The Next President is...

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, No2bonus said:

I don't know why, but I tuned to CNN and I almost lost my marbles. I said to myself how do they stay in business? Through some research I learned we fund them. Yes, if you pay for cable, satellite, or streaming subscriptions you are funding CNN. You do not have to even watch CNN to  keep them in business. The lineup packages we are sold which forces CNN upon us help keep their media outlet in business. If we could pick our own news channels would mean CNN would have to survive on customers paying for their news channel and ad revenue. Advertisers would bolt if CNN had to rely on viewership.

You realize this is the business model of every channel on cable right? The popular channels pay for the less popular ones when they're packaged together. No one pays $169 a month for The CW, but it still gets a slice of our subscription by being bundled with the channels peiolw actually do watch. ESPN is in fact by far the #1 cost in any cable bundle, so for those who don't care about sports they're paying quite a bit for that one channel. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/06/how-much-would-it-cost-to-get-your-favorite-channels-a-la-carte.html

I'm a cable cutter and fully support a la carte channels like HBO that let you pay just for that channel and you can cancel anytime, but your critique could be said of every single cable channel. CNN is hardly unique. 

FWIW I also never watch cable news and don't have any particular love for CNN. Everyone would be smarter if we read more journalism and watched less "news."

Edited April 6, 2017 by nsplayr

[Guest No2bonus]

7 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

You realize this is the business model of every channel on cable right? The popular channels pay for the less popular ones when they're packaged together. No one pays $169 a month for The CW, but it still gets a slice of our subscription by being bundled with the channels peiolw actually do watch. ESPN is in fact by far the #1 cost in any cable bundle, so for those who don't care about sports they're paying quite a bit for that one channel. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/06/how-much-would-it-cost-to-get-your-favorite-channels-a-la-carte.html

I'm a cable cutter and fully support a la carte channels like HBO that let you pay just for that channel and you can cancel anytime, but your critique could be said of every single cable channel. CNN is hardly unique. 

Yeah, I totally understand the concept works this way for all channels. But CNN is different because of the deceptive headlines and stories they choose to cover. A contributor was saying members of the IC could look at classified documents in a congressional room. I was like that's not true. They have people on tv with no knowledge or creditability. It would be nice to have a choice. 

I also learned there is a Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988. This act is why I can't have NBC east/west coast channels in the midwest. For $120 a month I should be able to omit CNN. I have HBO, NBA League Pass, and NFL Sunday Ticket.

[ClearedHot]

46 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

FWIW I also never watch cable news and don't have any particular love for CNN. Everyone would be smarter if we read more journalism and watched less "news."

I try to take in a variety of news an opinions but has become so bifurcated into ideological sides.  The news is supposed to be the 4th estate, the check and balance, the challenge to the government...but it has become a cheerleader to one side or the other.  My humble opinion but for all to many years we had only one liberal option with the mainstream media.  FoxNews with all their warts and other issues changed the dynamic by offering a conservative slant..then it was Fights on!

For many years I kept CNN in my cross check but they have moved farther and farther off the deep end with folks like Don Lemmon.  Look no further than the latest issues with Susan Rice, two weeks ago she denied knowing anything about anything related to the leaked intel and the unmasking of Americans.  She changed her tune yesterday now that multiple sources reported they have her logs.  We do NOT know what happened, but Don Lemon has come out and said he will not report on the Susan Rice situation, while he continues to theorize on Trump "violations". 

Some of this is caused by the digital news cycle, always trying to be first and over-hype so you can grab headlines.  I am far from technology averse, but in the day of the newspaper there was time to dig into a story and at least attempt to get the facts.  I am SHOCKED we don't have a Woodward and Bernstein looking into the surveillance claims, if any of this is remotely true, we could have a story to revile Watergate.  

 

[daynightindicator]

I try to take in a variety of news an opinions but has become so bifurcated into ideological sides.  The news is supposed to be the 4th estate, the check and balance, the challenge to the government...but it has become a cheerleader to one side or the other.  My humble opinion but for all to many years we had only one liberal option with the mainstream media.  FoxNews with all their warts and other issues changed the dynamic by offering a conservative slant..then it was Fights on!
For many years I kept CNN in my cross check but they have moved farther and farther off the deep end with folks like Don Lemmon.  Look no further than the latest issues with Susan Rice, two weeks ago she denied knowing anything about anything related to the leaked intel and the unmasking of Americans.  She changed her tune yesterday now that multiple sources reported they have her logs.  We do NOT know what happened, but Don Lemon has come out and said he will not report on the Susan Rice situation, while he continues to theorize on Trump "violations". 
Some of this is caused by the digital news cycle, always trying to be first and over-hype so you can grab headlines.  I am far from technology averse, but in the day of the newspaper there was time to dig into a story and at least attempt to get the facts.  I am SHOCKED we don't have a Woodward and Bernstein looking into the surveillance claims, if any of this is remotely true, we could have a story to revile Watergate.  
 

Carl Bernstein has been on CNN almost every night recently as a commentator.

Most of the news anchors and pundits, especially on Fox News (Tucker Carlson in particular) have a complete misunderstanding of how intelligence collection is conducted and the laws regarding it. Arguing the law is one thing, and perfectly fine, but stating that people have violated the law, when you have no clue as to how that law works, is another.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[ClearedHot]

Bernstein has been neutered by a network that refuses to acknowledge there is even the possibility of a problem.

I have only heard suggestions that a law was broken, but it is clear Rice went way beyond the norm in unmasking numerous folks on the Trump team, then sharing that with other senior officials.  Essentially turning the government intelligence apparatus into a political tool to spy on the Trump folks.  We still don't know a great many things and it will be interesting to see what happens if Rice is called to testify. 

[RTB]

41 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

it is clear Rice went way beyond the norm in unmasking numerous folks on the Trump team, then sharing that with other senior officials.  Essentially turning the government intelligence apparatus into a political tool to spy on the Trump folks.  We still don't know a great many things and it will be interesting to see what happens if Rice is called to testify. 

It's crazy that this isn't a HUGE story.  

[nsplayr]

4 hours ago, No2bonus said:

Yeah, I totally understand the concept works this way for all channels. But CNN is different because of the deceptive headlines and stories they choose to cover. A contributor was saying members of the IC could look at classified documents in a congressional room. I was like that's not true. They have people on tv with no knowledge or creditability. It would be nice to have a choice.

I mean, I hear ya, but honestly you're kidding yourself if you think CNN has some kind of monopoly on bullshit or slanted takes on news events. Your exact same critique could be said of Fox News or MSNBC or a handful of other networks depending on your political views. 

As another example, probably no one on TV makes me madder than Stephen A. Smith, but I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water.

Re: a choice, don't watch cable news at all. Don't watch CNN in particular. Don't pay for a cable bundle. Call your cable company and tell them you want unbundled, a la carte channels, I'm right there with ya on all these points. 

[nsplayr]

Lawfare is a really excellent source for issues like surveillance and unmasking, Rice, Nunes et al and most of the Russia investigation. Highly recommend them. Harvard law professors, Brookings and Hoover think tank folks, very highly informed commentary.

In particular, this story about unmasking and what some of the issues might be as well as this related story about the implications of accusing the IC of politically motivated spying.

Fair warning: not for millennials who love Snapchat or old farts who are addicted to cable news. Requires actual reading comprehension and a longer attention span. 

[17D_guy]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Lawfare is a really excellent source for issues like surveillance and unmasking, Rice, Nunes et al and most of the Russia investigation. Highly recommend them. Harvard law professors, Brookings and Hoover think tank folks, very highly informed commentary.

In particular, this story about unmasking and what some of the issues might be as well as this related story about the implications of accusing the IC of politically motivated spying.

