Democrats are falling for fake news about Russia

[Allybeboba]

I'm going to punch one massive hole in this whole bucket of stupid that article spewed out by stating the one FACT (fact as in FACT!) it willfully ignores:

Not everybody who hates Dumbass Dump and wants Russia investigated are "liberals/Democrats"!

Gasp! That's right! Can we PLEASE stop pretending this is left vs Right? Thousands of Conservatives/Republicans hate Dump and want Russia to be investigated as well - even smegging Republicans in CONGRESS!

That is correct. Even most of the Republicans to reluctant embrace the current PotUS when he won the candidacy. Many still have their doubts about him. Lest we forget, he isn't a politician like them.

[GreenJesus]

Is that your personal opinion/fantasy or do you have any kind of argument why that is supposedly true?
...or maybe "real news" is a code word for something? In that cases provide a definition, please.

For example, "Tillerson makes an announcement that he drinks from coffee mugs that are gluten free".

The media runs that story for 5 minutes. The other minutes of the day are occupied by "does Tillerson once owned stock in Starbucks" "does tillerson believe in gluten free products? Unnamed officials say he isn't actually gluten intolerant but just sensitive." "Tillerson distracts from the Russia investigation by making this announcement".. etc.. you know what I mean.

[Shalcker]

Well, good thing we have you to clutter this forum with their fake news.
Otherwise nobody would have heard about it.

Trump-supporters in a nutshell:
"HEY PEOPLE, LET'S IGNORE ALL THE NEWS ABOUT TRUMP FROM THESE TWO WEEKS AND FOCUS ON SOME OBSCURE THING I FOUND!!!"

So far Democrats had four months of trying to find anything against Trump (wait, actually it's already a year since "DNC Hack"), and all they got is "more investigations needed!!!".

And now are basically going off from Trump and his team fighting against this witch hunt as proof that there is something behind it all.

There is still not a single confirmed fact about actual collusion during elections - rather then "talks with some supposed Russian intelligence agents" where people might have not even known they are intelligence agents, or even that they are Russian.

"There must be something, we see and add more to all this smoke, got to be fire somewhere!" Well, maybe there is, but media witch hunt doesn't seem to be helping anything. And it distracts from real and present problems with "possibly something somewhere down the line years from now".

[mvaliz]

So far Democrats had four months of trying to find anything against Trump (wait, actually it's already a year since "DNC Hack"), and all they got is "more investigations needed!!!".

OK, first off, what a total crock of shit that it's the "Democrats" who are looking into this. You do realize that Comey is a registered REPUBLICAN, right!? It's not the "Democrats" it's the Fucking FBI and the CIA!!! What the fuck is wrong with you where you label ANYBODY who's doing ANYTHING possibly negative (again, remember, this is an INVESTIGATION, which could prove him innocent too!) is somehow a "Democrat"!?

Secondly, they've been bearing fruit a LOT. Flynn got busted and is being sopenad, other people keep getting found out and are being looked into - and least not forget that it's already a Fact (fact as in PROVEN by the FBI and CIA) that Russia tried to influence our election. Now it's up to seeing if Dumbass Dump was complicit in this or not, which all of the evidence (Publically known, of course, while also currently still circumstantial) points to him most likely just by his own fear reactions. Just as YOUR paranoid stupidity you write gives away how much YOU believe Dumbass Dump is guilty too - because you would WANT the investigation to proceed if you believe him to be innocent so that he will be PROVEN innocent! >_<

Thirdly... four months? Seriously? Four months is your timetable on this? Are you not familiar with how courts work? Gathering evidence? You could have a video of him sucking putin off and it STILL would take over a year to set up court dates and go to trial! >_< Hell, man, Bill Clinton admited lying under oath - and it STILL took 2 years to go to trial, which by then his time was over.

So, please, stop with this partisan bullshit of "Democrats" are investigating. No, it's not, its the FUCKING FBI - the ENTIRE FBI. They're not "Democrats" just because things look bad for your Dumbass Demigod...

