I'm glad you know this, because Russian dissident Greens were incensed at Jill Stein's dinner with Putin. They obviously feel very different about his ambitions.
I'm talking about support for far right win parties across Europe.
From the article: "[It's] not a story playing back home. Our focus is on other issues; we have big agenda items we want to accomplish," he said.
Big issues like gutting Social Security and Medicare ...
Nazis fighting against Nazis in Ukraine.
Russia supports the far right all over Europe.
Zionists support Trump.
Tell you what. Let's have a Congressional enquiry into the USA's meddling in the Chilean elections in 1975 and the USA's intelligence communities' support for General Pinochet.
We already had the national security adviser resign because of his Russian ties. Do you really find it hard to believe that there isn't more?
Link please? I've never heard that before.
If that is not a rhetorical question then I have to ask you "do you not know the role of the VP?"
Hmmmm. Decifering your sentence fragments is difficult. My post was highlighting the reversal of Obama first claiming US elections were never rigged (hence, the link I provided) , and later after Dems losing, changing his tune and claiming that the election was rigged.
You don't remember Obama ordering the See-Eye-Aye to investigate a rigged election? That just happened. What planet were you on?
I think you're just pretending not to know about what the rest of us know happened.
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said in a television interview that the “Russian government is not the source.”
The White House and CIA officials declined to comment.
On Friday, the White House said President Obama had ordered a “full review” of Russian hacking during the election campaign, as pressure from Congress has grown for greater public understanding of exactly what Moscow did to influence the electoral process.
“We may have crossed into a new threshold, and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned,” Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said.
During her remarks, Monaco didn’t address the latest CIA assessment, which hasn’t been previously disclosed.
Seven Democratic senators last week asked Obama to declassify details about the intrusions and why officials believe that the Kremlin was behind the operation. Officials said Friday that the senators specifically were asking the White House to release portions of the CIA’s presentation.
This week, top Democratic lawmakers in the House also sent a letter to Obama, asking for briefings on Russian interference in the election.
U.S. intelligence agencies have been cautious for months in characterizing Russia’s motivations, reflecting the United States’ long-standing struggle to collect reliable intelligence on President Vladimir Putin and those closest to him.
In previous assessments, the CIA and other intelligence agencies told the White House and congressional leaders that they believed Moscow’s aim was to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system. The assessments stopped short of saying the goal was to help elect Trump.
On Oct. 7, the intelligence community officially accused Moscow of seeking to interfere in the election through the hacking of “political organizations.” Though the statement never specified which party, it was clear that officials were referring to cyber-intrusions into the computers of the DNC and other Democratic groups and individuals.
Some key Republican lawmakers have continued to question the quality of evidence supporting Russian involvement.
“I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
[U.S. investigating potential covert Russian plan to disrupt elections]
Though Russia has long conducted cyberspying on U.S. agencies, companies and organizations, this presidential campaign marks the first time Moscow has attempted through cyber-means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election, the officials said.
The reluctance of the Obama White House to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions before Election Day upset Democrats on the Hill as well as members of the Clinton campaign.
Within the administration, top officials from different agencies sparred over whether and how to respond. White House officials were concerned that covert retaliatory measures might risk an escalation in which Russia, with sophisticated cyber-capabilities, might have less to lose than the United States, with its vast and vulnerable digital infrastructure.
The White House’s reluctance to take that risk left Washington weighing more-limited measures, including the “naming and shaming” approach of publicly blaming Moscow.
By mid-September, White House officials had decided it was time to take that step, but they worried that doing so unilaterally and without bipartisan congressional backing just weeks before the election would make Obama vulnerable to charges that he was using intelligence for political purposes.
Instead, officials devised a plan to seek bipartisan support from top lawmakers and set up a secret meeting with the Gang of 12 — a group that includes House and Senate leaders, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of both chambers’ committees on intelligence and homeland security.
Obama dispatched Monaco, FBI Director James B. Comey and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to make the pitch for a “show of solidarity and bipartisan unity” against Russian interference in the election, according to a senior administration official.
Specifically, the White House wanted congressional leaders to sign off on a bipartisan statement urging state and local officials to take federal help in protecting their voting-registration and balloting machines from Russian cyber-intrusions.
