SPYGATE; SMOKING GUN

[djAdvocate]

Benghazi, Ebola, Killer Bees.......the right is good at drumming up hysteria and getting zero indictments, zero arrests, and zero convictions.  one must presume at this point that they are not actually concerned about any of this stuff they drum up, and that they are doing it as a means to some alternative end.  one possibility is taking the heat and light off well founded and REAL scandals to which they are party.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[happyhoix]

May 21, 2018 10:55:33 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Buckle up real good.

The DOJ is launching internal investigations to look for phantom 'spying' because Trump had his little tweet storm Sunday demanding they do it.

Kind of like how I used to get down and look under my son's bed when he was little, to assure him there are no monsters there.

Just easier to do it and humor Trump than have him continue his whining.

Charming that you think they will actually find anything...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[Tennesseer]

Satire from The Borowitz Report

Public Demands Investigation of Why F.B.I. Infiltrators in Trump Campaign Failed to Prevent Him from Being Elected
By Andy Borowitz

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Millions of Americans are demanding an investigation into why, if F.B.I. operatives managed to infiltrate the 2016 Trump campaign, they utterly failed to prevent a nightmarish despot from being elected.

In interviews across the country, Americans expressed dismay and, in some cases, despair at the news that F.B.I. infiltrators might have had a golden opportunity to prevent the nation’s current unspeakable nightmare from unfolding but did not get the job done.

“The thought of F.B.I. infiltrators being inside the Trump campaign but not sabotaging it is, in a word, devastating,” Carol Foyler, of Akron, Ohio, said. “If it turns out to be true, I will totally lose my faith in F.B.I. infiltrators.”

Complete article here: Public Demands Investigation of Why F.B.I. Infiltrators in Trump Campaign Failed to Prevent Him from Being Elected

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Your homework:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/998242710824869888.html

[happyhoix]

May 21, 2018 11:01:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

When the head of the executive branch to whom the FBI and DOJ ultimately report, receive a lawful order, they must obey.
theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/20/president-trump-tweets-official-investigative-request-to-doj-forthcoming/
President Trump Tweets Official Investigative Request To DOJ Forthcoming…

Posted on May 20, 2018 by sundance

Those who have followed the events over the past two years closely know what the final tweet -in a series of sequenced tweets- from President Trump indicates:


Beginning with the confirmation of DNI Dan Coats in March 2017, a series of carefully planned sequential steps have been implemented – preparing the groundwork to expose the biggest political scandal in the history of the U.S. government: You can call it a soft-coup, or you can call it politicization and weaponization of the DOJ and FBI, but the end result is the same – the intentional effort to manipulate, influence, and ultimately subvert an election for the presidency of the United States.

From a series of POTUS Tweets today it would appear the Big Ugly is ignited.

Sure, Trump can require the DOJ to do an internal review.

Trump can't make them find something that isn't there, though.

Unless he tries to fire everyone in the DOJ and replace them with his own men - oh, wait, Sessions and Rothstein are his own men, aren't they?

Curious, they haven't already handed Trump the FBI plant on a silver platter then.

Unless, of course, there is no FBI plant, and it's all a big diversion to keep people from looking at what's REALLY behind the curtain.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Something else that's becoming very clear: The Trump strategy for exposing the scheme, right down to the timing and coordination of lighting the fuse on the Big Ugly. It's brilliant.

The Obama administration officials are going bananas.



The Democrat politicians who participated in the weaponization plan are also going bananas.



Deep State is deeply triggered.



Welcome to the biggest political battle in U.S. history.



#TheBigUgly.

[happyhoix]

I still go back to my original thought on this whole thing - Hilary sat through what - 9 or 10 different congressional investigations as they tried to find something, anything noteworthy to charge her with, but Trump can't tolerate letting the Mueller probe finish it's work? One investigation that has already successfully brought in multiple indictments and convictions?

Why can't Trump just shut up and let Mueller finish his job and post his conclusions?  Why does he keep flinging back more and more grandiose charges against the DOJ, like a chip slinging shit?

If he's truly innocent, moral and upstanding, there won't be any Russian collusion to find.....

