A Noun, a Verb and Vladimir Putin: Why the Democrats are making a big mistake obsessing over Russia

The Politico ^ | June 4, 2017 | Matt Latimer

[2ndDivisionVet]

The Democrats’ strategy could be summed up in two words: Donald Trump.

He was, they asserted again and again, unacceptable, immoral and corrupt. Every focus group they assembled raised serious questions about his disparagement of various ethic groups, his brutish mannerisms, his business ties to foreign governments, his lack of qualifications. Almost every professional polling firm showed deep and mounting disapproval of his behavior—he was, they calculated, the most unpopular candidate in American history. Many in the Republican establishment criticized or outright denounced him. And yet, defying all the confident predictions right up until election night, Trump managed to eke out a shocking victory, relying particularly on a surge of “forgotten voters” in the Midwest.

You’d be forgiven, of course, if you thought this was a recap of the 2016 election. Actually, it’s what the same pundits who got 2016 so wrong very well might be saying again four years from now. Such a mind-blowing, spirit-crushing, defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory redo of the last election should keep smart Democratic operatives up at night. Yet it doesn’t.

Like Inspector Javert or, perhaps more appropriately, Wile E. Coyote, the Democrats remain fixated on getting their man, Trump, and proving wrong the voters who elected him. At first glance, the daily drip of new and shocking revelations over Russia looks like a mounting shadow over the White House, and it very well may prove to be its undoing. But the instant scandal—it seemed to start the minute Trump was declared president-elect—also threatens to further decimate the Democratic Party. And Democrats don’t seem to know it.

To those with a bit of distance from cable news—that is, every sane person in America—Democrats seem to be replaying the exact strategy that lost them the last election. What, pray tell, is the Democratic Party’s message otherwise? That they don’t like Russia, except when they did? That they believe Russia is the biggest national security threat to America, except when it wasn’t? Democrats appear to have spent about two minutes trying to figure out why the voters of Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and, very nearly, Minnesota rejected them only a few months ago. And why, despite an ostensibly popular Obama presidency, they now have less political power than at any point in memory. But this is hard and painful spadework, and what’s unearthed might prove unpleasant. So why bother?

What did the Democrats do to rebuild the faith and trust of the “forgotten” voters they still seem to have trouble remembering? They doubled down. The first thing they did after the biggest political disaster in their history was to keep their leadership team intact. In the House, they soundly rejected an Ohio Democrat (a what?) from blue-collar Youngstown (where?) in favor of a liberal from California, the state that single-handedly gave them the false comfort of a popular-vote victory in 2016. And the second thing they did was Russia, Russia, Russia.

Nothing seems to have been done to reach out to those who almost upended the Clinton coronation. Are Bernie Sanders’ voters now OK with the Democratic Party establishment? Who knows? Do the Democrats have a tax cut plan to aid the middle class, a position on trade to respond to the woes of the manufacturing class, or a plan to fix health care? Uh, boring! By the way, who is leading the Democratic Party today? Obama? Clinton? Pelosi? Schumer? Warren? TBD? Who cares?

The real answer, of course, appears to be Vladimir Putin. Whatever rhetorical white rabbit he sends out into the atmosphere, the Democrats scamper after. For those who haven’t been following their evolving storyline: The Russians tampered with the vote tallies in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and then had proof Trump hired prostitutes at a hotel in Moscow for some X-rated sex acts and then worked with Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort to rig the election and then somehow Jared Kushner got involved while President Trump allegedly gave the Russians illegal intelligence and called the FBI director a nut job. Hard to follow? Well, don’t worry. It’s just bad, trust us, and we’ll prove it all, or part of it. Or move on to something else.

