Jill Stein: "Ludicrous Russia Conspiracy Theories"

[Gabriel Maxwell]

After all the shoes that have dropped over the past 6 months and all the smoke that has come out of that criminal White House -- which, as I'm writing this, appears to be going nuclear in their desperate attempts to cover up the Trump family crimes and the Trump Organization's filthy money laundering operation -- this woman has the audacity to dismiss the ongoing investigation as "ludicrous Russia conspiracy theories" devised by the Democrats, echoing directly the Trump defense narrative.

Instead of showing at least a morsel of concern the highest office of the land may have been infiltrated by a Russia-linked mobster and his crooked ilk, she practically shrugs it off.

You despicable, treasonous, disgusting hag. Go to hell, Stein.

When this carrot-colored obese criminal and his cackle of sycophants eventually go down in the greatest D.C. scandal ever, you will not have been standing on the right side of history.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

"What is Aleppo?"

There's no reason fringe candidates have to be any more intelligent than our sitting Prez. And some of them aren't.

But as long as you didn't sabotage Bernie, that's apparently okay.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

For one thing, Trump Junior's pressured release of his own emails regarding his team's meeting with the Russians over campaign strategy against Hillary Clinton verifies that the issue hasn't been made up whether this "nothing burger" turns out to be a triple bacon Big Mac with cheese or not.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

At this point it's safe to say - Stein is either on Kremlin payroll, or she's - less nefariously, but not less pathetically - Putin's useful idiot.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The Stein people just still seemed to be focused on the Evils of Hillary as visited upon Sanders.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Why, would you look at that.

"Third party candidate Jill Stein was a surprising addition this week to investigators casting an increasingly wide net in the congressional probe into Russian interference in the election.

Stein’s name was included in a Senate Judiciary Committee letter requesting all communication between President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. and a number of others, including Russian officials and other members of Trump’s presidential campaign."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...widening-investigation-of-russia-and-trump-jr

No wonder she's jumping on Trump's 'fake news' train and blocking people on Twitter.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Instead of showing at least a morsel of concern the highest office of the land may have been infiltrated by a Russia-linked mobster and his crooked ilk, she practically shrugs it off.

Hmm, kind of like the way people here shrugged off the fact that Hillary is a war monger, Wall Street shill, and anti-single payer corporatist who has advocated election tampering herself.

You despicable, treasonous, disgusting hag. Go to hell, Stein.

So denying Russian collusion with Trump is somehow worse than bombing the shit out of the Middle East or suggesting we should have tampered with elections in Palestine? Good to know Clinton is morally superior.

Even with the evidence increasingly pointing to the Trump Administration colluding with Russia, the Democrats were still running on pure conjecture when the investigation first started. It's been so laughable at times that simply criticizing Hillary or any other corporate Democrat has earned people the title of "Russian puppet." The only reason Stein's being investigated in relation to Russia is because she attended a dinner in 2015 where Putin and Trump's national security adviser were also present. Stein claims she was there to promote a peace initiative with the Middle East, and that this is just part of a smear campaign against her.

Although I don't share her opinion that all Russia conspiracies are ludicrous, I still think she had the best platform of any candidate running outside of Bernie Sanders. End the wars, Medicare for all, free public college, no corporate money, end the drug war, etc. People have noticed that corporate Democrats stand for nothing. They still have no vision and rarely discuss any issue outside of Russia. Good luck winning on that alone.

Stein has rightly criticized Dems over their corrupt primary rigging, as well as their "pied piper" strategy that elevated Trump in the media. As Stein put it, that scheme helped launch his disastrous trajectory.

So while you're calling her every name under the sun, the fact is she's been right far more than she's been wrong. Then again, that's also why corporate Democrats hate her. She, along with other progressives, have exposed the fact that Democrats don't give a shit if one of their own advocates election tampering in another country, indiscriminately bombs the Middle East, or screws over a progressive in favor of a corporatist war monger. In their mind, the sins of Hillary and the Democrats are always less important than the sins of Trump's collusion with Russia. In fact, Russia's pretty much the only issue they care about at this point.