Fair warning: not for millennials who love Snapchat or old farts who are addicted to cable news. Requires actual reading comprehension and a longer attention span. 

The piece lawfare did on Trumps first immigration EO was really good, even though I disagreed with initial premise.  Can't second this enough, really good informative reading that'll make you think.

[Guest No2bonus]

6 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean, I hear ya, but honestly you're kidding yourself if you think CNN has some kind of monopoly on bullshit or slanted takes on news events. Your exact same critique could be said of Fox News or MSNBC or a handful of other networks depending on your political views. 

As another example, probably no one on TV makes me madder than Stephen A. Smith, but I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water.

Re: a choice, don't watch cable news at all. Don't watch CNN in particular. Don't pay for a cable bundle. Call your cable company and tell them you want unbundled, a la carte channels, I'm right there with ya on all these points. 

I watch maybe one or two shows on Fox to be honest. I can't stand the other shows on Fox because I just want the facts as an independent voter. Let me come up with my own opinions.

I'm finding it really hard to even get a hold of anyone to figure out a way to stop paying for things I don't want to watch. Case in point, local stations charge DirecTV a fee for their channels. When I want to watch a nationally televised NBA game the local ABC station can push the games to a channel I don't have access to in my package as they were showing high school playoff games. DirecTV is not going to pay the local station for access to that extra channel. In this case the local station told me to buy an antenna or go to a bar.  I didn't buy a 75 inch 4K tv to watch games at a bar. They are trying to price gouge DirecTV for that extra channel which is why DirecTV doesn't carry their extra channel.

Or as a Notre Dame fan, I'm forced at times to watch the state I live in college football team opposed to the nationally televised Notre Dame game. I usually have to use the crappy NBC app on my smartv. Either that or talk to my congressional representative to override the Satellite Home Viewer Act so all viewers can have NBC east/west coast channels that show the games. I'm not a lobbyist so good luck.

Anyway, maybe YouTube TV can change all of this at some point. However, I ooze over the DirecTV picture quality. Not to mention I can watch channels and sports in 4K. 

[tk1313]

Here's how watching the "news" from our lovely mainstream sources like Fox and CNN goes for me:

1. Watch Fox because I'm on the right side of the political spectrum (in both senses of the word).

2. Get pissed off at how stupid Fox news is after roughly 10-15 minutes.

3. Switch to CNN so I can view the issues from the opposite side's perspective, which allows me to convince myself I'm a worldly thinker who approaches every issue from a neutral point of view.

4. Get pissed of at how stupid CNN is after roughly 5-10 minutes (I have a shorter fuse with CNN).

5. Angrily turn off the TV, curse politics, and decide to do something meaningful with my time (read: inebriation).

[ned1]

These mainstream cable outlets exist to peddle convenient party lines to the unwashed masses. You can tune in, get your marching orders, and parrot them for the rest of the day. Then the corporate executives that run these outlets can ensure a sufficiently narrow spectrum of debate between "left" and "right" while they do the important work and keep the sheep distracted. CNN does very little to sufficiently inform viewers on the left and the same can be said for Fox and the right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

[matmacwc]

1 hour ago, ned1 said:

These mainstream cable outlets exist to peddle convenient party lines to the unwashed masses. You can tune in, get your marching orders, and parrot them for the rest of the day. Then the corporate executives that run these outlets can ensure a sufficiently narrow spectrum of debate between "left" and "right" while they do the important work and keep the sheep distracted. CNN does very little to sufficiently inform viewers on the left and the same can be said for Fox and the right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 

Or you could realize they all want our money, news and politicians that is, and tell them to fuck off.  More specifically the left, trying to spread the shit we own around.

[tk1313]

13 hours ago, gearpig said:

Here's how watching the "news" from our lovely mainstream sources like Fox and CNN goes for me:

1. Pause channel flipping only when the hot news girls are in front of the camera. 

Yep. For maximum effect, press the mute button.

[brickhistory]

Down goes Frazier, er, Comey...

