Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, Isifhan said:

Where did you read them?

They're in the indictments.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by BRAVEONAWARPATH

[Llevron]

This is the worst way for America to go out for real. 

[killerbee99]

It was a good run..... I mean the American dominance lasted about 200 plus years... Not bad

[Llevron]

What makes me the most upset is that Obama didnt do what I would have done. He trusted the system we have in place. As a black man he should have ****ing known better. 

 

But I can argue thats what made him president material. But damn if I would have let this happen. I would have been branded a tryant first. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Here's a question for anybody who thinks this is a witch hunt... why the **** does Trump care so much about buddying up to Russia? It's not like their economic standing in the world is anything to get all worked up about.

[@DCGoldPants]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Here's a question for anybody who thinks this is a witch hunt... why the **** does Trump care so much about buddying up to Russia? It's not like their economic standing in the world is anything to get all worked up about.

 

He's in MASSIVE debt to "banks" over there who are cozy with their Gov.

[FanboyOf91]

14 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Here's a question for anybody who thinks this is a witch hunt... why the **** does Trump care so much about buddying up to Russia? It's not like their economic standing in the world is anything to get all worked up about.

 

[DogofWar1]

24 minutes ago, killerbee99 said:

It was a good run..... I mean the American dominance lasted about 200 plus years... Not bad

Nah, less than 100.  Britain was the preeminent global power until the early 1900's and arguably held that until WWII.  The US wasn't shabby, but we didn't really hit world power status until late 1800's, and true dominance only started post WWII when Europe needed us to stop the Soviets so we basically had total control of proceedings.  So maybe 70-80 years of true dominance.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

7 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Nah, less than 100.  Britain was the preeminent global power until the early 1900's and arguably held that until WWII.  The US wasn't shabby, but we didn't really hit world power status until late 1800's, and true dominance only started post WWII when Europe needed us to stop the Soviets so we basically had total control of proceedings.  So maybe 70-80 years of true dominance.

and then came the FOXNews GOP....

Edited June 9, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Isifhan]

It's so damn incredible to me that the GOP is so complicit in all this. The founding fathers never considered that. How can you check against that? I get people like Rorbacher  and the typical lunatics but the entire GOP complicit aside from a handful that are on their way out anyway?  A god damn tax cut? What good is it when the US is giving up their standing in the world? It boggles my mind. I've never been so angry, I have a 4 year old and an 20 month old what is the world we're leaving them?

Edited June 9, 2018 by Isifhan

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, killerbee99 said:

It was a good run..... I mean the American dominance lasted about 200 plus years... Not bad

 

More like 60.

[killerbee99]

Yeah, because once Europe weans themselves off of the US, it will be interesting... Just like many though the British Empire would last forever, it didn't and now the US is legitly going down the drain.... Or like the moron in chief loves to say... People are laughing at us

Edited June 9, 2018 by killerbee99

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by visionary

[visionary]

 

[FanboyOf91]

Mom Says Call Dad, Agent Orange.

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 hours ago, visionary said:

 

Brehs, this is conspiracy 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

6 hours ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

 

This is such a weird ratio. 338 likes and 30k+ responses.

[visionary]

 

[DogofWar1]

Not quoting or posting links (to story, at least) because it's still only one source and they don't appear to have published their evidence, but its a space to watch bc Schindler seems to buy it.  4Corners, an Australian TV program (info on them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners_(Australian_TV_program), supposedly obtained evidence of a quid pro quo regarding lifting of sanctions and kickbacks from Rosneft sale.

 

Far too early to know if its legit, but worth watching the space.

[TheGoodBits]

8 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Not quoting or posting links (to story, at least) because it's still only one source and they don't appear to have published their evidence, but its a space to watch bc Schindler seems to buy it.  4Corners, an Australian TV program (info on them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners_(Australian_TV_program), supposedly obtained evidence of a quid pro quo regarding lifting of sanctions and kickbacks from Rosneft sale.

 

Far too early to know if its legit, but worth watching the space.

 

Whether or not they actually have the evidence, it’s only a matter of time until it’s public. 

 

When someone as tight in intelligence circles as Steele comes across an allegation as significant as the Rosneft sale kickbacks, and nails it even down to the % of the company sold off months before it happened, you can assume that particular allegation is true. 

[skinsmarydu]

And I think either Chris Hayes or Rachel covered this a while back. 

There's so much **** going on that I can barely keep track. 

[DogofWar1]

I mean, the likelihood that SOMETHING illegal happened surrounding the Rosneft sale is very high.

 

That being said, regarding this specific story, I'd rate it around a 2 out of 5 in terms of trusting it.

 

For reference, my scale is basically:

 

0 - no more of a source than a random twitter user, no shown evidence, rarely claimed evidence (I know X vs. I have evidence of X), no traction among in-the-know people, facts may be outlandish or contradict known facts.

 

1 - the source is questionable on their face, no hard evidence presented, may or may not claim to have evidence, little to no traction among those in the know, facts tend to fit into known facts but little else to corroborate

 

2 - source appears reputable, no hard evidence presented but usually claimed, likely has some traction among people "in the know," (which is to say people who have familiarity with the system such as ex-officials or individuals who have previously demonstrated some valud allegations fit established facts

 

3 - either multiple sources reporting as true or sourced, independently, without presenting evidence or single source with evidence they've presented (that hasn't been torn to shreds) that hasn't been picked up by other outlets as of yet.  Substantial traction not simply among people "in the know"

 

4 - strongly supported by multiple outlets with some level of evidence presented.  Fits within established facts.  However, evidence doesn't quite rise to "beyond all reasonable doubt" and alleged actors likely deny the reports and offer alibis, which may or may not be disproven shortly thereafter.

 

5 - Evidence presented is sufficient that even a court of law would accept it.  Many outlets independently report with solid evidence to back it up and alibis have been mostly or entirely elininated.

 

In short:

0 - Ignore safely

1 - Ignore for now, will resurface from elsewhere if legs

2 - Watch but take with lots of salt

3 - Watch closely, good chance of true

4 - Very likely true

5 - True

 

I'd rate the present 4Corners report around a 2.  4Corners, on first glance, doesn't seem like an InfoWars level outlet.  Further, several major players on twitter have basically jumped in acting like the allegations are definitely true, and like they knew they were true already.  It fits neatly within established facts and circumstances.  And they are saying they have evidence, which I weigh more heavily than saying "a source says," as its harder to walk back, but nonetheless we need to see the basis for their reporting.