And isn't it also funny how the people Republicans and Democrats tell us to hate often cozy up to each other? Like George Carlin said "It's a big club, and you're not in it."

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The only reason Stein's being investigated in relation to Russia is because she attended a dinner in 2015 where Putin and Trump's national security adviser were also present. Stein claims she was there to promote a peace initiative with the Middle East, and that this is just part of a smear campaign against her.

Although I don't share her opinion that all Russia conspiracies are ludicrous

As far as we know, that's the only reason she's been pulled into this investigation. But her response and reaction to it is odd. Just why does she call the Russian probe 'ludicrous'?

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

So denying Russian collusion with Trump is somehow worse than bombing the shit out of the Middle East or suggesting we should have tampered with elections in Palestine? Good to know Clinton is morally superior.

Is that supposed to be a serious question? Your own country infiltrated by a Russian puppet and you're yapping about what Clinton suggested be done about Palestine?

Yes, Hillary Clinton is morally superior to Donald J. Trump. Warts and all.

Even with the evidence increasingly pointing to the Trump Administration colluding with Russia, the Democrats were still running on pure conjecture when the investigation first started.

There had been signs since the summer of 2016, when the FBI initiated their investigation into the Trump campaign. And with each passing month since the election it has gotten worse and worse. While it'll be nice to have a definitive insight into what exactly that cackle of crooks had done, you'd have to blinded with your bizarre anti-Clinton rage not to have seen the true colors of comrade Trump from the beginning.

The only reason Stein's being investigated in relation to Russia is because she attended a dinner in 2015 where Putin and Trump's national security adviser were also present. Stein claims she was there to promote a peace initiative with the Middle East, and that this is just part of a smear campaign against her.

The jury is still out on whether she was infused with Putin cash to enhance her ability to syphon votes away from Clinton.

Although I don't share her opinion that all Russia conspiracies are ludicrous, I still think she had the best platform of any candidate running outside of Bernie Sanders. End the wars, Medicare for all, free public college, no corporate money, end the drug war, etc. People have noticed that corporate Democrats stand for nothing. They still have no vision and rarely discuss any issue outside of Russia. Good luck winning on that alone.

Good luck winning on Jill Stein. A big round of applause for President Stein, everybody.

There is only one thing spoiler Stein succeeded in doing and that is helping Trump into the White House.

In their mind, the sins of Hillary and the Democrats are always less important than the sins of Trump's collusion with Russia. In fact, Russia's pretty much the only issue they care about at this point.

And in your mind there is a big fat equation mark between Clinton and this colossal disaster of a President. And that spells delusion.

I honestly don't see what you're trying to imply with that photo of Clinton meeting Putin at APEC 2012, then in her capacity of Secretary of State. Everyone should know by now Putin despises Clinton's guts and - on top of simply causing chaos in the US, regardless of the outcome - meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump win presidency.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It's always so interesting when two Moon in Capricorns fight.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Is that supposed to be a serious question? Your own country infiltrated by a Russian puppet and you're yapping about what Clinton suggested be done about Palestine?

Yes, Hillary Clinton is morally superior to Donald J. Trump. Warts and all.



There had been signs since the summer of 2016, when the FBI initiated their investigation into the Trump campaign. And with each passing month since the election it has gotten worse and worse. While it'll be nice to have a definitive insight into what exactly that cackle of crooks had done, you'd have to blinded with your bizarre anti-Clinton rage not to have seen the true colors of comrade Trump from the beginning.



The jury is still out on whether she was infused with Putin cash to enhance her ability to syphon votes away from Clinton.



Good luck winning on Jill Stein. A big round of applause for President Stein, everybody.

There is only one thing spoiler Stein succeeded in doing and that is helping Trump into the White House.



And in your mind there is a big fat equation mark between Clinton and this colossal disaster of a President. And that spells delusion.



I honestly don't see what you're trying to imply with that photo of Clinton meeting Putin at APEC 2012, then in her capacity of Secretary of State. Everyone should know by now Putin despises Clinton's guts and - on top of simply causing chaos in the US, regardless of the outcome - meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump win presidency.

I was suggesting that you believe Clinton is morally superior to Stein, not Trump.

Stein's not president because the two party system has a stranglehold on our elections. Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive, which is why they screwed Bernie. How else are they going to keep that corporate cash rolling in? Hillary has a history of supporting war, anti-gay legislation, welfare gutting, election tampering, the Patriot Act, and Wall Street. She also said single payer will never happen.

I loathe Donald Trump, but there was no way I could vote for Hillary in good conscience. Those aren't just small warts to me. I respect those who were pragmatic and felt Trump was worse, but I just couldn't do it.

You say I'm blinded with "bizarre" anti-Clinton rage, but you have a bizarre denial of her flaws. If Russia's meddling in our election is bad, why is it considered "yapping" to point out that Hillary said we should have controlled the outcome of an election in Palestine? When I mentioned how Bush was never prosecuted for war crimes, you said my priorities were messed up. When it was revealed that the DNC had rigged the primaries in Hillary's favor, you said it "wasn't in the same ballpark" as Russia's meddling. So basically, corruption and election meddling are only bad when the victims are corporate Democrats. And that spells delusion.

As for the Clinton/Putin photo, the only thing I was implying is how ridiculous some of Clinton's defenders are. They throw around terms like "Kremlin puppet" with ease. They even called Jill Stein that for being seated at a table near Putin. But show them a photo of Hillary and Putin smiling and shaking hands, and it's the most innocent thing in the world. Trump's a monster, yet there are the Clintons smiling with him and Melania.

It's also interesting that Chuck Schumer and Representative Carolyn Maloney partied in the Hamptons with Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway and David Koch. It reinforces George Carlin's "big club" theory.

 

[Frank Underwood]

As far as we know, that's the only reason she's been pulled into this investigation. But her response and reaction to it is odd. Just why does she call the Russian probe 'ludicrous'?

I don't know why she called it ludicrous, but it turns out the Clintons were involved in some shady business deals with Russia as well. And John Podesta plotted to use Trump's ties to Putin against him seven months before the emails were released. On top of that, the DNC rejected help from the DHS and FBI after they were hacked. Instead, the chose to have a private cyber security firm investigate the hacking.

Russian officials meeting with members of Trump's team and family certainly makes him seem complicit of collusion, but Hillary and the DNC are looking guilty of their own unethical dealings in regards to Russia.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

I was suggesting that you believe Clinton is morally superior to Stein, not Trump.

As I had already said, it's conceivable she is simply Kremlin's useful idiot. The jury is still out on whether she was the recipient of any assistance from Putin.

Either way, only parallels between Trump and Clinton matter, because Stein is an irrelevant fringe candidate whose only potential was helping Donald Trump win.

Stein's not president because the two party system has a stranglehold on our elections.

In other words, she's only capable of pulling in 1% of the total vote with her "winning" agenda.

I loathe Donald Trump, but there was no way I could vote for Hillary in good conscience. Those aren't just small warts to me. I respect those who were pragmatic and felt Trump was worse, but I just couldn't do it.

Do you acknowledge the equation mark you're putting between Clinton and Trump or not? You continue to refuse to weigh in on which one of the two is worse for the people of the United States.

In fact, as it becomes more and more apparent the Trump team did act nefariously with respect to Russia (and what we have learned so far is just the tip of the iceberg), you're ratcheting up Trumpian "but Hillary" suggestions, in order to tip the scales back into a perfect balance between the two, so you can perpetuate the leitmotif of your posts about each establishment party being worse than the other.

Just like Trump always makes sure not to say one bad word about Putin or explicitly acknowledge the Russian meddling, you always make sure your criticism of Trump never eclipses your criticism of Clinton. As much as you say you loathe him.

So basically, corruption and election meddling are only bad when the victims are corporate Democrats. And that spells delusion.

The victims are actually all citizens of the United States. Or the citizens of any other country where that Russian villain thinks he can get away with doing the same. But keep it about the DNC. Who cares your house is on fire.