[Shalcker]

OK, first off, what a total crock of shit that it's the "Democrats" who are looking into this. You do realize that Comey is a registered REPUBLICAN, right!? It's not the "Democrats" it's the Fucking FBI and the CIA!!! What the fuck is wrong with you where you label ANYBODY who's doing ANYTHING possibly negative (again, remember, this is an INVESTIGATION, which could prove him innocent too!) is somehow a "Democrat"!?

Because it's clear case of team mentality. "My team is allowed to grasp at every straw, other team should be dismissed no matter what they bring up".

And "Democrat team" are the ones constantly calling various thing "proof of collusion" despite no publicly available proofs of collusion by Trump (and his team) with Russia being unearthed after a year of digging. There are some contacts, there are some memory lapses, and there are some "omissions" to don't give witch hunts another track to run on, but so far no proofs of collusion.

Secondly, they've been bearing fruit a LOT. Flynn got busted and is being sopenad, other people keep getting found out and are being looked into - and least not forget that it's already a Fact (fact as in PROVEN by the FBI and CIA) that Russia tried to influence our election.

That's not proof of collusion until you actually see results of that subpoena. At most it's interesting lead that might or might not lead to something. Possibly even some conviction for Flynn in the end; but most likely not, and if it does happen it is more likely to be due to his Turkish rather then Russian ties.

Now it's up to seeing if Dumbass Dump was complicit in this or not, which all of the evidence (while currently still circumstantial) points to him most likely just by his own fear reactions. Just as YOUR paranoid stupidity you write gives away how much YOU believe Dumbass Dump is guilty too - because you would WANT the investigation to proceed if you believe him to be innocent so that he will be PROVEN innocent! >_<

You are not even at stage where you have proven even one of them being complicit in anything anywhere but in your own echo chamber, so you're getting way ahead of yourself aiming at Trump. Possibly years ahead. With results far from being certain to fall in your direction.

Thirdly... four months? Seriously? Four months is your timetable on this? Are you not familiar with how courts work? Gathering evidence? You could have a video of him sucking putin off and it STILL would take over a year to set up court dates and go to trial! >_<

So, why be so wounded up about it? Chill. You're going to burn out if you try to keep this level of fervour all along.

[mvaliz]

Because it's clear case of team mentality. "My team is allowed to grasp at every straw, other team should be dismissed no matter what they bring up".

And "Democrat team" are the ones constantly calling various thing "proof of collusion" despite no publicly available proofs of collusion by Trump (and his team) with Russia being unearthed after a year of digging. There are some contacts, there are some memory lapses, and there are some "omissions" to don't give witch hunts another track to run on, but so far no proofs of collusion.

I repeat - the FBI is investigating this! not the FUCKING DEMOCRATS! It's NOT A "DEMOCRAT TEAM"!!!! >_<

Jesus christ, why do I bother!? It's like explain nuclear physics to a god damn cockroach...

[Shalcker]

I repeat - the FBI is investigating this! not the FUCKING DEMOCRATS! It's NOT A "DEMOCRAT TEAM"!!!! >_<

Did you actually read what i wrote? FBI is investigating; "Democrat team" calls everything from those investigations and elsewhere dredged up by media as "(possible) proof of collusion with Russa".

Those are separate processes.

Again, chill. Try to actually read.

[mvaliz]

Did you actually read what i wrote? FBI is investigating; "Democrat team" calls everything from those investigations and elsewhere dredged up by media as "(possible) proof of collusion with Russa".

Those are separate processes.

Again, chill. Try to actually read.

It's NOT DEMOCRATS calling for it! There are MANY MANY REPUBLICANS as well! From standard citizens up to John Fucking McCain who make up a great majority of people wanting it investigated too! This isn't some "Democrat" conspiracy theory - it's AMERICANS who are wanting this.

Open your mind, cockroach.

[Verdugo]

I laughed at the "age of trump" thing.

[Shalcker]

It's NOT DEMOCRATS calling for it! There are MANY MANY REPUBLICANS as well! From standard citizens up to John Fucking McCain who make up a great majority of people wanting it investigated too! This isn't some "Democrat" conspiracy theory - it's AMERICANS who are wanting this.

