# How is Russia's posting ads on Facebook tantamount to "meddling" in the U.S. election?



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.


----------



## Gracie (Jul 20, 2018)

Besides that...why is there a FB to begin with? Zuckerfuck is an asshole and he is getting rich off stupid people that ignore his assholiness.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.


Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
Seems to me these indictments are about more then posting facebook ads. In fact I don't believe facebook is even mentioned in this indictment. That was part of a different part of the effort.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.
> ...



Well, hacking into someone's computer system is a crime, it's also espionage.  How is that akin to "meddling" in an election?  And we were hearing about how the Russians had "meddle" in our elections for well over a year and long, long before these indictments came down.  So, I'll ask again, how is posting ads on Facebook tantamount to election interference?


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 20, 2018)

The far left has run a narrative of collusion, since there is no such thing they invented the Russian Boogeyman for everything bad..


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



The role of espionage is to obtain information.  Stealing information is not akin to election interference.  

When are we doing to start indicting Chinese agents for hacking into American servers?  

Does the United States, via the NSA, engage in "hacking" foreign servers?  How about when it was discovered that the NSA was listening in on Angela Merkel's phone calls.  Should some Americans, including Obama himself, been indicted by the German government?


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Kosh said:


> The far left has run a narrative of collusion, since there is no such thing they invented the Russian Boogeyman for everything bad..


The narrative of collusion is actually one that the right keeps on pushing. Trump mentions it several times a day in his tweets. Collusion was never mentioned in the Mueller mandate. Beyond that I've yet to see what is even meant by collusion. Is it working with Russians? Papadopolous, Manafort, Page, Flynn did just that. Is it meeting with Russian to find a way to defeat Hilary? Don Jr did just that. Is it giving the Russians stuff they want? Trump is doing just that. What do you think is meant by collusion since I've not seen it clearly defined?


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Stealing information, and the redistributing of that information so it inflicts political harm to a candidate is MEDDLING in the elections. And we are done. *I don't mind playing semantic games but NOT semantic games which are bullshit.*


----------



## Kosh (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > The far left has run a narrative of collusion, since there is no such thing they invented the Russian Boogeyman for everything bad..
> ...



See how the far left denies the facts that they are the ones pushing collusion? Also still running those debunked far left religious narratives on Trump and Russia. They ignore that Obama let Putin run wild and did nothing to stop him. Yet they blame Trump for that!

After is the basis for the reason why they claim Hilary lost the election.

If the far left just could admit that Hilary is worse than Trump and act like adults, then everyone can move forward..


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Kosh said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Answer my question. If you think the left pushes collusion then you should have no problem saying what we mean by the word.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



Oh my true far left drone tactics, they will not admit they are pushing collusion..

So the left will end Mullers probe then? since they are not pushing the collusion angle?

Silly far left drone!


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



Foreign actors have been engaged in espionage against us 24/7/365 for the past, oh, 50 years.  Do you propose that we indict all of them too?  Would you support foreign powers indicting OUR intelligence agents for engaging in espionage? 

As far as I can tell, the Russians allegedly posted a bunch of ads on Facebook.  I suspect other foreigners have posted things on Facebook.  Should we be investigating and prosecuting every foreigner who posted something on Facebook regarding our election?  

The "Russians interfered in our elections" is dishonest.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



Guccifer 2.0 (Roger Stone's buddy) took credit for hacking HRC if I recall.  
The Facebook ads were a different initiative


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Kosh said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


I know exactly what I mean when I speak. Doesn't seem you do. Ad hominem attacks because of unwillingness to actually answer questions. Seems that one of us is a drone. Don't think it's me.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



Yet no votes were changed, no election systems have been hacked and the only changes made were those that claimed to be (R) voted for Hilary.

The far left does not have anything.

They would not even turn over to the FBI to make sure it was the Russians tat hacked them. So we do not really know if they did or did not.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



Yes the far left is all about collusion..

If they were not then they would end the Muller probe.

Silly far left drone!


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Guccifer 2.0 (Roger Stone's buddy) took credit for hacking HRC if I recall. The Facebook ads were a different initiative



The Gateway Pundit reported that Lisa Page told congressmen that there was evidence that China hacked Hillary's secret server.  I presume Mueller won't be looking into that as a part of his "investigation".  

I wonder how Mueller knows the names of the supposed Russian intelligence agents that allegedly hacked the DNC server.  We will likely never know what merit there is to his indictments as the accused will likely never make it to an American courtroom.  

As far as I can tell, indicting foreign intelligence agents is a first.  What's going to happen when other nations reciprocate by indicting American agents?  

This investigation is an all-out attempt to dethrone Trump AT ANY COST.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Kosh said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Repeating the phrase over and over doesn't make it an answer to my question. WHAT IS COLLUSION??????
Mind I'm not even trying to deny the accusation. I'm giving you for the sake of argument," So the left is pushing collusion, what do we mean by that?"


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Guccifer 2.0 (Roger Stone's buddy) took credit for hacking HRC if I recall. The Facebook ads were a different initiative
> ...