Besides the confusion, there’s another little problem with this modern remake of “From Russia With Love.” There are serious issues to be examined, to be sure, but they won’t be given a fair hearing when the Democratic Party, as partisan an organization as they come, is leading the effort every day. Politicizing the investigation from the outset, rather than giving the president the benefit of the doubt and letting investigators report their findings first after an impartial inquiry, severely jeopardizes the legitimacy of any potential prosecution. When half the country believes the Democrats and the media are in cahoots, and most partisans are siloed off to their favorite media outlets and eschewing other sources of information, it makes it hard for "Watergate 2: The Series" to make it on the airwaves. Even Mike Morrell, the former CIA acting director who accused Trump of being a Russian stooge as he signed up for the Clinton campaign, thinks the media is hyping the story and showing bias against the president.

There are, here and there, warning signs that maybe the Democrats might want to, you know, focus on their own political problems. In April, the Democratic National Committee had its worst fundraising month in nearly a decade. As was seen in crucial states during the 2016 contest, African-American turnout remains a serious concern. The voters of admittedly red-state Montana just elected a guy who has been charged with assault instead of a (seemingly) competent Democrat with a clean police record. Reporters who actually spoke to voters in places like Ohio seem to have found some shrugs over the Russia frenzy. More than two-thirds of voters, according to at least one ABC News/Washington Post poll (if you believe polls anymore), said the Democrats were “out of touch.” The Democrats—yes, the Democrats—scored lower than Trump and the Republicans on that issue.

Trump, meanwhile, is trying to regain his message on border security, tax cuts, Obamacare repeal and telling off Europeans to their faces. You know, the kind of politically incorrect, occasionally rude things that actually ended up helping him win the election. A few weeks ago, a sociologist at Columbia University flatly predicted that Trump will be reelected in 2020. In an even crueler blow to the Democrats, an ABC poll released in April found that Trump would beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote if there were a hypothetical rematch. (A rematch that at least one humble genius long ago predicted.)

What should the Democrats do now? Obviously their current hope is that Trump will resign, or be impeached, or be so completely discredited with endless leaks, allegations and charges that anyone could beat him. (Where have we heard that strategy before?) Of course, if the Democrats do get their wish, and Trump is forced out early, then they get President Mike Pence—who has a pleasant demeanor, is an even more reliably conservative Republican than his boss and, last time I checked, does not have a secret Russian passport.

A smarter move for Democrats might be to forge and focus on their own policy agenda to reach the voters they lost. They might want to take a breath while they let the Justice Department’s special counsel, the widely acclaimed Robert Mueller, conduct his investigation independently. Pulling this off, of course, would require the Democrats to break their symbiotic relationship with the media. And the media will never let the Russia story go even if it sometimes reads like a low-rent John Le Carré novel.

Until wiser minds prevail, the Democrats seem to be betting that the entire Trump team will go to prison. A long shot, to be sure, but a hell of a lot easier than doing the difficult work of figuring out what American voters actually want.

[clearcarbon]

The next Russian that walks into the DNC and offers to sell a national election fill get fed to hungry polar bears.

[mrreaganaut]

All true, but we should guard against complacency. Furthermore, we should probably all run for office ourselves, considering that Deep State owns half the Republican party.

[Candor7]

A long shot, to be sure, but a hell of a lot easier than doing the difficult work of figuring out what American voters actually want.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What American voters really want now is Donald J Trump. All the figuring in the world will not change that fact.

Resistance? Pah!

What American voters want:

[TalBlack]

The Democrats CAN’T BE WRONG. That’s it in a nutshell. They will now try to prove EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD WRONG WRONG WRONG. Pride goeth before a fall...

[WHBates]

Bump

[wastoute]

Why? Because it is working. The news is Russia, Russia, Russia. Not “how many years will Hillary get?” “What did 0bama know and when did he know it?” See? It is working.

[Sirius Lee]

I don't believe cankles won the popular vote either. The demoncraps cheated, stuffed ballots, double counted by the millions.

Until these creeps start seeing jail time it's not going to get better.

[iontheball]

Here we have a Uniiparty Republican giving free advice to Democrats.

[ETL]

Why the Democrats are making a big mistake obsessing over Russia

Maybe because THEY are the ones who were actually in cahoots with the Russians?

[ETL]

Who’s in Putin’s Pocket — Clinton or Trump? (Clinton Uranium RussiaGate scandal)

The New American ^ | August 3, 2016 | William F. Jasper

"according to some calculations, the Uranium One deal, involving top Clinton donors Frank Guistra and Ian Telfer, has transferred as much as 50 percent of projected American uranium production to Kremlin control."

***********************************************

RUSSIAGATE

Who paid Bill Clinton's $2.5 million commission & $500,000 speaking fee (US uranium to Russia)

qura.com ^ | July 27, 2016 | Sierra Spaulding

Who paid Bill Clinton's $2.5 million commission and $500k speaking fee for brokering the sale of 20% of America's uranium deposits to Russia?

You are speaking about a really interesting deal that ended up giving Vladimir Putin and the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. ..."

[ETL]

Oct 2016

WikiLeaks Show How Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta Became ‘Business Partners with Vladimir Putin’

“...WikiLeaks emails provide proof that the “Clintons have a long and lucrative history of financial deals with the Russians, particularly with the Russian government.”

Schweizer explained the “deep ties” the Clintons have to Russia, specifically how in 2010 then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the sale and transfer of 20% of U.S. uranium output to the Russian government ...”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/22/schweizer-wikileaks-show-clinton-campaign-chair-john-podesta-became-business-partners-vladimir-putin/

[ETL]

Sen. D’Amato Drops Bomb: Hillary Allowed Russia to Take Ownership of US Uranium to Sell to Iran (Video at link)

Jim Hoft
Jul 3rd, 2016

Former Senator Al D’Amato (R-NY) dropped a bomb on Sunday Morning Futures this AM. D’Amato told Maria Bartiromo that Hillary allowed Russia to take ownership of US uranium so they could sell it to Iran.

Hillary made it possible for the Russians to take control of one of our huge uranium producers and allow them to own the company, export the uranium and who do they sell the uranium to? Iran!

Now if people knew that and that the foundation as a result of that got $135 million. I think people would start saying, “What?”

It’s true.
In January 2013, Pravda celebrated the Russian atomic energy agency’s purchase of the company “Uranium One” in Canada.

That same company, Uranium One, owned uranium concessions in the United States. Because uranium is a strategically important commodity, the Russians would need approval from the Obama administration, including Hillary’s State Department, before the purchase took place.

Nine shareholders in Uranium One just happened to provide more than $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation in the run-up to State Department approval.

The Clintons took the cash from Uranium One officials before the deal was approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The Clintons hid the donations which is a clear violation of the Memorandum of Understanding Hillary Clinton signed with the Obama administration wherein she promised and agreed to publicly disclose all donations during her tenure as Secreatary of State. (Via Breitbart)

The New York Times reported on the crooked deal in 2015.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And then there’s this...

Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) told Greta Van Susteren the deal Hillary approved gave Putin ownership of 20 percent of US uranium and Russia sells uranium to unfriendly countries, including Iran.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/senator-damato-drops-bomb-hillary-allowed-russia-take-ownership-us-uranium-sell-iran-video/

______________________________________________________________

Obama allowing Iran to purchase uranium from Russia

Daniel Horowitz | January 10, 2017

Remember those side deals Obama forged with Iran that were not part of the text of the official treaty? Now we are finding out some of the details.

Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Iranian officials confirmed they have received at least $10 billion in cash, commodities, and assets from Washington since 2013. And that is likely a conservative estimate.

But cash is not the only thing the Islamic Republic of Iran is receiving for gracing us with their willingness to sign onto our own capitulation. The AP is reporting that Russia, with the support of President Obama, is shipping Iran 116 metric tons of natural uranium.

While Iranian officials have obviously declined to disclose the use of such uranium, AP notes that this is enough to enrich weapons-grade uranium for nuclear bombs:

“Despite present restrictions on its enrichment program, however, the amount of natural uranium is significant should Iran decide to keep it in storage, considering its potential uses once some limits on Tehran’s nuclear activities start to expire in less than a decade.