Though U.S. intelligence agencies were skeptical that hackers would be able to manipulate the election results in a systematic way, the White House feared that Russia would attempt to do so, sowing doubt about the fundamental mechanisms of democracy and potentially forcing a more dangerous confrontation between Washington and Moscow.
And so it follows that Trump is the agent to deliver a more equitable society? Surely you don't believe that Trump gives a flying cluck about the working class do you?
I mean, do you?
And I called Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the Neocons involved in that, including the insufferable John McCain.
But you aren't troubled that Trump has more than piled on in this regard?
Or haven't you noticed.
Show me something more than theories and accusations. The other side of the story sees Trump and Putin setting the stage to compete against each other for the Top Dog position, each hoping to dominate the other. What Putin has that Trump lacks: experience and common sense.
He cares about the working class the way the working class cares about those who have already been phased out of the job market, left destitute.
Yes, I do. That's why when year after year of falling in world standards to number 43 in prosperity of all 300 countries in the world, you have to do something different. Clinton was more of the same Wall Street abuse and treason. We had to stop her.
You've got to give the Devil his due: Trump squashed TPP and next TISA and NAFTA which were going to squash US Labor Law.
It's ironic, I know, but Trump is really helping the Union worker here. Sometimes, in the Union World, you have to do business with unsavory characters like La Guadia, or the mob. That is the known history of the Teamsters and Jimmy Hoffa. Go rent the flick: "F.I.S.T." starring Sylvester Stallone to get a taste of how our Union rights and Federal Labor Law grew out of the 1930's Black Boots and Ballbats picket lines. It' a good flick. You'll like it.
Trump is mob. Mob knows America needs her jobs back. If we can't have Sanders, our alternate is Frankenstein.
And he's loose. I hope he burns down the whole D.C. town!
We've been here before. A hostile FDR finally acquiesced and became "A Traitor to his Class" (of billionaires) and gave us a new deal. If Donald can cut a deal with US Labor and really tax the globalization mob (Clinton and Robert Reich and Larry Summers) for exporting our jobs to slave China, then's he's all we got right now. The way the establishment is going after him makes me like him more every day. I'm actually starting to trust him.
All our enemies hate him. The bushes hate him. The Clintons hate him. The Five-Eyes hate him. Even the GOP hates him. Ryan hates him.
If you are right, then we just got fooled again.
Try and remember, I did not write this really bad movie; I was drafted into it. I'm trying to make lemonade out of this rotten stinking pile of dead fruits.
Poppycock. We don't have a jobs problem in the US, we have a wage problem. If a little manufacturing comes back to non-union right-to-work states, the wage problem persists. Those jobs won't be paying $25/hour. They'll be paying $9 or $10. No reason to pay more, is there? Of course, it still doesn't solve the problem of comparative advantage, and tarriffs are not the answer, considering they'll hurt more than help domestically.
This is the first post you've ever written that I almost agree with. Except for the first line, but I gave you a like anyway.
Pop Quiz, scholar:
Q: How many jobs are there in the USA?
Q: How many people are there in the USA?
Keeping in mind that many people hold two or three of these jobs, and that many are part time, I'd say the USA has a job problem. Wouldn't you?
But your point about fair wages is correct. If more employee groups had unionized, and Wall Street Mart didn't use the FBI to spy on labor leaders and then off-shore their jobs, maybe we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place.
I blame the T.V.
Union bashing 24/7. Unions bad, cause of unemployment, all day long. Clinton on the BOD of Wall Street Mart at about the same time as the Goonsquad started illegally wire-tapping Union leaders. But I disagree with you on "tarriffs" (sic).
Without them, and allowing TPP madness, USA wages will be dragged down closer to their slave counterparts in China.
Yes they do...
He is NOT going to ":burn down the whole D.C. town." .... only the parts that benefit him..... Hey, damn it... look who he picked as Labor secretary..... really?.... Good damn thing the guy opted out.... probably afraid of what would be found out about him.... you cannot tell me, Trump cares about the working person, if he chose that guy.. Puzder....
I think I misread Chicken's post as a question to me when he/she asked "Do you?"
I, TJ, do care about the American worker.
I think you are probably right, Trump does not care about the worker per se. He only cares about his ego in front of the camera. But that was his vehicle to the presidency, bringing back American jobs. If he doesn't do it, he's going to be hated and he knows it. Does Bannon care? I wonder.