Left is screaming conspiracy while conveniently forgetting their anger/angst at Comey last October and even last week.

Administration and defenders have gone defensive with no hope of regaining momentum.

Too bad that whole serving "at the pleasure of the President" thing is glossed over.

 

Comey porked himself multiple times in public including his latest one yesterday.  By publicly commenting on the Clinton e-mail investigation, but laying out a case that was easily prosecutable (and would've if it had been any of us being so cavalier about classified) then saying she had "no intent" so no one would prosecute.  Even if the statute doesn't give that sort of leeway, it was never his position to say so.

Then his bumbling none answers regarding Russian shenanigans in the 2016 election made him look stupid.

No tears shed at his leaving.

[tk1313]

The day before Comey was fired, and some say even hours before, the left was calling for his head. Staunch Hillary supporters were furious at him after she accused him of being the one to steal her victory away (which shows that she's still utterly clueless as to why she lost). Paul Ryan, however much you like or dislike him, hit the nail on the head: Russia/Comey/whoever didn't put the server in her basement, and they didn't tell her to ignore Wisconsin and Michigan.

Trump deals in absolutes. Comey uses non-specific rhetoric. The attitude trending is that there was no collusion with the Russians, but Comey didn't outright say that. Incorrectly stating that the e-mails were forwarded to Weiner's laptop was the excuse Trump needed. Trump was already upset with what I'm sure he perceived as Comey taking the initiative to not recommend charges against Clinton, then being so standoffish on stating that there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.The two of them aren't compatible. Trump saw that a week ago, then again yesterday, and canned him.  Agree or disagree with the decision/method/timing, that's what happened.

Edited May 10, 2017 by tk1313

[nsplayr]

Here's a view from the other side, although to be honest the whole notion of "another side" of things is part of what's hurting our country very badly right now:

Comey absolutely fucked up in his handling of the Clinton email investigation. I basically fully agree with the memo written by the recently confirmed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that can be read here. In an alternate bizarro world, if DAG Rosenstein was serving under a President Hillary Clinton, I would be fully supporting of Comey being fired for the reasons stated. The FBI needs to never be even perceived as putting a thumb on the scale during any election. Although even with Comey's election-season actions, I'm generally an institutionalist and don't like to see tumultuous upheaval in important US institutions. If Clinton and Comey could have found a way to coexist in the same administration, that would have also been fine by me, even preferable. FBI Directors are supposed to serve 10-year terms that are not aligned with Presidential administrations for a reason.

That all being said, everything changed when the March 20th Comey testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee happened. At that point, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Comey's boss at DOJ, had recused himself of any possible inquiries into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia after it was revealed he had undisclosed contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. On March 20th, while under oath, Comey confirmed what many suspected for months, that the FBI had an open and ongoing inquiry into the Trump campaign and possible ties to Russia. This isn't "fake news" propagated by the "liberal media" and Democrats, it's straight from the horse's mouth while under oath.

As soon as that was openly acknowledged, Comey absolutely, 100% needed to remain in place. With Sessions recused and the FBI typically being fairly independent anyways, Comey was completely in charge of investigating the sitting President's campaign and associates, looking for possible ties to, collusion with or other assorted nefarious business with Russians and/or the Russian government. That investigation is still happening today.

Now Comey is summarily fired, ostensibly for reasons not related to the Russia investigation, and that is a really, really shocking turn of events. There is bipartisan outcry over Comey's firing and for good reason.

In the House, Justin Amash, a member of the very conservative House Freedom Caucus, is looking at legislation that would establish an independent commission on Russia, and further called the second paragraph of President Trump's letter firing Comey "bizarre." Republican Senators Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, John McCain and Richard Burr among others have put out statements variously stating they are "very troubled," calling for a Congressional select committee, and generally decrying Comey's departure. Democratic legislators have obviously been even harsher in their condemnations.

Look, partisanship is a hell of a drug, I take it myself regularly. During the Obama years, and 2011/2012 in particular, I was a vigorous defender of President Obama's policies and leadership qualities on the boards here. I was highly inclined to see the best in him and his actions, and quick to downplay what others saw (rightfully or not) as missteps, errors, or bad intentions. So I get it, trust me.

But where do we draw the line? When do Republicans stand up for The Republic first and party second? I'd like to think that were these the action of a Democratic President, I would be making similar arguments to my political allies on the left.

Here's the bottom line, pretend you're reading this about some tropical South American backwater if that helps: the President just abruptly fired the leading domestic law enforcement official who was leading an ongoing investigation into that President's previous election campaign, looking into possible ties between the campaign and a hostile foreign power.

This is not a good turn of events for the country, no matter who you support politically.

Edited May 11, 2017 by nsplayr

[tk1313]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Here's a view from the other side, although to be honest the whole notion of "another side" of things is part of what's hurting our country very badly right now:

Comey absolutely fucked up in his handling of the Clinton email investigation. I basically fully agree with the memo written by the recently confirmed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that can be read here. In an alternate bizarro world, if DAG Rosenstein was serving under a President Hillary Clinton, I would be fully supporting of Comey being fired for the reasons stated. The FBI needs to never be even perceived as putting a thumb on the scale during any election. Although even with Comey's election-season actions, I'm generally an institutionalist and don't like to see tumultuous upheaval in important US institutions. If Clinton and Comey could have found a way to coexist in the same administration, that would have also been fine by me, even preferable. FBI Directors are supposed to serve 10-year terms that are not aligned with Presidential administrations for a reason.

That all being said, everything changed when the March 20th Comey testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee happened. At that point, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Comey's boss at DOJ, had recused himself of any possible inquiries into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia after it was revealed he had undisclosed contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. On March 20th, while under oath, Comey confirmed what many suspected for months, that the FBI had an open and ongoing inquiry into the Trump campaign and possible ties to Russia. This isn't "fake news" propagated by the "liberal media" and Democrats, it's straight from the horse's mouth while under oath.

As soon as that was openly acknowledged, Comey absolutely, 100% needed to remain in place. With Sessions recused and the FBI typically being fairly independent anyways, Comey was basically 100% in charge of investigating the sitting President's campaign and associates, looking for possible ties to, collusion with or other assorted nefarious business with Russians and/or the Russian government. That investigation is still happening today.

Now Comey is summarily fired, ostensibly for reasons not related to the Russia investigation, and that is a really, really shocking turn of events. There is bipartisan outcry over Comey's firing and for good reason.

Comey "fvcked up" for the left, and he "fvcked up" for the right. He's playing nonpartisan politics in a highly polarized world. He's honestly lucky he just got fired instead of the normal "let's dig into his past so we can bring up dirt, destroy his career, and make him quit."

I think Sessions did absolutely nothing wrong, but was caught up in the "let's get everyone outraged at a possible Russia-Trump connection" frenzy that is still taking place. I'm neutral on the recusal, but definitely don't think it was "absolutely necessary." Was there ever any evidence that the Trump campaign and Russia colluded? If yes, show me or tell me it's classified, but those with a need-to-know will have access to it. If no, then start to wind down the "investigation", and stop the witch hunt until actual evidence or "reasonable suspicions" (whatever the fvck that means) surfaces.

Also, the media needs to stop trying to get me outraged at every little thing Trump does. I'm so numb to it now that when he actually does something stupid (like 99% of the time he Tweets) I just assume the media is foaming at the mouth again (cry wolf much?). Convince me that, if collusion exists, it's worse than Obama telling the Russian politician to tell Putin that "he would have more flexibility after the election" or it's worse than Obama making a huge push and wasting a lot of money to try to stop Netanyahu from getting re-elected. I know we meddle in the politics of rivals/enemies, but do we meddle in the politics of our allies now? What's "allowed" and what's not? (honest questions)