US operatives have long since been called onto the carpet for their actions.

Francis Gary Powers for one
The USS Pueblo Crew
The crew of the EC2 Hawkeye that were captured by the Chinese...

As for the Russians, we catch their spies all the time; Anna Chapman, this latest NRA woman who is a Russian operative...etc...

We have spy swaps all the time.  

Spy swap: US and Russia hand over agents in full media glare

In no way is it a "first" that we subject foreign operative to our justice system.  A public indictment?  That may be novel.  

Roger Stone has long admitted having a "back channel" to Wikileaks which Trump brought up time and again in the campaign.  Reliance upon criminals is nothing new for Trump; he hires them; he uses them...he may be one when the evidence is presented 

If trump wasn't awash in a pool of sleaze...there wouldn't be so many investigations into the multiple scandals.  If he didn't deny the obvious meddling, there wouldn't be as much conjecture about whether the meddling was something he had a hand in.  Those who are not guilty do not act guilty.  Trump does.


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I have a problem with the assertion that knowledge undermines an election campaign.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> In no way is it a "first" that we subject foreign operative to our justice system.



When have we indicted foreign intelligence agents for computer hacking?


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Answer my question.



That's kind of funny considering you've been dodging mine.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > In no way is it a "first" that we subject foreign operative to our justice system.
> ...



Not sure we have.  I'm not sure we haven't.  

Why?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



Do you have a problem with misinformation funded by a foreign adversary undermining an election campaign?


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I made a cursory search on Google.  I didn't find any example of a foreign intelligence agent being indicted for cyber hacking.  As I said, the indictments seem to be a precedent.  

Normally we just kick each other's spies out of our country.  We don't indict, prosecute and imprison them.  Does the left want to abolish this agreement?  

Do American intelligence agencies engage in cyber hacking?  Does the left support handing them over to foreign governments that accuse them of engaging in such?


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



The internet is FULL of sites that report all sorts of nonsense.  It's up to the reader to distinguish and discern what is truthful and what isn't.  Are we to prosecute everyone who posts nonsense on the internet?  There is a slew of liberal Facebook pages that post untruthful material non-stop, should those that do so be prosecuted and jailed?  What about the first amendment?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



I can't speak for the entire "left" but we certainly do imprison foreign spies as we are doing now.  Well, if someone is hacking on their own, I would hope they would be handed over.  If they are doing so to protect our national interest under orders from our elected officials...that is a different kettle of fish.  

Much like it is much different if the Trump campaign worked with the hackers vs. us just getting hacked by the Russian federation.  Given the multiple meetings with Russians during the campaign that this administration has lied about repeatedly, it is worth looking into.  Which is what Mueller is doing.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



I feel that it is much different than some whackjob posting idiocy vs. a concerted, organized, and industrial scale effort done by a foreign adversary.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Mueller is a partisan Democrat who is out to overthrow Trump.  That's what this is all about.  If Hillary had won, so-called "Russian meddling" probably wouldn't have come up.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Spreading disinformation has existed since the beginning of time.  The only reason it's being brought up now is because Hillary lost.  

The principle of free speech is that we protect free speech, even speech that we find offensive.  Do you support that principle?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



Total garbage.

We probably would have a President who would like to get to the bottom of what happened and modernize/standardize or election apparatus, we probably would have a president who trusts the intel community, we definitely would have a president who didn't grovel at the feet of Putin like Trumpkin did last week....


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I generally do not like misinformation regardless the source.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



Having free speech is great; it isn't the job of Facebook to give everyone a megaphone though.  I wish they did a better job of isolating nonsense outlets like Breitbart and WND.  Why these sites still have that little Facebook "hotlink" is disturbing.  I have contacted FB about it numerous times.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



Spreading knowledge then is one thing; spreading misinformation is another then; correct?


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn 

Are you aware that Tony Podesta's lobbying firm represented Uranium One in the infamous sale to Russia during which time millions of dollars flowed from Russia into the Clinton Foundation?  Are you aware that Tony's brother, John Podesta, will Hillary's campaign manager?  Are you aware of reports that Mueller is allegedly offering Tony Podesta immunity in exchange for testimony against Paul Manafort?   

Yea, there is a significant conspiracy among the corrupt current and former DOJ and FBI as well as Hillary and Obama to railroad Trump into either resigning or into being impeached.  

You probably don't care because, after all, Trump is a Republican, right?  But we're the "fascists", right?


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



It sounds like you don't believe in the first amendment.  It's not surprising.  Many on the left do not.  Yet, they call those of us on the right "fascist".  LOL.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



I agree with you.  That's why I don't watch CNN.  They're now an advocacy group for the Democratic Party.  They will spoon-feed  narratives rather than actually explaining the story, especially the WHOLE story.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



Hilarious.  You can say anything you want.  Nobody has to give you a megaphone and their bandwidth to broadcast it.  If you can't understand the difference; I'm not surprised.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn
> 
> Are you aware that Tony Podesta's lobbying firm represented Uranium One in the infamous sale to Russia during which time millions of dollars flowed from Russia into the Clinton Foundation?  Are you aware that Tony's brother, John Podesta, will Hillary's campaign manager?  Are you aware of reports that Mueller is allegedly offering Tony Podesta immunity in exchange for testimony against Paul Manafort?
> 
> ...



