NYT: Russia helping Trump again in the 2020 election

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (90 posts)

61
Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago
Trump replaced McGuire, the DNI because he reported Russia was aiding Trump in the election again. He replaced him with another inexperienced crony because of the report, which the House Intel committee is looking into.

Is anyone surprised?
reply report
1. 95
  MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Randy, I don't think the Russians have ever stopped their hacking into our government. Why should anyone be surprised at this news?
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  They shouldn't be. Nor should they be surprised if other countries, any country, is found to be doing the same. There is a constant cyber war going on and it's everyone for themselves.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Anyone who still denies Russian help for Trump is an idiot, a traitor or a Russian operative.
  
  It's really that simple.
  reply report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  How about if someone thinks that that "Russian help" was more to create division than to specifically help Pres. Trump, what is that person?
  
  To be more clear, I think Russia's primary purpose, then and now, is to create division, more so than to promote one candidate over another. I can imagine that if Hillary's election would have created the divisiveness that Trump's did, then their efforts would have been to promote her.
  
  GA
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Hillary wasn't self centered enough to buy Putin's bullshit, Gus. Nor did she need his money to keep living a lavish lifestyle because she was a bad business person.
  
  Why do you think Deutsche Bank was the only financial lender who would trust him to repay his debts, and even then Trump sued them when they tried to collect, and guess what? They loaned him another billion on top of the two billion he already owed them.
  
  Any of you financial wizards out there wanta chime in on this smart banking practice?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  It's a rationalization that belongs in category #1.
  reply report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  ibid: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/346 … ost4123623 2nd paragraph
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Then why keep replying to me and trying to provoke an argument?
  
  It seems you can't tolerate disagreement of any kind, even when people including me have tried to meet you halfway. Very Trump.
  reply report
  68
  IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Wishful thinking, maybe?
  
  That's not what the experts say.
  
  Btw, do you really think a Hillary win would have been less divisive? LOL
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, wishful thinking + rationalization.
  reply report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  To answer the last, first, yes, I do think Hillary's election would have been less divisive. Not a better presidency, just a less divisive one.
  
  As for wishful thinking . . . my comment wasn't to deny that the Russian involvement wasn't intended to help Trump, it was to that helping Trump might have been thought to be more nationally divisive than helping Hillary.
  
  To that point, consider the recent announcement that the Russians are also interfering to help Sanders. Do you think their intention is to help Sanders become president?
  
  Hold on now, I understand that there is the perspective that Sanders would be the easiest opponent for Trump to beat, so helping him win the nomination could amount to helping Trump, (damn, this circular reasoning is making me dizzy), get reelected, but, is that possibility enough to completely discount the idea there their purpose is more for division than a preference for a particular candidate?
  
  My initial response was just a thought spurred by the recent announcement of the Sanders interference. It wasn't a declaration or wishful thinking, it was just a thought.
  
  geez, I better get my act together. ;-)
  
  GA
  reply report
  68
  IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  They did the same in 2016. Obviously, it wasn't and it is not at the same level that they helped Trump.
  
  So I guess that's your answer.
  reply report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  They did what the same in 2016? Interfere to help Sanders? Did I miss your intent?
  
  GA
  reply report
  68
  IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, they did.
  reply report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I guess I missed that. I will hunt it down, but, and not meaning to say they didn't help Trump, doesn't that also speak to a purpose of division and chaos rather than support for a preferred candidate?
  
  GA
  reply report
  68
  IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No, it wasnt a "rather than". It shows it was both, but the main purpose was to get Trump elected. They didn't just help Sanders, they attacked Rubio, Cruz, etc.
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  How can you tell that was the "main purpose"? Seems like it has been a Russian goal for a long, long time to damage American society and culture; what makes you think that was set aside in favor of electing Trump?
  reply report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You are right. Earlier I was going to post a snippet that supports what you are saying, so here it is now:
  
  'The document, which spells out in detail how the Russians worked to support Trump’s campaign, alleges that on or about Feb. 10, 2016, the Russians internally circulated an outline of themes for future content to be posted on social media accounts."
  