As for the Clinton/Putin photo, the only thing I was implying is how ridiculous some of Clinton's defenders are. They throw around terms like "Kremlin puppet" with ease. They even called Jill Stein that for being seated at a table near Putin. But show them a photo of Hillary and Putin smiling and shaking hands, and it's the most innocent thing in the world.

If you can't see the obvious difference between the two encounters, I really don't see what else to say.

Trump's a monster, yet there are the Clintons smiling with him and Melania.

I also used to love The Apprentice 12 years ago, but now I would spit into his face if I met him.

I don't know why she called it ludicrous

I assume for a similar reason you just posted a video that contains "Clinton Campaign Invented Trump/Russia Story" in the title.

 

[Frank Underwood]

As I had already said, it's conceivable she is simply Kremlin's useful idiot. The jury is still out on whether she was the recipient of any assistance from Putin.

Either way, only parallels between Trump and Clinton matter, because Stein is an irrelevant fringe candidate whose only potential was helping Donald Trump win.

Fringe candidates are less likely to pull votes away from principled candidates who run on a populist platform.

In other words, she's only capable of pulling in 1% of the total vote with her "winning" agenda.

Third parties are kept out of debates and receive less coverage than the two mainstream parties. That doesn't mean her agenda is to blame. Bernie Sanders was a progressive, and he would have likely beat Trump.

The real failure is neoliberalism. That's why Democrats are wiped out across the board.

Do you acknowledge the equation mark you're putting between Clinton and Trump or not? You continue to refuse to weigh in on which one of the two is worse for the people of the United States.

In fact, as it becomes more and more apparent the Trump team did act nefariously with respect to Russia (and what we have learned so far is just the tip of the iceberg), you're ratcheting up Trumpian "but Hillary" suggestions, in order to tip the scales back into a perfect balance between the two, so you can perpetuate the leitmotif of your posts about each establishment party being worse than the other.

Just like Trump always makes sure not to say one bad word about Putin or explicitly acknowledge the Russian meddling, you always make sure your criticism of Trump never eclipses your criticism of Clinton. As much as you say you loathe him.

I've answered this question before. I said if I had to pick, I would say Trump is worse. But being worse than somebody doesn't mean the other person is a moral standard bearer either.

It's not about ensuring the scales are balanced, it's about acknowledging the corruption and soullessness of a party that elevated Trump to the mainstream in hopes of beating him. When that backfired, Russia and third party candidates like Stein became the obvious scapegoats. That's not to say the Russian probe is bogus, but it has allowed Democrats to sweep their failures under the rug. Polls continue to show that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician, yet they refuse to get on his bandwagon. It was the Dems that killed single payer in California, while Corey Booker said he would only "pause" from taking big pharma money. When House Democratic Caucus chairman Joe Crowley was asked by the Associated Press just what his party’s core message was, he “hesitated” and then said, “That message is being worked on.” They've become just an empty corporate suit.

I've made plenty of posts detailing the horrendous actions of the Trump Administration. I've condemned the travel bans, the border wall, the proposed gutting of healthcare and Medicaid, and the windfall for the rich in return. I've also condemned his billionaire cabinet picks, his lies about three million people illegally voting for Hillary, his violent rhetoric, his petulance, his bragging about sexual assault, etc. What more do you want?

I believe too many people are giving the Democrats a pass simply because Trump is such a blatant piece of shit. If Democrats keep moving towards the right, it's only going to push the Republicans even further right.

The victims are actually all citizens of the United States. Or the citizens of any other country where that Russian villain thinks he can get away with doing the same. But keep it about the DNC. Who cares your house is on fire.

Personally, I feel just as screwed over by the DNC as anybody. Their corruption during the primaries and pied piper strategy for Trump are also to blame for where we are today.

Of course, Hillary was paid handsomely by the Russians in exchange for uranium, so she's not squeaky clean either. And Bill gave a $500,000 speech to a Kremlin-backed bank.

If you can't see the obvious difference between the two encounters, I really don't see what else to say.

