Putin's lapdog

[SoldierOfTheKing]

By actively hoping that American servers were hacked by another nation, Trump broke an unwritten but cardinal rule of American public office: You don’t root against the United States, even when your political opponent is in power.

Some people have no sense of humor...

Besides, breaking rules of American political discourse is what Trump does, and it's worked well so far.

 

[wing2000]

Slander? As far as I'm aware, the authenticity of those emails in not in dispute. Let me also point out that the Russian did not release these emails, Wikileaks did. They originate from hackers who appear to be based in Russia. That hackers do illegal things is hardly news, nor should it be surprising that there are hackers active in Russia. Whether the e-mails were obtained illegally would absolutely matter if the question were whether to admit them as evidence in court. As far as what it tells us about the DNC, it matters not one whit - the emails are what they are, whether they were obtained legally or not.

Even if the Russian government was behind this,which as far as I've heard there's no evidence for - are we going to put Putin in for a Pulitzer Prize?

What is the bigger concern to long term US Democracy:

1. Major Party's Committee members expressed bias for one candidate over another? [the emails confirmed what most of us suspected: Some DNC members are biased.....and there's no doubt the same bias exist in the RNC.

2. A foreign power can hack a Party's IT systems at will and attempt to sway U.S. elections?

 

[JustOneWay]

Some people have no sense of humor...

He is no longer funny. He is running for President of the United States, not doing a gig at the improv.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

He is no longer funny. He is running for President of the United States, not doing a gig at the improv.

You can be a presidential candidate and be funny. Remember that it was Clinton, not Trump, that compromised the security of those emails. God only knows whose hands those classified e-mails could have fallen into. If the security of government secrets is your concern, then it should go without saying that Hillary Clinton is the last person you want in the White House. The Russians wouldn't even have to do any hacking or any espionage at all to get hold of those e-mails; they could already be on sale for whoever is willing to pay the market price.

The point that Trump is trying raise is that Clinton is playing down her mishandling of some of the most sensitive government secrets, but when hackers get hold of the emails of a private organization, which aren't even classified, now it's cause for outrage. She's apparently more concerned about the security of her party than she is about the security of her country. That's apparently cool with you though; you're just mad at Donald Trump for talking about it.

 

[Albion]

Trump supporters are saying that. But I had no trouble finding conservatives who have concerns about Trump's connection to Putin. Erick Erickson and Jeffrey Goldberg and The Weekly Standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/putins-party/article/2003473.

If these guys are your idea of men who are champions of principle who want only the best for the GOP, read this:http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...stes-hapless-erickson-now-slick-willy-fanboy/

 

[JustOneWay]

You can be a presidential candidate and be funny. Remember that it was Clinton, not Trump, that compromised the security of those emails. .

The problem is we do not know if Clinton's emails were hacked. We KNOW the DNC emails were hacked.

The issue over the emails is the DNC emails, not Clinton's emails.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The problem is we do not know if Clinton's emails were hacked.

We don't know that they weren't hacked either.

The issue over the emails is the DNC emails, not Clinton's emails.

You're condemning Trump for a comment he made about Clinton's emails, and now all of the sudden it's not the issue? Well it should be the issue. Those e-mails, as I said were classified state secrets; the DNC emails were not. That is the most important difference.

Oh and by the way, Israel's espionage activities against the US are even more extensive than Russia's and the US still sends Israel billions in foreign aid every year. Congress votes for it every session. If American politicians encouraging foreign espionage against the United States bothers you, then Donald Trump's comments should not be anywhere near your greatest concern. There is far greater justification for Pat Buchanan comment about Congress being "Israeli-occupied territory" than there is for calling Trump "Putin's lapdog".

 

[JustOneWay]

We don't know that they weren't hacked either.

wow.

 

[Eryk]

If these guys are your idea of men who are champions of principle who want only the best for the GOP, read this:http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...stes-hapless-erickson-now-slick-willy-fanboy/

Yes, it was a great speech.

Oh, and I forgot to mention George Will. And the Republicans who boycotted the convention.

Trump set a record for the most votes against a nominee in the primaries. A singularly divisive, destructive personality in the Republican party. I understand conservatism. I voted for Reagan. I remember "the party of ideas", when the Heritage Foundation was always run by a PhD. No thinking person can be proud of the vulgar idiot who represents the party right now.

 

[Albion]

Yes, it was a great speech.

Good enough, maybe. Great? No. Let's be honest. But the real point here is that these are the guys who have been whining for the better part of the year that the GOP has to guard its reputation, blah blah blah, and here we have one of them (now that he's an object of near-universal derision) slobbering, in public, over the husband of the DEMOCRAT candidate for president. Even if he'd been impressed by it or him, to engage in this kind of show makes a mockery of all that the NeverTrump people claimed to be about.

 

[Eryk]

Good enough, maybe. Great? No. Let's be honest. But the real point here is that these are the guys who have been whining for the better part of the year that the GOP has to guard its reputation, blah blah blah, and here we have one of them (now that he's an object of near-universal derision) slobbering, in public, over the husband of the DEMOCRAT candidate for president. Even if he'd been impressed by it or him, to engage in this kind of show makes a mockery of all that the NeverTrump people claimed to be about.

OK, I see where you're coming from.

 

[HannahT]

I'd say it matters quite a bit if an unfriendly and expansionistic force is getting involved in our elections and clearly favoring a candidate. Particularly if they're doing so largely because they think the other candidate will be a patsie. Particularly if they're doing so in ways that are actually quite illegal. Like with Climategate, this is less about whistleblowing and more about muckraking - releasing not a handful of damning, powerful emails, but thousands of personal communiques in order to smear and slander those making them as much as possible.

Also, way to not defend your previous points.

It could also be payback for her sticking her nose into their elections. She stuck her nose in, and I guess he may have decided to return the favor.

We may never know.

 

[Vylo]

The flaw in this reasoning is that no one could be easier for Putin to push around than Hillary. And he has plenty of experience doing exactly that, so there's little reason to think he doesn't realize this fact.

Uh, if you don't think the Clinton's have international clout, you must have lived the last 3 decades under a rock, in a cave, beneath the ocean floor on a distant planet.

 

[smaneck]

They haven't, it's just a narrative that a lot on the left embrace. A lot of Republicans have been very vocal against the guy.In fact it's really only Trump who embraces Putin.

Yes, Chris Christie condemned Clinton in his kangaroo court for not doing a better job standing up to Putin, yet he supports a candidate who encourages Russian sabotage.

 

[smaneck]

It could also be payback for her sticking her nose into their elections. She stuck her nose in, and I guess he may have decided to return the favor.

We may never know.

Criticizing a elections in another country is one thing. Actively seeking to sabotage an election is something else entirely.

 

[smaneck]

Uh, if you don't think the Clinton's have international clout, you must have lived the last 3 decades under a rock, in a cave, beneath the ocean floor on a distant planet.

Exactly. My criticism of her is that she is too hawkish.

 

[smaneck]

John Mccain would strongly disagree.

Which is why Trump will never be President.

 

[smaneck]

What? McCain disagrees that republicans embraced Trump?

Let's keep in mind only a minority of Republicans voted for Trump. He won an plurality, not a majority.

 

[smaneck]

Giuliani has thrown love at Putin, too:
http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/03/03/on-fox-giuliani-praises-putin-hes-what-you-call/198316

Yeah, let's not vote for him either.

 

[JustOneWay]

Let's keep in mind only a minority of Republicans voted for Trump. He won an plurality, not a majority.

He had the most primary votes of all time. This shows that clearly, he was the favorite. There in no doubt that Trump was embraced by the republicans. That is what I said. I dont care if he did not get the majority. He almost got as many votes as the next 3 people behind him and led the runner up by 5.6 million votes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html

According to Real Clear Politics, Trump received about 13.3 million votes during the primary. That’s about 1.8 million votes more than the previous record, held by George W. Bush.

http://www.politifact.com/north-car...-trump-set-record-most-gop-primary-votes-eve/