FWIS3

I didn't know about this before but the leaked email is legitimate.
So how is it that Trump got so popular and so much media attention? Read on: Big Oops

But the Russians...

vendic wrote:I didn't know about this before but the leaked email is legitimate.
So how is it that Trump got so popular and so much media attention? Read on: Big Oops

But the Russians...

Yes. Lets not bother with having a message that resonates with the people. Let's spend all of our time trying to sabotage the other side. Oops. That backfired.

Truthfully all campaigns work on multiple strategies. You are looking at just one. And all campaigns work to discredit the other guy. Even Bernie Sanders campaign worked at discrediting his opposition. If you consider the popular vote it would be somewhat wrong to claim that the strategy didn't work. What no one counted on was a number of factors that I choose not to discuss at this time. Maybe later when everyone has time for a TLDR post.

If you really want to know why Trump got so much media attention you don't need a leaked email from the DNC to figure it out. It was about ratings and advertising dollars. By the time the media figured out what kind of a monster they created it was too late. Now they are all acting so noble. And trying to convince people that they are the bearers of truth and honesty. Truthfully, sometimes I can't decide whether to laugh or sue the bastards for fraud. Then I realize its a lost cause. Faux News is allowed to lie because they are an Entertainment Media Service.

The definition of irony? CNN was one of the biggest benefactors of the Trump all day every day crap. Now, they try to present themselves as working diligently to bring back truth and justice to the media world.
BBC has a pretty good article explaining the fun facts. Donald Trump: How the media created the president

Actually I'm not looking at just one, I'm just pointing out a little-known fact. The Hillary campaign and the DNC actively tried to get Trump as the Republican candidate because they felt that they couldn't win against an established Republican candidate. They according to the email were using their media ties to push Trump so he would get more exposure.

So now we know they actively worked against the most popular person, conspired to put the most hated person in opposition and then ran a campaign on you can't vote Trump in because he is evil.

If Trump is like Hitler as the left are constantly claiming, then the DNC, the Hillary campaign and the media all worked to get an evil man into power so that they might win an election for their unpopular candidate by pointing out that the opposition is evil.

The alternative of course is they never saw him as such. They just knew they could paint it that way.

I actually prefer that version. The first requires one to accept that the Democrats were willing to risk putting in another Hitler thus risking the USA and the World simply to increase their odds of getting into power. Think about what that implies. Would you want anyone that did that in power?

The other simply means they are manipulating the public to think a new Hitler is in power. Because right now in this country, that is considered the better option.

I don’t know if you are assuming that the GOP had no influence in this process? In essence, they should have been able to stop Trump from becoming their candidate if they had really wanted to. Even with the DNC and the Media nudging the base and the other candidates towards the right. There is also the fact that the Sanders campaign was pushing the DNC and the democratic base towards the left. A fact that may have swayed more than one independent voter to vote for Trump. Every time a party starts going left in this country people start getting antsy about communism. Can’t have those Stalinists winning elections here in the land of the free and the home of the angry white guy.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm pointing out the direct role that the DNC and Hillary campaign had in pushing trump as their preferred candidate. That's fact, not speculation or assumption.

R.e gop and Sanders. That's not relevant to this issue. Iirc the gop tried to prevent trump from getting in. It caused them serious issues. Trump was not the gop preferred republican candidate. He was for the dems. Sanders never wanted trump. I knew many republicans who would have voted for him rather than trump but again we had the DNC who actively screwed that too. Hillary ran a campaign on we can't let trump win. All the while she kept it hidden that she was part of the group that put him there so she might have a chance to win. That is pathetic.

I'm not even sure why you're defending them. When a group fucks up this much with meddling, they should be subject to harsh criticism, not excuses.

They played a large part in the election of trump and it was planned two years prior the elections.

They messed up. They are still refusing to own it because it that will acknowledge it and far more people would then be aware of it.
Lets talk about the Russians possibly outing our crimes instead.

Can't wait to see how they will screw up in 2020 and who they will pin the fault on. That's what I expect when they refuse to acknowledge their failings in 2016. Because when you never admit fault, apart from being a pos, you never are forced to change behaviour.