Stein was there to push peace with the Middle East. She's seated at the same table as Putin, but isn't shown speaking to him. Why is that nefarious, but Putin and Clinton smiling and shaking hands isn't?

I assume for a similar reason you just posted a video that contains "Clinton Campaign Invented Trump/Russia Story" in the title.

I didn't title the video, and that's not why I posted it. I've already said I believe the Trump/Russia collusion story has merit.

The purpose of posting that video was the meat of it, which was the Clintons' lucrative deal with the Russians, and the fact that they had planed on using Russia against Trump before the hacking took place.

There's also the fact that they refused to let the DHS or FBI investigate their servers, which makes it seem like they had something to hide.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

That's not to say the Russian probe is bogus, but it has allowed Democrats to sweep their failures under the rug.

There's something wrong with that point. Let's all try to find it.

 

[Frank Underwood]

There's something wrong with that point. Let's all try to find it.

What's wrong with it?

Are you saying Democrats haven't tried to blame Hillary's loss primarily on Russia? Or that they haven't tried to sweep her failed campaign strategy, neoliberalism, or DNC primary rigging under the rug? I see them constantly looking for scapegoats. It's like when Hillary claimed to take responsibility for her loss, and then proceeded to blame it on Comey, Russia, sexists, and the media. Hillary and other corporate Democrats are too quick to blame her loss on these "external forces." A foreign government should not meddle in our elections, but the email leaks wouldn't have hurt Hillary and the Democrats had they been acting above board.

A lot of progressives I look up to try to dismiss the Trump/Russia collusion angle completely, and I'm not in that camp. That being said, I'm also not in the camp that believes Russia is solely responsible for President Trump.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

What's wrong with it?

Darn that pesky little inconvenient probe for allowing the Democrats to muddle the point I'm trying to make about them.

The principal problem here is - and we've already been over this, I don't know why I'm rehashing this tiresome discussion - your focus is always with the DNC and not with the assault of a foreign adversary on your country.

And that's because you refuse to acknowledge the full extent of the Russian meddling, despite your claims of being one of the more open-minded progressives with respect to the probe.

You're like Trump - for him to explicitly acknowledge the Russian meddling delegitimizes his win (plus I'd say he was a part of it and is guilty as sin). For you to acknowledge the full scope of the Russian meddling, it weakens your reasons why Clinton lost.

Even in the post above you once again reduce the meddling to illegally obtaining the DNC emails - which, by the way, Russians spiked with fakes, as they did in France - and releasing them. Which of course even you have to contend is wrong, but you can still argue, as you always do: if there hadn't been maleficence on the part of the DNC, the Russians wouldn't have been able to accomplish anything.

The Russian cyber assault on the US however went way beyond that. They targeted specific areas in the US and specific voters in those areas that the data processing systems -- developed and supplied to the Russians by Robert Mercer (Trump's ultra-conservative shadowy donor pulling the strings behind the scenes) and Jared Kushner -- identified as vulnerable and bombarded them with fake news about Hillary Clinton.

Sure, sure, what idiot would believe all that obviously fake news, yada, yada... Well, there's a lot of gullible morons out there who fell for Don's con and you'd be surprised what inanities they'll gulp down. And all they needed was 77,000 of those morons.

Can we say definitively that is what flipped the election in Trump's favor? No we can't. But we also can't say definitively that it didn't. And that is the most frustrating, dangerous and effective part of what the Russians did to the US in 2016.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Darn that pesky little inconvenient probe for allowing the Democrats to muddle the point I'm trying to make about them.

A point which is no less valid. It is possible to acknowledge Russian interference, and Democratic corruption at the same time. And the fact that the Democrats have used Russia's interference as a shield against criticism.

The principal problem here is - and we've already been over this, I don't know why I'm rehashing this tiresome discussion - your focus is always with the DNC and not with the assault of a foreign adversary on your country.

And that's because you refuse to acknowledge the full extent of the Russian meddling, despite your claims of being one of the more open-minded progressives with respect to the probe.

