The Big Fat Compendium Of Russiagate Debunkery

[noise]

He won by the rules of the electoral college. That is all that is required.

You seem to have forgotten what you posted. This was in response to you saying the majority of people voted for Trump. This is incorrect.

[bust]

All the poison and vitriol splashed in our faces leading up to the election had a lot to do with the election result. Most of it targeted Clinton. Much of it was fake, much of it was contrived by Trump conspirators and foreign agents in the Kremlin. It was spread by fake news bots on social media and the fools who believed it. Much of it was cleverly designed to appear to come from Bernie supporters to appeal to that portion of the electorate. And to sow division among Democrats. And it worked. Many voted for Stein. Some even voted for Trump. Even more stayed home.

Who are the three-quarters of adult Americans who didn't vote for Trump?
"The president-elect came second in the popular vote in November but the biggest bloc in the US electorate was those who for different reasons did not vote"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-donald-trump

If just 1 out of every 4 people who voted for Stein in Michigan voted for Clinton she would have won the state. If just a tiny fraction of the eligible voters who stayed home...

Several other key states were close too.

Trump lost the popular vote. Russian interference was one of several factors that somehow came together to allow him to barely sneak a win by the legal distortions to our democracy our electoral system allows. I hope we will later look back on this as a fluke in our national history. It is not normal.

We could run down the list of other factors that contributed to this strange election result. Other forms of voter suppression probably played an even bigger role. Clinton was the wrong candidate. There were many mistakes by her party and her election campaign. Sexism is real. And so on...

We should look at all that. But Russian interference was enough of a factor that without it I strongly believe Trump would have lost. As he should have. Russian influence was significant, and the election was very, very close.

Trump, Putin, and the New Cold War
"What lay behind Russia’s interference in the 2016 election—and what lies ahead?"
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...e-new-cold-war

[Richard]

I think it was California servers that hacked Russian servers and then used thier gateway to attempt to hack the election.

How come the DNC did not want to turn the servers over which would have at the very least provided a crumb trail and would have provided proof at that time?

Trump bad guy because he talked about grabbing ussy but Hillary is the bastion of goodness after Benghazi,and the whole Bernie aspect.

If you run a clean ship who cares about hacking,nothing to see then nothing to worry about,but that is how it works,the US news network can find dirt but Russia cannot?

The guy they exposed as having over 50 fake news sites was an American that had no political gains it was all about paid clicks and targeted everybody.

The states already sell voter registration and DMV information so there was really no need to hack voter registration and the majority of the polling stations have no internet connection to be hacked anyways.

Why is it that some states still do not want to verify the legitimacy of the actual registration of voter eligibility?

We do not need Russia to interfere with our democracy or republic,we are doing just fine on our own.

[Pam]

That would be the article published by Caitlyn Johnstone on medium.com? You DO know that websites like medium.com are not actual media outlets, but rather online publishing platforms where literally anyone can write anything they want and publish it without that information being independently verified or fact-checked by anyone [[like an editor would at a traditional newspaper). In short, it's a blog site. Nor is anyone ultimately responsible should the information contained in those "articles" be, well let's just say, not so factually accurate?

If I write an article and publish it on medium.com today and link to it here, will you believe it? Because I can very easily do that and it will be equally as valid as the article you linked to and will literally come from the very same website.

It's not just an opinion piece. They link to different sources.

[Pam]

The original link is hard to load, here's another that indexes different sections.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/t...y-f5b6f4101dd0

[Honky Tonk]

The original link is hard to load, here's another that indexes different sections.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/t...y-f5b6f4101dd0

Heavy stuff, Pam, Thanx.

[Pam]

Heavy stuff, Pam, Thanx.

You're welcome. Thanks for not calling me a Trump supporter/Kremlin puppet. Just trying to get people to think outside the box.

[Honky Tonk]

You're welcome. Thanks for not calling me a Trump supporter/Kremlin puppet. Just trying to get people to think outside the box.

I bet when you get a sweet tooth, you order a Sanders Schmoozer....

[coracle]

bust; I really like the thinking you express in Post 52; it nails current democrat positions and needs spreading as much as possible to ensure we continue to get the outcomes we want.

[GMan]

You seem to have forgotten what you posted. This was in response to you saying the majority of people voted for Trump. This is incorrect.

Okay lets add a word to that sentence which when read in context to Pam's post meant ....the majority of people THAT voted for Trump wanted the repeal of A.C.A., tougher immigration. etc......

Okay THAT should make you happy.

[Pam]

All the poison and vitriol splashed in our faces leading up to the election had a lot to do with the election result. Most of it targeted Clinton. Much of it was fake, much of it was contrived by Trump conspirators and foreign agents in the Kremlin. It was spread by fake news bots on social media and the fools who believed it. Much of it was cleverly designed to appear to come from Bernie supporters to appeal to that portion of the electorate. And to sow division among Democrats. And it worked. Many voted for Stein. Some even voted for Trump. Even more stayed home.

Did you watch those videos I posted earlier from the Democratic convention last summer? Hillary lost because of her record, her scandals and her cheating in the primary. For example- Hillary was pro-fracking. Why shouldn't someone concerned about that vote for the Green party instead? Russia didn't have anything to do with Hillary's abysmal record on the issues, her sleazy "charitable" foundation and on and on.

Trump was against the TPP, Hillary was for it. He got votes in the Midwest because of that. People burned by Bill Clinton's Nafta didn't want to vote for Hillary.

The Democrats screwed up big time by blocking Sanders. Polls showed he could beat Trump and Hillary could not. The party should have gotten behind him, but they would rather lose than upset the corporate donors.

[Honky Tonk]

Did you watch those videos I posted earlier from the Democratic convention last summer? Hillary lost because of her record, her scandals and her cheating in the primary. For example- Hillary was pro-fracking. Why shouldn't someone concerned about that vote for the Green party instead? Russia didn't have anything to do with Hillary's abysmal record on the issues, her sleazy "charitable" foundation and on and on.

Trump was against the TPP, Hillary was for it. He got votes in the Midwest because of that. People burned by Bill Clinton's Nafta didn't want to vote for Hillary.

The Democrats screwed up big time by blocking Sanders. Polls showed he could beat Trump and Hillary could not. The party should have gotten behind him, but they would rather lose than upset the corporate donors.

How soon they forget...

[Richard]

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say Sanders would have beat Trump,he does have that whole socialist aspect behind him that some do not feel comfortable with.

There needs to be a balance in there somewhere.

Funny how people said no way to Jeb but yet we end up with the choice of Hillary or Trump.

[Pam]

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say Sanders would have beat Trump,he does have that whole socialist aspect behind him that some do not feel comfortable with.

.

No, not a stretch. Multiple polls showed this. Younger people especially didn't care about the "socialist" label.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-5565.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politi...oll/index.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...onged-20151223

[GMan]

No, not a stretch. Multiple polls showed this. Younger people especially didn't care about the "socialist" label.
.......

It is an interesting and scary possibility we are being tested and set up for socialism in this country.
Every so many years a "socialist" agenda political type get foisted in front of the masses and the results tallied.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the same power brokers sit back and count the money while laughing at the masses.

[Honky Tonk]

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say Sanders would have beat Trump,he does have that whole socialist aspect behind him that some do not feel comfortable with.

There needs to be a balance in there somewhere.

Funny how people said no way to Jeb but yet we end up with the choice of Hillary or Trump.

Actually, after listening to Jeb's speeches in the Primaries, I would have voted for him before Mrs. Clinton. I did like Bernie's ideologies, but as we see over and over again, he would have had a snowball's chance in Hell of implementing them.

[coracle]

"The Democrats screwed up big time by blocking Sanders. Polls showed he could beat Trump and Hillary could not. The party should have gotten behind him, but they would rather lose than upset the corporate donors."

I don't remember the Polls showing that Clinton could not beat Trump, Pam. I seem to remember they all predicted a "comfortable" win for her. And the only reason they showed Sanders could beat him was because it was never going to happen.

Polls today only reflect the aims of the polling organization to sway the result their way and/or to produce the opportunity to spread fake news.

Thinking that Sanders would have beaten Trump when everybody else failed is clutching at straws. He was/is a SOCIALIST not even a democrat.

[Richard]

Actually, after listening to Jeb's speeches in the Primaries, I would have voted for him before Mrs. Clinton. I did like Bernie's ideologies, but as we see over and over again, he would have had a snowball's chance in Hell of implementing them.

I was a bit surprised when Jeb and all of the others pulled out so quick.

People right away jumped on the whole not another Bush in the White House,but to me he was not even like his brother.

You find out in life that you meet a lot of people and the ones that have your back when the crap hits the fan you have respect for.

When the 4 hurricanes hit Fl in 2004,after the first one,as soon as it was safe the assets were in the streets,it was 11:30 pm.

No power for 14 days citywide,but the fuel trucks were stacked up and portable generators to get some of the gas stations up and running,portable water and food stations in place within a couple of days.

The insurance companies dared not disput claims and they were settled quick.

When one sees the cluster pluck of Katrina,and the northeast and how that was handled you appreciate it.

He was not perfect as gov of Fl but that is politics,you ask for a 100 to get 50 and cannot please everybody all of the time.

I did emergency disaster response in Fl and in New Orleans,Fl paid me New Orleans did not and it bankrupted me because I still had to cover my crews lodging,meals,and all expenses that were supposed to be covered in the contracts.I have a lot of acquaintances that also got screwed and word got out quick not to respond anymore.

[Pam]

"The Democrats screwed up big time by blocking Sanders. Polls showed he could beat Trump and Hillary could not. The party should have gotten behind him, but they would rather lose than upset the corporate donors."

I don't remember the Polls showing that Clinton could not beat Trump, Pam. I seem to remember they all predicted a "comfortable" win for her. And the only reason they showed Sanders could beat him was because it was never going to happen.

Polls today only reflect the aims of the polling organization to sway the result their way and/or to produce the opportunity to spread fake news.

Thinking that Sanders would have beaten Trump when everybody else failed is clutching at straws. He was/is a SOCIALIST not even a democrat.

Here's one that showed Trump beating Hillary.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...y-head-to-head

I actually agree with you though, that not all polls are reliable.

As I said above, the word "socialist" doesn't scare everybody, especially the younger voters. Bernie was doing well with the 18-35 group.
The other thing about Bernie is he did well with independents and people that might not normally vote. A lot of those that stayed home or left part of the ballot blank in November would have gone for him. People want progress and are sick of the corporate tools in both parties.

[Richard]

Here's one that showed Trump beating Hillary.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...y-head-to-head

I actually agree with you though, that not all polls are reliable.

As I said above, the word "socialist" doesn't scare everybody, especially the younger voters. Bernie was doing well with the 18-35 group.
The other thing about Bernie is he did well with independents and people that might not normally vote. A lot of those that stayed home or left part of the ballot blank in November would have gone for him. People want progress and are sick of the corporate tools in both parties.

I agree with the age group of Bernie supporters,their was a commentary awhile back about minlinials and that they supported the socialist aspect until they got into the 40k to 50k pay range then it kinda changed.

Based on my observations,I want to be clear that they are my observations on social media and more so Facebook,which I have no clue as to why I even keep that,but I used to play one of the games on there so I have 600 "friends"

Based on that number the Bernie supporters in the 18 to 25 range are radically left and point blank socialist,the ones in the 35-40 range and some I actually know are ones that at that age are still acting like everybody owes them a living and a free place to live.

That is not to say all Sanders supporters are like that or all dems are bad or all Repub are bad.

Most just want to provide for thier families and make a better life for thier children.

I believe Bernie believes in what he is proposeing and we really need to do some systematic changes when it comes to the education,immigration,and healthcare,I am glad he has a voice and keeps those points in the forefront.

But all of those things need to be paid for.

Totaly off subject but the recent apartment fire in the U.K.,that was council housing or section 8,the building was located in a very expensive part of town.

The replacement apartments that the displaced residents are now moving into costs the others residents 1.6 million pounds that is over 1 million in US per unit.

How would someone like to bust thier butt to be able to afford to live in the heart of London when all they need to do is quit work and have the exact same thing.

That is when it becomes a slippery slope.

Detroit has already seen what it is like when there are more taking then paying into. It just does not work.

[Pam]

I agree with the age group of Bernie supporters,their was a commentary awhile back about minlinials and that they supported the socialist aspect until they got into the 40k to 50k pay range then it kinda changed.

Based on my observations,I want to be clear that they are my observations on social media and more so Facebook,which I have no clue as to why I even keep that,but I used to play one of the games on there so I have 600 "friends"

Based on that number the Bernie supporters in the 18 to 25 range are radically left and point blank socialist,the ones in the 35-40 range and some I actually know are ones that at that age are still acting like everybody owes them a living and a free place to live.

That is not to say all Sanders supporters are like that or all dems are bad or all Repub are bad.

Most just want to provide for thier families and make a better life for thier children.

I believe Bernie believes in what he is proposeing and we really need to do some systematic changes when it comes to the education,immigration,and healthcare,I am glad he has a voice and keeps those points in the forefront.

But all of those things need to be paid for.

Totaly off subject but the recent apartment fire in the U.K.,that was council housing or section 8,the building was located in a very expensive part of town.

The replacement apartments that the displaced residents are now moving into costs the others residents 1.6 million pounds that is over 1 million in US per unit.

How would someone like to bust thier butt to be able to afford to live in the heart of London when all they need to do is quit work and have the exact same thing.

That is when it becomes a slippery slope.

Detroit has already seen what it is like when there are more taking then paying into. It just does not work.

What we have now is a system that makes it harder and harder to get ahead. Jobs have been lost and wages haven't kept up with inflation. People are going bankrupt from health bills etc. What's wrong with trying to make things better for regular Americans? Even if we end up somewhere with people wanting a "free ride", I don't really care. I'm more offended that my tax dollars currently go for expensive military hardware and killing people in foreign lands.

Those people in England were made homeless by govt. negligence, so actually the govt. does own them a place to stay at least short term. Those apartments had no sprinklers, no alarms, only one stairway and were covered in flammable material. Whole families were burned alive. That's the outrage, not that they get to temporarily stay someplace expensive. My understanding is that the poor people were in that neighborhood first and then it became gentrified.

[Pam]

The Jimmy Dore show:

https://youtu.be/BQQkCd2Hwxw

[Richard]

What we have now is a system that makes it harder and harder to get ahead. Jobs have been lost and wages haven't kept up with inflation. People are going bankrupt from health bills etc. What's wrong with trying to make things better for regular Americans? Even if we end up somewhere with people wanting a "free ride", I don't really care. I'm more offended that my tax dollars currently go for expensive military hardware and killing people in foreign lands.

Those people in England were made homeless by govt. negligence, so actually the govt. does own them a place to stay at least short term. Those apartments had no sprinklers, no alarms, only one stairway and were covered in flammable material. Whole families were burned alive. That's the outrage, not that they get to temporarily stay someplace expensive. My understanding is that the poor people were in that neighborhood first and then it became gentrified.

The problem there was the housing council was broke or stretched to the limits because of the recent mass immigration.

Thier health care system is also in major turmoil now also.

They had alarms,you can hear them in the vids,the biggest problem was that tenants were told that in case of fire to stay in your unit,personally if my house is on fire I do not care what anybody says,I am out of there.

Sprinklers of lack of were grandfathered in like it is here in the states according to the year the property was built.

But anyways,it boils down to everything needs to be paid for,and every country that leans towards heavy socialist values is basically in collapse or shambles.

The hand up aspect works if implemented with a training program etc.

But the way it works now is the city's see the poor as a paycheck from the federal government,the more you have the bigger the check and sooner or later you reach that tipping point where the poor outnumber the contributors.

There will always be poor and disadvantaged,nothing one can do to change that,at best one can do is provide the opportunity to not be poor and that is not through equal distribution of everybody's paycheck because that removes the incentive to actually do better.

There are no easy answers.

You actually make money off of the poor and not the rich,when that changes then maybe we will be in a better place.

[GMan]

The problem there was the housing council was broke or stretched to the limits because of the recent mass immigration.

Thier health care system is also in major turmoil now also.

They had alarms,you can hear them in the vids,the biggest problem was that tenants were told that in case of fire to stay in your unit,personally if my house is on fire I do not care what anybody says,I am out of there.

Sprinklers of lack of were grandfathered in like it is here in the states according to the year the property was built.

But anyways,it boils down to everything needs to be paid for,and every country that leans towards heavy socialist values is basically in collapse or shambles.

The hand up aspect works if implemented with a training program etc.

But the way it works now is the city's see the poor as a paycheck from the federal government,the more you have the bigger the check and sooner or later you reach that tipping point where the poor outnumber the contributors.

There will always be poor and disadvantaged,nothing one can do to change that,at best one can do is provide the opportunity to not be poor and that is not through equal distribution of everybody's paycheck because that removes the incentive to actually do better.

There are no easy answers.

You actually make money off of the poor and not the rich,when that changes then maybe we will be in a better place.

I agree with your assessment Richard. The last part is sooo true. The poor are looked at as a paycheck by some. The bigger the need, the more federal dollars in the bank for the taking. As dollars are consolidated for a purpose, that dedicated money pot begins to become tempting for picking.

With no check and balance other than the gov agency doling out the dough and sending a low paid inspector out on yearly rounds, whats going to change? the inspector reports deficiencies and the same contractor more than likely gets the job to correct the issues that they themselves installed / overlooked while doing the job the first time. Add the urgency of an overcrowded system and an influx of refugees and you have the recipe for what happened in the London tower.
I also would of high tailed it out of there when I heard an alarm. Must be my paranoid distrusting nature.

[coracle]

"There will always be poor and disadvantaged,nothing one can do to change that,........
There are no easy answers".

I think there is an easy long term answer Richard. Instead of paying them to have children, pay them [[more?) to not have children. After a few generations of not reproducing more of themselves to be poor they will gradually "die out" and those left will be "rich". The savings in costs of not having an ever increasing poor population would be phenominal; housing, schools, police, health, jails, food et al.

The democrats will never do it because they want their votes.