People calling for investigation are fine.

People calling every Trump tweet and interview "proof he is guilty, why he is not impeached yet!!!" and every "FBI investigates/subpoenas/raids anything" as "clearly they have proof of collusion to do it" while having absolutely no publicly available proof are not, and have clearly bought into team-based mentality.

And as "Russia!!!" meme originated from Democrat's Clinton camp, that's where they belong.

How would you call them?

[Cthulhu 2020]

[i]no publicly available proofs of collusion by Trump

Active investigations don't reveal their evidence until the trial.

This is like law 101.

Oh right, even if you already knew this fact, you're disregarding it from your understanding of the situation because you just want to label everyone as a Trump hating Democrat.

It's the right (since many on the right want Trump investigated thoroughly) Trumpsters (you included) who thinks everything damning has to be instantly released or it's not real.

[Nadiru]

There is no Democrat version of Infowars. They aren't even close to that level of bullshit. You have blogs where you might get 1000 likes from around the world on an article from readers. But then you have stupid people that watch Infowars that have millions of views and hundreds of thousands of likes on an Infowars article or video.

It is not even close.

Louise Mensch gets to that level of bullshit, though you're right that she doesn't reach its popularity.

[Shalcker]

Active investigations don't reveal their evidence until the trial.

Exactly, that's why making any conclusions currently is wishful thinking.

Oh right, even if you already knew this fact, you're disregarding it from your understanding of the situation because you just want to label everyone as a Trump hating Democrat.

I see enough people ignoring this basic fact in various Trump-bashing thread. And you're the one saying "everyone", i did qualify who i am talking about, and that's not "everyone" at all.

Those are people most vulnerable to "fake facts" mentioned in Vox article.

-----

As example of "fake facts" in media I can point out to "Russian media invited to White House talks". On the basis of several protocol photographs which were made together with White House photographer (you can see it clearly from slight change of viewpoint between White House and Russian MFA photos depicting same events). No other media was actually present and no media was there for talks themselves.

For some reason lots of people believed that.

[Felya]

Did you actually read what i wrote? FBI is investigating; "Democrat team" calls everything from those investigations and elsewhere dredged up by media as "(possible) proof of collusion with Russa".

Those are separate processes.

Again, chill. Try to actually read.

Wait... are you saying it's impossible proof of collusion?

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly, that's why making any conclusions currently is wishful thinking.

You didn't say they made a conclusion, you explicitly added (possible).

I see enough people ignoring this basic fact in various Trump-bashing thread. And you're the one saying "everyone", i did qualify who i am talking about, and that's not "everyone" at all.

That makes it worse... As a great philosopher once said. Some people say cucumbers taste better pickled.

Those are people most vulnerable to "fake facts" mentioned in Vox article.

The small minority that follows those twitter accounts? I don't know, Trump, as in the president of the US, tweeting has a far greater influence and his penchant for truth is lacking at best. Of the two, simply based on influence, one is an ant and the other is an elephant.

[Cthulhu 2020]

As example of "fake facts" in media I can point out to "Russian media invited to White House talks". On the basis of several protocol photographs which were made together with White House photographer (you can see it clearly from slight change of viewpoint between White House and Russian MFA photos depicting same events). No other media was actually present and no media was there for talks themselves.

For some reason lots of people believed that.

And yet for some reason, you're taking tiny stories that pretty much nobody is talking about, pointing out that they're (maybe) fake, and implying that as such, the rest is probably fake as well. After all, you talk about "Trump hating threads" and "Trump haters" with a VERY broad strokes when talking about indoctrinated Democrats believing fake news.

Yet interestingly enough, you're having a hard time actually touching all of the stuff coming out of the white house that's been real, so you just vaguely allude to it being fake in other threads.

[Shalcker]

Wait... are you saying it's impossible proof of collusion?

I'm saying so far there are no publicly available proofs of collusion (or even much more plausible "Russian hacking", for that matter).

There are more or less reasonable suspicions driven mostly by partisan feelings in general population, and fueled by those who want to nurture those partisan feelings rather then actual impartial investigation.