It's too soon for me to form my own opinion, but right now this is how I see the media reacting to Comey being fired (wooo!!!)... by Trump (wooo's fading).... at the recommendation of Jeff Sessions (BOOO!!!!!!!):

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by tk1313

[TreeA10]

When he jumped out in front of cameras last summer and provided the list of criminal acts regarding emails by Clinton and then stated no reasonable Prosecutor would file charges based on intent which doesn't even exist in the statute, he should have been fired within 6.9 minutes.  The flail that has been generated by his office is doing nothing but stirring up hate and discontent on both sides of the political spectrum.  Laws should provide clarity, not confusion and he has certainly fanned the flames of the latter.

[matmacwc]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Here's a view from the other side, although to be honest the whole notion of "another side" of things is part of what's hurting our country very badly right now:

Comey absolutely fucked up in his handling of the Clinton email investigation. I basically fully agree with the memo written by the recently confirmed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that can be read here. In an alternate bizarro world, if DAG Rosenstein was serving under a President Hillary Clinton, I would be fully supporting of Comey being fired for the reasons stated. The FBI needs to never be even perceived as putting a thumb on the scale during any election. Although even with Comey's election-season actions, I'm generally an institutionalist and don't like to see tumultuous upheaval in important US institutions. If Clinton and Comey could have found a way to coexist in the same administration, that would have also been fine by me, even preferable. FBI Directors are supposed to serve 10-year terms that are not aligned with Presidential administrations for a reason.

That all being said, everything changed when the March 20th Comey testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee happened. At that point, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Comey's boss at DOJ, had recused himself of any possible inquiries into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia after it was revealed he had undisclosed contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. On March 20th, while under oath, Comey confirmed what many suspected for months, that the FBI had an open and ongoing inquiry into the Trump campaign and possible ties to Russia. This isn't "fake news" propagated by the "liberal media" and Democrats, it's straight from the horse's mouth while under oath.

As soon as that was openly acknowledged, Comey absolutely, 100% needed to remain in place. With Sessions recused and the FBI typically being fairly independent anyways, Comey was basically 100% in charge of investigating the sitting President's campaign and associates, looking for possible ties to, collusion with or other assorted nefarious business with Russians and/or the Russian government. That investigation is still happening today.

Now Comey is summarily fired, ostensibly for reasons not related to the Russia investigation, and that is a really, really shocking turn of events. There is bipartisan outcry over Comey's firing and for good reason.

In the House, Justin Amash, a member of the very conservative House Freedom Caucus, is looking at legislation that would establish an independent commission on Russia, and further called the second paragraph of President Trump's letter firing Comey "bizarre." Republican Senators Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, John McCain and Richard Burr among others have put out statements variously stating they are "very troubled," calling for a Congressional select committee, and generally decrying Comey's departure. Democratic legislators have obviously been even harsher in their condemnations.

Look, partisanship is a hell of a drug, I take it myself regularly. During the Obama years, and 2011/2012 in particular, I was a vigorous defender of President Obama's policies and leadership qualities on the boards here. I was highly inclined to see the best in him and his actions, and quick to downplay what others saw (rightfully or not) as missteps, errors, or bad intentions. So I get it, trust me.

But where do we draw the line? When do Republican stand up for The Republic first and party second? I'd like to think that were these the action of a Democratic President, I would be making similar arguments to my political allies on the left.

Here's the bottom line, pretend you're reading this about some tropical South American backwater if that helps: the President just summarily fired, without warning, the leading domestic law enforcement official who was leading an ongoing investigation into that President's previous election campaign, looking into possible ties between the campaign and a hostile foreign power.

This is not a good turn of events for the country, no matter who you support politically.

