This is weak? This is basically everyone except Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, one Reddit board and the people from above -- Hillary had on her side .... The Political Class, both foreign and domestic The Deep State Big Media Big Tech (and their money!) Hollywood (and their money!) Music Industry Globalists Feminists College Profs Newspapers Union Leadership Magazines Television
First the Boston Antifa twitter account is outed as a Russian puppet and now Blacktivist too. Given both have been cited here by JoeFan to mock the BLM/Antifa movement isn't that evidence that at least one person has been influenced by Russia? At the very least, the alt-right so desperately wants to believe a preconceived narrative that they are susceptible to being played by the Russians. The influence? These fake accounts are used to help embolden the extremes which drives down voting participation rates from the middle who become so disgusted with the process.
That reminds me that you guys always used to blame political outcomes you did not like on money in politics. Remember that? You hated Citizens United with a passion. And oh how you guys hated the Koch Brothers! (somehow Soros was always exempt from this vitriol) But you could not do that here, could you? Because Hillary outspent the Donald by a big margin. How embarrassing for you. Not only were you wrong about money in politics, but you got your *** kicked by a reality TV star along the way. Ouch! You had to come up with a better excuse than money this time. So Big Bad Boris Bots did it! LOL. Always with the excuses. Always in denial. Sad!
She was a horrible candidate. To say anything other than that is silly. That said, to say that Russia had no impact is silly as well.
Can you honestly not see that you are getting played by this stuff? Lefties are the most easily manipulated group of sheeples in the US. $10K worth of Facebook ads did not skew the election outcome It's silly. $10 TRILLION worth of FB ad buying was not going to change the outcome. That's not how it works. It's not how any of this works.
Given that the only hard proof that exists in public is that the Russians tried to help Hillary, then Russia had no impact on the election. This is self-evident.
Teehee...I'll wait for someone to tell JoeFan that he's claiming others are manipulated while his history has demonstrated that he's cited these very fake accounts as "real" examples of what he sees as opposition. Lot's of "manipulation" but in this case someone is in desperate need of a mirror.
Targeted ads and their $ are going to be what brings this whole thing down. Foreign $ into the campaign. Voter registration information shared with foreign troll farms. Campaign $ spent on targeted ads via Russian affiliated troll armies. [insert the popcorn emoji here] The only real question left is how many will go down.
Btw, SH wanted to get this message to you: Teehee...I'll wait for someone to tell JoeFan that he's claiming others are manipulated while his history has demonstrated that he's cited these very fake accounts as "real" examples of what he sees as opposition. Lot's of "manipulation" but in this case someone is in desperate need of a mirror.
I was waiting for you to come along and defend him. Wait...are you JoeFan's alternate account? You need to refer to a dictionary for the formal definition of "fake". It was a reported quote from DJT that he's denied making. You may choose to believe DJT but that doesn't make it "fake".
I mean the President and his cronies who knowingly facilitated this little triangle of $/information/foreign political activity. Watergate took more than a minute. This isn't going to happen overnight. The real question that we should be asking: Is Pence in trouble? Ryan?
Poor choice of words on my part. Definitely unprovable but as long as it's against Trump I guess it must be true, right? Btw, do you still believe all of the BS stories from the Washington Post that you defended that Comey now has said is crap?
I kinda feel like you skipped over at least one question there that maybe should be answered before you start trying to find more GOP members to burn.
Sounds like Russian had little to no effect on the election. They were successful in one thing though, getting everyone in the US mad at each other. We really are a stupid country. I also think JoeFan raised a huge point that NO one commented on. The US works to influence elections frequently. Our military overthrew 2 governments within the last 15 years and helped in Libya and is helping in Syria. Let's quit being hypocritical here. Our intentions MAY be better, maybe, but the activity is the same.
This was their exact goal all along and the Libs gave them more payoff than they ever dreamed of. Russia wasn't trying to elect a certain candidate, they were sowing seeds of discord in an attempt to undermine our election process and succeeded. HRC was the clear leader so it's only natural they'd try to damage her and get both candidates in a dead heat so the race became uglier. Instead of healing, coming together, and addressing a serious future threat that could harm all sides, the left would rather reject the results, try to force a constitutional crisis, and divide the country permanently. None of that has changed, they're just hoping to win the House in 2018. If they succeed the impeachment garbage will start to fly around again like hot cakes. The collusion, anti-Russia folks have been Russia's prized asset. Putin has been laughing his *ss off watching this sh*tshow.
What is the gist of that point? That we shouldn't care? We shouldn't try to combat it, just accept it? Given our CIA has done this for less than clear reasons we should simply stand idly by claiming "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"? JoeFan uses that point to claim "no big deal" and discredit the investigation. Of course, that's a pretty self-serving motive for obvious reasons.
Can you imagine the great gnashing of teeth if the fact set indicated that HRC had won and it was clear that the Russians had done this? It would be like Jade Helm.
This is true, but if the parties were reversed, the media narrative would be radically different. They're would have been far more emphasis on what was in the hacked or leaked emails and much less on the cyber security element. For example, I saw an episode of Meet the Press a few months ago, and John Podesta was interviewed at length about the controversy - not a single question about the contents of any of his emails. In 25 years of following politics, I've never seen a Republican get softballed like that by a mainstream media source. Hell, I've seen Sean Hannity be more confrontational with Republicans than Chuck Todd was with Podesta. If Todd had interviewed a similarly situated Republican, there would have been a thorough examination of every controversial remark in those emails. And by the way, that would have been appropriate.
SH, the point is perspective. Instead of screaming traitor and villifying the political team you don't like, understand that it didn't take Trump collusion to get the Russians meddling in our affairs. Let's discuss it rationally and combat it that way.
@Joe Fan is clearly using the justification the left constantly uses. it's good for everyone one else ... and moral equivalency argument. Shrewd way of highlighting that false narrative while also underscoring these efforts have been made by the Russians/others for over a century ... only the tactics in this information age has been made "new." So, if it's the effort itself which is problematic ... you're late to the game, SH. If the problem is the tactic via Al Gore's internet access ... well ... let's discuss the implications therein, but JF isn't minimizing the effort, only that it's ... NOT NEW ... to the extent the (second time) predestined and "already coronated" #HisSilentinBengHazi DID NOT HAPPEN is "new."
