Russians did it – True or not, it’s what’s going forward and it’s been in the works for some time with strong bipartisan support.

True or not, it’s what’s going forward and it’s been in the works for some time with strong bipartisan support.

This passed the house last week: Notice Section V specifically on Russia. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6393

===

and HR 6393 is a vertical continuation of this, which was proposed in *June* 2016, so whether or not Trump or Clinton got elected, its likely it still would’ve gone forward. Similar text about the Russians specifically at that point as well.
 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3017/text#toc-id2d649c673ffa41fe99f04e0a322ab07d
====
and to counter an argument of another friend on this issue: he said “Oh, it’s just SOP”. But, it’s not. Compare it to the 2013/2014 Intelligence Auth act, and they were more worried about Whistleblower protections and such back then.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1681
—–
The first part of it was about budget. But when you get down to Section V, this has nothing to do with the budget, despite the title of the bill. Things always get tacked on that have nothing to do with the title: it’s the hidden places that decisions get made and actions get authorized.This HR bill passed 390 yay / 30 nay.I suspect if you look through the nays you’ll see some key players in the upcoming administration. Such is politics.https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/h593
 —
It’s more than budget. It’s specific. Example:
“This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation”
“Accredited diplomatic personnel and consulars of the Russian Federation in the United States may not be permitted to travel more than 25 miles from their diplomatic post in the United States in a calendar quarter “If you don’t see what I see, then I’ve been ineffective at explaining it properly. Carry on. You seem to be fine with things as they’re going.
 My main point is: we might not be taking these things seriously but some people are taking it very seriously and will be authorized and financed to act. We can laugh “silly lib msm fake news” but it doesn’t change the course of things. Can’t have your head in the sand.
=====
You’re welcome :) It really got me interested as I never usually pay attention to this stuff. But when I started seeing people saying, “Oh lol they’re blaming Russians ’cause they lost”, and I remember talk about this LONG before Nov 9th… and then remembered the bill… I did some checking.Then some news articles began to make more sense. When headlines would say “FBI says there’s no clear connection to Russia”… now I read it properly as “…and this is why we’re investigating it more deeply”.
=====
 I like going beneath the clickbait headlines and the pepe memes and looking at the functioning of government as it actually functions. Knowing that the Congress has more muscle than the Executive branch means their actions are suddenly more interesting than Trump tweet of the day.
=====
 We may be on opposite sides of a political fence, but the functioning of government is of interest to us all.
=====
 Indeed. Reminding myself that the political/economic machinery functions as it does with or without me is a bit of a relief tbh. Its sort of like school: Its going to suck no matter what paint they slap on the walls in August.
=====
 VERY true, and that’s the flipside of things. I have my news sources that I trust to be at least attempting to be honest-enough, try to stay away from going too deeply into exaggerated reports (neither OccupyDemocrats nor Alex Jones, although I try to be aware of their rhetoric too, because the extremes are influential to many) and see where I fit in to things and what I can do.
====
 The he said/she said stuff (gossip) is the stuff I _try_ to avoid. It’s a huge help for me. Looking at these bills was excellent because these are the kinds of things that actually functionally _happen_: budget is set aside and actions authorized within it which makes change of one kind or another.I’m knowing better and better where I personally stand on things. What’s important and what I can dismiss. So, it’s getting easier.
====
I know of a few efforts underway as well, One interesting project (last I heard they were looking for a javascript coder I think) is a social network / sentence analyzer / logical argument analyzer (Randian basically although not strictly so).
====
 “Just because Congress passes laws, doesn’t mean that their not tilting at a windmill.”Now that’s very true.My point in posting this wasn’t to ascertain “what’s true / not true” but rather to show the very real direction things are going into.There’s several narratives going on simultaneously but the “Russians did (and presumably are still doing) ‘something’ is the narrative that our US Congress is likely to go with, fund towards etc.So, that narrative has weight behind it.This doesn’t mean true/untruth. But weight.
=====
 ames, look at the links I posted on top.There was nothing in the budget specifically mentioning Russian interference in our government in the 2014/2015 Congress.It *does* show up in the 2015/2016 Congress.Why?Because _now_, it’s a problem.Is it a real problem? A fake problem? I don’t know.I DON’T CARE ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON.This is not what this is about. This is about the ACTUAL direction our Congress and various government agencies are going into NOW and have been.This *is* something new.Maybe it’s all a plot by Hillary Clinton and the DNC to steal the election from Sanders and Trump. I don’t know.

But I *do* know, once Sanders and Clinton are faded memories and the election 2016 is far behind us, the effects will continue.

This is my point. I don’t care of a pile of dirt is President at this point. I’m focusing on Congress and the direction of our agencies with regard to Russia. They weren’t mentioned by name last year but they are now. This makes a difference.

=====
 Do I need to tell your favorite Youtuber what I’ve learned so that he can put it on his youtube channel so that you will listen to what I’m trying to convey here?
====
 People only ever want to hear what they want to hear.
====

=====

Authority over =/= acceptance of.
For many people (I don’t know where I’ll stand come Jan 20th: as of right now, he’s just a guy playing around ’til then), they’ll see their role in a Trump Presidency as being a part of a kind of POW status.

=====

Jonathan, someone writing #NotMyPresident is not threatening a man’s life. “You’ll find out quickly” – well, sure if someone was dumb enough to do all that.

===

The kinds of disrespect shown to Obama during his 8 years which were new lows, are likely to get even lower under Trump. The mold was broken by the Congressional Republicans from 2008-2016, and now things are acceptable that once were not.

=====

Another throwback (just a forum found in a search), folks in 1999 saying that Bill Clinton is not their President.

My point being: Nothing new here in 2016.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33506

=====

Of course W got crappy treatment too. Heck, that JFK alt history guy even made a whole movie. But as far as I know, he didn’t get the in your face bad treatment from Congressmen that Obama got, or that Trump will certainly get.

Back to my “not my president” research project: Pickings are getting slimmer the further back in history I go. Internet has very short memory and attempting to stretch WAY back to 1984 requires anecdotes more than historically verifiable documentation. Still, it’s a fun mini research project:

“To my shock, I saw many vehicles with bumper stickers read: “Ronald Reagan is NOT my president!” I knew many an American of such mild manners as you won’t find easily anywhere in the world! They were Christians who believed with their lives in the love message of the Gospel. Yet, they called Ronald Reagan an “abominable fascist”! It was at that time when I decided I would NOT join any political party USA. Matter of fact, hadn’t I had enough of being forced to belong to one political party?! One more reason why the henchmen of Communism would have beaten one up: Refusal to belong to the Communist Party! ”

http://saliu.com/dirty-election.html

——-

It doesn’t ignore democracy at all Jonathan, at least in the way America does it.

Two party system. Winners and losers is generally how it breaks up.

The winners are happy and say “Get behind our guy!”

The losers are not happy, grumble and sometimes protest as frequently and loudly as possible.

Most people are in the center and are just like, “Whatever, so that’s the new one? Ok”.

=====

You come across normal Jonathan until you bring in stuff like, “and will be punished according to the laws”. That’s the part that just comes across a little odd.

=====

Can’t be authoritarian, except in a VERY abstract, poetic sense because of where the power doesn’t reside.

“favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
“the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime””

=====

It’s not his authority. It’s his right. None of us individually have the power to place a President in charge.

=====

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


8 − = six

Leave a Reply