David Albright, whose Institute of Science and International Security often briefs U.S. lawmakers on Iran’s nuclear program, says the shipment could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium for more than 10 simple nuclear bombs, “depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon.” ...”

See more at:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/obama-allowing-iran-to-purchase-uranium-from-russia-will-tillerson-reverse-course#sthash.guYPvONI.dpuf
_______________________________________

Sen. D’Amato Drops Bomb: Hillary Allowed Russia to Take Ownership of US Uranium to Sell to Iran (Video at link)

Jim Hoft
Jul 3rd, 2016

Former Senator Al D’Amato (R-NY) dropped a bomb on Sunday Morning Futures this AM. D’Amato told Maria Bartiromo that Hillary allowed Russia to take ownership of US uranium so they could sell it to Iran.

Hillary made it possible for the Russians to take control of one of our huge uranium producers and allow them to own the company, export the uranium and who do they sell the uranium to? Iran!

Now if people knew that and that the foundation as a result of that got $135 million. I think people would start saying, “What?”

It’s true.
In January 2013, Pravda celebrated the Russian atomic energy agency’s purchase of the company “Uranium One” in Canada.

That same company, Uranium One, owned uranium concessions in the United States. Because uranium is a strategically important commodity, the Russians would need approval from the Obama administration, including Hillary’s State Department, before the purchase took place.

Nine shareholders in Uranium One just happened to provide more than $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation in the run-up to State Department approval.

The Clintons took the cash from Uranium One officials before the deal was approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The Clintons hid the donations which is a clear violation of the Memorandum of Understanding Hillary Clinton signed with the Obama administration wherein she promised and agreed to publicly disclose all donations during her tenure as Secreatary of State. (Via Breitbart)

The New York Times reported on the crooked deal in 2015.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And then there’s this...

Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) told Greta Van Susteren the deal Hillary approved gave Putin ownership of 20 percent of US uranium and Russia sells uranium to unfriendly countries, including Iran.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/senator-damato-drops-bomb-hillary-allowed-russia-take-ownership-us-uranium-sell-iran-video/

______________________________________________________________

Obama allowing Iran to purchase uranium from Russia

Daniel Horowitz | January 10, 2017

Remember those side deals Obama forged with Iran that were not part of the text of the official treaty? Now we are finding out some of the details.

Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Iranian officials confirmed they have received at least $10 billion in cash, commodities, and assets from Washington since 2013. And that is likely a conservative estimate.

But cash is not the only thing the Islamic Republic of Iran is receiving for gracing us with their willingness to sign onto our own capitulation. The AP is reporting that Russia, with the support of President Obama, is shipping Iran 116 metric tons of natural uranium.

While Iranian officials have obviously declined to disclose the use of such uranium, AP notes that this is enough to enrich weapons-grade uranium for nuclear bombs:

“Despite present restrictions on its enrichment program, however, the amount of natural uranium is significant should Iran decide to keep it in storage, considering its potential uses once some limits on Tehran’s nuclear activities start to expire in less than a decade.

David Albright, whose Institute of Science and International Security often briefs U.S. lawmakers on Iran’s nuclear program, says the shipment could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium for more than 10 simple nuclear bombs, “depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon.” ...”

See more at:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/obama-allowing-iran-to-purchase-uranium-from-russia-will-tillerson-reverse-course#sthash.guYPvONI.dpuf
_______________________________________

Sen. D’Amato Drops Bomb: Hillary Allowed Russia to Take Ownership of US Uranium to Sell to Iran (Video at link)

Jim Hoft
Jul 3rd, 2016

Former Senator Al D’Amato (R-NY) dropped a bomb on Sunday Morning Futures this AM. D’Amato told Maria Bartiromo that Hillary allowed Russia to take ownership of US uranium so they could sell it to Iran.

Hillary made it possible for the Russians to take control of one of our huge uranium producers and allow them to own the company, export the uranium and who do they sell the uranium to? Iran!

