US Trump Administration Discussion Thread

[Sunshine Jesse]

This isn't as simple as just giving Earth the middle finger and moving to Mars when it's convenient; you need to stop taking for granted what makes Earth the ideal planet for humans to live on, and how actually possible it is for us to just screw ourselves over before we're given the chance to get off this rock.

 

Do you mean "you" as in me or "you" as in people in general?

 

Because I've gone at-length saying how awful cutting climate science research really is.

 

I just think the alternative isn't a complete fool's errand.

[VCR_CAT]

Do you mean "you" as in me or "you" as in people in general?

 

Because I've gone at-length saying how awful cutting climate science research really is.

 

I just think the alternative isn't a complete fool's errand.

 

people in general. There's a lot, lot more to colonizing a planet than just landing people on it and planting a flag.

[mido9]

I found a thing. It sounds relevant and came out 2 hours ago.

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Two senior level transition sources tell ABC , President Elect Donald Trump is expected to name Wilbur Ross to Commerce Secretary.

 

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. is an American investor known for restructuring failed companies in industries such as steel, coal, telecommunications, foreign investment and textiles.

[cr47t]

I found a thing. It sounds relevant and came out 2 hours ago.

 

And while we are questioning the validity of global warming why not do the same with Earth's shape?

 

 

My point is anyone can just come up and say "That's a hoax" about basically anything, even if it's scientifically backed up and very widely supported, but that doesn't make it a hoax.

 

(note; i didn't watch the global warming video but I did watch the one in this post, being a vsauce fan)

[Sunshine Jesse]

The British dude also recently appeared on Infowars so his validity is suspect by default.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And while we are questioning the validity of global warming why not do the same with Earth's shape?

 

 

My point is anyone can just come up and say "That's a hoax" about basically anything, even if it's scientifically backed up and very widely supported, but that doesn't make it a hoax.

 

(note; i didn't watch the global warming video but I did watch the one in this post, being a vsauce fan)

I really don't think it's fair for you to dismiss a video without watching it. Why not question the earth's shape? Cause you can use simple sine and cosine to prove that the earth has to bend

 

It's not repeatedly off in predictions like climate change models have been

The British dude also recently appeared on Infowars so his validity is suspect by default.

Guilt by association? 

 

Arkansas certifies: Trump 684,872 (60.6%), Clinton 380,494 (33.7%), Others 65,269 (5.8%). Worst loss for a D in Arkansas since McGovern '72.

[VCR_CAT]

I really don't think it's fair for you to dismiss a video without watching it. Why not question the earth's shape? Cause you can use simple sine and cosine to prove that the earth has to bend

 

It's not repeatedly off in predictions like climate change models have been

Guilt by association? 

 

Arkansas certifies: Trump 684,872 (60.6%), Clinton 380,494 (33.7%), Others 65,269 (5.8%). Worst loss for a D in Arkansas since McGovern '72.

 

I skimmed to one part where he mentioned a paper that's currently in review. If a peer-reviewed paper about the claims is published, I'm going to take it more seriously. Also, the video is frickin' 1.5 hours long; if anyone is posting it and has watched it, please please please summarize the main points and, if you can, provide time-stamps for those points. I honestly want to address it, but frick dude I'm not watching that behemoth of a video, and I'm sure nobody else here wants to spend that much time just to post in a debate section here.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I skimmed to one part where he mentioned a paper that's currently in review. If a peer-reviewed paper about the claims is published, I'm going to take it more seriously. Also, the video is frickin' 1.5 hours long; if anyone is posting it and has watched it, please please please summarize the main points and, if you can, provide time-stamps for those points. I honestly want to address it, but frick dude I'm not watching that behemoth of a video, and I'm sure nobody else here wants to spend that much time just to post in a debate section here.

I'll ask Mido, I will refrain from commenting till I watch it in full

 

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/23/donald-trump-wins-michigan-votes/94360852/

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/11/23/clinton-trump-votes/94364178/

 

Finally, Trump has now crossed 300 EV

 

Close races

Red denotes states (or congressional districts that contribute an electoral vote) won by Republican Donald Trump; blue denotes those won by Democrat Hillary Clinton.

States where the margin of victory was under 1% (50 electoral votes; 46 won by Trump, 4 by Clinton):

1. Michigan, 0.27%
2. New Hampshire, 0.37%
3. Wisconsin, 0.81%
4. Pennsylvania, 0.96%

States where the margin of victory was between 1% and 5% (84 electoral votes; 56 won by Trump, 28 by Clinton):

1. Florida, 1.21%
2. Minnesota, 1.52%
3. Nevada, 2.42%
4. Maine, 2.68%
5. Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District, 3.38%
6. Arizona, 3.57%
7. North Carolina, 3.74%
8. Colorado, 4.88%

States/districts where the margin of victory was between 5% and 10% (96 electoral votes; 78 won by Trump, 18 by Clinton):

1. Virginia, 5.32%
2. Georgia, 5.46%
3. New Mexico, 8.21%
4. Ohio, 8.55%
5. Texas, 9.11%
6. Iowa, 9.50%

[cr47t]

I really don't think it's fair for you to dismiss a video without watching it. Why not question the earth's shape? Cause you can use simple sine and cosine to prove that the earth has to bend

I'mma refer to what Jesse said;

 

The British dude also recently appeared on Infowars so his validity is suspect by default.

Because Infowars is basically Trump TV The Site, and I would rate it about where Breitbart is in terms of how valid it's stories are (and it's pretty invalid.)

 

EDIT;

 

Also, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/23/how-long-before-the-white-working-class-realizes-trump-was-just-scamming-them/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na&utm_term=.299e6b24980e

 

[spoiler=Long article excerpt]

 

 

While we’re still analyzing the election results and debating the importance of different factors to the final outcome, everyone agrees that white working class voters played a key part in Donald Trump’s victory, in some cases by switching their votes and in some cases by turning out when they had been nonvoters before.

 

And now that he’s about to take office, he’s ready to deliver on what he promised them, right? Well, maybe not so much:

 

President-elect Donald Trump abruptly abandoned some of his most tendentious campaign promises Tuesday, saying he does not plan to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email system or the dealings of her family foundation, has an “open mind” about a climate-change accord from which he vowed to withdraw the United States and is no longer certain that torturing terrorism suspects is a good idea.

 

The billionaire real estate developer also dismissed any need to disentangle himself from his financial holdings, despite rising questions about how his global business dealings might affect his decision-making as the nation’s chief executive.

 

[Trump’s new interview with the New York Times isn’t reassuring. It’s deeply alarming.]

 

And it’s not just that; at the same time, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are getting ready to move on their highest priorities, cutting taxes for the wealthy, scrapping oversight on Wall Street, and lightening regulations on big corporations.

 

Imagine you’re one of those folks who went to Trump rallies and thrilled to his promises to take America back from the establishment, who felt your heart stir as he promised to torture prisoners, who got your “Trump That b****” T-shirt, who was overjoyed to finally have a candidate who tells it like it is. What are you thinking as you watch this?

 

If you have any sense, you’re coming to the realization that it was all a scam. You got played. While you were chanting “Lock her up!” he was laughing at you for being so gullible. While you were dreaming about how you’d have an advocate in the Oval Office, he was dreaming about how he could use it to make himself richer. He hasn’t even taken office yet and everything he told you is already being revealed as a lie.

 

So what are we left with? What remains is Trump’s erratic whims, his boundless greed, and the core of Republican policies Congress will pursue, which are most definitely not geared toward the interests of working class whites. He can gut environmental regulations, but that doesn’t mean millions of people are going to head back to the coal mines — it was market forces more than anything else that led to coal’s decline. He can renegotiate trade deals, but that doesn’t mean that the labor-intensive factory jobs are coming back. And by the way, the high wages, good benefits, and job security those jobs used to offer? That was thanks to labor unions, which Republicans are now going to try to destroy once and for all.

 

So what happens in two years when there’s a congressional election and two years after that when Trump runs for a second term? Those voters may look around and say, Hey wait a minute. That paradise of infinite winning Trump promised? It didn’t happen. My community still faces the same problems it did before. There’s no new factory in town with thousands of jobs paying great salaries. Everybody doesn’t have great health insurance with no cost-sharing for incredibly low premiums. I still hear people speaking Spanish from time to time. Women and minorities are still demanding that I treat them with respect. Music and movies and TV still make me feel like I’m being left behind. When Trump told me he’d wipe all that away, he was conning me. In fact, in many ways he was the fullest expression of the caricature of politicians (everything they say is a lie, they’re only out for themselves) I thought I was striking back against when I supported him.

 

Those voters may decide to vote for a Democrat next time. Or they may be demobilized, deciding that there isn’t much point to voting at all. The nearly all-white areas where turnout shot up in 2016 might settle right back down to where they used to be.

 

Or maybe Trump will find a way to actually improve the lives of working class voters. That’s theoretically possible, but absolutely nothing he has done or said so far suggests that he has any idea how to do it, or even the inclination. So he may try to keep the fires of hatred, resentment, and fear burning, in the hopes that people forget that he hasn’t given them the practical things he said he would.

 

[vla1ne]

I'mma refer to what Jesse said;

 

 

Because Infowars is basically Trump TV The Site, and I would rate it about where Breitbart is in terms of how valid it's stories are (and it's pretty invalid.)

 

EDIT;

 

Also, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/23/how-long-before-the-white-working-class-realizes-trump-was-just-scamming-them/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na&utm_term=.299e6b24980e

 

[spoiler=Long article excerpt]

 

 

 

 

i'd say infowars is extremely anti-clinton more than it's pro trump. i mean, alex jones is... yeah, but the rest of the members are somewhat balanced. and while they are pro trump, they do get their facts straight, for the most part.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'mma refer to what Jesse said; Because Infowars is basically Trump TV The Site, and I would rate it about where Breitbart is in terms of how valid it's stories are (and it's pretty invalid.) EDIT; Also, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/23/how-long-before-the-white-working-class-realizes-trump-was-just-scamming-them/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na&utm_term=.299e6b24980e [spoiler=Long article excerpt] 

 

It's cute how the WAPO has been wrong about all Trump's successes thus far, and now think they got his re-election mapped out lol

[cr47t]

It's cute how the WAPO has been wrong about all Trump's successes thus far

Practically all the majors (this includes mainstream media, political or politically outspoken figures, etc.) were wrong about it except Michael Moore (and maybe a few others.)

 

The point is you're (seemingly) downplaying the other's errors to single out a single source

 

EDIT; Apparently Russia (or people in/from Russia) were responsible for much of the "fake news" widespreading in an attempt to inflence the election https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

[spoiler=article]

 

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.

 

Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.

 

Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem.

 

There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.

 

“They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests,” said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who along with two other researchers has tracked Russian propaganda since 2014. “This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media.”

 

Watts’s report on this work, with colleagues Andrew Weisburd and J.M. Berger, appeared on the national security online magazine War on the Rocks this month under the headline “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy.” Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.

 

The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity.

 

PropOrNot’s monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times.

 

Some players in this online echo chamber were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign, the researchers concluded, while others were “useful idiots” — a term born of the Cold War to describe people or institutions that unknowingly assisted Soviet Union propaganda efforts.

 

The Russian campaign during this election season, researchers from both groups say, worked by harnessing the online world’s fascination with “buzzy” content that is surprising and emotionally potent, and tracks with popular conspiracy theories about how secret forces dictate world events.

 

Some of these stories originated with RT and Sputnik, state-funded Russian information services that mimic the style and tone of independent news organizations yet sometimes include false and misleading stories in their reports, the researchers say. On other occasions, RT, Sputnik and other Russian sites used social-media accounts to amplify misleading stories already circulating online, causing news algorithms to identify them as “trending” topics that sometimes prompted coverage from mainstream American news organizations.

 

The speed and coordination of these efforts allowed Russian-backed phony news to outcompete traditional news organizations for audience. Some of the first and most alarming tweets after Clinton fell ill at a Sept. 11 memorial event in New York, for example, came from Russian botnets and trolls, researchers found. (She was treated for pneumonia and returned to the campaign trail a few days later.)

 

This followed a spate of other misleading stories in August about Clinton’s supposedly troubled health. The Daily Beast debunked a particularly widely read piece in an article that reached 1,700 Facebook accounts and was read online more than 30,000 times. But the PropOrNot researchers found that the version supported by Russian propaganda reached 90,000 Facebook accounts and was read more than 8 million times. The researchers said the true Daily Beast story was like “shouting into a hurricane” of false stories supported by the Russians.

 

This propaganda machinery also helped push the phony story that an anti-Trump protester was paid thousands of dollars to participate in demonstrations, an allegation initially made by a self-described satirist and later repeated publicly by the Trump campaign. Researchers from both groups traced a variety of other false stories — fake reports of a coup launched at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey and stories about how the United States was going to conduct a military attack and blame it on Russia — to Russian propaganda efforts.

 

The final weeks of the campaign featured a heavy dose of stories about supposed election irregularities, allegations of vote-rigging and the potential for Election Day violence should Clinton win, researchers said.

 

“The way that this propaganda apparatus supported Trump was equivalent to some massive amount of a media buy,” said the executive director of PropOrNot, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers. “It was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump’s campaign. . . . It worked.”

 

He and other researchers expressed concern that the U.S. government has few tools for detecting or combating foreign propaganda. They expressed hope that their research detailing the power of Russian propaganda would spur official action.

 

A former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael A. McFaul, said he was struck by the overt support that Sputnik expressed for Trump during the campaign, even using the #CrookedHillary hashtag pushed by the candidate.

 

McFaul said Russian propaganda typically is aimed at weakening opponents and critics. Trump’s victory, though reportedly celebrated by Putin and his allies in Moscow, may have been an unexpected benefit of an operation that already had fueled division in the United States. “They don’t try to win the argument,” said McFaul, now director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. “It’s to make everything seem relative. It’s kind of an appeal to cynicism.”

 

The Kremlin has repeatedly denied interfering in the U.S. election or hacking the accounts of election officials. “This is some sort of nonsense,” Dmitry Peskov, press secretary for Putin, said last month when U.S. officials accused Russia of penetrating the computers of the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations.

 

RT disputed the findings of the researchers in an e-mail on Friday, saying it played no role in producing or amplifying any fake news stories related to the U.S. election. “It is the height of irony that an article about “fake news” is built on false, unsubstantiated claims. RT adamantly rejects any and all claims and insuations that the network has originated even a single “fake story” related to the US election,” wrote Anna Belkina, head of communications.

 

The findings about the mechanics of Russian propaganda operations largely track previous research by the Rand Corp. and George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.

 

“They use our technologies and values against us to sow doubt,” said Robert Orttung, a GWU professor who studies Russia. “It’s starting to undermine our democratic system.”

 

The Rand report — which dubbed Russian propaganda efforts a “firehose of falsehood” because of their speed, power and relentlessness — traced the country’s current generation of online propaganda work to the 2008 incursion into neighboring Georgia, when Russia sought to blunt international criticism of its aggression by pushing alternative explanations online.

 

The same tactics, researchers said, helped Russia shape international opinions about its 2014 annexation of Crimea and its military intervention in Syria, which started last year. Russian propaganda operations also worked to promote the “Brexit” departure of Britain from the European Union.

 

Another crucial moment, several researchers say, came in 2011 when the party of Russian President Vladimir Putin was accused of rigging elections, sparking protests that Putin blamed the Obama administration — and then-Secretary of State Clinton — for instigating.

 

Putin, a former KGB officer, announced his desire to “break the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the global information streams” during a 2013 visit to the broadcast center for RT, formerly known as Russia Today.

 

“For them, it’s actually a real war, an ideological war, this clash between two systems,” said Sufian Zhemukhov, a former Russian journalist conducting research at GWU. “In their minds, they’re just trying to do what the West does to Russia.”

 

RT broadcasts news reports worldwide in several languages, but the most effective way it reaches U.S. audiences is online.

 

Its English-language flagship YouTube channel, launched in 2007, has 1.85 million subscribers and has had a total of 1.8 billion views, making it more widely viewed than CNN’s YouTube channel, according to a George Washington University report this month.

 

Though widely seen as a propaganda organ, the Russian site has gained credibility with some American conservatives. Trump sat for an interview with RT in September. His nominee for national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, traveled to Russia last year for a gala sponsored by the network. He later compared it to CNN.

 

The content from Russian sites has offered ready fodder for U.S.-based websites pushing far-right conservative messages. A former contractor for one, the Next News Network, said he was instructed by the site’s founder, Gary S. Franchi Jr., to weave together reports from traditional sources such as the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times with ones from RT, Sputnik and others that provided articles that often spread explosively online.

 

“The readers are more likely to share the fake stories, and they’re more profitable,” said Dyan Bermeo, who said he helped assemble scripts and book guests for Next News Network before leaving because of a pay dispute and concerns that “fake news” was crowding out real news.

 

In just the past 90 days — a period that has included the closing weeks of the campaign, Election Day and its aftermath — the YouTube audience of Next News Network has jumped from a few hundred thousand views a day to a few million, according to analytics firm Tubular Labs. In October alone, videos from Next News Network were viewed more than 56 million times.

 

Franchi said in an e-mail statement that Next News Network seeks “a global perspective” while providing commentary aimed at U.S. audiences, especially with regard to Russian military activity. “Understanding the threat of global war is the first step to preventing it,” he said, “and we feel our coverage assisted in preventing a possible World War 3 scenario.”

 

Correction: A previously published version of this story incorrectly stated that Russian information service RT had used the “#CrookedHillary” hastag pushed by then-Republican candidate Donald Trump. In fact, while another Russian information service Sputnik did use this hashtag, RT did not.

 

[cr47t]

Bump for discussion about my above post. People, this is important.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Plenty of Grassroots Trump supporters saw it coming (his win). Bicoastal elites look down on us from this towers of social justice and didn't see it coming.

[Sunshine Jesse]

He means the Russian fake news thing.

[cr47t]

Plenty of Grassroots Trump supporters saw it coming (his win). Bicoastal elites look down on us from this towers of social justice and didn't see it coming.

The point isn't about who thought who was winning - it's that a foreign power deliberately interfered with our presidential election by boosting fake stories that favored their (the foreign power's) favored candidate. If they were doing the same thing to favor Hillary or any other candidate (and it was uncovered) I would be equally critical.

 

NVM, got ninja'd by jesse

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

How about we tackle American fake news first. Like democrat sponsored polls that showed Hillary winning 28% of GOP votes

 

Public Polling can really suppress turnout. Or how about we talk about the fake news that Voter ID laws are racist. Or the fake news of women coming out of the woodwork to accuse a billionaire of assault 30 years after the fact, and in some cases, after, as recently as 3 months ago, praising the man.

 

No Crt, to quote president Obama, the 80's want their foreign policy back. Enough with the neo-McCarthyism 

[cr47t]

How about we tackle American fake news first. (1) Like democrat sponsored polls that showed Hillary winning 28% of GOP votes

 

Public Polling can really suppress turnout. (2)  Or how about we talk about the fake news that Voter ID laws are racist. (3) Or the fake news of women coming out of the woodwork to accuse a billionaire of assault 30 years after the fact, and in some cases, after, as recently as 3 months ago, praising the man.

 

No Crt, to quote president Obama, the 80's want their foreign policy back. (4) Enough with the neo-McCarthyism 

 

1. Sources please.

2. I do believe voter ID laws are often made/designed to not neccesarily be racist, but suppress groups of people who would typically vote for a certain party (Democrats in this case). That is an example of an attempt to undermine democracy. (If these voter ID laws instead targeted/suppressed voter groups who typically vote Republican I would still be complaining.)

3. Sources please.

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

 

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

 

Washington Post is doing neither of the bolded parts of the quote, as far as I am concerned -- they are using evidence, and I believe the investigations into the fake news are somewhat justified. I'll have to re-read the article, though, when I have the time.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

 

1. Sources please.

2. I do believe voter ID laws are often made/designed to not neccesarily be racist, but suppress groups of people who would typically vote for a certain party (Democrats in this case). That is an example of an attempt to undermine democracy. (If these voter ID laws instead targeted/suppressed voter groups who typically vote Republican I would still be complaining.)

3. Sources please.

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

 

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

 

Washington Post is doing neither of the bolded parts of the quote, as far as I am concerned -- they are using evidence, and I believe the investigations into the fake news are somewhat justified. I'll have to re-read the article, though, when I have the time.

 

1) http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/02/28-percent-of-florida-gop-voters-chose-clinton-over-trump/

3) http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301156-trump-campaign-releases-statement-from-accusers-cousin

 

4) McCarthy ruined people with the red scare deal accusing everyone of being part of some Russian conspiracy and being communists. That's basically what y'all are saying with the Russian conspiracy talk

 

The left media lying to the public about all the glories of Obama care is fake news too right? How about talks about anon sources with things worse than pussygate about to drop?

 

WaPo and the rest are desperately trying to cover their ass now

[Aerion Brightflame]

I don't think that it's a safe route to go down about 'Oh X lied, or Y influenced the Election' unless your conclusion is that objectivity surrounding US politics is all but dead. You have mainstream media outlets running a lot of fear-mongering bullshit in attempt to smear Trump and it back-firing immensly (Usually blowing sheet out of proportion rather than being outright fabrications, but with obvious exceptions). Whilst we also have sheet like wikileaks and Commey doing incredibly non partisan things (Wikileaks doesn't have a duty to be non-partisan, but you have to imagine that there was sheet they could have being doing to give the American people the full picture if that was actually there aim. As opposed to just going 'funk off Hillary'), that shifted thing in Trump's favour.

 

I don't generally look at really right wing media sources (And in general the pro Trump ones), which is admittedly a fault of mine but I don't think there is any way that they didn't do the same bollocks about Hillary that the mainstream media did to Trump; I.E. exessively villanise, blow sheet out of proportion. I know that it's a weak argument to go 'X also did what Y does so X is okay' (If we are doing that I'll happily point out all the times Julian Assange promised 'It's coming' but didn't deliver. Even at the end it was Commey who did the work, not Assange), but I'm trying to make the conclusion that the issue isn't with left or right wing. It's an issue with basically everything because the election was a funking shitshow.

 

And I think the correct course of action isn't to go 'Ha look at them trying to recover from all the sheet they pulled' it's to go 'Hey let's clean this sheet up so we don't get an election like it again'. Because the presidency deserved candidates of a higher calibre on both sides. And playing identity politics is just an anathema to that because it's trying to draw lines and force people to be defensive.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump doesn't use email, what was Wikileaks supposed to dump

 

IDK, Assange did a fair bit of work, the Open Borders quote and the Saudi money came up in the third debate and focus groups did not like her for it

 

It was the slow drip drip imo

 

But yes, I'm saying political coverage has no objectivity anymore and that leads to media smoke screens like "two million illegal votes" and "the russians did it"

 

The only state I genuinely believe fraud happened in was Virginia

[Aerion Brightflame]

Trump doesn't use email, what was Wikileaks supposed to dump

Tax Returns? There's bound to be digital copies somewhere. And he, or his office will have an email acount for buisness matters somewhere. He's a billionare.

 

Or s*** like the emails his campaign was sending about similar to the DNC ones that floated about and people got worked up over (Which really was nothing)?

 

Even if there's not emails specifically, it's the prinicaple. Trump has been a buisnessman for decades, and he's owned up to some level of shady s***. There would have been stuff out there for wikileaks to get ahold of and make public, but they didn't. They pushed really hard against Hillary and the DNC, but rarely threw up something about Trump and the RNC.

 

There was also somewhat weird speculation that Wikileaks had been compromised by some foriegn influence. I'll see if I can dig up the evidence I remembered reading. It is probably bull, but would be interesting.

 

Either way, the point about wikileaks really isn't the main point of what I posed; Don't focus on a singular little detail here.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yeah well objectivity is dead.  I can agree with you on that much.

 

Really not happy that President Elect Trump is getting in the dirt with the Dems and Greens about this voter fraud stuff. Yes, my home state of Virginia going for HRC hurts. Yes Cali likely cheated a bit. Yes, NH was super close and he should have called for a recount, but it's not what the country needs right now. I do think VA's gov pardoning all those felons to vote pack for HRC was shitty, but it was gonna be a tough lift with Kaine on the ticket anyway.

 

What the nation needs to do is pass VA level ID laws all over the nation and move to complete paper ballot measures 

 

Outside of mob deals what's there about Trump that we don't already know. He used legal tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Didn't hurt. He knifed union workers, union workers voted for him in margins = to Reagan

 

RNC probs conspired against him, would only further validate him with the burnouts. 

 

Comey did nothing wrong, except for his bs move to drop the case 2 days before the election

[cr47t]

1) http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/02/28-percent-of-florida-gop-voters-chose-clinton-over-trump/

3) http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301156-trump-campaign-releases-statement-from-accusers-cousin

 

4) McCarthy ruined people with the red scare deal accusing everyone of being part of some Russian conspiracy and being communists. That's basically what y'all are saying with the Russian conspiracy talk

 

The left media lying to the public about all the glories of Obama care is fake news too right? How about talks about anon sources with things worse than pussygate about to drop?

 

WaPo and the rest are desperately trying to cover their ass now

 

I'll address your claim that I'm pushing conspiracies, as bolded above.

 

I am mainly accusing except actual Russian-based groups or associates for circulating the fake news. I'm not accusing you, Winter, or anyone else on this forum, and I highly doubt any currently active member of this forum has ties to the Kremlin. I'm not trying to label anyone on this forum a communist or part of some Russian conspiracy to hand over the election to their preferred candidate (despite me believing the russians did promote fake news to influence the election.) I will also admit not all the fake news was from Russia -- some of it even came from the US (mainly talking about you, Breitbart). But the fact that a foreign power tried to influence one of our elections should raise alarm bells.

 

As for point 2, I would like to hear what you have to say about that -- you were able to answer point 4.