  “Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on ‘politics in the USA’ and to ‘use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump – we support them),’” the indictment said"
  Source: USA Today - Indictment: Russians also tried to help Bernie Sanders
  
  It appears their intent was to support Trump and Sanders. But why Sanders? Was it simply because they thought he would be an easier Trump win than Hillary? Were they hedging their bets—betting on anyone to beat Hillary?
  
  My original thought has been turned into more than I intended. It was a thought of primary purpose; division vs. preference. To hold that their motive was pure preference then it must be accepted that their support of Sanders was simply an effort against Hillary. That's possible. Would that be the same thought to explain their support for Sanders this time?
  
  As I am writing this, Jill Dougherty, former Moscow Bureau Chief is on CNN saying the same thing I am, with particular reference to this election's Russian support of Sanders). "Russia's primary purpose is to create division and mistrust in our system, the candidate preference is secondary"—according to Ms. Dougherty.
  
  Maybe I am just being stubborn, but if so, it is still not intended to say the Russians didn't interfere to support Trump. It is just questioning their motivation.
  
  GA
  reply report
  86
  Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  According to the Mueller Report and the Senate intelligence committee report, the worst the Russians did was to buy a few thousand dollars worth of social media ads. With campaign ad budgets in the hundreds of millions, this is not much interference by the Russians. Both reports confirmed there was NO contact between the Trump campaign and the Russians, not a single vote was changed. It's not like he purchased a fake dossier to lie to a FISA court to get a FISA warrant to have the FBI illegally spy on his opposing campaign. BUT one candidate did in the 2016 election. It wasn't President Donald Trump.
  report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think you can support your thought that not one single vote was changed due to the Russian interference efforts Mike.
  
  I can't prove votes were changed, but I don't think you can prove they weren't. Your logic says that their interference had no effect. That is something my gut tells me is wrong.
  
  GA
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  How many is a "few thousand dollars," Mike?
  
  https://adage.com/article/digital/russi … ler/312424
  
  DOH!
  report
  70
  Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  
  Oh yes, the Russians!
  
  Evil monstrous murderous nation that is overthrowing nations across the globe!
  
  Hmmmm… what about China?
  
  What about the Billions they gave to the Clintons over the last few decades? What about the 1.5 Billion they gave to Hunter Biden?
  
  How much money have they poured into influencing our elections?
  
  Russia... that powerhouse economy is a real threat... to Ukraine. Oh wait, Clinton and Biden loved Ukraine, another place where billions came from and disappeared to.
  
  CNN... no one fabricates lies and misinformation more than they do.
  
  Can't debate with people who still believe Russia had an impact, on anything of relevance, they are lost in the jungle of delusions and disinformation.
  report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Wow Ken, I could feel the emotion behind that comment. And it would be a good discussion to pursue. But right now I am caught up in this imbroglio that any reference to Russia's interference that isn't a total declaration that it was for Trump alone is BS.
  
  I will get back to you once that is straightened out.
  
  GA
  report
  68
  IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Who said that?
  report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  promisem, you, Randy.
  
  Do you want quotes or perceived inferences?
  
  GA
  report
  68
  IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Mine, please.
  report
  70
  Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  GA, it is the absurdity of it all, and arguing or debating its merits.
  
  Russia influenced our election?
  
  Compared to what China has done, going all the way back to Bill Clinton's first run for Presidency and the millions they pumped into that campaign.
  
  Does anyone even care how many elections the Chinese have swayed, how many politicians have been on their payroll, how many spies have worked directly for politicians in D.C.?
  
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … ton-money/
  
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi … story.html
  
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … ibery.html
  
  https://abcnews.go.com/International/fb … d=33990683
  
  “Think about the scale of the two economies,” Pompeo told the BBC, referring to Chinese and Russian interference in the US. “The Chinese have a much bigger footprint upon which to execute that mission than the Russians do.”
  