Good job in 2016 dems. We won the popular vote. All we have to do is push a little harder and we can win 2020. That's what I am seeing. So be ready for a 2020 trump win because these Dickheads will screw it up again. Under no circumstances admit fault. Blame someone or something else instead. Because that's what the good side does.

vendic wrote:I'm not assuming anything. I'm pointing out the direct role that the DNC and Hillary campaign had in pushing trump as their preferred candidate. That's fact, not speculation or assumption.

I'm not even sure why you're defending them. When a group fucks up this much with meddling, they should be subject to harsh criticism, not excuses.

They played a large part in the election of trump and it was planned two years prior the elections.

I am not "defending" the DNC. I am pointing out that the DNC could not have pulled off getting Trump chosen as the GOP candidate all by themselves. You keep going back to the same issue. HILARY and the DNC are evil. Stupid. Banal. And never seem to want to own their own part in this debacle. And I am of the opinion that they did not operate in a vacuum. They had help. The Russians were involved. The Far Far Right A-holes were involved. The GOP took a hard hard turn towards the right with Tea Party Republicans. And part of what we are seeing is a continuation of that hard turn to the right. The DNC could not have gotten Trump selected as the GOP candidate if the core supporters of the GOP did not want him to be. The DNC did not single handedly make that core more polarized. They were already well on their way to being polarized two years ago. 8 years of Republicans refusing to work with Obama and blaming Obama for it. And the core supporters of this ass hattery believed it. Starting 8 years ago. So.... tell me again how Evil Hilary and the corrupt DNC created Trump?

I am also pointing out that campaigns do this all the time. They look at possible opponents and then try to game out who they can beat in a particular race. And they take steps to try to sway that outcome. The DNC does it. The GOP does it. The Labor Party does it. Hell, everyone wants the guy they can beat to be the candidate they are facing. It's a normal part of game theory.

You keep going back to the same issue. HILARY and the DNC are evil. Stupid. Banal. And never seem to want to own their own part in this debacle. And I am of the opinion that they did not operate in a vacuum. They had help. The Russians were involved.

Ohh. Now I see the contention.
I believe we see things differently.
See, for me I spent years condemning the Republicans even on this site. I rarely had anyone argue otherwise. In point of fact, it was almost always you and to some extent Yosh that pointed out if I had missed other points of view. As anyone here should be able to recall, I was not exactly subtle or even pulling punches when I through criticism at them.

Now when I do the same thing, point out the same sort of stupidity on the other side, it seems to others as though I have only one fixation. No. That is not correct. I see little point in discussing the obvious things we agree on. I figured after all my history here I wouldn't need to.

I have noticed one thing however. It is almost impossible to find a single Democrat that will acknowledge anything that their party or particularly Hillary has ever been less than stellar in. Its always a case of ignore it, don't believe it or think it's some far right conspiracy. Even when I present clear and verifiable facts from impeccable sources it is like pulling teeth to get anyone to acknowledge the issue let alone agree that it is not acceptable behaviour.

I have a shitload of complaints about trump and the republicans. They are covered in media constantly. Often they will even make up shit too. No idea why. There is already a lifetime of material there and they keep making it daily. It's like I'm saturated in it all the time.

By the same token, hearing anything bad about the democrats is rare and short lived. Even when it is very news worthy. It seems to be suppressed and dismissed.

I don't have to explain what happens when the right has their own news and the left has theirs. This shit needs to stop. Half the country is not racist. They are not white supremisists. If the USA continues down this path it will split the country. Already we have the media supporting violence from the left instead of condemning it. I do not agree with that either.

On this particular issue (op) the left pushed to get trump in. They lost their credibility completely by now saying that he is the biggest threat to the US and the World when they were actively working to get him in power. That should be self evident and widely circulated. It appears as though neither is the case.

Instead it's Russia (still waiting for proof). Its Sanders. How dare he run when the stakes were so high, trump might get in if we are not united after all. 17 agencies concluded it was Russia, till it wasn't. The media lies regularly. People are scared to even listen to opposing views lest they become infected. Any criticism at all is considered an act of treason against the party and is likely to get one labeled a Nazi. We all know it's ok to use mob violence against Nazi's.