You're like Trump - for him to explicitly acknowledge the Russian meddling delegitimizes his win (plus I'd say he was a part of it and is guilty as sin). For you to acknowledge the full scope of the Russian meddling, it weakens your reasons why Clinton lost.

Does it weaken why she lost? If you don't campaign to working class voters in the rust belt, but your opponent does, can the loss of the rust belt really be blamed on Russian interference? If Hillary hadn't won the popular vote by three million, I'd be more inclined to accept the premise that Russia's meddling cost her the election. In actuality, she lost the electoral college based on losing key swing states she didn't campaign in.

Even in the post above you once again reduce the meddling to illegally obtaining the DNC emails - which, by the way, Russians spiked with fakes, as they did in France - and releasing them. Which of course even you have to contend is wrong, but you can still argue, as you always do: if there hadn't been maleficence on the part of the DNC, the Russians wouldn't have been able to accomplish anything.

The Russian cyber assault on the US however went way beyond that. They targeted specific areas in the US and specific voters in those areas that the data processing systems -- developed and supplied to the Russians by Robert Mercer (Trump's ultra-conservative shadowy donor pulling the strings behind the scenes) and Jared Kushner -- identified as vulnerable and bombarded them with fake news about Hillary Clinton.

Sure, sure, what idiot would believe all that obviously fake news, yada, yada... Well, there's a lot of gullible morons out there who fell for Don's con and you'd be surprised what inanities they'll gulp down. And all they needed was 77,000 of those morons.

Can we say definitively that is what flipped the election in Trump's favor? No we can't. But we also can't say definitively that it didn't. And that is the most frustrating, dangerous and effective part of what the Russians did to the US in 2016.

So now the emails were spiked with fakes? I never heard that before. If true, I don't see the point. The valid emails were damaging enough on their own. And yes, that does go back to DNC maleficence.

As for only focusing on the leaked emails, the majority of people who talk about Russian interference focus primarily on that too. Most likely because illegally obtaining and releasing private emails is the bigger criminal offense. I've acknowledged the fake news campaigns in the past, but I still contend that anybody dumb enough to fall for Alex Jones style lunacy in the first place would never have voted for Hillary.

Of course, I still contend that Russia shouldn't have interfered in any way in our election, including the spreading of fake news. That's why I support imposing sanctions against them. And yes, I still consider myself an open-minded progressive because there are many out there who believe the entire Russia investigation was drummed up by the Democrats. And while we've learned the Clintons are involved in their own Russia scandal, and that John Podesta was going to use Russia against Trump pre-email leaks, it doesn't mean Trump is guilt free either. Enough evidence has come to light that strongly suggests he colluded with Russia.

You're right that we can't definitively say any one thing flipped the election in Trump's favor, but we can look back at how the election played out to get a good idea. In a video I posted on another thread, Dylan Ratigan said one can acknowledge the likelihood of Trump colluding with Russia, while also acknowledging the neoliberal failures of Democrats. In a video I'm posting here, he states what he believes led to Trump's presidency.

He used to be an MSNBC talking head, but you'll never hear his line of reasoning on that network. Now he's on TYT.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

If you don't campaign to working class voters in the rust belt, but your opponent does, can the loss of the rust belt really be blamed on Russian interference?

I will give credit to the Trump/Putin campaign & Mercer/Kushner data processing on doing a better job micro-targeting economically disadvantaged and poorly educated voters than the Clinton team.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I will give credit to the Trump/Putin campaign & Mercer/Kushner data processing on doing a better job micro-targeting economically disadvantaged and poorly educated voters than the Clinton team.

Or reaching out to them in person and saying I will create jobs and end the TPP vs. not going there at all.

It's been reported that the Hillary campaign wrote off working class voters, while ignoring warnings on the ground that doing so was having a negative impact. Chuck Schumer even said "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in Western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin." That shows what the party thinks of working class voters.
You cam blame it on a barrage of fake news directed at the poorly educated and poverty stricken, but the working class voters I've seen interviewed tell a different story. Same goes for people on the ground in those states.