Jill Stein: "Ludicrous Russia Conspiracy Theories"

[Gabriel Maxwell]

I'm sorry, but this lady is just way too kooky.

She appeared on MSNBC on Sunday and basically repeated Trump's tiresome narrative that goes along the lines of "it could have been anybody hacking the elections" saying the evidence against the Russians was not definitive, but rather "circumstantial".

Never mind all the principal intel agencies, i.e. the FBI, the CIA, the DHS and the NSA, agreeing definitively it was Russia.

She's against the latest sanctions against Russia, she thinks the Congress shouldn't have passed the bill and Trump shouldn't sign it.

More bizarrely, she defended the North Korean regime saying they had to develop their nuclear weapons to defend themselves against the US.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I don't find what she said in that MSNBC interview all that bad. But, still, her calling the Russian investigations "ludicrous" makes to wonder what they've got on her. Moscow hotel footage? I hope not.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The fact that the DNC chose a private cyber security firm to inspect their servers instead of the DHS or FBI is suspicious in its own right.

That's why I don't mind skepticism of the government's official narrative. Iraq is another prime example of why I'm skeptical of everything the government says.

Do I believe Trump and his cronies were involved in corrupt dealings with Russia? Absolutely. As were the Clintons in a deal that provided uranium in exchange for millions of dollars to their foundation. But I don't believe anybody will be able to directly tie Trump to Russia's hacking and fake news campaign, even if Russia is the likely culprit. It'll likely be a series of corruption and obstruction of justice scandals, which nobody will act on.

As for North Korea, I believe it is deserving of its "demonized" status. However, Stein does have a point that we use demonization to our advantage in exerting regime change and imperialism around the world.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

So it's still all about Hillary.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

As were the Clintons in a deal that provided uranium in exchange for millions of dollars to their foundation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal

 

[Frank Underwood]

So it's still all about Hillary.

I guess you missed the part where I discussed Trump's corruption.

It's actually about exposing both sides, rather than looking at it through a partisan lens.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal

So the takeaway is that it can't be proven that Hillary was directly responsible for the uranium deal. Hmm, sounds a lot like Trump and the Russian hacks.

Of course, one can connect the dots in both cases in order to get a good idea of what transpired. If Trump had been involved in such a deal, everybody would think he's guilty as sin.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It's about exposing both sides, rather than looking at it through a partisan lens.

Oh.

So the takeaway is that it can't be proven that Hillary was directly responsible for the uranium deal. Hmm, sounds a lot like Trump and the Russian hacks.

Of course, one can connect the dots in both cases in order to get a good idea of what transpired.

So it's still all about Hillary.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Oh.


So it's still all about Hillary.

Nope, it's still about both of them. I feel like you're trying to gaslight me into believing I only talk about Hillary, even on threads where I'm clearly discussing Trump's corruption as well.

I suppose the video I posted detailing Trump's corrupt dealings with Russia was also "all about Hillary." The only reason you repeatedly make that claim is because that's the only part of my posts you choose to latch on to.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Nope, it's still about both of them.

And that's it. It's still about both of them. Trump is President, Hillary is history, yet you always manage to insert Hillary into everything.

You may loathe Trump, but it always comes across as if you're tempering his misdeeds with Trumpanzees' standard "...but, Hillary" response.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Nope, it's still about both of them. I feel like you're trying to gaslight me into believing I only talk about Hillary, even on threads where I'm clearly discussing Trump's corruption as well.

I suppose the video I posted detailing Trump's corrupt dealings with Russia was also "all about Hillary." The only reason you repeatedly make that claim is because that's the only part of my posts you choose to latch on to.

And I feel like you're trying to gaslight me into believing your commentary is balanced and that you're concerned about Trump's corrupt dealings because you throw in the occasion, obligatory critical comment about him to prove your objectivity.

But you clearly think Hillary is president. Frankly, you sound like you have more in common with the orange ball of gas's followers.

 

[Frank Underwood]

And I feel like you're trying to gaslight me into believing your commentary is balanced and that you're concerned about Trump's corrupt dealings because you throw in the occasion, obligatory critical comment about him to prove your objectivity.

Why would I feel obligated to prove my objectivity to you people? I've been shit on regardless of who I criticize for months, so I'm sure as hell not looking for anybody's approval.

But you clearly think Hillary is president.

I clearly think she lost to Trump less than a year ago and that analyzing why is important in order to keep Democrats from making the same mistakes.