Ok?  I think you may be on the wrong thread....


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Somehow you know this without watching them?  Remarkable!


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



I read two of their articles today that were incomplete and didn't give the reader a complete and true understanding of what actually happened.  I bet you won't be calling for them to be removed from the internet.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Nobody has to give you a megaphone and their bandwidth to broadcast it.



A point not in dispute.  What it sounds like you are advocating for, is actively BANNING people from the proverbial "public square" of communication for saying things that you don't like.  They have that in places like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, etc.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn 

Are you a European socialist?


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Spreading misinformation, undesirable as it may be, is not a crime. And knowledge can be gleaned from it regardless.

The crime, figuratively speaking, is with our inability to produce citizens with adequate cognitive abilities to discern the barrage of mis/disinformation that we are assaulted with on a daily basis. And that assault comes from within. It is easily exploitable by anyone with an inclination.

By blaming Russians you are running your own little misinformation campaign. They are not the problem, we are our own problem. And you are doing it for political purposes which is kind of fucked up in its own way.


----------



## cnm (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> It sounds like you [Candycorn] don't believe in the first amendment. It's not surprising. Many on the left do not. Yet, they call those of us on the right "fascist". LOL.


It seems you believe Facebook is a government entity. They call those of you on the right 'ignorant'.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



The mandate of Mueller:






Investigating the "efforts to interfere".  It need not be a "crime".  

I think most reasonable people would blame the liar before they blame someone for believing the whopper.  And, in fairness, if you look at the examples brought out by the House, there were some fact-based stories as well.  The overall theme of this initiative was to sow discord....  The hacking is a different matter.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > It sounds like you [Candycorn] don't believe in the first amendment. It's not surprising. Many on the left do not. Yet, they call those of us on the right "fascist". LOL.
> ...



Correct.

Free speech is sacred.

I don't have the right to use Channel 15's production facilities.  Are they anti-free speech too?


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


I cut the cable cord a long time ago. I will watch over air news broadcasts on occasion but I don't rely on it for information.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody has to give you a megaphone and their bandwidth to broadcast it.
> ...



Well, I'd get my hearing checked if I were you.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > It sounds like you [Candycorn] don't believe in the first amendment. It's not surprising. Many on the left do not. Yet, they call those of us on the right "fascist". LOL.
> ...



It sounds like candycorn is advocating for arresting people that post untruthful things on the internet.  Perhaps you share that sentiment.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



Of course you can quote me as saying that...right?


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> I don't have the right to use Channel 15's production facilities.  Are they anti-free speech too?



You are being disingenuous.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



Alright, then let me ask you.  Should people who post false things on the internet be arrested?


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

USA Today examined all of the Facebook posts/ads attributed to the Russians.  

We read every one of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by Russians. Here's what we found


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have the right to use Channel 15's production facilities.  Are they anti-free speech too?
> ...



Really?  How so?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



No.


----------



## cnm (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> It sounds like candycorn is advocating for arresting people that post untruthful things on the internet.


She/he is free to say that. Why, do you think she/he should be prevented from making that speech?


----------



## Slyhunter (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


ok so why aren't they bitching about China?


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> By blaming Russians you are running your own little misinformation campaign. They are not the problem, we are our own problem. And you are doing it for political purposes which is kind of fucked up in its own way.



candycorn doesn't seem to be concerned about things like truth and integrity.  He hates Trump, therefore, ANY allegation against Trump is ok and he will parrot it for all to hear, and then he'll complain about the Russians parroting false information on Facebook.  Yea, he's a hypocrite.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Then we need to put those at CNN in Prison.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

cnm said:


> Why, do you think she/he should be prevented from making that speech?



I didn't say any such thing.  If you want to exchange thoughts and ideas with me, I am willing to do so.  If you want to play games like this I'll just put you on "ignore".


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

Slyhunter said:


> ok so why aren't they bitching about China?



China has been raping us for many, many years.  Trump is the first president to even broach the subject.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Why, do you think she/he should be prevented from making that speech?
> ...



Sucks when someone mis-quotes you; doesn't it?


----------



## cnm (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> Mueller is a partisan Democrat who is out to overthrow Trump. That's what this is all about. If Hillary had won, so-called "Russian meddling" probably wouldn't have come up.


Mueller is a Republican.


K9Buck said:


> Spreading disinformation has existed since the beginning of time.


So it seems.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 20, 2018)

'Meddling' is a very broad term, and any attempt to influence thought/action can be considered as such. The real question is what the effects actually are. Since Americans seem so vulnerable to emotional manipulation, such meddling is inestimable.
Education is so lamentably poor that thinking has become a challenge up to which many are not.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Mueller is a partisan Democrat who is out to overthrow Trump. That's what this is all about. If Hillary had won, so-called "Russian meddling" probably wouldn't have come up.
> ...



