Swamp Watch News

[_Hawkeye]

The Russians were always against the candidate they thought would win. At first this was Hillary Clinton. Just a week after the election Russia was sponsoring anti Trump protests.

Comey only relased the information on Hillary that was so "damaging," because the deep state was sure Hillary would win anyway. It helped in the cover up of wiretapping and Hillary Clinton' Russian collusion so as not to make them look biased.

You're an idiot who always rationalizes some lame excuse for why you're always dead wrong. Trump and his entire entourage of "fine people" have been in kahoots with Russians since forever. It is why so many have had to recuse themselves, get fired, get indicted or have to lie about their connections with Russia. Without Russia, Trump has no one else to bankroll his life since American banks won't do business with him anymore. His own son even admitted that his golf courses are funded by Russian money.

If Hillary had received so much as a $1,000 gift from someone with a weird Arabic name you'd be in conniption fit mode about how she's working with terrorists. But Trump's entire livelihood is dependent on the Russians bailing him out and you're like, "Move along, nothing to see here."

[_Some Schmo]

The apologetic contortions Drumpf supporters are making these days make flat-earthers look like scientists.

Drumpf supporters are like fish living in a fishbowl, believing it to be the entire ocean. Everyone else can see the fishbowl, so it's obvious from the outside what their little world looks like, but from inside, it's the whole enchilada. What's outside the bowl appears distorted and crazy to them, because they're looking at it through the refracted light between the glass bowl and the water, but they have no idea they're looking at an inaccurate picture.

It's not the best analogy - fish seem much smarter than Drumpf supporters.

[_Themis]

The Russians were always against the candidate they thought would win.

That makes no sense. Why expend money and resources to just help the underdog? There is no way I would do this. I would look at each candidate and see which ones would most likely help me achieve my goals. For Russia this would be to create chaos, lift sanctions on Russia, create discord among western allies like NATO and the EU. Russia would also want to have influence with a new president. Do you honestly not know Trump has been doing business with the Russians for many years, and unlike all candidates in the last numbers of decades has not revealed his finance's?

I think in reality Trump courted the racists as well as his promise of a wall, and that is all that matters to you. You would be fine if the Russians took over the US as long as they built a wall and kicked out all or most of the non-white people.

[_subgenius]

The Russians were always against the candidate they thought would win.

That makes no sense.

I agree, and as I have stated in another thread - they never cared who won the election. Attacking the system is far more effective than supporting a candidate...the system is eternal and the candidate is superficial.

Why expend money and resources to just help the underdog? There is no way I would do this. I would look at each candidate and see which ones would most likely help me achieve my goals.

Naw, a superficial and short-sighted view and one not likely taken by "the Russians".

For Russia this would be to create chaos,

The sole reason and the only sensible one.

lift sanctions on Russia,

has not really paid off.

create discord among western allies like NATO and the EU.

see also "chaos".

Russia would also want to have influence with a new president. Do you honestly not know Trump has been doing business with the Russians for many years, and unlike all candidates in the last numbers of decades has not revealed his finance's?

Hillary Clinton has similar dealings and financial interests with Russia(ns). Money is a bi-partisan issue in this context. It is not arguable that either candidate/party had "dealings" with Russia.

I think in reality Trump courted the racists as well as his promise of a wall, and that is all that matters to you. You would be fine if the Russians took over the US as long as they built a wall and kicked out all or most of the non-white people.

this is a petty position, and distracting, because it also reveals the percentage of liberal voters who are also stupid and also vote via "the racism boogeyman".

[_EAllusion]

There's a dispute among hardcore white supremacists about being pro-Russia or not. On the pro-side, you have those who see Putin dedicated to running a quasi-fascist state that elevates transnational white, Christian hegemony. That's exactly what neo-Nazis want. On the other, you have those who think Slavs aren't white people. Also, Russia was a historic enemy of Nazi Germany.

Ajax entered this intra-racist debate on Stormfront to take the side of Russia and consider Slavs "close enough" to being white. We don't need to speculate in this case.

[_EAllusion]

The Russians were always against the candidate they thought would win. At first this was Hillary Clinton. Just a week after the election Russia was sponsoring anti Trump protests.

Comey only relased the information on Hillary that was so "damaging," because the deep state was sure Hillary would win anyway. It helped in the cover up of wiretapping and Hillary Clinton' Russian collusion so as not to make them look biased.

This is a work of art.

One thing I can't get over is how the public information on the Russia investigation is a goldmine of facts for coming up with conspiracies, but people who see the most implausible conspiracies in anything just say, "Doesn't look like anything to me..." when confronted by it. Take Paul Manafort's notes from the Trump Tower meeting that was repeatedly lied about by key Trump figures. It's shady as hell, obviously invloves illicit coversation, but is vague enough that you could run in any number of directions with it. That doesn't appeal to you at all, but here you are arguing that the Republican dominated FBI's consistent actions to hurt Clinton and help Trump were part of a double secret plan to provide cover for Clinton.

[_Some Schmo]

The Russians were always against the candidate they thought would win. At first this was Hillary Clinton. Just a week after the election Russia was sponsoring anti Trump protests.

Comey only relased the information on Hillary that was so "damaging," because the deep state was sure Hillary would win anyway. It helped in the cover up of wiretapping and Hillary Clinton' Russian collusion so as not to make them look biased.

This is a work of art.

It's tempting to believe people like Majax just say stupid crap like this to get non-racists worked up (or, in Majax speak, "liberals"), but we know too much about Majax to consider that a credible explanation.

What kind of day to day misery must a person live in to believe and say such incredibly stupid things like Majax does whenever he posts? Part of me wants to pity him, but then I remember that this is a misery of his own making, and all pity flies out the window.

[_Themis]

I agree, and as I have stated in another thread - they never cared who won the election. Attacking the system is far more effective than supporting a candidate...the system is eternal and the candidate is superficial.

Most countries have preferences about who wins elections. They just don't say it in public. Russia shows they did have a preference for Trump. Putin has history with Hillary that would make them not want her to win.

Naw, a superficial and short-sighted view and one not likely taken by "the Russians".

Naw. Many western countries have been complaining about Russia interference. Interference that promotes far right groups who tend to be isolationists and are anti EU or NATO. Two organizations Putin would love to see gone.

The sole reason and the only sensible one.

Certainly not the sole reason.

has not really paid off.

It has a little, and Trump has treated Russia and Putin so much better then he treats allies. Very big data points hinting they have some influence over him.

Hillary Clinton has similar dealings and financial interests with Russia(ns). Money is a bi-partisan issue in this context. It is not arguable that either candidate/party had "dealings" with Russia.

An assertion without substance. CFR

[_subgenius]

This.

Most countries have preferences about who wins elections. They just don't say it in public. Russia shows they did have a preference for Trump. Putin has history with Hillary that would make them not want her to win.

followed by this.

An assertion without substance. CFR

oh, the irony.

[_Themis]

This.

Most countries have preferences about who wins elections. They just don't say it in public. Russia shows they did have a preference for Trump. Putin has history with Hillary that would make them not want her to win.

followed by this.

An assertion without substance. CFR

oh, the irony.

I already knew you had no references of Hillary's business dealings with Russia. I also know you well enough to know you agree that governments do have preferences in other countries elections. They just make sure they don't publicly take sides, and most don't get involved as Russia has.