[Opti]

May 21, 2018 10:50:53 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 21, 2018 10:49:48 GMT -5 Opti said:

In your dreams perhaps. He could have deep-sixed Trump's chances be to elected by making a big deal about Russia's interference before the election. But he didn't. Yet you and Trump think its believable he would do something far more complicated with no guaranteed pay off instead?

There is not enough tin foil on the planet to make that scenario sound sane.

We are WAY past conspiracy theories. Way past. We know. Now we just need to unpack it all. 

You don't know. Your posts sound like a manic spinning stories. There is lots of delusion and willingness to believe any story that deflects away from Trump. It continues to amaze me how much you and others would rather believe fake stories.

This reminds me of Rush and his story about liberals messing with the air waves, because he was unwilling to admit he had effed himself up with drugs. Trump is unwilling to admit he effed himself up with his hires and possibly going along with what they suggested. Big men, big egos, bigger delusions.

[happyhoix]

May 21, 2018 11:11:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Something else that's becoming very clear: The Trump strategy for exposing the scheme, right down to the timing and coordination of lighting the fuse on the Big Ugly. It's brilliant.

The Obama administration officials are going bananas.



The Democrat politicians who participated in the weaponization plan are also going bananas.



Deep State is deeply triggered.



Welcome to the biggest political battle in U.S. history.



#TheBigUgly.

Links please?  Conservative nut house doesn't count, that's a blog, not journalism.

Would you like me to also post links to Trump losing his shit? There's lots of them...

[Virgil Showlion]

May 21, 2018 0:44:23 GMT -5 Opti said:

I would like to revisit the FB ads from Russia. Several conservative posters poo-pooed the idea that the Russians could have affected the election purely based on emotional reasoning. $500,000 did not sound like it was a high enough budget to do anything they believe. But no time or thought was invested beyond that.

Jared was touted as being into analytics before the election. Basically targeting voters on various measures. You combine that with how cheap it is to throw an ad on FB in front of a user, a person who works through the numbers can see how little money might be needed to sway the right people. According to my Google results, it is only $7.19 to put an ad in front of 1000 people for an impression. An impression is merely seeing the ad, requiring no affirmative response like clicks or actually purchasing things. (Both of these latter actions are more costly FB ad choices.) Wisconsin was won by Trump by less than 23,000 votes. www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-final-wisconsin-recount-tally-1481584948-htmlstory.html

To put up an ad if one could target only those voters would have been roughly 7.19 x 23 x 5 for just displaying an ad 5 times in front of that many targeted FB users. An ad budget just under $827.00  . Let that sink in. Trump wins Pennsy with under 45,000 votes. 7.19 x 45 x 5 ==> roughly $1618.00 . Trump wins Michigan with less than 11,000 votes.

The budget for known Russian ads was a little over $100K, not $500K. Furthermore, if "$7.19 to put an ad in front of 1000 people for an impression" meant anything, the $1.5 billion spent by Ms. Clinton's campaign (not including the media coverage, which was a de facto extension of her campaign) would equate to 208 billion impressions on American citizens--more than 1,000 per voter--that failed to sway voters in her favour. Evidently an "impression" doesn't mean very much in this day and age.

You simply cannot argue that advertising on a scale of 0.0067% the Clinton campaign budget swayed the federal election, especially when a large chunk of the renegade advertising wasn't designed to sway election results in favour of Pres. Trump.

Decry it in principle, but in practical effect you don't have 0.0067% of a leg to stand on.

Pres. Trump's victory is so greatly celebrated by his base because the American media, the foreign media, Wall Street, the big unions, the big money donors, academics, foreign leaders, half the Republican Party, Mr. Soros, the Koch brothers, and every conceivable mode of influence controlled by the global and American upper echelon was pushing for a Clinton victory, firing every weapon in their arsenal in what would surely amount to tens of billions of dollars if tallied, and Pres. Trump still won.

This began the era of what Paul and Scott Adams collectively refer to as "Trump Derangement Syndrome". They use this term too liberally, applying it to criticism of Pres. Trump generally. As I see, it the "derangement" is limited to the severe cognitive dissonance that arose when Pres. Trump claimed victory in spite of everything thrown at him. It created a national psychosis: a desperation to explain the upset in a way that didn't involve acknowledging the American public's deep loathing of the media and federal establishment. The subsequent convulsions about the electoral system, fake news, Russian collusion, the Russian ads, policing Facebook and social media, the "deplorables", and many notable things besides are all symptoms.

[Opti]

May 21, 2018 11:01:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Benghazi, Ebola, Killer Bees.......the right is good at drumming up hysteria and getting zero indictments, zero arrests, and zero convictions.  one must presume at this point that they are not actually concerned about any of this stuff they drum up, and that they are doing it as a means to some alternative end.  one possibility is taking the heat and light off well founded and REAL scandals to which they are party.

What I am wondering is if Ryan and other GOPers helped with targeting voters and actually funneled money to these Russian groups instead of having it connected with RW companies and spin firms. What if Jared's professed strength with analytics was part of this scheme to screw with American voters?

[tallguy]

May 21, 2018 10:56:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

It's kind of like the "Where was Barrack (sic) Obama"? question- it's all here in this thread. I can post it, but I can't make you see it or read it.

i answered your question, but you won't answer mine, will you?

but you are right about one thing- i am not going to comb through 50 pages of bullshit looking for your granule of truth, presuming there is one somewhere in this thread.  you will have to repost it.

unless, of course, it does not exist.

Everybody here has already seen all of his "explanations."  That is why nobody of any sense or intelligence takes him seriously. 

[swamp]

May 21, 2018 11:06:43 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Your homework:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/998242710824869888.html

Seriously?   My homework? 

Get over yourself. 

[Opti]

May 21, 2018 11:21:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 21, 2018 0:44:23 GMT -5 Opti said:

I would like to revisit the FB ads from Russia. Several conservative posters poo-pooed the idea that the Russians could have affected the election purely based on emotional reasoning. $500,000 did not sound like it was a high enough budget to do anything they believe. But no time or thought was invested beyond that.

Jared was touted as being into analytics before the election. Basically targeting voters on various measures. You combine that with how cheap it is to throw an ad on FB in front of a user, a person who works through the numbers can see how little money might be needed to sway the right people. According to my Google results, it is only $7.19 to put an ad in front of 1000 people for an impression. An impression is merely seeing the ad, requiring no affirmative response like clicks or actually purchasing things. (Both of these latter actions are more costly FB ad choices.) Wisconsin was won by Trump by less than 23,000 votes. www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-final-wisconsin-recount-tally-1481584948-htmlstory.html

To put up an ad if one could target only those voters would have been roughly 7.19 x 23 x 5 for just displaying an ad 5 times in front of that many targeted FB users. An ad budget just under $827.00  . Let that sink in. Trump wins Pennsy with under 45,000 votes. 7.19 x 45 x 5 ==> roughly $1618.00 . Trump wins Michigan with less than 11,000 votes.

The budget for known Russian ads was a little over $100K, not $500K. Furthermore, if "$7.19 to put an ad in front of 1000 people for an impression" meant anything, the $1.5 billion spent by Ms. Clinton's campaign (not including the media coverage, which was a de facto extension of her campaign) would equate to 208 billion impressions on American citizens--more than 1,000 per voter--that failed to sway voters in her favour. Evidently an "impression" doesn't mean very much in this day and age.

You simply cannot argue that advertising on a scale of 0.0067% the Clinton campaign budget swayed the federal election, especially when a large chunk of the renegade advertising wasn't designed to sway election results in favour of Pres. Trump.

Decry it in principle, but in practical effect you don't have 0.0067% of a leg to stand on.

Pres. Trump's victory is so greatly celebrated by his base because the American media, the foreign media, Wall Street, the big unions, the big money donors, academics, foreign leaders, half the Republican Party, Mr. Soros, the Koch brothers, and every conceivable mode of influence controlled by the global and American upper echelon was pushing for a Clinton victory, firing every weapon in their arsenal in what would surely amount to tens of billions of dollars if tallied, and Pres. Trump still won.

This began the era of what Paul and Scott Adams collectively refer to as "Trump Derangement Syndrome". They use this term too liberally, applying it to criticism of Pres. Trump generally. As I see, it the "derangement" is limited to the severe cognitive dissonance that arose when Pres. Trump claimed victory in spite of everything thrown at him. It created a national psychosis: a desperation to explain the upset in a way that didn't involve acknowledging the American public's deep loathing of the media and federal establishment. The subsequent convulsions about the electoral system, fake news, Russian collusion, the Russian ads, policing Facebook and social media, the "deplorables", and many notable things besides are all symptoms.

You are comparing the wrong things. Traditional media ads on TV and radio cost much more than targeted FB ads and are spread over some people you may not need to sway or won't be swayed no matter what you do. The difference with FB and similar platforms is to target your ad only to those people you are trying to persuade. You aren't wasting money trying to turn NJ and CA conservative for example. You go after battleground states using different tactics. Convince black Wisconsin voters Clinton will win anyway so no need to go vote for a not so popular white woman while simulataneously exhorting Wisconsin conservatives to vote and have a voice.

You also conveniently left out the pre-advertising and story push from swaths of the RW before the campaigns even started. Remember all the crap about dynasties and how the Clintons were considered an equivalent dynasty to the Bushes? Even though it was one couple, one Presidency and a Sec of State versus two Presidencies and several governorships? Remember that? I do. The voters were pre-sold the idea to not vote for a known candidate even before Trump announced.

And its ignoring the shit ton of RW media and the RW story tellers that were pro-Trump and selling constantly. I don't loathe the media or the government. But I'm not a conservative. That's a message they are supposed to believe, even if they don't. Its in the daily Rush and other broadcasts. They are weaned on it. Things were set up for Trump and Clinton did some serious stupid like taking Wisconsin for granted. And don't forget Comey's timing to put the nail in Clinton's chances just before the election. That's when I knew the tide had changed and the odds were not good for a Clinton win. It was going to be tough no matter what, but that was going to sway all the undecided she needed.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

John Brennan and James Clapper have lost their minds. They are having a very public, very damaging to themselves public panic attack.

WaPo now asserts the spy was there to protect Trump and his campaign.

Wait.

I thought Trump was in on it with the Russians.

How many other campaigns have been similarly "protected"?

Do all future campaigns require "protection"?

I confess I actually laughed out loud when I saw this headline. Because it is not the work of serious journalist. It is the Washington Post making fun of themselves. The Washington Post can no longer be parodied. Because it has become a parody of itself.

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/18/if-the-fbi-used-an-informant-it-wasnt-to-go-after-trump-it-was-to-protect-him/

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 21, 2018 11:21:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 21, 2018 0:44:23 GMT -5 Opti said:

I would like to revisit the FB ads from Russia. Several conservative posters poo-pooed the idea that the Russians could have affected the election purely based on emotional reasoning. $500,000 did not sound like it was a high enough budget to do anything they believe. But no time or thought was invested beyond that.

Jared was touted as being into analytics before the election. Basically targeting voters on various measures. You combine that with how cheap it is to throw an ad on FB in front of a user, a person who works through the numbers can see how little money might be needed to sway the right people. According to my Google results, it is only $7.19 to put an ad in front of 1000 people for an impression. An impression is merely seeing the ad, requiring no affirmative response like clicks or actually purchasing things. (Both of these latter actions are more costly FB ad choices.) Wisconsin was won by Trump by less than 23,000 votes. www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-final-wisconsin-recount-tally-1481584948-htmlstory.html

To put up an ad if one could target only those voters would have been roughly 7.19 x 23 x 5 for just displaying an ad 5 times in front of that many targeted FB users. An ad budget just under $827.00  . Let that sink in. Trump wins Pennsy with under 45,000 votes. 7.19 x 45 x 5 ==> roughly $1618.00 . Trump wins Michigan with less than 11,000 votes.

The budget for known Russian ads was a little over $100K, not $500K. Furthermore, if "$7.19 to put an ad in front of 1000 people for an impression" meant anything, the $1.5 billion spent by Ms. Clinton's campaign (not including the media coverage, which was a de facto extension of her campaign) would equate to 208 billion impressions on American citizens--more than 1,000 per voter--that failed to sway voters in her favour. Evidently an "impression" doesn't mean very much in this day and age.

You simply cannot argue that advertising on a scale of 0.0067% the Clinton campaign budget swayed the federal election, especially when a large chunk of the renegade advertising wasn't designed to sway election results in favour of Pres. Trump.

Decry it in principle, but in practical effect you don't have 0.0067% of a leg to stand on.

Pres. Trump's victory is so greatly celebrated by his base because the American media, the foreign media, Wall Street, the big unions, the big money donors, academics, foreign leaders, half the Republican Party, Mr. Soros, the Koch brothers, and every conceivable mode of influence controlled by the global and American upper echelon was pushing for a Clinton victory, firing every weapon in their arsenal in what would surely amount to tens of billions of dollars if tallied, and Pres. Trump still won.

This began the era of what Paul and Scott Adams collectively refer to as "Trump Derangement Syndrome". They use this term too liberally, applying it to criticism of Pres. Trump generally. As I see, it the "derangement" is limited to the severe cognitive dissonance that arose when Pres. Trump claimed victory in spite of everything thrown at him. It created a national psychosis: a desperation to explain the upset in a way that didn't involve acknowledging the American public's deep loathing of the media and federal establishment. The subsequent convulsions about the electoral system, fake news, Russian collusion, the Russian ads, policing Facebook and social media, the "deplorables", and many notable things besides are all symptoms.

Hence the "poo pooing".

This is also not a serious defense of the Russia investigation. When this investigation began it was about the Trump campaigns collusion with Russia and state actors to influence, and even tamper with the election. It was an attempt to delegitimize the election for the express purpose of getting Trump to resign, or pressuring Congress to impeach Trump, and to abort the Trump presidency before it could begin. The attempt has failed, and everything that has ensued is an excuse and a cover-up.

[Opti]

May 21, 2018 12:20:33 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 21, 2018 11:21:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The budget for known Russian ads was a little over $100K, not $500K. Furthermore, if "$7.19 to put an ad in front of 1000 people for an impression" meant anything, the $1.5 billion spent by Ms. Clinton's campaign (not including the media coverage, which was a de facto extension of her campaign) would equate to 208 billion impressions on American citizens--more than 1,000 per voter--that failed to sway voters in her favour. Evidently an "impression" doesn't mean very much in this day and age.

You simply cannot argue that advertising on a scale of 0.0067% the Clinton campaign budget swayed the federal election, especially when a large chunk of the renegade advertising wasn't designed to sway election results in favour of Pres. Trump.

Decry it in principle, but in practical effect you don't have 0.0067% of a leg to stand on.

Pres. Trump's victory is so greatly celebrated by his base because the American media, the foreign media, Wall Street, the big unions, the big money donors, academics, foreign leaders, half the Republican Party, Mr. Soros, the Koch brothers, and every conceivable mode of influence controlled by the global and American upper echelon was pushing for a Clinton victory, firing every weapon in their arsenal in what would surely amount to tens of billions of dollars if tallied, and Pres. Trump still won.

This began the era of what Paul and Scott Adams collectively refer to as "Trump Derangement Syndrome". They use this term too liberally, applying it to criticism of Pres. Trump generally. As I see, it the "derangement" is limited to the severe cognitive dissonance that arose when Pres. Trump claimed victory in spite of everything thrown at him. It created a national psychosis: a desperation to explain the upset in a way that didn't involve acknowledging the American public's deep loathing of the media and federal establishment. The subsequent convulsions about the electoral system, fake news, Russian collusion, the Russian ads, policing Facebook and social media, the "deplorables", and many notable things besides are all symptoms.

Hence the "poo pooing".

This is also not a serious defense of the Russia investigation. When this investigation began it was about the Trump campaigns collusion with Russia and state actors to influence, and even tamper with the election. It was an attempt to delegitimize the election for the express purpose of getting Trump to resign, or pressuring Congress to impeach Trump, and to abort the Trump presidency before it could begin. The attempt has failed, and everything that has ensued is an excuse and a cover-up.

You can say and post this until the day you die, but it is still epic BS that now pales in comparison to Pizza-gate for me.

I like my fiction intelligent and well-crafted BTW.

[Opti]

May 21, 2018 12:17:07 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

John Brennan and James Clapper have lost their minds. They are having a very public, very damaging to themselves public panic attack.

WaPo now asserts the spy was there to protect Trump and his campaign.

Wait.

I thought Trump was in on it with the Russians.

How many other campaigns have been similarly "protected"?

Do all future campaigns require "protection"?

I confess I actually laughed out loud when I saw this headline. Because it is not the work of serious journalist. It is the Washington Post making fun of themselves. The Washington Post can no longer be parodied. Because it has become a parody of itself.

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/18/if-the-fbi-used-an-informant-it-wasnt-to-go-after-trump-it-was-to-protect-him/

Major reading comprehension fail or bad attempted spin. I don't know which. Not sure if the article is an opinion piece or from a staff writer. No WaPo did not assert the informant existed to protect Trump or his campaign. What this article writer asserts is that there were two ways to handle the alleged Russian interference once discovered. One was to do a James Comey and publicize it immediately thus damaging Trump's campaign near the election. The other was to remain quiet and continue to collect data. The latter unfortunately meant Russia was free to continue their interference.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 21, 2018 11:47:03 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 21, 2018 11:21:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The budget for known Russian ads was a little over $100K, not $500K. Furthermore, if "$7.19 to put an ad in front of 1000 people for an impression" meant anything, the $1.5 billion spent by Ms. Clinton's campaign (not including the media coverage, which was a de facto extension of her campaign) would equate to 208 billion impressions on American citizens--more than 1,000 per voter--that failed to sway voters in her favour. Evidently an "impression" doesn't mean very much in this day and age.

You simply cannot argue that advertising on a scale of 0.0067% the Clinton campaign budget swayed the federal election, especially when a large chunk of the renegade advertising wasn't designed to sway election results in favour of Pres. Trump.

Decry it in principle, but in practical effect you don't have 0.0067% of a leg to stand on.

Pres. Trump's victory is so greatly celebrated by his base because the American media, the foreign media, Wall Street, the big unions, the big money donors, academics, foreign leaders, half the Republican Party, Mr. Soros, the Koch brothers, and every conceivable mode of influence controlled by the global and American upper echelon was pushing for a Clinton victory, firing every weapon in their arsenal in what would surely amount to tens of billions of dollars if tallied, and Pres. Trump still won.

This began the era of what Paul and Scott Adams collectively refer to as "Trump Derangement Syndrome". They use this term too liberally, applying it to criticism of Pres. Trump generally. As I see, it the "derangement" is limited to the severe cognitive dissonance that arose when Pres. Trump claimed victory in spite of everything thrown at him. It created a national psychosis: a desperation to explain the upset in a way that didn't involve acknowledging the American public's deep loathing of the media and federal establishment. The subsequent convulsions about the electoral system, fake news, Russian collusion, the Russian ads, policing Facebook and social media, the "deplorables", and many notable things besides are all symptoms.

You are comparing the wrong things. Traditional media ads on TV and radio cost much more than targeted FB ads and are spread over some people you may not need to sway or won't be swayed no matter what you do. The difference with FB and similar platforms is to target your ad only to those people you are trying to persuade. You aren't wasting money trying to turn NJ and CA conservative for example. You go after battleground states using different tactics. Convince black Wisconsin voters Clinton will win anyway so no need to go vote for a not so popular white woman while simulataneously exhorting Wisconsin conservatives to vote and have a voice.

You also conveniently left out the pre-advertising and story push from swaths of the RW before the campaigns even started. Remember all the crap about dynasties and how the Clintons were considered an equivalent dynasty to the Bushes? Even though it was one couple, one Presidency and a Sec of State versus two Presidencies and several governorships? Remember that? I do. The voters were pre-sold the idea to not vote for a known candidate even before Trump announced.

And its ignoring the shit ton of RW media and the RW story tellers that were pro-Trump and selling constantly. I don't loathe the media or the government. But I'm not a conservative. That's a message they are supposed to believe, even if they don't. Its in the daily Rush and other broadcasts. They are weaned on it. Things were set up for Trump and Clinton did some serious stupid like taking Wisconsin for granted. And don't forget Comey's timing to put the nail in Clinton's chances just before the election. That's when I knew the tide had changed and the odds were not good for a Clinton win. It was going to be tough no matter what, but that was going to sway all the undecided she needed.

Your first argument boils down to "The Russians were smart about advertising, and the Clinton campaign wasn't."  I can believe this to a degree.

Can I swallow it to the degree that the Russians got 15,000 times the bang for their buck in terms of voter persuasion (closer to 30,000 times when factoring in the proportion of ads designed to sway the election in Pres. Trump's favour)? No. Ms. Clinton was accused of misallocating funds, perhaps neglecting certain states, but she's not an incompetent boob who flushed $1.5 billion down the drain on utterly ineffective advertising.

As for the RW media and RW story tellers, they were indeed instrumental in Pres. Trump's election, but I also don't consider it "derangement" to blame them for playing a major role. They did. If your argument was "Let's revisit the role that Breitbart, the Drudge Report, Ben Shapiro, et al. played in stirring up the people, and assess their statements about Pres. Trump and Ms. Clinton," I wouldn't be here accusing you of making a mountain out of a molehill.

Finally, regarding Mr. Comey, I'm firmly in the camp that Ms. Clinton broke the law with her private e-mail server (I don't care if her predecessors also broke the law, or if she had no intent to expose US secrets) and Mr. Comey took a bullet for her, not wanting to throw the US into chaos by recommending the AG indict one of only two electable candidates just months before the vote. Even if his condemnation of her behaviour tipped the scales against her, she owes Mr. Comey, A.G. Lynch, and Mr. McCabe a debt she can never repay. They sunk their careers to keep her in the race, and may still face further punishment. I don't know if she appreciates how much they sacrificed for her sake. I somehow doubt it.

In any case, they're not to blame for her election loss either.

[Opti]

May 21, 2018 12:51:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 21, 2018 11:47:03 GMT -5 Opti said:

You are comparing the wrong things. Traditional media ads on TV and radio cost much more than targeted FB ads and are spread over some people you may not need to sway or won't be swayed no matter what you do. The difference with FB and similar platforms is to target your ad only to those people you are trying to persuade. You aren't wasting money trying to turn NJ and CA conservative for example. You go after battleground states using different tactics. Convince black Wisconsin voters Clinton will win anyway so no need to go vote for a not so popular white woman while simulataneously exhorting Wisconsin conservatives to vote and have a voice.

You also conveniently left out the pre-advertising and story push from swaths of the RW before the campaigns even started. Remember all the crap about dynasties and how the Clintons were considered an equivalent dynasty to the Bushes? Even though it was one couple, one Presidency and a Sec of State versus two Presidencies and several governorships? Remember that? I do. The voters were pre-sold the idea to not vote for a known candidate even before Trump announced.

And its ignoring the shit ton of RW media and the RW story tellers that were pro-Trump and selling constantly. I don't loathe the media or the government. But I'm not a conservative. That's a message they are supposed to believe, even if they don't. Its in the daily Rush and other broadcasts. They are weaned on it. Things were set up for Trump and Clinton did some serious stupid like taking Wisconsin for granted. And don't forget Comey's timing to put the nail in Clinton's chances just before the election. That's when I knew the tide had changed and the odds were not good for a Clinton win. It was going to be tough no matter what, but that was going to sway all the undecided she needed.

Your first argument boils down to "The Russians were smart about advertising, and the Clinton campaign wasn't."  I can believe this to a degree.

Can I swallow it to the degree that the Russians got 15,000 times the bang for their buck in terms of voter persuasion (closer to 30,000 times when factoring in the proportion of ads designed to sway the election in Pres. Trump's favour)? No. Ms. Clinton was accused of misallocating funds, perhaps neglecting certain states, but she's not an incompetent boob who flushed $1.5 billion down the drain on utterly ineffective advertising.

As for the RW media and RW story tellers, they were indeed instrumental in Pres. Trump's election, but I also don't consider it "derangement" to blame them for playing a major role. They did. If your argument was "Let's revisit the role that Breitbart, the Drudge Report, Ben Shapiro, et al. played in stirring up the people, and assess their statements about Pres. Trump and Ms. Clinton," I wouldn't be here accusing you of making a mountain out of a molehill.

Finally, regarding Mr. Comey, I'm firmly in the camp that Ms. Clinton broke the law with her private e-mail server (I don't care if her predecessors also broke the law, or if she had no intent to expose US secrets) and Mr. Comey took a bullet for her, not wanting to throw the US into chaos by recommending the AG indict one of only two electable candidates just months before the vote. Even if his condemnation of her behaviour tipped the scales against her, she owes Mr. Comey, A.G. Lynch, and Mr. McCabe a debt she can never repay. They sunk their careers to keep her in the race, and may still face further punishment. I don't know if she appreciates how much they sacrificed for her sake. I somehow doubt it.

In any case, they're not to blame for her election loss either.

Virgil, the Russians had to only tweak what existed. You are wrong about what I am trying to discuss. Comparing what the Russians did to Clinton or even Trump misses entirely the reality of the situation. Trump and Clinton are competing with each other during the campaign. That is the landscape that the Russians had to act on. They are also unconstrained by usual Presidential politics. They don't care or need a unified message. They just need it to work. They are shifting what exists, not running their own candidate. So they aren't "more effective".

And it wasn't just ads. If you read anything about the troll farms, the workers had to make so many posts and comments a day in various forums. This is another form of advertising with only the worker salaries paid to make it happen. At this time, this really isn't done except by some of the RW funded quasi-legal opinion pushers.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2018 11:26:19 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 21, 2018 10:56:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

It's kind of like the "Where was Barrack (sic) Obama"? question- it's all here in this thread. I can post it, but I can't make you see it or read it.

i answered your question, but you won't answer mine, will you?

but you are right about one thing- i am not going to comb through 50 pages of bullshit looking for your granule of truth, presuming there is one somewhere in this thread.  you will have to repost it.

unless, of course, it does not exist.

Everybody here has already seen all of his "explanations."  That is why nobody of any sense or intelligence takes him seriously. 

ok.  because just to be clear, if there WAS such information out there, i would want to know it.  until then, i will stick to the idea that this guy was an "informant".  he was not embedded by the FBI, nor was he on their payroll.  he worked for the private sector, and had INFREQUENT contact of a business nature with the campaign- probably with one of the more well known loose cannons- and simply made conversation with them, and reported it back to the FBI.  why he cooperated is not known at this time.  he could have simply been alarmed at the ridiculous corruption.  that would be excuse enough.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2018 11:03:22 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

May 21, 2018 10:55:33 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The DOJ is launching internal investigations to look for phantom 'spying' because Trump had his little tweet storm Sunday demanding they do it.

Kind of like how I used to get down and look under my son's bed when he was little, to assure him there are no monsters there.

Just easier to do it and humor Trump than have him continue his whining.

Charming that you think they will actually find anything...

and irrelevant.  this wild goose chasing is great for the base, but ultimately, it drains resources from any sort of real defense he might otherwise be constructing.

#presidentpelosi

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2018 11:12:02 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I still go back to my original thought on this whole thing - Hilary sat through what - 9 or 10 different congressional investigations as they tried to find something, anything noteworthy to charge her with, but Trump can't tolerate letting the Mueller probe finish it's work? One investigation that has already successfully brought in multiple indictments and convictions?

Why can't Trump just shut up and let Mueller finish his job and post his conclusions?  Why does he keep flinging back more and more grandiose charges against the DOJ, like a chip slinging shit?

If he's truly innocent, moral and upstanding, there won't be any Russian collusion to find.....

since he apparently can't be indicted, there is really no excuse for him to shut this down.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2018 10:50:53 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We are WAY past conspiracy theories. Way past. We know. Now we just need to unpack it all. 

you're right.  we are way past conspiracy.  that is why there have been 22 indictments and 5 convictions, so far. 

there will be more.  and i am betting none of them will be Hillary.

[Tennesseer]

May 21, 2018 15:48:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2018 11:12:02 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I still go back to my original thought on this whole thing - Hilary sat through what - 9 or 10 different congressional investigations as they tried to find something, anything noteworthy to charge her with, but Trump can't tolerate letting the Mueller probe finish it's work? One investigation that has already successfully brought in multiple indictments and convictions?

Why can't Trump just shut up and let Mueller finish his job and post his conclusions?  Why does he keep flinging back more and more grandiose charges against the DOJ, like a chip slinging shit?

If he's truly innocent, moral and upstanding, there won't be any Russian collusion to find.....

since he apparently can't be indicted, there is really no excuse for him to shut this down.

But trump can be indicted once he leaves office.