Those who actually want investigation without partisan part also exist; they are not necessarily a majority, and as i see it they should understand that even if Trump is proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt you'll still be stuck with him for a few years before it actually comes to impeachment that might still fail to remove him from power even if he is guilty of stuff he will be accused of (like Clinton was) if for whatever Reason Republicans will decide they are better off without major power changes.

Thus it's useless to write in CAPS how Trump detractors are trying to distract from "real facts that are becoming available right now!!! MANY people are calling it!!!"

You got to gear up for long haul.

[Felya]

I'm saying so far there are no publicly available proofs of collusion (or even much more plausible "Russian hacking", for that matter).

But, you did say that the articles tell you that it's only a possibility? You said so a few posts ago? I don't understand the issue...

There are more or less reasonable suspicions driven mostly by partisan feelings in general population, and fueled by those who want to nurture those partisan feelings rather then actual impartial investigation.

No, because you define suspicion as being partisan. There are more than a few members of Trump's party that have stated concern and called Trump's actions suspicious. What you are saying is that you don't want people to speculate, which is bizarre. Because, that's all we have the power to do. It's not like there is a percentage of hate that would cause Trump to be kicked out.

In fact, all of the suspicion is Trump's own doing. There are at least a couple of things that every president prior to Trump has done, that Trump can do to lessen the suspicion. Your issue is the speculation resulting in suspicion based on what Trump is doing. Then you claim the suspicion is partisan? Bizarre...

Those who actually want investigation without partisan part also exist; they are not necessarily a majority, and as i see it they should understand that even if Trump is proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt you'll still be stuck with him for a few years before it actually comes to impeachment that might still fail to remove him from power even if he is guilty of stuff he will be accused of (like Clinton was) if for whatever Reason Republicans will decide they are better off without major power changes.

Basically, there is no reason to suspicious of Trump, because even if your suspicions are true, nothing will happen as result? Bizarre... you are justifying why noise needs to be made... if there is nothing that will be done if he is guilty, noise is all people have. Telling people to shut up is bizarre...

Thus it's useless to write in CAPS how Trump detractors are trying to distract from "real facts that are becoming available right now!!! MANY people are calling it!!!"

You got to gear up for long haul.

No, you can react as it happens. Saying just wait, seems like a waste of breath.

- - - Updated - - -

Unlike Putin, Trump might be gone in 4 years and will be gone in 8. Unlike Russia, saying you need to gear up for the long haul, because Putin would still be president in 2017... doesn't seem like it actually has a point... just gather all the info and when Putin is 90 years old, we will just be a few years from acting... We don't have that in US...

Here is a list of presidents US had, while Putin was either the prime minister or president of Russia:

Bill Clinton
Bush (2 terms)
Obama (2 terms)
Trump

We don't need the sort of long haul you are used to.

[Shalcker]

And yet for some reason, you're taking tiny stories that pretty much nobody is talking about, pointing out that they're (maybe) fake, and implying that as such, the rest is probably fake as well.

After all, you talk about "Trump hating threads" and "Trump haters" with a VERY broad strokes when talking about indoctrinated Democrats believing fake news.

It's not psychoanalysis or name calling thread. I prefer to keep it broad because it'll get quite personal with actual local examples, and getting those examples lined up in easily digestible manner can be quite time-consuming as well. And then people who are actually engaged get into denial mode quite fast if you point out "fake facts" they actually believed, or drop out of conversation. Such "personal victory" doesn't change anything.

Yet interestingly enough, you're having a hard time actually touching all of the stuff coming out of the white house that's been real, so you just vaguely allude to it being fake in other threads.

Most "real stuff" in media now comes from "unnamed White House officials" whom we're supposed to trust without question if they align with agenda and in the same breath dismiss actual White House people with names as liars trying to protect their position. ...why not assume everyone lies in Trump's White House?