Its the same shit that GW did. You're with us or against us. Lunacy.

Was I always condemning the DNC? Nope. I sure did when I found out what they were up to though.

I hate Nazi's. I hate mob violence in the streets. Condemning violence on both sides does not translate into support of any group. That comes with the current philosophy of you are with us or against us. I don't agree with that either.

I get shit from both the right and left, as I often did before. The difference now is it's far harsher. So I figure I'm probably where I should be.

No I think she was a flawed candidate, but she lost. I don't recall this level of analysis by Republicans over McCain or Romney for example after their losses almost a year after their campaigns. Frankly I find it boring so I don't really wish to interject in these threads, I just think you're drawing disinterest as support.

I think the Russia thing though is super important for the future of our nation over a campaign miscalculation though.

I'm not analysing the election. I'm providing information as to what was done during the campaign that I at least find particularly troubling.

People should know what they did. I'm pointing it out because I just found out. History is important to understand. Recent history more so since there is still a chance to set a different path.

I have no interest in a party that demonized in public while promoting the same demons behind closed doors. It removes any confidence I still had in them.

Re Rusians. I have still not seen any proof. I have seen retraction by media because they were caught out lying about it. I have seen media people say they have nothing but it is good for ratings.

Its a bit like someone showing evidence your sisters fiancee was cheating on her. Then blaming the person who exposed him for breaking up the wedding. Well, its more like blaming someone when all we know so far is that photos of the affair were found on the kitchen table.
We all know that crazy uncle Bob never liked him. So it must have been him. Just don't blame the fiancee, we really wanted him to the husband and now he isn't.
Now we get more evidence of other wrong doings. Lets not bring it up though. They are together now and planning a Fall wedding in 2020.
I find it pretty comical in many ways. As the above should be taken.

On this particular issue (op) the left pushed to get trump in. They lost their credibility completely by now saying that he is the biggest threat to the US and the World when they were actively working to get him in power. That should be self evident and widely circulated. It appears as though neither is the case.

Assuming the DNC, Hilary, and the Left did help promote Trump to the point that it actually helped him become the GOP candidate there seems to be one little fly in the ointment. He wasn't actually supposed to win the presidency. Of course, they wanted the weakest conservative candidate they could get. He looked like he could be beaten by a landslide. And he was. If you only consider the popular vote. Why or how the Electoral College managed to become skewed towards Trump was not something that was on their radar. And when you consider that the electoral college has only varied from the popular vote three times in over 200 years I can understand why it may not have been expected.

I don't think the DNC actually thought they were "actively working to get Trump in power". I think they were trying to get the weakest GOP candidate on the ballot. Which was what happened. No one expected Trump to win. Trump didn't expect to win. After he won they seem to have come up with this story about how they were trying to game the electoral college all along.

I realize you think that what the DNC did was wrong or illegal. I don't think what they did rose to the level of illegal. Was it ethical? Maybe not. Was it wrong? It depends on your POV. Why should the DNC accept Bernie Sanders as a Democrat? He has been an Independent his entire career. He is a self declared Socialist. Apparently, the fear of Communism and Socialism is still well grounded in the U.S. It seems we are more comfortable with Authority when it is Fascist vs Socialist. It shouldn't have surprised anyone when the DNC and the majority of the Democratic party rejected Sanders.

In theory if they wanted Sanders all they had to do was take over the DNC and ram Bernie through the way the GOP had Trump rammed down their throats.

I think you see the DNC as being equally as evil as the GOP. I think a lot of people think the DNC was not evil. When the GOP chose a candidate that would help them kick 20 million off of healthcare a lot of people see that as being deliberately evil. When the DNC worked to make sure a candidate who really was a democrat became their candidate it seems like it may not quite rise to the level of EVIL (All Caps!)

[quote=vendic]
Instead it's Russia (still waiting for proof). 17 agencies concluded it was Russia, till it wasn't. The media lies regularly. [/quote]

I have pretty much decided that the Russian involvement in the elections seems to be divided into two main camps among Non-Trumpites. Those who realize that intelligence agencies CANNOT give them the type of evidence that you would expect in a court of law. And those who DON'T CARE if they CANNOT give them that type of proof. The ones who DON'T CARE seem to think that if they are not allowed to SEE the proof with their own eyes. And verify it with whatever they think they need to verify it with to ensure it is REAL; then there is no proof. Ergo, if there is no proof (because they won't take anyone's word for it) then the Russians did not help elect Trump.

I am really done discussing this particular issue with most people. If you don't trust the intelligence community assessment. And you don't trust people who have the expertise. And you think that they are just "opinions" until you see the evidence with your own eyes. Then there is really no need to keep discussing it.

I trust the intelligence communities enough to believe that what they have said is valid. The Russians were involved. The Russians did influence the election. They did not "change ballots" or hack ballot machines (although there is evidence that they did try and may have been able to access a very small number of election systems on the local or state level). Those are verifiable statements that experts and the intelligence community agree on.

Trump committed collusion and treason and/or his campaign did. The intelligence community has not said unequivocally that this is the case. Partly because it is a criminal matter. And partly because the investigation is still ongoing. What the intelligence community has said is that it sure looks a lot like this has happened. And that Trump and Co. are acting guilty as hell. OR they are stupid as hell. Either way it's not a good thing.

YOU will probably NEVER agree that those two conditions are true. And I cannot give you the level of proof that you insist on. 1. Because I don't have access at that level and I don't need that access. and 2. Because you don't have access and you don't need that access. And 3. the American Public does not have that access and they don't need that access. The intelligence communities have made it very clear that they are not stupid enough to destroy years of work and destroy assets that they have worked to build just to satisfy people's insistence that they need to see the "original source evidence". Personally, I think the majority of the people insisting on that level of proof would still find a way to deny it after they received it.

I can and have directed people to experts who have the knowledge base, experience, and the background who have stated unequivocally that Trump is dirty as hell AND that the Russians were definitely involved. I have directed people to reliable sources who have stated that the intelligence community believes that the Russians are involved and that there is a strong possibility that Trump and Co. are dirty as hell. And been told that I am wrong. Or that I am ignoring other facts or information from (insert your favorite source here).

You can choose to believe it or not. I don't believe I can convince you to change your mind. I don't choose to waste anymore of my time or energy on trying to convince you, SFC, or anyone else to change their minds. I think part of the problem is that there are so many sources of information out there that it has become almost impossible for two people to agree on anything due to all the conflicting information that is overwhelming everyone. I think it is also impossible to reach consensus when people disagree on the veracity of sources. and then it goes downhill from there.

It has reached a point where my grandson's argument seems to be the answer to everything these days. I was trying to convince him that he was old enough to dress himself. He was stubbornly hanging onto the idea that I should get him dressed. We went back and forth several times. I finally said "I bet all of your friends (who are the same ages as he is for the most part) get themselves dressed." He replied: "You don't know that and neither do I."

So it seems when it comes to the Russians we are that point. "You don't know that and neither do I!".

well how about that...
There really was Russian collusion.

While I am indeed concerned about this, one should note that Steele was not actually a foreign government but a private citizen. Nor is he Russian, he's British. Also, the law firm hired by the Clintons funded the research, so it's a bit more circumstantial and it's not like Chelsea Clinton saying via email she'd love to talk to them.

I'm sure that won't stop apples to apples comparisons, or lead people to condemn our actual president as strongly for more serious offenses by his campaign and his current ongoing corruption.

If I sound cynical that's because I am. Just had to explain to my brother who was insisting "it's not mainstream news so no one is covering it outside Fox News and Breitbart" that the story was actually broken by the Washington Post.

If I understand correctly, there was a law put in place that was meant to prevent campaigns using foreign espionage. This guy was mi6, specialty in Russian affairs. As such, US law was broken. The DNC and Hillary both repeatedly claimed they had nothing to do with the Trump dossier. That is not apparently the case.

I'm curious, what are the more serious issues with Trump and Russia? As far as I know all the effort they put into proving a connection between Trump and Russia has resulted in nothing but connecting the Democrats. The other thing is that it implicates the fbi in this as well. That is a very serious problem.

I'm happy to look at anything they have unearthed as its been the main topic of many news outlets for some time. I however haven't seen anything. I must admit I have been really under the pump lately so might have missed it if anything new has popped up.

No idea why your brother thinks it's not on mainstream news. Even CNN covered it.

vendic wrote:well how about that...
There really was Russian collusion.

Originally, it was funded by a Republican rival of Trump's. After he lost the nomination for the GOP the rival declined to keep funding the investigation. At some point the DNC picked up the tab for funding Fusion. This is also "old news" that came out before or just after the election last year. Nunes is just recycling the issue because he has his head so far up Trump's ass that it's a miracle that he can breath. He also has supposedly recused himself from the investigation but continues to meddle in the investigation.

What is significant about this story is that the dossier was so damning that Fusion felt it was worthwhile to offer it to the DNC and the FBI. That was the main point of the story being told before the election and just shortly afterwards. Here is a link to the story on Buzzfeed that was published in January of this year. The Guardian carried a better version of the story

As for the legality of the DNC paying for the investigation the only thing I can find so far is that someone has decided that it violates the campaign financial disclosures rule of the Campaign Finance Law. Not exactly espionage. Of course, the Washington Times story doesn't tell us who filed the complaint with the Federal Election Commission.

vendic wrote:If I understand correctly, there was a law put in place that was meant to prevent campaigns using foreign espionage. This guy was mi6, specialty in Russian affairs. As such, US law was broken. The DNC and Hillary both repeatedly claimed they had nothing to do with the Trump dossier. That is not apparently the case.

I'm curious, what are the more serious issues with Trump and Russia? As far as I know all the effort they put into proving a connection between Trump and Russia has resulted in nothing but connecting the Democrats. The other thing is that it implicates the fbi in this as well. That is a very serious problem.

I'm happy to look at anything they have unearthed as its been the main topic of many news outlets for some time. I however haven't seen anything. I must admit I have been really under the pump lately so might have missed it if anything new has popped up.

No idea why your brother thinks it's not on mainstream news. Even CNN covered it.

The law, as far as I can find, mostly deals with accepting payments from foreign governments, agencies, or citizens. It also says that foreign entities have no right to free speech in order to try to influence an election.

As for your question about the more serious issues with Trump and Russia I have to wonder if you really seriously are ignoring the whole Trump - Collusion - Russia - Possible Treason discussion that has gone on here, on Facebook, and in the news for the last year or longer?

It is important to note that the Republican campaign started the search for dirt (and paid for that). When they stopped, the DNC picked it up. This is pretty much SOP "fact finding" with a price tag

The Trump collusion thing on fb?
I'm not on fb and never considered it a credible source.

Wasn't the whole Russia collusion thing all about the Trump campaign trying to get dirt on Hillary?
I hear and read so many different things, all without significant evidence, that I wonder how things would be if Trump was implicated in the dealings that the Hillary campaign, the DNC, the FBI, have now been implicated in.
This time with evidence.
You know, goose, gander...

Oh, yes allegedly it was the Republicans that started the investigation. I say, go after them too. Who ever it was. It is however still undisclosed or unknown who they are. But hunt them down too. They are guilty of the same crime. I don't actually make distinction based on if they are a party I agree with. If they did wrong, then time to acknowledge and pay for it. Anything else would make me a hypocrite. It's easy for me because I don't identify with either party.

vendic wrote:The Trump collusion thing on fb?
I'm not on fb and never considered it a credible source.

Wasn't the whole Russia collusion thing all about the Trump campaign trying to get dirt on Hillary?
I hear and read so many different things, all without significant evidence, that I wonder how things would be if Trump was implicated in the dealings that the Hillary campaign, the DNC, the FBI, have now been implicated in.
This time with evidence.
You know, goose, gander...