Comey was a tool and firing him would look bad....until yesterday, when Clapper said over and over under oath there was no collusion between Trump and Russia.   That gave Trump the breathing room to fire him, Obama should have fired him.  And Ns, love ya man but Russia didn't hack the election, they hacked the DNC and did it help?  It certainly didn't hurt, but Hillary was a terrible candidate that nobody trusted.  Bernie had a better chance I think, at least he's honest about his views, I like him for that, but his views would take us down the road of Venezuela.  Trump wasn't my guy, I liked Rubio or Cruz, but I like most of what he says and is doing, all be it with the Trump flair which I find entertaining.  This whole thing is just to delegitimize Trump so it is partisan, but we don't have to hate each other.  The BIG story everyone is missing is who ordered the unmasking, that would be bigger than WaterGate.  

[tk1313]

15 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Comey was a tool and firing him would look bad....until yesterday, when Clapper said over and over under oath there was no collusion between Trump and Russia.   That gave Trump the breathing room to fire him, Obama should have fired him.  And Ns, love ya man but Russia didn't hack the election, they hacked the DNC and did it help?  It certainly didn't hurt, but Hillary was a terrible candidate that nobody trusted.  Bernie had a better chance I think, at least he's honest about his views, I like him for that, but his views would take us down the road of Venezuela.  Trump wasn't my guy, I liked Rubio or Cruz, but I like most of what he says and is doing, all be it with the Trump flair which I find entertaining.  This whole thing is just to delegitimize Trump so it is partisan, but we don't have to hate each other.  The BIG story everyone is missing is who ordered the unmasking, that would be bigger than WaterGate.  

My $ is on Rice.

@nsplayr, I don't have to agree with you, but this thread would suck if it were just a circle-jerk of conservative opinions... Your opposing view is valued and necessary. Alright, enough of the  shit...

The Russians didn't even hack the DNC, per say. John Podesta alerted the IT department that he was told there was an attempt to hack his e-mail, and a suspicious link was provided to change his password. The IT guy said it was a "legitimate" e-mail and that he should change his password. He meant to say it was an "illegitimate" e-mail, and that he should change his password. So a typo allowed for a known and reported phishing attempt to be successful. And Bernie>Clinton any day, even if he's a socialist with 3 houses (the irony).
 

Edited May 11, 2017 by tk1313

[Lord Ratner]

. even if he's a socialist with 3 houses (the irony).
 

There are only those who don't understand socialism, and those who profit from it.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[matmacwc]

You're doing to get triggered, if you care.

 

[Guest]

On 5/11/2017 at 5:13 AM, matmacwc said:

Comey was a tool and firing him would look bad....until yesterday, when Clapper said over and over under oath there was no collusion between Trump and Russia.   That gave Trump the breathing room to fire him, Obama should have fired him.  And Ns, love ya man but Russia didn't hack the election, they hacked the DNC and did it help?  It certainly didn't hurt, but Hillary was a terrible candidate that nobody trusted.  Bernie had a better chance I think, at least he's honest about his views, I like him for that, but his views would take us down the road of Venezuela.  Trump wasn't my guy, I liked Rubio or Cruz, but I like most of what he says and is doing, all be it with the Trump flair which I find entertaining.  This whole thing is just to delegitimize Trump so it is partisan, but we don't have to hate each other.  The BIG story everyone is missing is who ordered the unmasking, that would be bigger than WaterGate.  

Honest question, looking to see your thought process, how do you prove or disprove Russia hack the election?

 

To be specific I am asking how can you prove Russia did or did not hack the electorate by their info Ops plans/war/whatever you want to call it?

Can this be truthfully be answered with facts or is this all everyone's opinions?

[matmacwc]

Well you have to ask the opposite, prove it.  No doubt they want to influence it and they probably tried, we do the same thing.  The proof is in the pudding as they say, would a foreign power want a unpredictable republican in office or a jellied spine democrat who already sold them uranium.  Russia does not win with the Republican, they win with a democrat or does the whole site need a history lesson?

You are going to hear "Special" or "Independent" or "Bi-partisan" PROSECUTOR all weekend.  There is nothing to prosecute, no laws broken.  There is no proof, Clapper said it and Comes said it.  This is all political.