL and support things that are clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

    "Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence." Thomas Jefferson

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    The Watergate break-in involved illegal wiretapping (phone tapping) of the Democrats offices at the Watergate. I don't recall seeing any documents revealing what information was obtained but there might have been. The Republican wiretapping itself. was certainly newsworthy because it was illegal but nothing was illegal about what the Democratic leadership was involved in during the Democratic primary. The only thing illegal related to the Democrats emails was that they were obtained illegally.

    In spite of revelations following the Watergate break-in all of which related to criminal activities, including the fact that it was a coordinated effort by the Committee to Re-elect the President, Nixon was never linked to it in any manner prior to the election and it didn't cause him seem to adversely effect his election. The actual break-in wasn't even the scandal. It was Richard Nixon's abuse of power in obstructing the investigation that turned out to be the Watergate Scandal and that wasn't revealed until well after the election.



    It's not so much that the media was on Trump's side but instead that the media, in attempting to be neutral, simply over-looked virtually all of the reasons that Donald Trump was unfit to hold office and not qualified to hold office. The only place I actually saw this addressed was by the highly qualified conservative editorial board across the nation. When I read the Arizona Republics editorial board's candidate comparison they clearly laid out the case that Donald Trump has serious mental disorders that we witness daily as well as lacking any qualifications to be president it was a scathing report two-page report. This was from conservatives on a newspaper that had never supported a Democrat for president since it was founded in 1890 and the editors flatly admitted that while the opposed virtually all of Hillary Clinton's political agenda and policies that she was qualified while Donald Trump was not.

    The main stream media failed miserably when it came to the necessity to point out that Trump's behavior was clearly reflective of an extreme narcissistic personality disorder. While mental health professionals are prohibited by their own ethics standards from making this statement the press is not under that restriction and the press failed. The main stream media failed to repeatedly point out that "money does NOT indicate executive ability" and that base upon the criteria of "good v bad executives" Donald Trump has always been one of the worst executives in the United States. He was actually good on the Apprentice because he was such a horrible executive. I doubt that there's even one independent board of directors in any corporation in the United States that would appoint Donald Trump to an executive position in the corporation.

    Yes, the media did "fact check" Donald Trump and that consistently reflected that Donald Trump was completely ignorant about virtually everything he discussed. His supporters didn't seem to care because, like the best of con men, Trump fed their prejudice as opposed to telling the truth because he didn't know the truth but he knew their prejudice. Given the choice of believing Trump that mirrored their prejudice or believing the facts the supporters always accepted the "lie" because they didn't want admit they were wrong also.

    No, the media didn't "support Trump" but it failed the American public by not addressing those attributes of Donald Trump that revealed how unfit and unqualified he really is.

    Here's the deal, forget everything else about Donald Trump and just pay attention to what he does. He attacks anyone for the most petty of reasons constantly. He never admits he's wrong even when we have it on video tape when he says one thing one day and then denies he said it the next. He takes credit for the accomplishments of others and even claims success when he fails.

    If you just watch Donald Trump seriously you will notice that there's something very strange in his behavior. There's something that's just not right. Don't worry about his policies, just pay attention to his behavior because it soon becomes evident that Donald Trump is not a normal person because he does really strange things that no one else we can think of would ever do.

    After watching Donald Trump for any period of time it's unavoidable to come to any other conclusion except he's seriously mentally ill. I'm not condemning him for it but he does need help because his behavior is irrational.

    And the main stream media failed to warn the American people as many times as necessary that Donald Trump is suffering from a serious mental illness and that places not just the United States but the entire world in great jeopardy.

    This is a man that's so mentally unstable that he arguably represents a greater threat of nuclear war than N Korea and we elected him to the office where, without anyone being able to stop him, he could start that nuclear war.

    It was more about the cover up not the crime
    Im talking about Deep Throat who leaked the info about the cover up. If the FBI had discovered those emails and leaked the truth would you be as upset?

    One more time. Yes Trump seems a little weird to me but he is eccentric . I like his picks so far as they are conservative

    Trump is no where near as narcissistic as Obama he takes the prize in that department
    God knows what he's doin'. He wrote this book here.
    An' the book says: "He made us all to be just like him, "
    So...If we're dumb...Then God is dumb...
    (an' maybe even a little ugly on the side)

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: Apr 11 2012, 10:57 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Dec 02 2011, 10:06 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks