• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI Had Evidence of Russian Favoritism of Trump for Some Time

JasperL said:
About what? I assume he quoted the title of the article accurately, although it now reads, "C.I.A. Had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed"

And the first line, quoted in the OP, puts the focus on acts, not mere preferences. You misread it apparently, which is why I addressed you.
Click to expand...

Okay... Once again, as I've said to others in this thread, I was discussing two separate aspects of the same topic. Discussing the benign state of one does not imply acceptance or minimization of the other one that is not benign.
 
Erod said:
What did they do? LOL. You think Bill and Janice in Pennsylvania voted for Trump because of Russia? You think votes were changed? No.
Click to expand...

What quaintly delusional questions.
Hillary lost because of.......Hillary.
Click to expand...

This seems really difficult for you: it's not about Hillary, no matter how much you need it to be.
 
Erod said:
What did they do? LOL. You think Bill and Janice in Pennsylvania voted for Trump because of Russia? You think votes were changed? No.

Hillary lost because of.......Hillary.
Click to expand...

You're pretending that news coverage and other media have no effect on anyone's votes, which is obvious nonsense. Yeah, Hillary was a terrible candidate but it's also true that Russian efforts affected votes - how many we'll never know.
 
JasperL said:
You're pretending that news coverage and other media have no effect on anyone's votes, which is obvious nonsense. Yeah, Hillary was a terrible candidate but it's also true that Russian efforts affected votes - how many we'll never know.
Click to expand...

You mean the news that was true?
 
Beaudreaux said:
Okay... Once again, as I've said to others in this thread, I was discussing two separate aspects of the same topic. Discussing the benign state of one does not imply acceptance or minimization of the other one that is not benign.
Click to expand...

OK, and we were just pointing out your original reading of the OP and the linked article linked was in fact wrong - it was not about preferences but about acts. Seems we're all on the same page now, which is good.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
What quaintly delusional questions.

This seems really difficult for you: it's not about Hillary, no matter how much you need it to be.
Click to expand...

So she didn't set up a private server? Weiner didn't have all that top secret info on his computer? They didn't destroy 30,000 emails? Wasserman didn't discreetly try to sabotage Bernie? CNN didn't provide the debate questions to Hillary?

Uh, that ain't Russia, bubba.
 
lurchadams said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html?_r=0

Why didn't the FBI alert the nation earlier? Oh well....
Click to expand...

Because Russians "favoring" one candidate or another (especially when the reasoning for that favoring is unknown) is irrelevant to the election unless it's probable that the favoring was due in part to purposeful collision between trump and Russia.

Russia favoring Trump was no more relevant or important than foreign countries preferring or Kerry won over Bush or preferring Obama won over McCain. Who outside forces want to win is not a reasonable decision point, unless it's for some kind of nefarious reason.
 
Fishking said:
You expect more than that from him?
Click to expand...

Not really that is basically a summation of his posting level.

Foreign governments have always had a favorite candidate not that it means anything.
 
Erod said:
So she didn't set up a private server?
Click to expand...
Yes, she did just as Colin Powell had done when he was Sec of State.
Weiner didn't have all that top secret info on his computer?
Click to expand...
No
They didn't destroy 30,000 emails?
Click to expand...
They did not "destroy" the emails as FBI computer geeks were able to retrieve them after they had been "deleted". FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."
Wasserman didn't discreetly try to sabotage Bernie?
Click to expand...
Possible
CNN didn't provide the debate questions to Hillary?
Click to expand...
No. CNN did not provide the questions. Donna Brazile, a CNN contracter at that time provided a list of possible subjects that the moderators might present at the one debate CNN broadcast.

Uh, that ain't Russia, bubba.
Click to expand...

. . . and that is my opinion in red letters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom