It says something when so-called “Constitutional Conservatives” blindly support a corrupt, oath breaking and anti-liberty piece of shit. What it says is that they’re a bunch of soulless bimbos.
So it looks like the Hillary campaign paid(although it may have been indirectly) Russian intelligence officials for dirt on Trump. They say there is nothing wrong there though, it's "opposition research". They are also investigating bribes regarding the uranium deal. You can't make this shit up. Can we go back in time and blow both of them up?
Well, it was Trump's Republican opponents who paid for it first, then dropped it once he took the primaries. Hillary and Co. just picked it up after. Love how you choose to present the facts tho, very balanced.
So, both parties are loser shitbags who don't deserve the time of day? Color me surprised. Yet no matter what, the majority of Americans are still going to show up on election day to pull the handle for one of them.
You do realize that's been known since January, right? I honestly just assumed everyone knew that already. I refuse to believe you can't see the comedy after a year of hyping the Trump/Russia story nonstop. What I love is how colluding with the Russians to get dirt on your opponent is the worst sin ever and the second people know Hillary does it, it's just fine. I'll admit, the main reason I hope Hillary gets indicted over this uranium deal (not that I think it will happen) is just to watch people make excuses and deny it. I swear, hearing some of the shit people said after reading the wikileaks and all the other evidence about Hillary's malfeasance was like staring straight into the twilight zone. This deserves reposting.
Dude, it's opposition research, and it's been done since the 2-party system started. You don't think there was a 25-year stack of files on Trump's desk covering everything HRC has ever been accused of? This is pure strawman.
Did you really just "LOL I was just trolling"? You did, didn't you? You know maybe it's just me but, "hire a research firm to continue its investigation into a candidate's foreign dealings" doesn't exactly compare with "meet with officials from a foreign government with the explicit goal of sharing hacked info on my opponent". I dunno, naive I guess.
I agree that one is more suspect than the other, but to say one is just a distraction and have people talk like the other is the greatest scandal in American history does demonstrate a bit of hypocrisy, don't you think?
Just to be clear, because it's early and I'm not fully caffeinated yet: Trump gets a pass on his legit opp research, everything the Republicans have tried to pin on Hillary since the 90s when she "forgot her place". But his son et al meeting with Russians? Nah, fuck him.
No, not saying that. Really? You're going to tell me it was all about her forgetting her place? Is this supposed to be about her being a woman or something? Umm....
Well no, it was about her not being the usual First Lady, asking for her own office in the White House (ha!), trying to create healthcare legislation...you know the stuff she actually *did* that they found so offensive and has had her in their sights ever since.
The republicans will hate any democrat in the spotlight. There was really nothing wrong with Obama on a professional or personal level. The reason everyone else hates Hillary though is because she fucking sucks. If she had even the slightest interest in the good of her party she would go away. She will contribute absolutely nothing other than causing more damage. The republicans at least somewhat realized this with Bush. Eg he didn't even attend the republican national convention when McCain was running.
You notice how you're the only one bringing Hillary up, time and time again? It's almost as if you enjoy the outrage machine using her as ammunition, while the rest of us are moving on.... Yes, the Democrats compiled information on Trump. It probably included his foreign contacts, business dealings, etc. Who the fuck is shocked by this? It obviously didn't contain anything explosive, criminal or you know...useful. Objective reality here: Hillary lost almost a year ago. Why is the losing side's campaign strategy relevant now? Oh, wait...it's not. Objective reality 2: Trump is a shitty president and there's a prominent investigation centered around his election, and said investigation is finding things. Are they important? We don't know. What will happen? Complete fucking speculation at this point. What's the focus on the investigation? It's broad, but generally speaking it's centered around our president's relationship with Russian nationals, the election and the influence said Russian nationals had/have on members of our president's inner circle. Objective reality 3: Trump is a shady businessman, and often deals with other shady businessmen. He's been sued literally thousands of times. He can't get financed domestically (which is not a good look), so he's often financed real estate deals with foreign banks/entities. He has obfuscated his worth, refused to release tax returns and still retains control of his active business ventures via his family (remember, presidential precedent was to not do any of those things). So, it makes untangling who he owes money to and why difficult to ascertain...which makes understanding who might unduly influence his decisions even harder to understand. In the course of this investigation, a ton of tiny, ugly, shady details will emerge. As they do, refer back to Objective Reality 2: "Are they important? We don't know. What will happen? Complete fucking speculation at this point." The question I have is again: qui bono? Is objective reality that Trump looks bad because he does bad things with people he shouldn't? Seems that way, especially when making deals with Russians who were under sanctions at various points in the last few years, and Trump doesn't strike me as someone who's very detail-oriented when it comes to staying within the letter of the law. Or is it simply that some party wins when Trump looks shitty? If so, they've been drowning in victory for much of the past year...and again, it's hard to see how that matters in year 1 of his term. Sure, the Democrats like it when he looks bad, but well...when has he looked good? And what's more likely: some cabal of Democrats are fanning the flames of this Russia controversy...if so, to what end? OR, there is some unprecedented level of connection and influence there that simply shouldn't exist by the laws and norms of our government (that went undisclosed during the campaign)? It would seem to me, the latter: no other candidate has similar liabilities in history. What is the reality of this situation? 1. Trump won the election. 2. Trump has some unsavory connections to Russian nationals, that are likely not entirely legal. 3. Russia used some pretty savvy new techniques to fan the flames of domestic tension in an attempt to get Trump to win the election. 4. Russia benefits by having a much weaker, more inexperienced and divisive person in the White House. Even better if this person can sway US national opinion to Russia's favor and can be portrayed in Russia as a villain to the Russian populace while Putin seeks re-election (remember kids: Russia is in the toilet in some pretty crazy ways, and while their oligarchical system is definitively to blame, it's not like the people running the country into the ground will blame themselves). 5. The US isn't oblivious to facts 1-4, and is investigating all the goings on to ensure that Trump's legitimacy is real (and maintained), foreign influence on US elections isn't repeated using the same techniques, and that none of Trump's business connections illegally influence him as president.
