Conspiracy Theories / Wild Predictions

[The Human Q-Tip]

Nobody knew that the Trump campaign was the target of an FBI investigation on collusion until Comey mentioned it in the House Committee hearing a month or so ago. But they did know about the re-opening of the Hillary email investigation.

To me, that's a distinction without a difference. Inherent in Hillary Clinton immediately spouting off that 17 intelligence agencies concluded it was the Russians is that those intelligence agencies had been investigating Russia links.

The Hillary Clinton email investigation was different because the FBI Director had expressly promised Congress, under oath, that he would report to them if any additional documents were discovered. That is a completely normal promise extracted by any competent attorney when taking testimony, and that's why he had to notify Congress that more documents were discovered. That's not bias -- that's just how the law works.

Maybe there is nothing that will stick, maybe there is. But if you think the absence of info from the FBI indicates there is nothing there, I think you'll find out you're wrong before it's over.

The absence of evidence of collusion right now means there was an absence of evidence of collusion in July 2016. So there was nothing that legally could be reported.

The only question will be how high it goes.

That's the only question that matters.

 

[-Akronite-]

The Russia story wasn't new, but it also was less concrete. At the time, the only connections between Trump and Russia (aside from his business there) was Paul Manafort, who had been fired. And I think Carter Page may have already been talked about, but it's hard to keep track of everything.

Now there is Flynn and Kushner and links to DeVos and multiple lies to cover up these connections and diversions to distract from the lies about the connections... And the FBI confirmed that it's an actual investigation going on. And also there have been sources stating that portions of the Steele dossier have been corroborated. But while it all looks shady as fuck, collusion hasn't been confirmed yet, so it was obviously a futile witch-hunt by Obama and somehow Hillary probably (I know you're not saying this, just a joooooke).

Let Q ignore it and wave it off like it's finished business, we'll see what comes of the investigation. Maybe he's right and everything that's come out is just a series of coincidences and non-stories.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

My biggest issue with all of this is I believe the election results were tainted by a foreign power.

I think your biggest issue is that other voters aren't as upset by this as you think they should be. Voters knew that the Russians leaked those documents, and voted as they did anyway. Rightfully so, I'd add, because misconduct shouldn't be excused just because of the manner in which it was exposed. The proper response is 1) Judge Hillary/DNC based on the content of the documents, 2) take appropriate action against the Russians or whomever stole those documents, and 3) Judge Trump if it is shown that he colluded with the Russians. But collusion hasn't yet been shown, so three doesn't apply.

Frankly, I'm not sure why Russia illegally acquire documents and exposing them delegitimizes an election anymore than would the illegal acquisition and exposure of documents by an American.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The Russia story wasn't new, but it also was less concrete. At the time, the only connections between Trump and Russia (aside from his business there) was Paul Manafort, who had been fired. And I think Carter Page may have already been talked about, but it's hard to keep track of everything.

Page wasn't ever even a campaign employee, and the advisor relationship with him ended even before Manafort's.

But while it all looks shady as fuck, collusion hasn't been confirmed yet, so it was obviously a futile witch-hunt by Obama and somehow Hillary probably (I know you're not saying this, just a joooooke).

Let Q ignore it and wave it off like it's finished business, we'll see what comes of the investigation. Maybe he's right and everything that's come out is just a series of coincidences and non-stories.

I don't get what that means. I absolutely believe that the Russians preferred to see Trump elected over Hillary, and tried to gain influence among people who advised him. But absent Trump himself being involved in collusion with the Russians, I don't see it as a big deal at all. Again, we routinely do the same thing in other countries -- we try to develop relationships with politically powerful people, and steer results in the direction we'd like through (sometimes) open support, or other times less-open support.

Or do you think we don't have preferences in foreign elections, and don't make an effort to have them come out how we'd prefer?

 

[-Akronite-]

I don't get what that means. I absolutely believe that the Russians preferred to see Trump elected over Hillary, and tried to gain influence among people who advised him. But absent Trump himself being involved in collusion with the Russians, I don't see it as a big deal at all.

So if Trump was surrounded by people selling the country out to the Russians but wasn't aware of it, that'd be no big deal?

Again, we routinely do the same thing in other countries -- we try to develop relationships with politically powerful people, and steer results in the direction we'd like through (sometimes) open support, or other times less-open support.

Or do you think we don't have preferences in foreign elections, and don't make an effort to have them come out how we'd prefer?

This is like that Trump "you think we're so innocent quote." It completely misses the point. We shouldn't be seeking to influence free and fair elections around the world and we should not have our democracy tampered with by a foreign power.

But again, I'm fine with just seeing how the investigation plays out. You can continue dismissing the claims as both unproven AND no big deal, it has no effect on what happens.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So if Trump was surrounded by people selling the country out to the Russians but wasn't aware of it, that'd be no big deal?

1) The people surrounding him aren't the ones with the authority to sell out anything; 2) he is surrounded by much greater numbers of other people who are not selling a thing out to the Russians, and 3) Most of those sketchy people are long gone.

But sure, if such people were there and exposed, and weren't canned, I'd be bothered by that. But what we're talking about is the legitimacy of the election, and I don't think the corruption of a campaign underling delegitimizes the choice made by voters.

Look, polls show that Trump is pretty unpopular, but that the overwhelming majority of the people who voted for him would do so again, despite a 24/7 media campaign trying to force them to care more about it than they do.

As I said, I don't think a government trying to affect public opinion in other nations prior to an election is unusual. Probably why a whole hell of a lot of people don't think this is as big a deal as you do.

But I'll say this -- if is it proven that Trump made an actual deal with Russia for them to try to affect U.S. public opinion in exchange for certain concessions, I'd agree that he should be impeached. Anything else, and I really don't care.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is like that Trump "you think we're so innocent quote." It completely misses the point. We shouldn't be seeking to influence free and fair elections around the world and we should not have our democracy tampered with by a foreign power.

Well, I disagree with that, at least to some extent. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to influence public opinion in other countries. Why else do we have Voice of America?

I see a vast difference between trying to affect public opinion, and interfering in the election process itself.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Just wanted to point out that a parade in Oregon was just cancelled because of threats by leftists against GOP participants, and Coulter's speech at Berkeley was cancelled as well because of security concerns.

http://www.oregonlive.com/rosefest/index.ssf/2017/04/organizers_cancel_82nd_avenue.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-cancels-berkeley-speech-due-to-riot-concerns

But at least it's comforting to hear all the prominent Democrats standing up for the free speech rights of conservatives....

Or not.

 

[buzzdog]

3) Judge Trump if it is shown that he colluded with the Russians. But collusion hasn't yet been shown, so three doesn't apply.

You probably should stay far away from the twitter feeds of the Jester, Louise Mensch, and a whole horde of others who are drilling down on this... some may be FOS but highly unlikely they all are.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You probably should stay far away from the twitter feeds of the Jester, Louise Mensch, and a whole horde of others who are drilling down on this... some may be FOS but highly unlikely they all are.

I don't do Twitter, have no idea who any of those guys are, and don't care.

 

[Whittaker]

@buzzdog you seem awfully concerned about fake news, propaganda, biased opinions, misinformation, etc, that may have misled the voters.
You might want to start locally, as in right here.

"I think tomorrow ends up being a landslide"

"Hillary has a 3-1 chance to win according to most polls."
"Way .Much higher, per Vegas.
"I've got $1000 riding on her at -500...free money. waaaaay higher than 3:1....free money"

"Clinton, 99%... I see no way possible for Trump to win. That's my objective analysis."

"By how big of a margin? You said before that she would win by 50+ electoral votes correct ?"
"Yep. Let me check the map... Yep 50+ all day long."

"Final prediction: Clinton 323, Trump 215."

"When the results come in, what do we look for to know Clinton clinched and we can turn it off?"
"If Trump doesn't win New Hampshire, you can be fairly certain he's lost. Obviously if Clinton wins Ohio or Florida (or North Carolina) the election is over. Trump needs to win all three to even have a CHANCE at continuing west.
Moving further out, if Clinton wins Iowa, you can go to sleep.
IMHO, Clinton has likely already banked Nevada, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado. Iowa early vote looked good for her too.."

"Florida doesn't sound like it will even be "that" close. Hispanic turnout combined with newly registered Hispanic voters seems like a nail in the coffin. 700,000 new registered Hispanic voters in Florida!! That is massive...."

"Nationwide exit polls make this seem like an election night that will end rather early, as expected."

"Clinton has massive early voter turnout in Florida... I think it's very unlikely she loses the state."

"Yeah, just starting Dade County, and it's a slaughterhouse for Clinton."

"Clinton is outperforming Obama in Miami Dade county. This is absurd. She is going to end it here soon."

"Clinton was winning Orange County in florida by 29?
Lol...
Blowout"

"Looking at the precinct map, I'm very confident Clinton wins this state."

"Is it still a blowout?"
"Yes, it's still a blowout. Nothing has happened thus far to change this."

She might end up winning the county by 300K. Which is absolutely nutty.
"I mean, in all reality, the minute that Trump loses NC or Florida, they could call the election."

"Yeah, this is going to end early. Size able leads for Clinton in Florida, North Carolina and Ohio."

"If Trump wins Ohio and Florida it literally means nothing with respect to the final outcome... Those two states are not part of Clinton's path to 270.
We're counting Florida just to see if we can call the race early."

"Hillary is going to win."

"She's still going to win."

These were multiple posters on this board on Nov. 8th.
They were either easily deceived... or they were purposely spreading bad information. That's a fine line
But one thing seems clear...if you want voters to have an accurate snapshot of this country's politics, don't recommend political threads on RCF.

 

[Whittaker]

And my personal favorite...

"And neither has Kiddo...except being misinformed and anti-math"

LOL!
And now we know who was misinformed(ignorant).
And we know who was anti-math(anti-science)

The sad thing is...they have probably learned nothing from this.
Because the deceived don't know they are deceived because they are deceived.

“We become slaves the moment we hand the keys to the definition of reality entirely over to someone else, whether it is a business, an economic theory, a political party, the White House, Newsworld or CNN.”
― B.W. Powe

The best way to compel weak-minded people to adopt our opinion, is to frighten them from all others, by magnifying their danger.
_____Lord Chesterfield

 

[-Akronite-]

So it seems like the White House and transition team DID vet Flynn. And they hired him anyway knowing the issue. And then only fired him when his ties became public. And then lied about why they fired him.

Huh.

EDIT: Source since some people have somehow concluded that I like to come here and make shit up.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/858134338281537540

By the way, it's not exactly a good look for Trump if this report is false. I mean right now we're under the assumption that he hired Flynn (who was fired previously from Obama's admin) without vetting him, proving massive incompetence. And it was pretty clear that the "he lied to Pence" story about his firing was bullshit from the start.

 

[AZ_]

So it seems like the White House and transition team DID vet Flynn. And they hired him anyway knowing the issue. And then only fired him when his ties became public. And then lied about why they fired him.

Huh.

Fake news.

 

[Wrathe]

Let Q ignore it and wave it off like it's finished business, we'll see what comes of the investigation. Maybe he's right and everything that's come out is just a series of coincidences and non-stories.

If so, I'll await the retraction stories.

I'm just kidding, there's no such thing as a retraction story.