Oh, yes allegedly it was the Republicans that started the investigation. I say, go after them too. Who ever it was. It is however still undisclosed or unknown who they are. But hunt them down too. They are guilty of the same crime. I don't actually make distinction based on if they are a party I agree with. If they did wrong, then time to acknowledge and pay for it. Anything else would make me a hypocrite. It's easy for me because I don't identify with either party.

Not Facebook as a direct source. It's a platform where a lot of this has played out. The bottom line about Trump and the Russians is this. 1. Trump colluded with the Russians to "rig the U.S. Election". 2. The Russians interfered directly and indirectly in the outcome of the election. If 1. is true then Trump committed treason. If 2. is true the Russians have committed an act of war.

That is the short version. There are a lot of other details sprinkled around on the internet/Facebook/Twitter and for all I know on Myspace.

The Department of Justice has appointed a special prosecutor (his name is Mueller). Mueller has assembled a team of highly respected criminal lawyers. The team is looking at collusion, criminal activity i.e. illegal sources of campaign finances, obstruction of justice (Trump tried to shut down the Russian investigation), and the Russian interference in our elections.

The first indictments are being handed out on Monday. Someone is going to jail most likely. Right now the news feeds are all atwitter about who.

Breaking News: Michael Flynn may be arrested on Monday, October 29, 2017. Or be asked to surrender himself. Of course, there are also a few bookies putting even money on it being Manaport. Just a few weeks ago the FBI served a No-Knock Warrant on Manaport. They took computers, files, and lots of other stuff from Manaport's home when they decided to invite themselves in without announcing themselves.

SciFiFisher wrote:Breaking News: Michael Flynn may be arrested on Monday, October 29, 2017. Or be asked to surrender himself. Of course, there are also a few bookies putting even money on it being Manaport. Just a few weeks ago the FBI served a No-Knock Warrant on Manaport. They took computers, files, and lots of other stuff from Manaport's home when they decided to invite themselves in without announcing themselves.

they had a warrant. hardly inviting themselves in; the court issued the invitation.

code monkey wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:Breaking News: Michael Flynn may be arrested on Monday, October 29, 2017. Or be asked to surrender himself. Of course, there are also a few bookies putting even money on it being Manaport. Just a few weeks ago the FBI served a No-Knock Warrant on Manaport. They took computers, files, and lots of other stuff from Manaport's home when they decided to invite themselves in without announcing themselves.

they had a warrant. hardly inviting themselves in; the court issued the invitation.

Details. Details. Yes, they did have an invite courtesy of the court. Sources report that they picked the lock on Manaport's front door and then proceeded to his bedroom where they kindly invited him to wake up and have coffee. While they confiscated anything that looked germane to the investigation. Which is why my choice of words. A No Knock Warrant is sort of like inviting yourself in.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/ ... gps-244265

So it turns out a conservative news outlet started the dossier on trump. Not the Republican party or any Republican politicians. So the only political or governmental groups involved with it are the Hillary campaign, the DNC and the FBI.

Any points about the Republicans starting it so it was ok for the Democrats to do so too, is now moot.

We have gone from, no we didn't fund it or have any involment in it, to, well we did fund it but the Republicans were the ones that initially started it so its not just us, to, umm, so the Republicans really had nothing to do with it...fuck... so what do we say now?

vendic wrote:https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/27/trump-russia-washington-free-beacon-fusion-gps-244265

So it turns out a conservative news outlet started the dossier on trump. Not the Republican party or any Republican politicians. So the only political or governmental groups involved with it are the Hillary campaign, the DNC and the FBI.

Any points about the Republicans starting it so it was ok for the Democrats to do so too, is now moot.

We have gone from, no we didn't fund it or have any involment in it, to, well we did fund it but the Republicans were the ones that initially started it so its not just us, to, umm, so the Republicans really had nothing to do with it...fuck... so what do we say now?

Where did the Conservative Free Beacon get the money to fund the original research? Why, from a very rich Republican donor. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/p ... d=26644930

What I am not sure you are following is that politics makes very strange bedfellows. And yes, Republicans did have something to do with. But, you are right. There is nothing to see here. Just more of the same liberal conspiracy and shadow government that keeps trying to paint those poor mislabeled conservatives as evil.