Mueller is a never-Trumper and has possibly been corrupted.  Every member of his team is an ardent Democrat.  Wikileaks reported last August that Mueller PERSONALLY delivered uranium to the Russians in Moscow at the behest of then-SOS Hillary Clinton.


----------



## cnm (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Why, do you think she/he should be prevented from making that speech?
> ...


Please. I'd rather be on the ignore list of one with such reading comprehension than have to explain the use of commas in every post.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > ok so why aren't they bitching about China?
> ...



candycorn 

Why do you think that is funny?  Do you think it is untrue?


----------



## cnm (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> Mueller is a never-Trumper and has possibly been corrupted.


Yet is a Republican, for all your disinformation.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> 'Meddling' is a very broad term, and any attempt to influence thought/action can be considered as such. The real question is what the effects actually are. Since Americans seem so vulnerable to emotional manipulation, and such meddling is inestimable.
> Education is so lamentably poor that thinking has become a challenge up to which many are not.



Agreed.  I don't consider posting inflammatory things on Facebook as "election interference" or "meddling".


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



Oh my goodness...where do you get this rubbish?


----------



## Slyhunter (Jul 20, 2018)

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Mueller is a partisan Democrat who is out to overthrow Trump. That's what this is all about. If Hillary had won, so-called "Russian meddling" probably wouldn't have come up.
> ...


Than why did he bring in so many Liberals to assist him?


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



Wikileaks.


----------



## Jkniff26 (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.



Because of the misinformation that is spread. It’s more than just ads. There are networks or more like armies of fake profiles from which propaganda and false information is spewed. Half the people on this message board are fake. Their only purpose is to manipulate the truth at the benefit of their masters. It’s a modern version of a centuries old tool that keeps the masses down and keeps the select few in power. Zuckerberg is the minister of misinformation and propaganda. He should be jailed for life.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 20, 2018)

Jkniff26 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.
> ...


Too much of this is true to click "funny", too much is too extreme to click "agree".


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

Jkniff26 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.
> ...



Thanks for the honest response.  I think the impact of their efforts was pretty much ZILCH.  

Whatever bullshit the Russians posted pales in comparison to the bullshit being posted on Facebook, Twitter and message boards like this on a daily basis.  

And posting bullshit on the internet is NOT akin to "meddling" in an election.  

Thanks again.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Answer my question.
> ...


I'm not dodging anything. I'm recognizing the futility of talking to you. It's like trying to talk to my 6 year old about the socio-economic situation of early 20th century in Europe. I doesn't matter how good the arguments are if she doesn't have a basic understanding of what I'm talking about. Saying that the act of an act of espionage is not connected to the purpose of that particular act shows either an inability to grasp the nature of the world, or and I strongly suspect this the case, a complete unwillingness to engage in an honest conversation. Either way I'm unwilling to lose my time on you.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



That's rude.  I wasn't impolite to you.  I didn't insult you.  

Anyway, I disagree that posting mean things on the internet is tantamount to election interference.  We can agree to disagree.  I won't call you names.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Depends on how that knowledge is used, why it is used and whom it is using. For instance in these indictments the DNC was hacked by the Russian government, lets keep aside that that is a crime. It gave one side an advantage, which goes against the principle of a fair election. But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events have proven, casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.


----------



## Jkniff26 (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> Jkniff26 said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



The bullshit being posted does affect elections. People are not bright enough to know that the info they get from sponsored ads and memes are blatant lies. The misinformation plants a seed which spreads to the masses. Actually some very smart people buy into pure crap also. The propaganda comes from many sides: Corporate sponsors who benefit from one candidate being elected, lobbyists for oil companies and such who benefit from a candidate being elected, and foreign governments who benefit from the division of our people caused by the misinformation. How can we as a people stand together if we spend all our time hating each other. ? We cannot ,and therefore we can never revolt. That’s what the masters want. We are weak and every time we post against each other we play into the hands of the oppressors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...



That Trump--the guy who has his cheap suits made in China--is the first to voice objections.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the questions doesn't have to be answered...



Not only are you rude, but dishonest as well.  I never said or implied any such thing.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



Trump didn't have anything to do with the colossal intelligence operations against the U.S. for the past 50 years.  It sounds like you're inflicted with TDS.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


You accused me of dodging a question which I DID find rude,while I from the very beginning clearly stated what I considered a condition of having the conversation.


forkup said:


> Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.


If you take offence to reiterating that condition in a more clear way I can only say," tough". By the way I didn't call you a name. I gave an analogy.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

Jkniff26 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Jkniff26 said:
> ...



This past May, USA Today examined the Facebook posts attributed to the Russians.  I highly encourage you and everyone else to read it IF you want to know what was actually posted.  Guys like candycorn don't need to read it because they're happy to parrot the narrative regardless of the truth.  

We read every one of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by Russians. Here's what we found


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



Ahh...the criminals who break into computers and whose leader is under hose arrest.  Says quite a bit.  

The actual facts are as follows; the members of Muellers team that have reported donations have made donations to both parties.  Mueller is a repubican.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



I won't engage you further.  God bless you.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



Whatever...facts report a much different story than your posts but thats your problem.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the questions doesn't have to be answered...
> ...



Neither did I when you mischaracterized what I said.  Funny that you're bitching about it now.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the questions doesn't have to be answered...
> ...


If your OP is trying to say that what the Russians did isn't meddling, you are in fact arguing that the questions don't have to be answered. Why else are you trying to make that point?


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Yea, like the spy that Obama pardoned because he became a transgender.  If he had been a straight heterosexual, he'd still be in prison.  

In any event, Wikileaks has produced a lot of useful data.  

My take on you is this.  You have no problem with government corruption as long as it's a Democrat engaged in it.  You obviously also have issues with the concept of freedom of speech.  I think you're ideology is really bad.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> Jkniff26 said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



I did read the link.  I have no idea what your point is or was so I didn't comment on it.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



You clicked on "funny" for my post.  How did I "mischaracterize" what you said?  Nor did I "bitch" about it.  I simply asked you why you felt my post was "funny".


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


That knowledge is used by anyone and everyone that possesses it, namely the voting population. That the voting population became aware of the knowledge by way of a crime is unfortunate for the Clinton campaign. Had that knowledge been benign there wouldn't have been a problem aside from the crime.

That crime has yet to be prosecuted except in the court of public opinion. Saying the Russians did it is misinformation and invalidates the question.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> I did read the link.  I have no idea what your point is or was so I didn't comment on it.



The narrative is that Trump colluded with the Russians to swing the election from Hillary to him and that posting "fake" information on Facebook was how they did it.  However, the data revealed by USA Today tells a different story.  You should have gleaned that from the article.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



My take on you is this.  You make faulty assumptions.  They are based on your preconceived notions. You are a puppet.  Have you ever wondered why Wikileaks never seems to hack into ISIS, Al Queda, Hezbollah or the Kremlin and turn over intelligence to the West?  Of course you haven't.  You may not hate America but you have no problem singing the praises of those that clearly do.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> You may not hate America but you have no problem singing the praises of those that clearly do.



That's funny coming from the guy is clearly opposed to the first amendment and is a partisan hack with TDS.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > I did read the link.  I have no idea what your point is or was so I didn't comment on it.
> ...



You've got to be kidding me....

Try to wrap your head around this:

The facebook ads were one part of the Russian attempts to meddle in the election. 

The hacking of the DNC and other Democrats was another.  

Trump (may have) worked with them is yet another facet to this.

Both of the first two points have been verified by our intel community.  

The last is being investigated.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > You may not hate America but you have no problem singing the praises of those that clearly do.
> ...



Well, you simply either can't read what I wrote or are incapable of comprehending it.  Either way doesn't interest me very much.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


The court of public opinion has a lower burden of proof then the legal system. That legal system in no uncertain terms is saying that," yes the Russians did in fact do it." Hence the indictments. Indictments that have to be approved by a grand jury BEFORE they can be issued.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



Well?  Where you at K9Buck; quote me or shut the fuck up.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Oh and by the way I noticed that you didn't try to engage the second part of my reply


forkup said:


> But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events have proven, casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I'm not going to engage in supposition. The State is obligated to prove its case in a court of law. An indictment does nothing more than grant them the case. It's entirely insufficient to be used in the manner you are using it.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Oh really? So you are willing to forego a national security issue because the public opinion, working on incomplete information, information that is comprehensive if you are willing to read it, influenced by political considerations isn't convinced it happened? This despite that 99.99999 percent of the people who do have all the information say it did (on both sides of the aisle, throughout the entire administration, and among all intelligence agencies)? Despite the fact that that 0.00001 percent of the people (POTUS) who say it didn't, have all the reason in the world to lie about it? And even he is constantly forced to say it did. The court system asks for REASONABLE doubt. You seem to be asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt, why?


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Private servers do not qualify as a national security issue, imo. If it did constitute a national emergency then Obama was derelict in his duty to respond in a manner befitting one.

Like I said, the State is obligated to prove their case in a court of law. It's a long standing American tradition.

The USG also has a long tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people in order to suit its foreign policy objectives. That is something that should remain at the forefront of all our consciousness despite how tempting it is to give in to partisan prejudices.

Hillary Clinton lost of her own accord.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Lol so first we have Buck saying that the act of espionage by a foreign government isn't election meddling and now we have someone claiming that espionage by a foreign government isn't a national security issue . I will say the same thing to you then.* If you cannot establish a base line for a conversation there is no point in having one.*


----------



## Anathema (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.



I think we all agree with that. What I feel, and I think many other people do as well is that we have not been shown how any of this actually affected the outcome of the election or any direct and personal between this meddling and the current POTUS, himself.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Oh and it isn't the USG, it is EVERYBODY who has the information.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Anathema said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.
> ...


