Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

That is very frightening.

Frightening, not a word normal men use in this context.

Tal buddy, become a man start with a JOB

Coup?!

This is alarmingly irresponsible language, even for Fox. Inflammatory. Baseless. Dangerous.

Originally Posted by Guest

Coup?!

This is alarmingly irresponsible language, even for Fox. Inflammatory. Baseless. Dangerous.

Said by a woman...who WANTS it!

You're such deceptive (unts.

"The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says he is worried that President Trump has not issued an “outright condemnation” of Russia for meddling in the 2016 election.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who was widely viewed as a contender for Trump’s secretary of Homeland Security, told The Hill in a sit-down interview that he has told the administration the president needs to “more forcefully” stand up to Moscow.

But, nearly one year into Trump’s administration, McCaul’s appeal has gone unanswered."

“I think there is a lot of, for whatever reason, avoidance of the issue, or saying that it could have been some other country. When you look at the intelligence, it is very clear the attribution goes directly to the Kremlin,” McCaul said. “That worries me.”

Trump has at times cast doubt on the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia sought to interfere in the election. He has also lashed out at the special counsel investigation into whether his campaign coordinated with Moscow, calling it a “witch hunt.”

GOP chairman worried by Trump's stance on Russian interference | TheHill

"Meanwhile, Trump has sought warmer ties with Vladimir Putin to handle problems like the Syrian civil war and North Korea’s nuclear program. Trump signaled briefly last month that he believed the Russian president when he told him Moscow did not meddle in the election.

The developments have baffled some in the GOP who want to see Trump take a harder line, particularly when it comes to election interference.

“Russia is not going to stop their bad behavior unless there are consequences to it,” McCaul said. “I haven’t seen any consequences, and I fully anticipate in 2018 and certainly the next presidential election that they’ll be trying to do the same thing. And I think we need to be prepared for that.”



And the sanctions passed by the United States Senate 98-2 remain unenforced.

An opinion piece to be sure, but based on undeniable facts.....

"Cases in point: The president still does not fully accept the verdict of his intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the election. He told Bill O’Reilly that America’s behavior was no better than Putin’s. His attorney general admitted to Congress that the administration had “probably not” taken sufficient measures to prevent future Russian meddling in elections. He explored ways to return two Russian diplomatic compounds in the United States long used for spying until they were seized by the Obama administration.

It continues: He spent the first five months in office resisting efforts to get him to publicly avow NATO’s mutual-defense commitments. He sought an “impenetrable cybersecurity unit” with Moscow until Lindsey Graham dismissed it as “pretty close” to “the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” He fiercely resisted congressional efforts to impose additional sanctions on Russia; was “apoplectic” when they passed; and would have vetoed the legislation if it weren’t certain he’d be overridden. He ended American support for anti-regime moderates in Syria, paving the way for the Assad regime — and thus its Russian helpers — to consolidate their grip.

Presented with this list, the president’s craven apologists insist he’s right to try to find common ground with Russia. These are the same people who until recently were in full throat against Barack Obama for his overtures to Putin. More measured apologists say he’s merely naïve, just as Obama and Bush were at the beginning of their terms. Yet the alleged naïveté never quits: Just this week, he asked for Putin’s help on North Korea.

The better explanations are: (a) the president is infatuated with authoritarians, at least those who flatter him; (b) he’s neurotically neuralgic when it comes to the subject of his election; (c) he’s ideologically sympathetic to Putinism, with its combination of economic corporatism, foreign-policy cynicism, and violent hostility to critics; (d) he’s stupid; or (e) he’s vulnerable to Russian blackmail.

Each explanation is compatible with all the others. For my part, I choose all of the above — the first four points being demonstrable while the last is logical. But let’s have that conversation at another time. There’s no need to obsess about electoral collusion when the real issue is moral capitulation." ☐



The Real Russia Scandal - The New York Times

Originally Posted by Rockyrd

An opinion piece to be sure, but based on undeniable facts.....

"Cases in point: The president still does not fully accept the verdict of his intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the election. He told Bill O’Reilly that America’s behavior was no better than Putin’s. His attorney general admitted to Congress that the administration had “probably not” taken sufficient measures to prevent future Russian meddling in elections. He explored ways to return two Russian diplomatic compounds in the United States long used for spying until they were seized by the Obama administration.

It continues: He spent the first five months in office resisting efforts to get him to publicly avow NATO’s mutual-defense commitments. He sought an “impenetrable cybersecurity unit” with Moscow until Lindsey Graham dismissed it as “pretty close” to “the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” He fiercely resisted congressional efforts to impose additional sanctions on Russia; was “apoplectic” when they passed; and would have vetoed the legislation if it weren’t certain he’d be overridden. He ended American support for anti-regime moderates in Syria, paving the way for the Assad regime — and thus its Russian helpers — to consolidate their grip.

Presented with this list, the president’s craven apologists insist he’s right to try to find common ground with Russia. These are the same people who until recently were in full throat against Barack Obama for his overtures to Putin. More measured apologists say he’s merely naïve, just as Obama and Bush were at the beginning of their terms. Yet the alleged naïveté never quits: Just this week, he asked for Putin’s help on North Korea.

The better explanations are: (a) the president is infatuated with authoritarians, at least those who flatter him; (b) he’s neurotically neuralgic when it comes to the subject of his election; (c) he’s ideologically sympathetic to Putinism, with its combination of economic corporatism, foreign-policy cynicism, and violent hostility to critics; (d) he’s stupid; or (e) he’s vulnerable to Russian blackmail.

Each explanation is compatible with all the others. For my part, I choose all of the above — the first four points being demonstrable while the last is logical. But let’s have that conversation at another time. There’s no need to obsess about electoral collusion when the real issue is moral capitulation." ☐



The Real Russia Scandal - The New York Times

Undeniable... lol

Originally Posted by Drama Queen

"The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says he is worried that President Trump has not issued an “outright condemnation” of Russia for meddling in the 2016 election.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who was widely viewed as a contender for Trump’s secretary of Homeland Security, told The Hill in a sit-down interview that he has told the administration the president needs to “more forcefully” stand up to Moscow.

But, nearly one year into Trump’s administration, McCaul’s appeal has gone unanswered."

“I think there is a lot of, for whatever reason, avoidance of the issue, or saying that it could have been some other country. When you look at the intelligence, it is very clear the attribution goes directly to the Kremlin,” McCaul said. “That worries me.”

Trump has at times cast doubt on the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia sought to interfere in the election. He has also lashed out at the special counsel investigation into whether his campaign coordinated with Moscow, calling it a “witch hunt.”

GOP chairman worried by Trump's stance on Russian interference | TheHill

"Meanwhile, Trump has sought warmer ties with Vladimir Putin to handle problems like the Syrian civil war and North Korea’s nuclear program. Trump signaled briefly last month that he believed the Russian president when he told him Moscow did not meddle in the election.

The developments have baffled some in the GOP who want to see Trump take a harder line, particularly when it comes to election interference.

“Russia is not going to stop their bad behavior unless there are consequences to it,” McCaul said. “I haven’t seen any consequences, and I fully anticipate in 2018 and certainly the next presidential election that they’ll be trying to do the same thing. And I think we need to be prepared for that.”



And the sanctions passed by the United States Senate 98-2 remain unenforced.

I have a Russian friend, he has an EFIS company. Russian Standard vodka and Russian caviar are very good.
You should be a little more culturally diverse...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk