DC Tom Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 CNN Fires 3 Following Yet Another Fake Story The story, which reported that Congress was investigating a "Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials," cited a single anonymous source. Was it too well-sourced or something?
snafu Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 What if Andrew Cuomo or Biden had run against the chosen one Hillary ? No worries. DNC would've rigged that primary, too.
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 No worries. DNC would've rigged that primary, too. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Howd they do it? Basically, by doxxing the Democrats and unleashing fake news. Russia was behind the stories that dominated our headlines, both real and fabricated, for several weeks leading up to the election. In doing so, it bet that casting further doubt on Clintons honesty and character while also polluting the information environment with false stories would affect the decisions of enough voters to increase Trumps chances. It wagered that in a close election, perhaps it could be the difference."
Deranged Rhino Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Howd they do it? Basically, by doxxing the Democrats and unleashing fake news. Russia was behind the stories that dominated our headlines, both real and fabricated, for several weeks leading up to the election. In doing so, it bet that casting further doubt on Clintons honesty and character while also polluting the information environment with false stories would affect the decisions of enough voters to increase Trumps chances. It wagered that in a close election, perhaps it could be the difference."
Chef Jim Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Howd they do it? Basically, by doxxing the Democrats and unleashing fake news. Russia was behind the stories that dominated our headlines, both real and fabricated, for several weeks leading up to the election. In doing so, it bet that casting further doubt on Clintons honesty and character while also polluting the information environment with false stories would affect the decisions of enough voters to increase Trumps chances. It wagered that in a close election, perhaps it could be the difference." What fake news did they release and how did they release it?
DC Tom Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Howd they do it? Basically, by doxxing the Democrats and unleashing fake news. Russia was behind the stories that dominated our headlines, both real and fabricated, for several weeks leading up to the election. In doing so, it bet that casting further doubt on Clintons honesty and character while also polluting the information environment with false stories would affect the decisions of enough voters to increase Trumps chances. It wagered that in a close election, perhaps it could be the difference." Because it's not like Clinton didn't spend the previous quarter-century proving she has no honesty or character.
Nanker Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Howd they do it? Basically, by doxxing the Democrats and unleashing fake news. Russia was behind the stories that dominated our headlines, both real and fabricated, for several weeks leading up to the election. In doing so, it bet that casting further doubt on Clintons honesty and character while also polluting the information environment with false stories would affect the decisions of enough voters to increase Trumps chances. It wagered that in a close election, perhaps it could be the difference."
B-Man Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) "To report not on facts, but instead on narratives that yield high ratings, is exactly the definition of fake news O'KEEFE STRIKES AGAIN: CNN Producer Says Russia Narrative 'Bullsh*t'... "It's a business, people are like the media has an ethical phssssss... All the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school you're just like, that's adorable. That's adorable. This is a business." "Trump is good for business right now," "Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we're done with that, let's get back to Russia." Edited June 27, 2017 by B-Man
Tiberius Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 What was Jared Kushner doing meeting with the Kremlin's "bank" manager? http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-veb-putin-bank-that-jared-kushner-met-2017-6 This "bank" is nothing more than a Kremlin influence peddling institution and Trump is appearently tied up in it to his eyeballs No wonder Kushner is hiring some serious legal help.
Doc Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Howd they do it? Basically, by doxxing the Democrats and unleashing fake news. Russia was behind the stories that dominated our headlines, both real and fabricated, for several weeks leading up to the election. In doing so, it bet that casting further doubt on Clintons honesty and character while also polluting the information environment with false stories would affect the decisions of enough voters to increase Trumps chances. It wagered that in a close election, perhaps it could be the difference." Do you wonder why Barry stole the nomination from Hilly back in 2008 EII? Considering she was a former first lady who had been in the public eye for 16 years+ and even had been a US senator for longer than Barry had been? It's because the DNC realized that the more Hilly campaigned, the more people disliked her. It had nothing to do with the Russians then, just as it doesn't now. So they cut a deal with her to let Barry have the presidency and she could make her run in 2016 (and that's the information that was exposed, although it didn't make a difference in the outcome). And guess what? The more people saw of her, the more they disliked her. And she lost. Get over it.
row_33 Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 Do you wonder why Barry stole the nomination from Hilly back in 2008 EII? Considering she was a former first lady who had been in the public eye for 16 years+ and even had been a US senator for longer than Barry had been? It's because the DNC realized that the more Hilly campaigned, the more people disliked her. It had nothing to do with the Russians then, just as it doesn't now. So they cut a deal with her to let Barry have the presidency and she could make her run in 2016 (and that's the information that was exposed, although it didn't make a difference in the outcome). And guess what? The more people saw of her, the more they disliked her. And she lost. Get over it. President Obama was a likeable man who could bring back a good chunk of the Nixon/Reagan/Bush Democrats. Dems need a Southerner or acceptable type like Obama to win.
Doc Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 President Obama was a likeable man who could bring back a good chunk of the Nixon/Reagan/Bush Democrats. Dems need a Southerner or acceptable type like Obama to win. It was more that he was likeable and not a Repub. After 8 years of Dubya, war and the economy tanking, people wanted a change in parties.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 This isn't even comparable to Hilly's bro getting a gold mine permit from Haiti after the State Department gave the country billions. Must be because Barry's now getting hammered over it. Barry would have gotten hammered over it IF he spoke up last November as "trying to sway the election" This is a Strawman Frump argument.
row_33 Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) It was more that he was likeable and not a Repub. After 8 years of Dubya, war and the economy tanking, people wanted a change in parties. The US tends to swing from a bit left-of-centre to a bit right-of-centre after each has its turn at the helm. Usually the sitting POTUS's party gets taken down a peg or six during offseason elections for Congress. Edited June 27, 2017 by row_33
Doc Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 Barry would have gotten hammered over it IF he spoke up last November as "trying to sway the election" This is a Strawman Frump argument. Yeah, that's the lib talking point. But it makes no sense.
/dev/null Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 The US tends to swing from a bit left-of-centre to a bit right-of-centre after each has its turn at the helm. Usually the sitting POTUS's party gets taken down a peg or six during offseason elections for Congress. Except 98 when Republicans overstepped on impeaching Clinton or 02 after 9/11 Democrats may want to keep 98 in mind while plotting their 'resistance'
row_33 Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 Except 98 when Republicans overstepped on impeaching Clinton or 02 after 9/11 Democrats may want to keep 98 in mind while plotting their 'resistance' in 94 Clinton was hit hard, very hard for a sitting President Then the pendulum swung back for 98 offseason elections there is nothing new or dramatic under the sun falling in love with someone getting elected is a fool's game, the next morning Canadian and US voters are plotting to make you pay for winning LBJ went from a landslide win in 64 to watching his party fall apart in 68 happens...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 Yeah, that's the lib talking point. But it makes no sense. Call it what you will Doc. What makes no sense is pretending that had Obama had made this an issue last November you (yes you) would have bitched up a storm and cried foul. # resist # RoguePOTUSStaff https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff
Recommended Posts