  The CIA chief raised the spectre of a concerted Chinese conspiracy, not just in the US but internationally, and said countries must do more collectively to combat Chinese efforts to exert power over the West.
  
  “We can watch very focused efforts to steal American information, to infiltrate the United States with spies—with people who are going to work on behalf of the Chinese government against America,” he said. “We see it in our schools. We see it throughout corporate America. It’s also true in other parts of the world... including Europe and the UK.”
  
  How many politicians have had Russian spies caught working for them lately? Yet no one seems concerned about the Chinese spies?
  
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … story.html
  
  https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/27/th … deafening/
  
  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … ar/595747/
  
  And what about Joe and Hunter Biden's billions from China?
  
  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … e-dealings
  
  https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 … y-details/
  
  How is it that we ignore the Chinese, and their influence, yet Russia's efforts are of apocalyptic significance?
  
  Is it because of bias? Is it because the Chinese have by-and-large only sunk billions into buying off the Democrats?
  report
  87
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  What irritates me is that some really take every advantage to blame Russia for the last election, and will blame them on the up and coming election. More or less making the assumptions that half the country are idiots that can be swayed by Russian ads. It's ridiculous, and one would think they would get over the last election --- they have a new one to face, and get over.
  
  I have to ask, have you had a look at some of the ridiculous ads that Russia was responsible for posting on Facebook? It's insulting to think many would take any one of them seriously.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Have you noticed that the false memes repearedly posted here come from one side of the political spectrum?
  report
  87
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I have noted that. I take them with a grain of salt. Some are funny some in poor taste. It's clear we have two very different political factions posting here at HP. It well seems never the two shall meet...
  
  The memes are troublesome, I got caught up in one the other day that was all over the internet, and I should have known it was false. But bought in. One does have to be careful, lots of stuff floating around that is just false or the context changed to suit one's purpose.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Right. The reason I asked is you had said this: "I have to ask, have you had a look at some of the ridiculous ads that Russia was responsible for posting on Facebook? It's insulting to think many would take any one of them seriously."
  
  It might be insulting but it is an unfortunate truth that false memes are more believed and shared by conservatives than liberals.
  
  https://www.newsweek.com/liberals-dont- … nds-800219
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, Shar admitted she got caught up in one of the fake memes. She answered her own question.
  report
  67
  Eastwardposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Just a quick note on Russians supporting division, in the documentary The Great Hack (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 … ok-netflix), they claim that Russian sources took out Facebook ads, created pages and events, etc. in order to fuel division and agitate both sides of issues. Black Lives Matter was one example they used as a movement they attempted to co-opt (not to say there isn't a genuine black lives matter movement) and create heated opposition against.
  reply report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the link. I had also heard that. Apparently I missed that they also tried to help Sanders in 2016, but that would seem in line with the point of your linked article.
  
  GA
  reply report
  70
  Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  These threads are entertaining to say the least, quite interesting to see so many buy into the fabrications and falsehoods of the media and alphabet agencies.
  
  CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes are examples of institutions of anti-American, pro-Globalization, pro-Corporation powers that exist to program the American people, they are a source of propaganda for entities that do not have American citizen's best interests in mind, and that do not tell the truth, they distort, or fabricate.
  
  People who believe these sources of information and consider them reliable and factual are unwitting "idiot[s], a traitor or a Russian [or Chinese, or Iranian] operative.
  
  It is the duty of every American to question the validity of all information coming from the likes of CNN, that is time after time caught fabricating stories, calling opinions fact, and pushing a corporate globalist agenda.
  
  Anyone who is soft minded enough to believe their lies about Trump being a Russian puppet, an anti-Semite, a traitor to the country as he is portrayed daily by the media are the very fools that will sell this nation, and their own futures, down the toilet.
  
  The very people who rail against Trump, and believe him to be a fascist tyrant, will allow the Democratic Party to be hijacked by a true racist, sexist, fascist who will actually be the very things all Trump's opponents believe him to be.
  
  As the truly interesting and worthwhile candidates like Yang and Tulsi are denigrated and swept aside, and the likes of Sanders and Warren are stifled by the DNC... we will watch Bloomberg or a stand-in puppet for him take the nomination.
  reply report
  86
  Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Well said. I can add nothing but to emphasize you hit all the major points in your usual clear and articulate manner.
  reply report
  87
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yes! Well said.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, don't believe our intelligence agencies as Trump knows more than they do. What a joke he is!
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  So you don't believe US intelligence agencies, Ken? But instead you believe a habitual liar who continues to call everything involving him a hoax. Okay!
  reply report
2. 87
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Are you sure it's Trump the Russians are helping? Just read an article in the Dem's Bible WaPo that the Russians have decided to help Bernie win. Guess they are not pleased with the treatment they got from Trump. Maybe they think Bernie would be a better puppet? Hey, gotta believe the good old Washington Post and every other Media outlet that is posting the story. It could be fake news.
  
  https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/21/poli … /index.htm
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/p … ussia.html
  
  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/21/bernie- … paign.html
  reply report
61
Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago
Further news on this event. McGuire had the guts to report to Adam Schiff and the House Russia is following a similar playbook used in the 2016 election. For this, he was replaced with a person who has no experience at all in the intelligence service.

Trump was irate when Nunes reportedly told him of McGuire's telling the committee of what he had learned. He obviously doesn't want to be reelected with another Russian cloud over his head.

So why does Russia want to help him win? What's in it for Russia they'd go so far to make sure Trump remained in office? If this doesn't make you think about Trump's involvement with Putin, then you're no patriot at all.
reply report
1. 67
  Eastwardposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  A colleague claims to know a former high level Russian official (don't believe he has any reason to lie) and said he was told "Trump is our revenge for Gorbachev". Make of that what you will.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  It's obvious Putin has some sort of hold on Trump. There's no other explanation for the way Donnie's acting, EW. Why is Deutsche Bank the only place Trump can borrow money?
  reply report
  67
  Eastwardposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  His relationship with Deutsche Bank is certainly a twisted one. From trying to stiff them, and sue them, to them being his lender again. The November elections can't come soon enough, Randy. I just hope that the DNC doesn't self-destruct in the process (by nominating someone other than the candidate the voters choose).
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Don't forget EW, every day there's some sort of scandal involving Trump. He is so corrupt, there's no chance we can forget what a piece of shit he really is. Sorry to be so blunt....but there it is.
  reply report
  67
  Eastwardposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No worries there, Randy. There's no danger in me forgetting the ongoing scandals of Trump and gang (and no need to mince words as far as I'm concerned). He seems to truly enjoy being as much of a POS as he can be (as I'm sure his criminal friends do). It's going to take us a long time to live this one down.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Trump is pissed because the DNI did his duty and reported the Russian interference to the correct authorities instead of covering it up.
  
  The flunkey he replaced the DNI with is over 17 intel agencies and has no intel experience at all. Sounds about normal for Trump, eh?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I heard on the news this morning that some Republicans are saying the firing was justified because the DNI made Trump "look bad."
  
  How Putin-like.
  
  And, as now expected, the Trump cult finds this to be perfectly acceptable. See how easily authoritarianism can take hold? This is really scary.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Trump doesn't need any help to "look bad," Sandy. He's been doing this his entire life. And Republicans always think Trump is justified whenever he does anything wrong. No surprise there.
  reply report
  67
  Eastwardposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  It is terrifying how close the US is getting to outright fascism. I didn't think it was possible in the United States, but here we are.
  reply report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Take a breath Eastward. You are letting these discussions, (and the partisan divide), push you over the edge. What is happening now in American politics is not new, and we are nowhere near a state of fascism.
  
  Our democratic system is still working. We can see the very evidence of this in every day's political news. If we were approaching what you say you can't believe—we wouldn't be hearing about it at all.
  
  So, as I said, take a breath, step back, and consider your thoughts of your first forum participations of a few months ago to those of today. I bet you will see you have been pulled farther down the road than you would have gone when you first started participating.
  
  Have you seen the commercials for that phone app called 'Calm', where it prompts you to take a breath, relax, and do nothing for 30 seconds? Sort of like an abbreviated meditation routine. You should check it out. ;-)
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That's quite a condescending reply.
  
  The fact that we haven't reached the extremes of famous fascist extremes in history doesn't mean we haven't started down that path.
  
  Some people will deny and rationalize everything until it's too late.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Some people will deny and rationalize everything until it's too late."
  
  You got that right, Scott!
  reply report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That was an unnecessary and completely misinterpreted response promisem. Hopefully eastward will recognize the spirit of my response. You certainly didn't.
  
  Our history says there is little chance for successful communication, so I will leave it there.
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  As you told Eastward, take a breath, meditate, be calm, etc.
  
  Baloney, Gus. The condescension couldn't be more obvious.
  
  Your history shows a pattern of disrespect to anyone who doesn't agree with you.
  
  And as usual, you focus on the person and not the message.
  report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Okay promisem, if you insist.
  
  Have you followed the discussions eastward and I were having? It seems we both thought they were productive and cordial, but now you come along and want to tag me as condescending and attacking the person instead of the message.
  
  If you feel comfortable enough with my history of commenting to claim that is my "focus" have you also followed that history enough to recognize my use of ";-)", which was clearly attached to the ending of my comment to Eastward?
  
  Perhaps you are projecting your perception of my interactions with you, (which would not be totally inaccurate), to my interactions with other forum members.
  
  Regarding my response to your comment, I made an effort to just offer a different perspective. I didn't declare yours to be "baloney," (as much as I thought it was). My language could have been much more in line with yours—derogatory and confrontational, but I purposely tried not to do that.
  
  Are you so sensitive that any challenging response to your thoughts is an affront?
  
  You are merely reaping what you sow promisem. You don't have to look to my comments with other members to find issues with my responses. You will find more than enough just in my interactions with you.
  
  I have tried to not respond to your recent renewal of participation, but sometimes the 'low fruit' is just too tempting. However, it seems obvious I should try harder.
  
  GA
  report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  None of this deflection has anything to do with your condescension toward Eastward or any of my comments.
  
  Please stay on topic.
  report
  85
  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Really promisem?
  
  Now it is "deflection"? That is your charge?
  
  Okay, prove it.
  
  Prove that my and eastward's ending comments to each other didn't express an appreciation for a rational exchange—even one that ended in disagreement. And, that making that point is a deflection from your charge of condensation.
  
  Prove that my inclusion of a textual smiley face, ";-) hasn't been historically used to indicate a jest or light-hearted comment. And, that making that point is a deflection from your charge of condensation.
  
  Prove that my reference to the difficulties of our, (you and I), past exchanges are a deflection from addressing your charge of condensation.
  
  And finally, prove that I have ever shied away from responding, without deflection, to any of your comments to me.
  
  All of those "asks" are pertinent to our current exchange, and they are all related to your charge of condensation. None are a deflection.
  
  Can you answer, or prove any of my "asks" promisem?
  
  I am willing to support challenges to my comments, are you willing to support challenges to yours? All the proof you need is in this thread promisem, just present it.
  
  [EDIT added]
  
  Even better, although I won't put him on the spot and involve him in our adversarial exchange, why don't you do it? Ask Eastward if he thought I was being condescending in my comment to him. That would certainly make one of us eat our words.
  
  GA
  report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Eastward, I will reply to your actual comment instead of mocking you, unlike abusiveTrump supporters on here. I'll use Wikipedia as a point of reference. Fascism is:
  
  1. Far right
  2. Authoritarian
  3. Ultra nationalist
  4. Dictatorial
  5. Anti-liberal
  6. Economically protectionist
  
  Sounds awfully current. But at least we have a strong (although weakening) democracy and 60% of the country to oppose any fascist trends.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
  reply report
  67
  Eastwardposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That does sound about par for the course for Trump. He loves to put his toadies in charge of things they have no business "leading".
  reply report
2. 78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Or simply someone biased to the point that they will continue to believe that Trump is colluding with Putin after 2 years of intensive investigation utterly failed to produce any evidence of that.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Trump's own hand-picked DNI reported it, Dan. Are you saying he's biased?
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Link, please, showing that Trump is colluding/has colluded with Putin to fix an election?
  
  There is little (no) doubt that Russia has attempted and will continue to attempt to push our elections in whatever direction they see as profitable to them. Just as every other developed nation has done/will continue to do, and that most definitely includes the US "interfering" with the elections of other countries.
  
  But that is NOT the same as collusion with Putin, which is what you said, with the added caveat that if you don't believe in that particular fairy tale then you as no patriot.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Please point out where I used the word "colluding or collusion'' in my post, Dan.
  
  I spoke of "Trump's involvement with Putin," but it was in reference to his contacts with him monetarily, re the Moscow Tower and other business he's had with Russia. Such as selling oligarchs real estate for exorbitant profits.
  
  I wonder why Eric Trump said several years ago they got most of their money from Russia? Do you?
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Trump's involvement with Putin"
  
  Did you mean something else? Perhaps trade agreements? If you mean monetarily, please provide links showing Trump and Putin in a business agreement or other arrangement whereby they exchange money.
  
  (Hint: "Russia" does not equate with "Putin" any more than "Trump" means "America".)
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I said exactly what I meant, Dan. Didn't you accuse me of a lack of reading comprehension a few days ago? You need to take your own advice.
  
  Putin wasn't involved the Moscow Tower project? Seriously? And Putin IS Russia at this point, never doubt it.
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  If Putin IS Russia, then Trump IS America. That feels good to you?
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No indeed, Trump isn't smart enough to be a Putin. Trump thought there were airports during the Revolution. DOH!
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  We have posted links on these forums many, many times over the last several years about the financial connections between Trump and Russian billionaires in bed with Putin.
  
  Many of the posts have gone straight to you.
  
  Either you have a bad memory or you are pretending those posts never existed. Regardless, please use search engines to find that information. It's widely available.
  reply report
3. 95
  MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "So why does Russia want to help him win?"
  
  Randy, this old lady remembers when, back in 1956, Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev was in the U.S. He was visiting a farm in Iowa (I believe it was) and told our President Eisenhower: "... We will bury you from within.
  "https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-put-trump-online-letters-20180716-story.html
  
  You will find other reports that he said this in 1960 and later in 1962 at a meeting in Poland. So apparently he kept repeating his threat. I distinctly remember our newspapers reporting the first story and our teacher discussing this with us in school. This was during the Cold War when the U.S. was still feeling very patriotic.
  We all thought the statement was too incredulous to take seriously. Now in this day and age, we would all be better off if we took it seriously and believed it.
  But since we have folks who say the Holocaust never happened and man never set foot on the moon, why should any red-blooded American take it seriously and equate it to Russian hacking in our presidential elections and helping to install their own puppet at the head of our government. Putin doesn't give a dang about Trump. He just wants somebody he can manipulate.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Putin doesn't give a dang about Trump. He just wants somebody he can manipulate."
  
  Putin has found the perfect stooge to manipulate in Trump, Miz. As long as someone brags on him and accepts his lies, he'll do anything anytime anywhere to keep the adulation going. Pathetic actually.
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Someone that can be manipulated, or any of a hundred other reasons. Perhaps someone that will sell them Uranium. Someone that will foster trade deals. Someone that will work towards world peace. Someone that will turn the other way under Russian aggression.
  