Now if people knew that and that the foundation as a result of that got $135 million. I think people would start saying, “What?”

It’s true.
In January 2013, Pravda celebrated the Russian atomic energy agency’s purchase of the company “Uranium One” in Canada.

That same company, Uranium One, owned uranium concessions in the United States. Because uranium is a strategically important commodity, the Russians would need approval from the Obama administration, including Hillary’s State Department, before the purchase took place.

Nine shareholders in Uranium One just happened to provide more than $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation in the run-up to State Department approval.

The Clintons took the cash from Uranium One officials before the deal was approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The Clintons hid the donations which is a clear violation of the Memorandum of Understanding Hillary Clinton signed with the Obama administration wherein she promised and agreed to publicly disclose all donations during her tenure as Secreatary of State. (Via Breitbart)

The New York Times reported on the crooked deal in 2015.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And then there’s this...

Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) told Greta Van Susteren the deal Hillary approved gave Putin ownership of 20 percent of US uranium and Russia sells uranium to unfriendly countries, including Iran.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/senator-damato-drops-bomb-hillary-allowed-russia-take-ownership-us-uranium-sell-iran-video/

______________________________________________________________

Obama allowing Iran to purchase uranium from Russia

Daniel Horowitz | January 10, 2017

Remember those side deals Obama forged with Iran that were not part of the text of the official treaty? Now we are finding out some of the details.

Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Iranian officials confirmed they have received at least $10 billion in cash, commodities, and assets from Washington since 2013. And that is likely a conservative estimate.

But cash is not the only thing the Islamic Republic of Iran is receiving for gracing us with their willingness to sign onto our own capitulation. The AP is reporting that Russia, with the support of President Obama, is shipping Iran 116 metric tons of natural uranium.

While Iranian officials have obviously declined to disclose the use of such uranium, AP notes that this is enough to enrich weapons-grade uranium for nuclear bombs:

“Despite present restrictions on its enrichment program, however, the amount of natural uranium is significant should Iran decide to keep it in storage, considering its potential uses once some limits on Tehran’s nuclear activities start to expire in less than a decade.

David Albright, whose Institute of Science and International Security often briefs U.S. lawmakers on Iran’s nuclear program, says the shipment could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium for more than 10 simple nuclear bombs, “depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon.” ...”

See more at:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/obama-allowing-iran-to-purchase-uranium-from-russia-will-tillerson-reverse-course#sthash.guYPvONI.dpuf
_______________________________________

[ETL]

From Real Clear Politics, Sept 10, 2015...

"In a 2014 New Yorker interview, Obama said his goal was to create a 'new equilibrium' in the Middle East.

In the short run, at least, his signature diplomatic undertaking can be counted on to bring more violence to this volatile region.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the [Obama-Putin Iran deal] agreement is formally known, provides the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism an infusion of somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion of unfrozen assets and a great deal more of continuing revenues as businesses and governments around the world rush to profit from oil-and-gas-rich Iran's reintegration into the world economy.

The agreement relaxes the international isolation of the Islamic Republic and ratifies Tehran's status as a nuclear threshold state. And it relieves restrictions on Iran's acquisition of weapons, including ballistic missiles. ..."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/10/iran_deal_throws_sparks_on_mideast_tinderbox_128034.html

[ETL]

From Investor's Business Daily, Jan 2012:

Obama To Betray Missile Defense Secrets To Moscow

Investor's Business Daily ^ | January 9, 2012 | IBD staff

Appeasement: From ObamaCare to recess appointments, honoring the Constitution has not been an administration hallmark. But when it comes to betraying secrets to mollify the Russians, it becomes a document the president hides behind.

It was bad enough that the 2012 defense authorization bill signed by President Obama set America on a downward spiral of military mediocrity.

He also issued a signing statement, something he once opposed, saying that language in the bill aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on the U.S. Standard Missile-3 - linchpin of our missile defense - might impinge on his constitutional foreign-policy authority.

Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.

