Here come the Russia Indictments

[vorlon13]

Hard to noodle out the desired outcome though. Chaos for chaos sake is essentially what we have now, why would Putey put up good money to make more ?

Implausible deniability ?


BTW, if someone wants to come here and spend money, I'm having a rough go trying to figure out why anyone would want to stop them, legalities be damned especially when the net outcome is a cypher. I'm reminded of when Pete Rose was gambling on baseball and his weird betting stratagems . . .


Am I expressing too much Midwestern sensibility tonite ?

[Amarok]

Hard to noodle out the desired outcome though. Chaos for chaos sake is essentially what we have now, why would Putey put up good money to make more ?

Because it damn good way of making democracy look bad and a damn fine way of making an dictatorship look good . Particularly his .

Implausible deniability 

Funny bit is Putin knows full well his denials will be rejected anyway . He knows full well the American public tends to believe what they like.

[shadow]

Maybe this is because Bernie was a weaker candidate for the general election, therefore Trump would more easily be able to beat him and Bernie would be preferred by such saboteurs? Tough to know where the conspiracy begins with the incomplete information at this point.

I hope Mueller keeps up the good work! Interesting to see where this goes.

Except that he wasn't a weaker candidate at all. Polled way better vs trump and wouldn't of lost the working class vote.

We interfered in Russia's democracy. By we I mean the Clintons.

I'm thinking, if the Dems went for a more centrist candidate over a more socialist candidate, Hillary was a stronger candidate for the general election. Otherwise why would the Democrats have chosen her? I personally liked Bernie much more but that doesn't mean he would be preferred by undecided voters.

Then again, you might have a point about the disgruntled working class sort of emerging as the deciding voting block of this election, perhaps over the more traditional left/right division.

[Amarok]

We interfered in Russia's democracy. By we I mean the Clintons.

Two wrongs don't make a right .

[Whateverist]

We interfered in Russia's democracy.  By we I mean the Clintons.

Is this what you are referring to?  If so how exactly do you allege that the Clintons fomented the mass protests against Putin?  Are you supposing that they smuggled in mobs of american agents wearing ushankas?

When mass protests against Russian President Vladimir Putin erupted in Moscow in December 2011, Putin made clear who he thought was really behind them: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

With the protesters accusing Putin of having rigged recent elections, the Russian leader pointed an angry finger at Clinton, who had issued a statement sharply critical of the voting results. “She said they were dishonest and unfair,” Putin fumed in public remarks, saying that Clinton gave “a signal” to demonstrators working “with the support of the U.S. State Department” to undermine his power. “We need to safeguard ourselves from this interference in our internal affairs,” Putin declared.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/c...tin-226153

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hard to noodle out the desired outcome though.  Chaos for chaos sake is essentially what we have now, why would Putey put up good money to make more ?

Because the RoI is outstanding. And seeing as how the operation has been going since at least 2014, and perhaps before, keeping up the pressure will capitalize on the previous work, rather than letting it go fallow.

BTW, if someone wants to come here and spend money, I'm having a rough go trying to figure out why anyone would want to stop them, legalities be damned especially when the net outcome is a cypher.  I'm reminded of when Pete Rose was gambling on baseball and his weird betting stratagems . . .

Yes, because the suborning of the electoral process is very analogous to illicit sports gambling.

Am I expressing too much Midwestern sensibility tonite ?

Not really, no. Not at all.

[Minimalist]

Otherwise why would the Democrats have chosen her?

Maybe because she crushed Sanders in the primaries?

Clinton:  16,914,722

Sanders: 13,206,428

She beat him by more than she beat the WLB and a lot of states didn't even have primaries... just that caucus shit.

[vorlon13]

Peak spending for the Russians was < $1,300,000/month. Compared to the upwards of a $1,000,000,000 Hillary vomited forth in her campaign makes me wonder just how freaking hot and seductive those Russki ads were. And not all of them were pro-Trumply either.

In a master stroke of marketing genius in fine tuning the audience for those ads, maybe Hillary, Mook, Podesta and Wasserman-Shultz were the only ones who watched and were affected by them ??


Doesn't explain her primary loss to Obama in 2008 , but I'm the only one left who remembers that . . .

[Thumpalumpacus]

Peak spending for the Russians was < $1,300,000/month. Compared to the upwards of a $1,000,000,000 Hillary vomited forth in her campaign makes me wonder just how freaking hot and seductive those Russki ads were.  And not all of them were pro-Trumply either.  

In a master stroke of marketing genius in fine tuning the audience for those ads, maybe Hillary, Mook, Podesta and Wasserman-Shultz were the only ones who watched and were affected by them ??


Doesn't explain her primary loss to Obama in 2008 , but I'm the only one left who remembers that  . . .

Hillary lost. Get over it.

[Minimalist]

Doesn't explain her primary loss to Obama in 2008 , but I'm the only one left who remembers that . . .

Obama was by far the more energetic candidate.  Something you ought to consider when you consider the relative ease with which she disposed of Sanders, V.  She was just as lousy a candidate the second time around.