We don't all agree with that apparently  if you go through this OP, you'll see people disagreeing with that assessment. As to the rest I have a simple question. What, if anything WOULD convince you. The fact that it made a difference or not is irrelevant to the fact it did happen. And there is already, loose from what Mueller has not disclosed a plethora of disturbing facts already known. Papadopolous was ordered to make contact with Russians. Not conjecture, he admitted to it. Carter Page bragged about being a Russian asset. Why Carter Page Was Worth Watching Again not conjecture it's been well established. Don Jr had a meeting with people who at the very least said they represented the Russian government with the express purpose of getting dirt on Hilary again the relevant emails he released himself. And then we have the simple matter of the President of the United States. A man who searches out conflict with his closest allies is simply unwilling unless being forced, to do ANYTHING that the Russians don't like. Not for nothing but looking into the why of those facts is by no means a ridiculous notion.


----------



## Anathema (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> We don't all agree with that apparently  if you go through this OP, you'll see people disagreeing with that assessment. As to the rest I have a simple question. What, if anything WOULD convince you....



Here’s what I need to se to start caring...

1. Added, subtracted or changed ballots on 11/6/2016.

2. Direct connection between Donald Trump and Russian intelligence assets.

3. Direct communication between Donald Trump and members of his campaign staff directing action to/from Russian assets.

Until/unless any of those can be provided, I just don’t care. The USA has done these things to foreign countries for decades. We got a taste of our own medicine and it tasted sour to many. Too bad.


----------



## Defiant1 (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




The DNC, RNC, and any other *NC servers are not part of our election apparatus.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



Don't lie.  I said posting mean things on Facebook isn't tantamount to election interference.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Anathema said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > We don't all agree with that apparently  if you go through this OP, you'll see people disagreeing with that assessment. As to the rest I have a simple question. What, if anything WOULD convince you....
> ...


Then you are asking for more proof then the justice department would. There is plenty of precedent for people being convicted without having been caught red handed. Would you find it reasonable for a murderer not being convicted despite DNA evidence, simply because you weren't there and the DNA could have been planted, without having any reason to suspect it was? Point one was irrelevant. Point two only works if you believe that Don Jr, Kushner, Manafort and Papadopolous worked without telling him anything.
Point three is equally unreasonable. If you don't accept the fact that they were willing to do so as sufficiently damning I can only assume them actually doing so wouldn't matter either. If someone buys sugar under the impression it is cocaine, you would assume he is a junkie now wouldn't you?


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Who's lying?


K9Buck said:


> Well, hacking into someone's computer system is a crime, it's also espionage. How is that akin to "meddling" in an election?


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


You're right, it is a national security  issue but I am not foregoing it. I am waiting on the State to prosecute it. In a court, not the media. The politicizing of it coupled with the foreign policy implications make it imperative that we cast a cautious eye on the proceedings.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 20, 2018)

Defiant1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



As a practical matter they are, of course.

As for the election apparatus;


----------



## Defiant1 (Jul 20, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Do you want to put people in prison who ping servers?


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Good then we agree. So lets make an agreement. We will wait for the findings of the probe. We will not question it's findings and let the chips fall as they may. Agreed?


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I am waiting for the findings but don't thing for a second that I won't cast a questioning eye on them.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


So when you say you want the state to make it's case, you are reserving the right to not believe the case they are making?


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


If not done in a court of law then yes, I reserve the right to my own judgement. As if it matters.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Your own judgement? So only when the case reinforces your believes will you accept them as valid? A bit convenient don't you think? Chances are the finding will be put before congress , who will then decide how to proceed. This means it will probably not come down to justice,as much as political expediency. Don't get me wrong unlike you, I will accept that this is how the constitution works. But lets then just agree that you then lose the right to bullshit me with saying you want the state to make it's case. Because it sure sounds like you just want the state to agree with you.


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I like to think I'm a fair judge but I'm nobody anyway so don't lose any sleep over it.

My understanding of the constitution is that the special prosecutor need be approved by Congress. Did that happen in this case?


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 20, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



My questions EXACTLY


----------



## Anathema (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Then you are asking for more proof then the justice department would. There is plenty of precedent for people being convicted without having been caught red handed. Would you find it reasonable for a murderer not being convicted despite DNA evidence, simply because you weren't there and the DNA could have been planted, without having any reason to suspect it was? Point one was irrelevant.?



I answer to a higher authority than the DOJ does. Therefore more evidence is required.

Without Point 1, there is no actual crime to be investigated so far as I’m concerned. If there was no direct impact on the election, there is no crime in my mind.


----------



## impuretrash (Jul 20, 2018)

Russian social media efforts to impact the 2016 election outcome have been blown completely out of proportion. Same with the DNC hacks. The former was implemented rather clumsily and was drowned out by the din of millions of legitimate American accounts who were doing the same sorts of things. The latter was a big nothingburger, the hacks revealed is that politicians are two faced liars...woah what a revelation, who knew?!

The biased media conflates both the hack and the social media stuff alongside a handful of Trump officials meeting with Russian citizens (I didn't know it was illegal to talk to Russian people) under the umbrella of "collusion" so we don't have to think too hard about the underwhelming specifics.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


The constitution says no such thing.
28 CFR 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
President Trump Is Wrong. The Mueller Probe Is Constitutional
I'm a nobody too, that doesn't mean I can't form opinions or question other people's opinions. That's kind of the point of this board isn't it? Anyways thanks for talking to me.


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

Anathema said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Then you are asking for more proof then the justice department would. There is plenty of precedent for people being convicted without having been caught red handed. Would you find it reasonable for a murderer not being convicted despite DNA evidence, simply because you weren't there and the DNA could have been planted, without having any reason to suspect it was? Point one was irrelevant.?
> ...


-What is this higher authority?
-So what your saying is that hacking the DNC isn't a crime? As long as they didn't go after the election infrastructure itself they can do whatever they want?  Hmms seems that higher authority you answer to seems kind of an asshole. In all fairness it would make election campaigns interesting. I can picture campaigns hiring hundreds of hackers to go after each others computer information. Who needs an actual argument when you can just try to find your opponents dick picks?


----------



## forkup (Jul 20, 2018)

PixieStix said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Question answered.


forkup said:


> Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.


----------



## Anathema (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> -What is this higher authority?
> -So what your saying is that hacking the DNC isn't a crime? As long as they didn't go after the election infrastructure itself they can do whatever they want?  Hmms seems that higher authority you answer to seems kind of an asshole. In all fairness it would make election campaigns interesting. I can picture campaigns hiring hundreds of hackers to go after each others computer information. Who needs an actual argument when you can just try to find your opponents dick picks?



That higher authority is the Divine power of the Universa.

Hacking is a crime. I have seen no evidence that Donald Trmp or anyone directed by him Hacked anyone.

US intelligence agencies have done the same thing in other countries for the same purpose for decades.

Until you folks can produce something the current POTUS actually did, or some way this materially and directly affect the outcome of the election, I’m not wasting my time on this issue.


----------



## Tehon (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I don't believe the Mueller probe is constitutional and nothing you present here alters my opinion. I started a discussion in the Constitution sub-forum if you are interested in continuing the conversation along this line.

And thank you, it was my pleasure.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 20, 2018)

forkup said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.
> ...


The stuff Fox News won't tell ya.  Trumpians live in an information bubble. If Hannity or Carlson doesn't tell them what to think, they just stick their head in the sand.  Once you've been brainwashed into believing that the press is the enemy of the people, intellectual curiosity gets put on a dusty shelf.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 20, 2018)

It is no different than CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYTimes, Washington Post, Huffington Post, shilling for the far left!


----------



## MarathonMike (Jul 20, 2018)

As long as we don't wake up the morning after election day and find out that Yakov Smirnoff is our new President, I'm good. Anyway it's up to us to protect our voting systems, is it not?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 21, 2018)

Tehon said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



Where would you get that understanding from?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 21, 2018)

impuretrash said:


> Russian social media efforts to impact the 2016 election outcome have been blown completely out of proportion. Same with the DNC hacks. The former was implemented rather clumsily and was drowned out by the din of millions of legitimate American accounts who were doing the same sorts of things. The latter was a big nothingburger, the hacks revealed is that politicians are two faced liars...woah what a revelation, who knew?!
> 
> The biased media conflates both the hack and the social media stuff alongside a handful of Trump officials meeting with Russian citizens (I didn't know it was illegal to talk to Russian people) under the umbrella of "collusion" so we don't have to think too hard about the underwhelming specifics.



Its not illegal to talk to Russian people.  
It is illegal to lie to Congress about it; as Jeff Sessions did.  

Its also quite appropriate for questions to be asked when there are so many meetings between Russians and your campaign at the same time there is confirmed Russian meddling in our 2016 election.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 21, 2018)

candycorn said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> > Russian social media efforts to impact the 2016 election outcome have been blown completely out of proportion. Same with the DNC hacks. The former was implemented rather clumsily and was drowned out by the din of millions of legitimate American accounts who were doing the same sorts of things. The latter was a big nothingburger, the hacks revealed is that politicians are two faced liars...woah what a revelation, who knew?!
> ...



Meddling......what does that mean ?

They ran adds ?  That's meddling ?  

Can we get any more stupid ?


----------



## Tehon (Jul 21, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


The Constitution, Article 2 Section 2.

Constitutionality of Special Counsel


----------



## jwoodie (Jul 23, 2018)

forkup said:


> If you think the left pushes collusion then you should have no problem saying what we mean by the word.



What do YOU mean by the word?


----------



## forkup (Jul 24, 2018)

jwoodie said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > If you think the left pushes collusion then you should have no problem saying what we mean by the word.
> ...