She keeps bringing herself into the news. And this is in relation to a very recent story. I have shit on Trump too. I'm not denying he's a bad president. That said the things that do bother me about Trump are not the things usually talked about on here. This thing is, I don't think you can actually stop this from happening. If we're talking about foreign governments spamming shit on social media it's a reality we're going to have to live with. Again though, the argument is that Russia swayed over a million centrist voters across 10 or so states and it's just so silly I can't take it seriously. I'll ask again, would you really trade having the bulk of the media and the full support of your party(which included ACTUALLY rigging an election in your favor, at least to an extent) for some facebook spamming because I don't think any politician would.
Such as? I think there are dozens of ways to prevent this from happening. I also think you underestimate a few elements to this story. First, is exactly how much about you can be ascertained from data companies like Facebook/Google. To put it more plainly: if we bought your demographics, Facebook and search history, do you think we could influence your purchases? Your behavior regarding your health? Your beliefs about politics? I would argue that yes, we very easily could, because companies do it well and often. It's subtle, but powerful: an algorithm chooses how long a post stays on your feed, or what ads you see, or when you search something ambiguous like "Hillary Clinton stance" whether Hillary's own website pops up or a Breitbart website pops up. Second, is how data mining companies have sprang up for explicitly this purpose. If companies pay billions to Facebook to make you buy their brand of vegetables/coats/car wax, why do you think they wouldn't do the exact same thing to influence your vote? To take it a step further, if data suggests that you'd believe something like Pizza Gate (I use this as an example, because I think it's pretty well-established that this was a "scandal" that had not a single inkling of truth to it whatsoever), but not likely to do any sort of research to confirm/deny that belief, then yes I think it would label you a target to be "swayed". I've taken a few of the tests that ask very vague, non-political questions about things like hygiene, hiking or driving habits and had them point out my leanings. This data is far more powerful and accurate than you might think. Third, is the adage that it takes exponentially more effort to refute bad information. Thus, one tweet saying Hillary sharts instant coffee into Chelsea's cereal every morning would require 10x the same number saying it's ridiculous and a lie. One tweet re-twatted (or what the fuck ever, I despise this platform), a few thousand times becomes irreparable damage. This, by the way, is precisely from the Russian "kompromat" playbook: the point is to make nothing believable, not to spread lies that are believed completely. Remember the candidate who literally introduced the term "fake news"? The idea is that lies spread too fast to combat, social media companies have no accountability or journalistic standards: they aren't responsible for refuting lies the way a CNN/Fox News would be, and you can target the message far more accurately to those would believe it. Finally, I think you're over estimating the media. The average American checks their phone every three minutes. That's twenty times an hour. Even assuming only 5 of those include something that could be reached with an ad, that's still one message hitting you every fifteen minutes. The news, even the 24 hour shit-wheel, can't hope to hold your attention that long, nor can they ever deliver that many targeted messages with that level of efficacy, accuracy and volume. The support of the media/party is vague, ambiguous and comparatively difficult to measure the effect on. Having my own personal echo chamber tightened, reinforced and supported by people that I choose to follow/read/support and having that essentially never challenged is extremely powerful. CNN advertises shit that has no bearing on me whatsoever: tampons, yogurt, Infiniti cars, etc. Facebook ads haven't missed fucking ONCE: it's all shit that they know I'm a fit for: winter clothes, razors, Blade Runner tickets, travel packages, etc. So, yes I think a savvy group would definitely spend money on social media (and let the actual media spin it's wheels without costing a fucking cent). The scary part: we have no idea how effective it is. How many people saw "Pizza Gate"? How many believed it? How many believe it now? Impossible to say. Regarding stopping it, I think the social media giants are instituting a bit more controls regarding who buys this stuff, people are slowly becoming more skeptical of shit their racist aunt reposts, and some of the tech giants are facing regulation in no small part because of how their product (your personal data) was used/abused by companies with higher aspirations than influencing your laundry detergent purchases.
How little did it take for one "good guy with a gun" to heavily arm himself, and barge into a pizza parlor to rescue the child trafficking victims he KNEW were locked in the basement? How did he know? Who told him this, and how often? And then there's the legit and proper media outlets, "reputable sources", putting out this drivel: Yeah, the shit works, and the general electorate really IS stupid enough to fall for it. This is why we have an advertising industry.