Speaking of being duped, it seems like we've seen this October Surmise conspiracy theory before and I have no reason to believe it's going to turn out any different this time. When Reagan defeated Carter in 1980, the loony left made up this really complicated conspiracy theory that the republican candidate schemed with a foreign power to rig the election against the Democrat. Not only was there this absolutely bogus claim about collusion between the Reagan campaign and the Iranians (our "enemies" at the time), but there was a claim about the Democratic campaign being basically hacked (a "stolen" briefing book). Another similarity is Gary Sick was one of the main undoubted source for the conspiracy back then, now it's some british secret agent. How'd it turn out back then? Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and went on their typical fishing expeditions. After it was all said and done, they reported that the conspiracy theory had no merit whatsoever. The "main stream" media is all over this today as if there's something to it. They were, likewise, behind pushing the conspiracy theory back then. It wasn't until some honest left wing reporters examined the alleged facts, found the whole thing to be bogus, and reported on it, that the conspiracy theory unraveled. I am dubious there are honest left wing reporters anymore. You can read about it here: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/4249 Two congressional inquiries then confirmed these conclusions. The Senate stated that"by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages" (Committee on Foreign Relations 1992, 115). The House report went further, declaring that"There was no October Surprise agreement ever reached." It found"wholly insufficient credible evidence" that communication took place between the Reagan campaign and the Iranian government and"no credible evidence" of an attempt by the campaign to delay the hostages' release. The report also expressed concern that" certain witnesses may have committed perjury during sworn testimony" (Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 53; 7-8; 239).
This is awesome! You're making a point about how there is no Russian BS going on in our election by citing an article from someone who writes for the Russian controlled news agency, Sputnik.
It is my opinion that Reagan did the best at Foreign relations of any President in the last 100 years. Perhaps longer. But then the competition for best ranges from not good to sucks other than Reagan. There are a whole host of critics taking shots a Trump already after only two months on the job. Even Dick Chaney for crap sake, talking about Russia committing an act of War. Geez, some body take him hunting or something! I give Trump an A at this point for not taking all the Russian bait and hate in this country. Let see how things go with Korea, maybe give it a year. Nothing says Trump can't be better than Reagan. Not a thing.
I quoted the federation of american scientists and the village voice, too. They all seem to agree on the facts. EDIT: turns out the history news network is a non-profit registered in Washington State and partnered with George Washington University's History Department. Russian controlled news agency? That's BS.
I said the author of the article writes for Sputnik. I didn't say the website you got it from was Russian controlled.
Trump will never be Reagan and Reagan was an actor who starred in movies with a monkey. Trump had a reality show and lives in his ego like a vampire bat on blood. At least LBJ talked to you when he took a shit. He was real.