The president is required to certify that any technology shared will not be passed on to third parties such as China, North Korea or Iran, that the Russians will not use transferred secrets to develop countermeasures and that the Russians are reciprocating in sharing missile-defense technology. ..."

"In his signing statement, Obama said he would treat these legal restrictions as 'non-binding' and that 'my administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 (sic) in a manner that does not interfere with the president's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications.'

Betraying our secrets is easy for a president who betrayed allies Poland and the Czech Republic to placate Moscow.

Poland was to host ground-based interceptors such as those we've deployed in California and Alaska, with missile-tracking radar deployed in the Czech Republic.

Obama pulled the plug when Moscow objected. Never mind, he said, we have a better approach: a four-phase plan that calls for using three versions of the Navy's Standard SM-3 interceptor missile that forms the backbone of its Aegis missile-defense system.

The fourth phase consists of a missile still on the drawing board scheduled for deployment by 2020, a version of the SM-3 called the Block IIB. It would intercept hostile missiles in the "early intercept" phase before an enemy missile could release its warheads and decoys. The Russians want the SM-3's secrets, and Obama appears to be willing to turn them over.

The president wants to save the New Start Treaty, which the Russians have threatened to abandon if we try to fully implement President Reagan's dream of defeating a nuclear missile attack.

Russia has unilaterally asserted that any qualitative or quantitative improvement in U.S. missile defenses would be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010912-597158-obama-gives-russia-missile-defense-secrets.htm#ixzz3jXmMbVwY
___________________________________________________

March 2012...

"Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones. Here is what they said:

Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space."

Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ..."

Obama: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."

Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." That statement tells us much about the president's mindset.

The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration.

Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president's comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.

In addition, there is the phrase "on all these issues," implying more is at stake than just missile defense."

Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn't be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/
__________________________________________________________

[Mollypitcher1]

The Democrats went off the rails when they denounced God! Commies took over their party long ago and they continue to follow the Communist Doctrine.

[48th SPS Crusader]

By the way, who is leading the Democratic Party today? Obama? Clinton? Pelosi? Schumer? Warren? TBD? Who cares?

That is easy. CNN and MSNBC!

[jazzlite]

Could the Russian hoopla be a made up distraction to keep demands for the actual truth about the DNC from being concentrated upon by the public? Could the swamp be so deep that many would go to prison if the truth could be exposed?

[jazzlite]

...”I don’t believe cankles won the popular vote either. The demoncraps cheated, stuffed ballots, double counted by the millions.
Until these creeps start seeing jail time it’s not going to get better.”...

And, millions believe as you do. Unfortunately, those who cheat in elections usually have a system for which they will never go to jail. For America, the sad truth is that some powerful, establishment Republicans protect them. Probably because they have some things they also need to hide.

[reformedliberal]

The news is Russia, Russia, Russia. Not “how many years will Hillary get?” “What did 0bama know and when did he know it?” See? It is working.
________________
“The NEWS” means who? The alphabet networks + Fox + three newspapers and their owned affiliates? How many people get their information from them? How many of those believe that information is accurate?

Latest information I’ve seen is that most Americans have cut the cord and a majority disbelieve the “official” media narrative.

People are asking the question you pose. They are asking them privately, at the dinner table, among friends and in blogs, on Twitter and Gab and Vimeo and the alternative media (RSN, OAN, InfoWars) they access on YT.

Sneer all they want at InfoWars, for example, but Megyn Kelly is interviewing AJ, sandwiched between Putin and Francis. She struck out with Vlad, so far, even in the edited version.

I see a lot of black participation on the right side of YT. A GOP Hispanic is challenging Maxine Waters. Every week I see another 100k followers on DJT’s personal Twitter.

If the media is powerful, why isn’t Hillary POTUS? Why have they lost every important special election this year? (They won a couple of state seats in the NorthEast). Why aren’t their numbers YUGE?

The brainwashed make a lot of noise, but so do zombies. And just to make sure, the zombie wranglers filter and silence the voices that disagree with them. That isn’t the behavior of successful winners.

I submit it ain’t working.