CNN is no longer a news Channel

The 'Birthers' Began on the Left

 

Really? Well, he took the baton and ran and ran and ran with it, didn't he. After the people who started it backed off because they knew it was BS, he, as usual, doubled down and went the distance.

 

What? I just disproved your idea that Trump made up the birther idea. The origin is with the Democratic Party. In fact, I remember arguing with my first "birther" in 2008, a pro Hillary PUMA. I know where the idea came from.

That's not to defend Trump for supporting a stupid conspiracy theory, but at least he has the balls to ditch it. At what point are you guys going to ditch this stupid Russia-Collusion conspiracy theory, or am I still going to be hearing about it 40 years from now, like the moon landing was done in Hollywood or the government has captured aliens?

 

It doesn't matter where it originated. Trump became it's champion and refused to let go, as is his way, right or wrong.
He was the last person to ditch it, after he kept on running with it 'till the end. The Russian thing is not a theory anymore, if you have been paying attention to the 'fake' press.

 

No.

 

OK, So I will be hearing about Russia Collusion 40 years from now.

I was afraid of that. Be sure and get your tinfoil hat.

 

You won't be hearing about it, because there will be a response that may put it to rest. The fact is that Russia has compromised our democracy with it's interference in our electoral process. So you had better care about this.

 

Looks like your guy Trump is putting on his tin foil hat, also. He has acknowledged Russian interference in our electoral process.

 

Not the point amigo. The investigation is being characterized by the Democrats is Trump/Russian COLLUSION. Russia trying to influence our elections is typical and historic. Just as we try to do the same in other countries. So far, NO ONE has said Trump ever COLLUDED with the Russians so an investigation into that is unwarranted.

Better put, the Democrats have no proof there was Trump/Russian collusion even after 8 months of 'investigation.' So now, the 'investigation' is Russian 'interference' into our election. The Democrats are hoping for a Trump/Russian connection (collusion) that has never existed. Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them to manufacture Trump/Russian collusion.

 

This is a first for Trump to admit Russian interference, and his refusal to acknowledge in the past has caused questions to be asked,
due to his cronies and their Russian connection. and is ok in my view.

 

You're changing your story. When did Trump and Russia colluding to steal the election become Russia launching cyber attacks? They've been cyberattacking us for years.

 

As for Manafort, he was already in the russians pocket given his intimate involvement in the Ukrainian political process, so they didn't need to "approach him".



The play is simple and is actually continuing to work. The wild arsed goal was to defeat Clinton. The secondary goals are rather simple to identify.

Increase the partisan divide within America.
Decrease voter confidence in their nation's institutions including but not limited to the intel community, the justice department, the congress, the media, etc.
Advocate Nationalism as a justification for retreating from the traditional American global leadership position.
Destablize the existing military and economic alliances america has forged.

Seems you don't know of the concept of targeted demographic messaging and the value of using detailed demographic data to identify individual and group targets for either positive or negative messaging.

Perhaps you can use your imagination and game out a "possible plan".

 

You almost had me thinking you knew about a plan...oops, clearly you don't.

Again, let me ask again since you clearly didn't understand my question before, how were the Russians and Trump, working together, going to throw the Presidency to him?

Your comments seem merely campaign accomplishments of the Hillary campaign, increase the partisan divide, decrease voter confidence by stealing the nomination? Check and check.

Again, what was the plan?

 

You don't seem to get it. I didn't say that Trump and the Russians were working together. I said that Trump campaign members and the russians were working together.

But hey, keep insisting you can't inmagine what the plan could be. Keep ignorning the the FACTs of the matter.

And naturally you blame Hillary for all of it. Can't get much more blindly partisan than that.

 

Well whether it's Trump and the Russians, or Trump campaign aides and the Russians, it's still a lot of conspiracy nonsense. Please, tell me, what exactly are the "FACTS of the matter?"

 

CNN to me has become a political debate channel. For news I watch the NBC Nightly News as it is more a traditional half hour news broadcast. For the conservative perspective I watch Fox News but like CNN there is way too much political debate for my liking as I prefer this forum for debate.

 

the facts of the matter as know so far are as I previously outlined them. It seems even actual facts bounce off the heads of entrenched partisans.

 

I went back through this thread looking for the "actual facts" that you claim to have previously outlined that proves that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians and gosh darn it, I missed them!

 

Not surprising they flew over your head.

You equate "facts" with "judicial proof". Could the difference be too nuanced for you?

Do you believe that Flynn, Sessions and Kushner didn't have meetings with Russian agents while neglecting to report them in their security clearance submissions?
Do you believe that Manafort was not intimately involved in the election strategy of Putin's Ukranian puppet?
Do you not believe Der Trump when he says Obama did nothing about russian interference in the election?
Do you not believe that the russians hacked the democrats just like Trump asked them to?
Did you believe trump when he said the election was rigged?

Of course, only in trumpland could the absence of direct public evidence today, while at least 5 different ONGOING investigations all of which encompass a vast amount of classified data, not to mention sources and methods remain in their early stages, be PROOF that there is nothing to see here.

Classic knee jerk partisanism, heavy on fantasy and desire while seemingly completely devoid of reality.

 

Things are getting interesting over at Fake News headquarters.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rk-flack-refuse-to-comment-russia-retraction/

 

This is like the Alex Jones show. None of this proves, or even indicates Trump campaign collusion. And no, I'm not confusing court-of-law burden of proof with "facts." You've simply provided no facts.

Earlier, I asked for the theory on how the collusion scheme would play out and you still have not been able to provide one. Let's say, Manafort meets his Russian handler and the deal they strike is....what?

 

No of course it doesn't PROVE trump campaign collusion. We are privy to only a small slice of the evidence since so much of it is CLASSIFIED due to NATIONAL SECURITY concerns. Something that MAGA trumpettes seem blissfuly unconcerned about for some odd reason.

I have provided a bunch of facts but it seems you can't recognize them for what they are.

As to how it would play out, I guess you ignored the reports of the Trump administration "inquiries" into how to eliminate the sanctions, or the reports that the administration was considering giving the russian US properties used for espionage purposes.

Not even considering the investigations into money laundering of russian money thru trump operations - I know, no evidence just clues.

When you have a bucket full of clues and you choose to ignore them all the while insisting there is nothing to see here, one could reasonably ask the question - what your play?

 

Well if I take a "bucket of clues" in the same way you did, I could go: reset button, uranium one, Podesta, Clinton Foundation, state department approval, $500,000 Moscow speech.

None of that is direct evidence that Hillary conspired with the Russians. You might want to do an investigation of it, but it's putting the cart before the horse to declare her a traitor now. Or is it? Is Hillary a traitor?

But let's get back to my original question which somehow never gets answered: How exactly would this collusion scheme play out? What would the Russians do for Trump, and what has Trump done for the Russians?