I don't mean anything by the word since I don't use it. I've seen other people using it and I've yet to see a clear definition. Hence the question. If POTUS says "no collusion" I would like to know what he means by that. If he and you agree, then I want to know what you guys claim you didn't do. How else can you guys claim innocence? The way I see it pushing a word that you can't define allows someone to give any meaning they desire. Allowing to redefine as the need arises.
I want the meaning pinned down so you can meaningfully asses the truth of the claims made.


----------



## cnm (Jul 24, 2018)

Anathema said:


> I have seen no evidence that Donald Trmp or anyone directed by him Hacked anyone.


Trump directed Russia to find Hillary's emails. They did.


----------



## cnm (Jul 24, 2018)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Meddling......what does that mean ?


Taking part in someone else's business.





> They ran adds ? That's meddling ?


Yes.


----------



## yidnar (Jul 24, 2018)

forkup said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


FB did more to influence the election by blocking conservative speech than Russia ever did !


----------



## Slyhunter (Jul 24, 2018)

forkup said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


The elite liberal press point at advertisements created by Russians. but who said it was illegal for Russians to post Advertisements on FB?
Or they'll bring up that Russian woman who set them up with the idea she had inside scoop on Hillary Clinton. 
Then they'll ignore Hillary paying a russian spy to create a anti-trump dossier 
And ignore all the contributions Russian paid the Clintons so called charity.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jul 24, 2018)

cnm said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen no evidence that Donald Trmp or anyone directed by him Hacked anyone.
> ...


You sure it wasn't the Chinese?
How come nobody cares about Chinese and NK's hacks?


----------



## Frank the Tank (Jul 24, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.



Two things....

There are numerous things wrong with your OP.....

First, the meddling and hacking are FAR MORE than just posting a few facebook ads.  There was the hacking into 21 different states' election board processes and now we're finding influencing groups like the NRA.

Second, we should know WHO IS BACKING a candidate that is running for office.  If a candidate accepts foreign dark money and/or assistance to get elected, there is a reason for that.  For example, Putin wasn't investing millions into getting Trump elected because he liked his hair......he was investing millions to get Trump elected because he knew that is what would be best for RUSSIA (not the United States).  He knew that Trump would be submissive to him and would look beyond his war crimes (and lift/refuse sanctions on Russia). 

Imagine if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama accepted dark money and/or assistance from Iran to get elected?!?!?  AND.....they were caught lying about it and had campaign officials of theirs indicted??!  And then met secretly with Rouhani and then sided with HIM over the top United State's police force.

 Let's just say there wouldn't be the public smearing of the FBI, CIA etc. at that point.......the double standard is so pathetically obvious, it's embarrassing.


----------



## forkup (Jul 24, 2018)

Slyhunter said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...


The elite press points way more to the irrefutable and immensely detailed indictments issued by Mueller. Giving an insight into an elaborate, government run campaign to hack the DNC. Indictments in which Facebook wasn't even mentioned. I also don't see how it in any way answers the premise of the post quoted.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 24, 2018)

Frank the Tank said:


> There are numerous things wrong with your OP.....There was the hacking into 21 different states' election board processes...



The Russians have been hacking and attempting to hack our computers for many, many years.  So is half the planet.  Why was it necessary to appoint a special counsel?


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 30, 2018)

K9Buck said:


> It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.


The whole Russia probe just has gotten zero data so far and spent over 17.000,000 with very little output.  How can Sessions justify this spending.  So far they have one person who did or did not break a law 10 years ago.  Several unattainable Russians who will never come to the U.S.A to stand trial.,  The had 4 Russians who were indited and one of them arrived in the U.S but no one from the DOJ talked with him and he spent a week in NY and returned to Russia, just what the hell was that all about.  The media never even hardly reported it.  This so called investigation is starting to look like a scam on the U.S tax payers.


----------



## forkup (Jul 31, 2018)

Dan Stubbs said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.
> ...


OK when you say scam, this means false. Seems weird to say when in the same breath, you admit that charges have been pressed. Moreover it's not just one US national,it's 5.
Manafort:Charged with financial crimes. And failing to register as a foreign agent.
Gates pled guilty to financial crimes.
Papadapolous pled guilty to lying about contacts with Russians.
Flynn: The same as Papadopolaus.
Richard Pinedo: pled guilty to identity theft. (directly related to Russian election meddling )
Numerous foreigners have also been indicted and one already sat out his sentence before getting deported. For a scam this sure seems a lot of result.
Take for instance the Clinton email probe this resulted in 0 indictments and guilty pleas for the bargain price of 20 million.
Benghazi cost 7 million again for no result.
Whitewater cost more then 40 million, and again for nothing. Now unlike you I don't hold the premise that an investigation needs actual criminal charges to be valid, but this entire post seems a bit silly in the light of all these facts. And no amount of all caps will make the argument better.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 31, 2018)

Frank the Tank said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that the claim that Russia "meddled" in our election is pretty much bullshit, unless you believe that posting ads on Facebook counts.
> ...



What "dark money" did Trump accept?


----------