  Or even someone that won't treat them as the ultimate evil or attempt to revive the cold war.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  The old uranium deal has also been explained many times, but you still don't get it.
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  And if you don't like that one lawmaker was instrumental in arranging that deal, you get to ignore the rest of it and maintain that the country of Russia (meaning a single person there that micro manages every action taken by every Russian citizen) has only one reason to attempt manipulation of an election.
  
  Good thinking!
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  There were 8 lawmakers who made the decision, Dan. Not even a close try. You don't know what the rules of the agreement required, do you?
  reply report
60
Live to Learnposted 5 years ago
Claims made that Russia influenced the election in favor of Trump. A study by noted psychologist Robert Epstein presents convincing data that Google influenced the same election for Hillary (more hard data, by the way, than has been presented for the Russia influence theory)

Who do you think has more power to manipulate opinion in America today. Russia or Google?
reply report
1. 78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Good point, for there is absolutely no doubt as to the answer to that question.
  reply report
2. 61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I read Epstein's paper and it's an opinion piece with no proof any votes were changed but lots of speculation based on his research.
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct. It was opinion based on research of data. The opposing view is also opinion based on review of data.
  
  Neither can provide proof that any votes were changed.
  
  So....what's your point?
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I haven't studied Mueller's investigation enough to see if Epstein's research is better or worse than his. Is it? Mueller had more info to go through, I'd imagine.
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I think we can both be certain if proof existed of changed votes the major news networks would have had a party with you invited.
  
  But, facts don't really matter. Two opinions, conflicting conclusions, and you have repeatedly insisted opinion you agreed with was fact.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  And you haven't?
  
  What did Mueller say about the Russians interfering, LTL? Or do you consider him a Trump hater? I said I'd rely more on Mueller's data then Epsteins.
  reply report
86
Readmikenowposted 5 years ago
Nat'l Security Adviser: Russia's Not Trying to Help Trump Win
Robert O'Brien denies report that Moscow is working to throw the 2020 election

"There's no indication that Russia has its fingers in the 2020 election or is working to get the president re-elected, says a top Trump official. “The national security adviser gets pretty good access to our intelligence," National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien told ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. “I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump re-elected.” O'Brien's comment came after he was asked about reports that an intelligence professional told members of the House intelligence committee that it was Russia's aim to favor Trump in the election. Some officials familiar with the classified briefing said lawmakers were told that Russia was taking steps that would help Trump. And Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders said Friday that he was briefed last month by officials about Russian efforts to boost his candidacy."

https://www.newser.com/story/287313/nat … gn=rss_top
reply report
1. 87
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I am going to borrow a quote from Hillary Clinton "What difference does it make"?
  
  Just venting -- We have not been able to stop Russia, China,
  and who the hell knows what other countries from attempting to interfere in our election. It seems the Dems are looking once again, and I must say way ahead of the election to blame Russia once again for Trump winning! Wake - up this is stupid, ridiculous, and crazy...
  
  As I have been saying over and over here on HP. Dems get yourself a good candidate. Stop scapegoating, it is getting so old...
  
  In the end ---- all the blaming has gotten the Dems nowhere. So, I say what difference does it make. Trump will win, and it's not the fault of the Russian. It's the fault of the DNC.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, and if the democratic nominee wins, then it's the fault of the RNC? Makes perfect sense!
  reply report
  87
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No, the RNC is supporting Trump and his agenda. At least most from the Republican party is. They pretty much know by the numbers that have turned out for the primaries. They are not as artful as the DNC at getting rid of a candidate they just don't want. Plus they are willing to hear the voice of the people.
  
  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/1 … out-115338
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Of course not! You can decide for the Left, and the Left can't decide for the Right. A Trumpism if I ever saw one!
  
  Indeed, "the voice of the Russian people."
  reply report
  87
  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Not even sure what you mean by that? I was pretty clear in my opinion. Your response, not so much...
  reply report
2. 61
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Is this Trump's latest flunky replacement for the DNI who has no intel experience whatsoever, Ken?
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

NYT: Russia helping Trump again in the 2020 election

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

NYT: Russia helping Trump again in the 2020 election

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies