^ Good post. The fact is even if Hillary Crew can't comprehend, "screw it, let's go Trump" isn't actually stupid and is a pretty okay move, given their options. Even if Trump fails his voters miserably, this opens up all sorts of doors. Break out of the rut.http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/
Without the Russian interference could he have gotten in?
Catalogue of mainstream media "errors" in the Trump era.Feb. 14: One Hell of a Buried leadThe Claim: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."The Source: The New York Times.The Facts: This entry is slightly different from most of the others on this list.The Times reported Trump's people communicated with Russian intelligence officials at around the same time hackers were publishing personal email stolen from of Democratic National Committee staffers and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.The issue with this particular Times report is that there is a crucial bit of information that the paper doesn't mention until after the reader has already been introduced to the idea of Trump/Russian collusion.The story opens with these two paragraphs:Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials. American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.It doesn't look good for Trump. The report's headline alone leads readers to suspect a disturbing partnership between the president's people and the Russians.But buried at the third paragraph in the Times report is a crucial detail: "The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation."Oh.That's an important piece of information, and it should have been included in the story's first paragraph.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-media-errors-in-the-trump-era-your-catalogue-of-the-medias-bias-fueled-failure-fest/article/2614432
The Russians wanted Trump to win. Members of the Trump team were in contact Russians. These two above statements can be true even if there is not actually concrete proof of collusion.
Intel chairman says no evidence yet of Trump campaign contacts with RussiaBy Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Monday, February 27, 2017 House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes said Monday he’s not see any evidence so far that Trump campaign officials had any contacts with Russian officials, contradicting public reports.“We still don’t have any evidence of them talking to Russians,” Mr. Nunes said as he briefed reporters. “As of right now, the initial inquiries I’ve made to the appropriate agencies, I don’t have any evidence.”He said he’s interested in evidence, but it doesn’t appear the investigative agencies have it.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/27/intel-no-evidence-trump-campaign-contact-russia/
Are you familiar with Republican Devin Nunes? Like you, he's a Trump loyalist. I wouldn't take one man's word- especially his- as proof of truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devin_Nunes#Trump.E2.80.93Russia_investigation
Russian activities were not why Clinton lost.
Russia made fake news to hurt Clinton and thus help Trump.
RT has a lot of influence on Americans.
Point being, what Russia is doing now is what the US has been doing for many, many decades.
I'm actually pretty surprised just how successful RT has been. There is no doubt that it's a network that operates with an agenda. Having said that, given that it allows American voices to be heard where they would have been shunned otherwise by the mainstream US media, I think it is awesome.
You cannot definitively state that as fact. Not in such a close election. I'd rate it as probable but not certain. 0% chance? That's foolish. A number of factors worked in Trump's favor. One can't know for sure how much weight each had.
Quote from: maximmm on Yesterday at 08:20:33 PMPoint being, what Russia is doing now is what the US has been doing for many, many decades.The difference being the USA is spreading true information while Russia is spreading false information. Right now in 2017. So not the same at all. Completely opposite.