(03-14-2018, 12:08 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2018, 11:47 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Pull up any article from CNN or HuffPo and you'll see why the country is polarized. They outright lie to the American people and hope they're dumb enough not to research what they tell us.
And Fox News is better?
In this case, yes. There is a difference between partisan reporting and out right misinformation.
(03-14-2018, 12:20 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2018, 12:08 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]And Fox News is better?
In this case, yes. There is a difference between partisan reporting and out right misinformation.
So Fox News has never misinformed their audience?
The Russians helped Trump in the same way they helped Sanders but that doesn't get any attention.
They probably didn't care who won as long as the candidate that threatened war didn't win.
I've said this before and it gets ignored - especially by the hard core Trump fan boys like Stoudcrowd and Alex Jones Jr. - how do you not define collusion as the act of Donnie Jr., Trump's campaign manager, and Trump's son-in-law, agreeing to meet Russians in Trump Tower based on an e-mail expressing the Russian gov's support of Donnie Sr. and promising "dirt" on Hillary?
If that ain't collusion you don't have a good dictionary. And some of you also act like Wikileaks isn't owned by Russia. Ever hear of Roger Stone?
Continue to whistle past the graveyard. Robert Mueller doesn't care that Fox News is an arm of the Trump press office. You'll just have more to spin.
(03-14-2018, 01:00 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ]I've said this before and it gets ignored - especially by the hard core Trump fan boys like Stoudcrowd and Alex Jones Jr. - how do you not define collusion as the act of Donnie Jr., Trump's campaign manager, and Trump's son-in-law, agreeing to meet Russians in Trump Tower based on an e-mail expressing the Russian gov's support of Donnie Sr. and promising "dirt" on Hillary?
If that ain't collusion you don't have a good dictionary. And some of you also act like Wikileaks isn't owned by Russia. Ever hear of Roger Stone?
Continue to whistle past the graveyard. Robert Mueller doesn't care that Fox News is an arm of the Trump press office. You'll just have more to spin.
Meeting with Russians isn't the same as meeting with Russia.
Donald Jr. didn't commit a crime. Are you saying he did?
Hillary, by your definition, colluded with Christopher Steele (who was actually a former agent to the British government) to undermine Trump's candidacy. There's more evidence to suggest that Clinton worked with foreign agents (Steele) and the FBI to interfere with a US election. You'd think that the abuse of the FISA warrant system, the FBI's handling of the Clinton server investigation would be as upsetting as Donald Jr. meeting a couple civilians claiming dirt on a political opponent.
(03-14-2018, 01:14 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2018, 01:00 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ]I've said this before and it gets ignored - especially by the hard core Trump fan boys like Stoudcrowd and Alex Jones Jr. - how do you not define collusion as the act of Donnie Jr., Trump's campaign manager, and Trump's son-in-law, agreeing to meet Russians in Trump Tower based on an e-mail expressing the Russian gov's support of Donnie Sr. and promising "dirt" on Hillary?
If that ain't collusion you don't have a good dictionary. And some of you also act like Wikileaks isn't owned by Russia. Ever hear of Roger Stone?
Continue to whistle past the graveyard. Robert Mueller doesn't care that Fox News is an arm of the Trump press office. You'll just have more to spin.
Meeting with Russians isn't the same as meeting with Russia.
Donald Jr. didn't commit a crime. Are you saying he did?
Hillary, by your definition, colluded with Christopher Steele (who was actually a former agent to the British government) to undermine Trump's candidacy. There's more evidence to suggest that Clinton worked with foreign agents (Steele) and the FBI to interfere with a US election. You'd think that the abuse of the FISA warrant system, the FBI's handling of the Clinton server investigation would be as upsetting as Donald Jr. meeting a couple civilians claiming dirt on a political opponent.
You mean the same Steele who was commissioned to obtain opposition research by Republicans?
Abuse of the FISA warrant system? According to that great legal scholar Sean Hannity?
The FBI interfere in the elections? You mean when James Comey came out about ten days before the election and said he's reopening the Clinton investigation? No, that didn't help Trump, did it?
Hey, I thought Donald was going to bring charges against Clinton. Maybe no evidence. Just like he was going to sue all the women who accused him of "misconduct".
Boy, Donald and his minions (Fox talking heads) can pretty much throw all kinds of stuff out there (no proof required!) knowing that there will be some who actually take the bait. Amazing.
You spin as well as a Whirlpool.
I find it amusing that there are some here that seem to be of the opinion that foreign government interference in American elections is something new.
(03-14-2018, 01:53 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2018, 01:14 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Meeting with Russians isn't the same as meeting with Russia.
Donald Jr. didn't commit a crime. Are you saying he did?
Hillary, by your definition, colluded with Christopher Steele (who was actually a former agent to the British government) to undermine Trump's candidacy. There's more evidence to suggest that Clinton worked with foreign agents (Steele) and the FBI to interfere with a US election. You'd think that the abuse of the FISA warrant system, the FBI's handling of the Clinton server investigation would be as upsetting as Donald Jr. meeting a couple civilians claiming dirt on a political opponent.
You mean the same Steele who was commissioned to obtain opposition research by Republicans?
Abuse of the FISA warrant system? According to that great legal scholar Sean Hannity?
The FBI interfere in the elections? You mean when James Comey came out about ten days before the election and said he's reopening the Clinton investigation? No, that didn't help Trump, did it?
Hey, I thought Donald was going to bring charges against Clinton. Maybe no evidence. Just like he was going to sue all the women who accused him of "misconduct".
Boy, Donald and his minions (Fox talking heads) can pretty much throw all kinds of stuff out there (no proof required!) knowing that there will be some who actually take the bait. Amazing.
You spin as well as a Whirlpool.
Fusion GPS was first hired by a registered anti-trump Republican (Paul Singer) who was also a major funding source for the Washington Free Beacon. Steele wasn't hired/paid for his two cents until 2016.
Apparently, others besides Hannity believe it has been misused. A few including D- Rep. Adam Schiff and the DOJ.
The same James Comey who was fired and bowed to the Obama administration pressure to not charge Clinton for multiple felonies? The same administration that is about to be investigated? Didn't Clinton win the popular vote? I guess Trump didn't get a whole lot of help.
Selective memory? Trump stated before being sworn into office that he wasn't going to press the Clinton issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/po...ation.html
CNN, MSNBC, MSN, CBS,... yeah, a whole lot of trustworthy news for the left to slurp up! CNN has had FCC complaint after complaint about "throwing all kinds of stuff out." It's no secret the mentioned are quite left-leaning.
All I'll say is that this is a symptom, not the cause. I'll leave it at that.
(03-14-2018, 12:07 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]So now interference has become the new collusion.
Dammit! Hillary was supposed to win! (lays on ground and starts flailing) Dammit! Dammit! Dammit! Interfusion! Colluference!
There are several levels to this issue. First, did the Russians try to influence the result of the election, and secondly, did Trump or anyone in his campaign know about it, and thirdly, if they did know about it, how did they respond.
Of course, if the answer to the first question is yes, it doesn't mean that Trump or any of his people knew about it. So you don't have to fight so hard on the question of interference in order to avoid the question of collusion. I think we're all smart enough to separate those two questions.
(03-15-2018, 08:39 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2018, 12:07 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]So now interference has become the new collusion.
Dammit! Hillary was supposed to win! (lays on ground and starts flailing) Dammit! Dammit! Dammit! Interfusion! Colluference!
There are several levels to this issue. First, did the Russians try to influence the result of the election, and secondly, did Trump or anyone in his campaign know about it, and thirdly, if they did know about it, how did they respond.
Of course, if the answer to the first question is yes, it doesn't mean that Trump or any of his people knew about it. So you don't have to fight so hard on the question of interference in order to avoid the question of collusion. I think we're all smart enough to separate those two questions.
You are muddying the waters by basically stating that interference and collusion are the same thing but stating they are separate. They are not he same and really shouldn't be discussed in the same breathe. We've started to see the same thing in the media with the constant goal post moving. Let's be clear...the investigation is about Trump and his team colluding with the Russian government to influence the election. You know the results so far...zero, nothing, zilch. Now on to the interference portion, yes, and thirteen Russians were indicted. But once again, the media points the finger at Trump for this. Russia has played games with countries election for decades. As far as the US, the Obama administration had proof of a social media disinformation blitz in 2014, and National Security Council and State Department were fully aware. So I ask, how is Trump at fault here? Finally, we need also to be honest and state that this was a disinformation campaign, not hacking of any offline voting machines to change the numbers (only hacks on record were by Homeland Security on a Florida database not related to voter results just registration). Actual result fudging was left to some erratic Democrats at a few Florida polling stations down south.
So yes, there are several levels to this but most lead towards the previous administrations non-action. There is also a new book, Michael Isikoff's 'Russian Roulette' , that claims Obama had used Fusion GPSs' services in 2012.
(03-14-2018, 12:20 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2018, 12:08 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]And Fox News is better?
In this case, yes. There is a difference between partisan reporting and out right misinformation.
You're wrong. Read up on the lawsuit filed by the parents of Seth Rich v. Fox News. Even publications like National Review are expressing disgust at Fox for making stuff up and clearly lying, and "reporting" information they knew was not true.
Truly disgusting stuff. Makes you want to vomit just to see Sean Hannity's face. And Newt Gingrich comes across as a real loser.
So Fox does both - partisan reporting and outright "misinformation" (you know, what used to be called lies).
(03-15-2018, 12:59 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2018, 12:20 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]In this case, yes. There is a difference between partisan reporting and out right misinformation.
You're wrong. Read up on the lawsuit filed by the parents of Seth Rich v. Fox News. Even publications like National Review are expressing disgust at Fox for making stuff up and clearly lying, and "reporting" information they knew was not true.
Truly disgusting stuff. Makes you want to vomit just to see Sean Hannity's face. And Newt Gingrich comes across as a real loser.
So Fox does both - partisan reporting and outright "misinformation" (you know, what used to be called lies).
Please explain what's wrong?
I've read the multiple intertwined lawsuits over this issue and they are all cash chasing opportunities and nothing more. The lawsuits will get dropped and refiled to go after Hannity and some of the other right wings guys that continued on after Fox retracted less than a week after running original story. Too much speculation and assumption in regards to the whole story and his death that is still under investigation. Neither side has proof of anything at this point.
(03-14-2018, 01:53 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2018, 01:14 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Meeting with Russians isn't the same as meeting with Russia.
Donald Jr. didn't commit a crime. Are you saying he did?
Hillary, by your definition, colluded with Christopher Steele (who was actually a former agent to the British government) to undermine Trump's candidacy. There's more evidence to suggest that Clinton worked with foreign agents (Steele) and the FBI to interfere with a US election. You'd think that the abuse of the FISA warrant system, the FBI's handling of the Clinton server investigation would be as upsetting as Donald Jr. meeting a couple civilians claiming dirt on a political opponent.
You mean the same Steele who was commissioned to obtain opposition research by Republicans?
Abuse of the FISA warrant system? According to that great legal scholar Sean Hannity?
The FBI interfere in the elections? You mean when James Comey came out about ten days before the election and said he's reopening the Clinton investigation? No, that didn't help Trump, did it?
Hey, I thought Donald was going to bring charges against Clinton. Maybe no evidence. Just like he was going to sue all the women who accused him of "misconduct".
Boy, Donald and his minions (Fox talking heads) can pretty much throw all kinds of stuff out there (no proof required!) knowing that there will be some who actually take the bait. Amazing.
You spin as well as a Whirlpool.
The bulk of your posts are simply insults using Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Do you ever actually provide detail behind your arguments or is this what I should always expect?
Not only is your comment about Steele irrelevant to the point I made, it doesn't help your argument. Fusion GPS was hired by the Washington Free Beacon in 2015, but they ended their research when he was the apparent nominee. In 2016, Hillary / Democrats hired Fusion GPS and then Fusion GPS hired Steele. Unless I'm mistaken, Steele wasn't involved in the Republican request to research Trump. Again, this is irrelevant to my point, and it doesn't mean Hillary (by your definition) didn't collude with Steele (a foreign agent) and the FBI to undermine Trump's candidacy.
I know you think you're the smartest person in every room you enter, but some people have a basic understanding of how the warrant application process works. We already know that the dossier was the basis for the FISA warrant, and without it, it wouldn't have been granted. The dossier was not verified; the verification of an informant (Steele) must be confirmed before using their testimony / observations for the basis of a warrant. Let's ignore that they went against case law and FBI protocal and skip to the times the FISA warrant was renewed. Comey has testified that the dossier was "salacious and unverified". He signed off on renewing the FISA warrant even knowing that the probable cause used to obtain the warrant was unverified.
The FBI interviewed Hillary without recording the conversation (unheard of), allowed them to dispose of evidence without consequence, and exonerated her before interviewing her about her intent. So, if you think Comey talking about the investigation everyone already knew about hurt her more than clearing her of criminal charges despite despite having probable cause, then I think you make your objection to reality is on full display.
"Maybe no evidence"? They literally said they had probable cause to find that she committed the crime but chose not to charge her. What are you talking about?
I have said this stuff before but you always ignore it and claim no one provides substance or proof. I'd like to see you refute any of this.
The more polarized the country is politically the less chance there is of anything rocking the boat.
(03-15-2018, 06:11 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2018, 10:37 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]"It is also clear, based on the evidence, Russia had disdain for Secretary Clinton and was motivated in whole or in part by a desire to harm her candidacy or undermine her Presidency had she prevailed."
Did you read that statement? It's in one of the links you provided. Not Fox News, of course. And it's not "old news." The date on that statement is March 13, 2018. Yesterday. Not "old news."
Fox News does not want to show any evidence that Trump might have won because of Russian interference. It doesn't fit their agenda, which is, to defend Trump and attack liberals.
Can you name one person who changed their vote to Trump based on what was posted on Facebook, or because of the release of DCN E-mails (even assuming that Russian hackers did that, which is a stretch)? And the Russian posts on Facebook were so swamped by US politicizing it's like pissing into the ocean.
How can anyone believe that it made a difference? Do you think enough people are both so non-partisan that they might not have already had their minds made up, and were that easy to manipulate?
Finally, what reason would Russia have to prefer any Republican over Hillary? Putin pretty much had enough blackmail evidence on Hillary to get anything he wanted if she were elected.
BTW, Rush Limbaugh did mention Gowdy's comments in his show today, so it's not as if the Right-wing punditry in general was trying to hide it.
This is what I've been wondering. I never even saw anything on Facebook that gave me reason to believe the Russians were trying to get anyone to change their vote other than the nauseating political posts by folks. I wouldn't have anyway because I don't let social media dictate how I decide to vote. Or a foreign government for that matter. Anyone who does obviously is not a critical thinker.
(03-16-2018, 01:05 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2018, 06:11 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Can you name one person who changed their vote to Trump based on what was posted on Facebook, or because of the release of DCN E-mails (even assuming that Russian hackers did that, which is a stretch)? And the Russian posts on Facebook were so swamped by US politicizing it's like pissing into the ocean.
How can anyone believe that it made a difference? Do you think enough people are both so non-partisan that they might not have already had their minds made up, and were that easy to manipulate?
Finally, what reason would Russia have to prefer any Republican over Hillary? Putin pretty much had enough blackmail evidence on Hillary to get anything he wanted if she were elected.
BTW, Rush Limbaugh did mention Gowdy's comments in his show today, so it's not as if the Right-wing punditry in general was trying to hide it.
This is what I've been wondering. I never even saw anything on Facebook that gave me reason to believe the Russians were trying to get anyone to change their vote other than the nauseating political posts by folks. I wouldn't have anyway because I don't let social media dictate how I decide to vote. Or a foreign government for that matter. Anyone who does obviously is not a critical thinker.
It's because, by-and-large, liberals think the average person is too stupid to do anything for themselves. Too stupid to own a gun, too stupid to not allow a foreign power's bad English bots to influence their vote... they literally think everyone is a total and complete incompetent moron. They hate the average person - instead of making them become better, they just placate them, allow them to become dumber and dumber, lazier and lazier, until they are totally reliant on what they consider the vastly superior government...
Which proves how dumb they actually are. Government can't do anything right, at all. Ever.