Barack Obama endorses French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron days before runoff election

[jg121783 3,921]

What espionage and infiltration are you referring to? No evidence has been presented to substantiate those claims. By the way endorsements from the president of the United States certainly do count as influencing an election. Except in the case of Brexit the endorsement had the opposite effect of what was desired.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

 

What espionage and infiltration are you referring to? No evidence has been presented to substantiate those claims. By the way endorsements from the president of the United States certainly do count as influencing an election. Except in the case of Brexit the endorsement had the opposite effect of what was desired.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

[jg121783 3,921]

I said evidence not hearsay.

[Dashinka 25,891]

 

Any mailbox hacked? Any Wilkis leaked? Do you have any rebuttal that string together "typical" and "left"?

Didn't President Obama's campaign top aide go to Israel to try and rally against Netanyahu?  There was also questions as to grants the Obama State Department made to anti-Netanyahu groups.  Hmm, might be a bit of trying to influence a foreign election.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/us/politics/former-obama-campaign-aide-now-works-to-oust-netanyahu.html?_r=0

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

 

I said evidence not hearsay.

Ok US intelligence reports are hearsay, but assurances of Putin the criminal are gospel. Got it.

[IAMX 3,055]

 

Ok US intelligence reports are hearsay, but assurances of Putin the criminal are gospel. Got it.

Still waiting for the proof.

 

I'm pretty certain having your election tampered with is a pretty big deal that likewise requires proof. Anything less should be setting off alarms, though clearly the left have lowered their standards for what constitutes as proof to conspiracies, rumors, and hearsay.

 

This idea (more accurately, conspiracy theory, until proven and not a minute sooner) of election hacking, election tampering, etc. would not pass the muster of a civil court's preponderance of evidence standard of proof whatsoever, never mind the criminal court's beyond reasonable doubt standard. 

 

Put bluntly, this is trash. And clearly the left (who hilariously like to associate themselves with logic and science) love trash.

Edited May 5, 2017 by IAMX

[smilesammich 10,727]

wait. before obama said anything about the french election, trump voiced his support for le pen. not to mention the whole "we're moving the us consulate to jerusalem" debacle yesterday..considering trump is now president and obama isn't, uh you guys make zero sense. speaking of hypocrisy..

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

 

Still waiting for the proof.

 

I'm pretty certain having your election tampered with is a pretty big deal that likewise requires proof. Anything less should be setting off alarms, though clearly the left have lowered their standards for what constitutes as proof to conspiracies, rumors, and hearsay.

 

This idea (more accurately, conspiracy theory, until proven and not a minute sooner) of election hacking, election tampering, etc. would not pass the muster of a civil court's preponderance of evidence standard of proof whatsoever, never mind the criminal court's beyond reasonable doubt standard. 

 

Put bluntly, this is trash. And clearly the left (who hilariously like to associate themselves with logic and science) love trash.

The standard above

"

What espionage and infiltration are you referring to? No evidence has been presented to substantiate those claims. "

 

Evidence has been presented, the details are classified, but one cannot say no evidence has been presented. 

 

 This is not evidence for a court, this is evidence to take precaution to protect our country.  I cannot tolerate the cavalier attitude some who are so quick to accuse others of not loving their country but will not defend her against the schemes of a foreign leader.  It is like they care more about their ideology than they do their country. 

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

 

The standard above

"

What espionage and infiltration are you referring to? No evidence has been presented to substantiate those claims. "

 

Evidence has been presented, the details are classified, but one cannot say no evidence has been presented. 

 

 This is not evidence for a court, this is evidence to take precaution to protect our country.  I cannot tolerate the cavalier attitude some who are so quick to accuse others of not loving their country but will not defend her against the schemes of a foreign leader.  It is like they care more about their ideology than they do their country. 

 

 

I don't get it.. people should act on conspiracy theories anyways, just because you believe acting on said conspiracies is protecting the country? That's pretty silly, to put it nicely. 

 

I thought we learned from George W. Bush not to just trust random people (even if government officials) and require proof? It's weird how this standard changes suddenly.

[smilesammich 10,727]

good god the willful ignorance and total dismissal of reality is just..nauseating.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

 

I don't get it.. people should act on conspiracy theories anyways, just because you believe acting on said conspiracies is protecting the country? That's pretty silly, to put it nicely. 

 

I thought we learned from George W. Bush not to just trust random people (even if government officials) and require proof? It's weird how this standard changes suddenly.

On going fbi investigation , investigation in the house and Senate. We don't know all the details but the Russians breached computers with the intent of manipulation of the election and or public opinion. 

You can keep company with those who ignore the attacks on this country or keep company with those who want to defend her

[IAMX 3,055]

 

On going fbi investigation , investigation in the house and Senate. We don't know all the details but the Russians breached computers with the intent of manipulation of the election and or public opinion. 

You can keep company with those who ignore the attacks on this country or keep company with those who want to defend her

I don't see lashing out at foreign countries over something you can't prove to be a logical foreign policy. It's just dumb and dangerous. Even if some random Russians did what you suggest, the response should be what? More worthless sanctions on Russia? Attack them? 

 

I mean the intimation itself that one should act on conspiracies toward a foreign nation is comedy itself but that this attitude stems primarily from leftists upset about Trump winning and acting like a bunch of hysterical and moronic children doesn't exactly help the cause any. 

Edited May 5, 2017 by IAMX

[smilesammich 10,727]

fortunately there are many in government (both sides of the aisle too) that totally disagree that investigating trump/russia (which was going on BEFORE HE WON) is "dumb and dangerous". in fact, they believe the head in the sand approach trump supporters are so fond of is "dumb and dangerous"

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

 

I don't see lashing out at foreign countries over something you can't prove to be a logical foreign policy. It's just dumb and dangerous. Even if some random Russians did what you suggest, the response should be what? More worthless sanctions on Russia? Attack them? 

 

I mean the intimation itself that one should act on conspiracies toward a foreign nation is comedy itself but that this attitude stems primarily from leftists upset about Trump winning and acting like a bunch of hysterical and moronic children doesn't exactly help the cause any. 

Why the defense of Putin?  There were/ are sanctions in place for Crimea and it is hitting the pockets of some wealthy and powerful around him

[IAMX 3,055]

 

Why the defense of Putin?  There were/ are sanctions in place for Crimea and it is hitting the pockets of some wealthy and powerful around him

The irony here is I've not said anything in defense of Putin. Everything I've said relates directly to the evidence (proof) of these claims. Stop with the straw man arguments.

Edited May 5, 2017 by IAMX