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's not psychoanalysis or name calling thread. I prefer to keep it broad because it'll get quite personal with actual local examples, and getting those examples lined up in easily digestible manner can be quite time-consuming as well. And then people who are actually engaged get into denial mode quite fast if you point out "fake facts" they actually believed, or drop out of conversation. Such "personal victory" doesn't change anything.

Most "real stuff" in media now comes from "unnamed White House officials" whom we're supposed to trust without question if they align with agenda and in the same breath dismiss actual White House people with names as liars trying to protect their position. ...why not assume everyone lies in Trump's White House?

Translation: You've called stuff fake in the past, knew that it was fake for certain (in your opinion, lol), and then when others showed it to be true with proof, you stammered and stuttered in those threads for a bit before finally bailing.

There's a reason you don't even touch the threads with real events that are happening, and prefer to sit in other threads and make vague references to said other threads. The few specific examples you've actually given are indeed conspiracies - which is why no major network or name in media has picked them up. Then you insist that the existence of these fake stories somehow invalidates all the others. You've been proven wrong one too many times, and had your ego hurt too much. It's why you don't give specific examples any more.

[Shalcker]

But, you did say that the articles tell you that it's only a possibility? You said so a few posts ago? I don't understand the issue...

Please quote what you're talking about. I see no mentions of any "articles" in my replies in this thread.

No, because you define suspicion as being partisan. There are more than a few members of Trump's party that have stated concern and called Trump's actions suspicious. What you are saying is that you don't want people to speculate, which is bizarre. Because, that's all we have the power to do. It's not like there is a percentage of hate that would cause Trump to be kicked out.

Suspicion itself isn't "partisan". Following the steps beyond it is. Partisanship is going from suspicion to "...and then Trump is put in PRISON! In Orange Jumpsuit!" and seeing it as desirable outcome while tuning out all bad stuff that would happen to US internal affairs and world standing should that actually come to pass.

In fact, all of the suspicion is Trump's own doing. There are at least a couple of things that every president prior to Trump has done, that Trump can do to lessen the suspicion. Your issue is the speculation resulting in suspicion based on what Trump is doing. Then you claim the suspicion is partisan? Bizarre...

We disagree here.

In fact the one fueling suspicion isn't Trump. It is those people who cast every Trump's remark, decision, tweet, or interview as "suspicious", and those people who agree with them.

And when they push that hard obviously Trump will push back (with firings and pointed questions to his options available). And sorry, President actually legally has many options that are only limited by custom ("we don't usually do that") rather then law ("we can actually do that")... as far as i see most likely outcome here is Trump eventually winning by actually jailing leakers (and journalists, for good measure). And he'll be legal in doing that.

And obviously it'll be cast as "attack on democracy/free media", but he'll feel justified doing it and so he'll still do it.

Basically, there is no reason to suspicious of Trump, because even if your suspicions are true, nothing will happen as result? Bizarre... you are justifying why noise needs to be made... if there is nothing that will be done if he is guilty, noise is all people have. Telling people to shut up is bizarre...

Not "shut up", but rather stop "WRITING IN CAPS"; see people replying with them to me in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Translation: You've called stuff fake in the past, knew that it was fake for certain (in your opinion, lol), and then when others showed it to be true with proof, you stammered and stuttered in those threads for a bit before finally bailing.

Can you point out examples if you still want to make it personal? :P

There's a reason you don't even touch the threads with real events that are happening, and prefer to sit in other threads and make vague references to said other threads. The few specific examples you've actually given are indeed conspiracies - which is why no major network or name in media has picked them up. Then you insist that the existence of these fake stories somehow invalidates all the others. You've been proven wrong one too many times, and had your ego hurt too much. It's why you don't give specific examples any more.

There is no story that had facts that could be validated about Trump's collusion with Russia. Those that existed were either unprovable or flat out wrong. Like that "golden shower tape" - utterly ridiculous, not fitting anything known about Trump, still pushed as possibility.

Thus based on experience i choose to dismiss most of those stories as not worth time bothering about. And i haven't been "proven wrong" because so far no public proofs of me being wrong were being presented. In every case involving "Russian meddling" we're supposed to trust that there is something secret that proves it, and no public information.