There's also hypocrisy among Democrats who give Clinton a pass for things they trounce Trump for. I trounce both, and get accused of trying to prove my objectivity. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Frankly, you sound like you have more in common with the orange ball of gas's followers.

Yeah, because they sure as hell seem interested in weeding their party of corruption. I bet they wanted a president who supports single payer, a living wage, and free college too.

 

[Frank Underwood]

And that's it. It's still about both of them. Trump is President, Hillary is history, yet you always manage to insert Hillary into everything.

You may loathe Trump, but it always comes across as if you're tempering his misdeeds with Trumpanzees' standard "...but, Hillary" response.

I'm not trying to temper his misdeeds, but there are times when I feel there are parallels between the two that are worth mentioning.

Trump is president in part because of decisions made by Hillary and the Dems in an election that took place nine months ago. I'd like to see the party reform back into a party of the people, rather than a party of elites and war. I don't see what's wrong with discussing that, while also recognizing the draconian polices and corruption of the Trump Administration. Obviously, the goal is to not have a repeat of that.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Why would I feel obligated to prove my objectivity to you people? I've been shit on regardless of who I criticize for months, so I'm sure as hell not looking for anybody's approval.

The fact that you feel "shit on ... for months" suggests you're indeed looking for somebody's approval.

This is politics. It's not personal. Maybe you'd prefer us to dish out "welfare recipient" slurs like McGarrett did. That seemed pretty personal, but you didn't seem to take it that way -- perhaps because you knew he was full of it.

I clearly think she lost to Trump less than a year ago and that analyzing why is important in order to keep Democrats from making the same mistakes.

There's also hypocrisy among Democrats who give Clinton a pass for things they trounce Trump for. I trounce both, and get accused of trying to prove my objectivity.

Yes, yes, yes. And thanks for fighting the good fight. Again. Really.

What you have to understand is that to some of us, your endlessly injecting Hillary's name and her corruption and her sticking-it-to-Bernie into everything (along with your pallid "see?-I-said-bad-things-about-Trump" concessions) comes off as something other than what you intend or what you seem to think is fair.

So you feel mistreated.

Trump is president in part because of decisions made by Hillary and the Dems in an election that took place nine months ago. I'd like to see the party reform back into a party of the people, rather than a party of elites and war. I don't see what's wrong with discussing that, while also recognizing the draconian polices and corruption of the Trump Administration. Obviously, the goal is to not have a repeat of that.

And that's perfectly valid. Only that's not how you're coming off.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The fact that you feel "shit on ... for months" suggests you're indeed looking for somebody's approval.

This is politics. It's not personal. Maybe you'd prefer us to dish out "welfare recipient" slurs like McGarrett did. That seemed pretty personal, but you didn't seem to take it that way -- perhaps because you knew he was full of it.

Oh, McGarrett and I exchanged words that far exceeded anything taking place now. I most certainly took it personally, but he made it a point to apologize awhile back. We never agreed politically, though.

No, the issues I have with you or anyone else here don't come close to that. But when somebody feels misunderstood as I often do, I think it's only normal to feel a sense of frustration.

Yes, yes, yes. And thanks for fighting the good fight. Again. Really.

What you have to understand is that to some of us, your endlessly injecting Hillary's name and her corruption and her sticking-it-to-Bernie into everything (along with your pallid "see?-I-said-bad-things-about-Trump" concessions) comes off as something other than what you intend or what you seem to think is fair.

So you feel mistreated.

And that's perfectly valid. Only that's not how you're coming off.

I have a better understanding of where you're coming from when you put it like that. Before, I felt like you were telling me what my motives were.

I admit to having a strong anti-establishment bias, and I often feel like I'm "fighting the good fight" alone. It's not like I don't fully stand by my criticisms of Trump, but I think I'm sometimes harder on the Democrats because I expect better of them. I didn't become an anti-establishment activist until I studied the record of corporate Democrats and witnessed the primary rigging. The centrist wing of the party is so far removed from the progressive values Democrats used to support, and I hate seeing them get in bed with Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and even Russia.

The only reason I honed in on Hillary is because she was the Democratic nominee. Truth be told, my disgust is with the entire corporate wing. My desire is to once again have a Congress and a White House that stands up for every citizen, not just the rich elites. That means also disposing of the current GOP cesspool that currently occupy Congress and the White House.

That said, I'm willing to only discuss Trump in Trump related threads. However, I hope threads pertaining to the direction of the Democratic Party will be seen in the spirit they're intended.