Forget Russian Meddling

[Geneviev]

Trump supporter SJWs?
Seriously though, it feels like literally everything is fake now.

They're basically the Right Wing version of SJW's.

And yes, it's irritating. They use Fake News and "Google/Search Engine is propaganda" to justify believing what they believe and believing they are right no matter what.

So brainwashed and mentally unstable possibly it's painful.

Not really. They're like the exact opposite. And everything is at least a little fake, at least in America.

Also, you're calling practically everyone I know brainwashed and mentally unstable. Maybe don't?

[The South Falls]

You are living in the matrix...

Is Trump the Agent?

Definitely.

This was posted on the MAGA thread, but I think it's more relevant to the topic here:

Trump's call for an increase the military budget (700 billion dollars to be exact) was rather recently (September 9th if I'm not mistaken?) put to vote. Shockingly, only Bernie Sanders voted against it from the Democratic side, with more Republicans voting against it overall. Suspicious behavior to vote for an increased military budget under a man the Democrats think to be firmly under the thumb of a foreign power, is it not?

I see, you're just diverting attention to give Trump a pass.

[Gig em Aggies]

You are living in the matrix...

Is Trump the Agent?

Welcome Mr.Anderson what I have planned for you is gonna be huge and it's gonna be great.

[Petrasylvania]

You are living in the matrix...

Is Trump the Agent?

Never, just a yuge glitch.

[The South Falls]

Is Trump the Agent?

Welcome Mr.Anderson what I have planned for you is gonna be huge and it's gonna be great.

It's gonna be so easy. Just take the pill, and boom.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Turns out a bunch of democrats formed a super PAC a month before the election in several states in order to hide their donors and meddle in the Republican races.

News flash: Democrats learn from Republicans, copy their dirty tricks! End of democracy predicted!

I think a special Council is in order.

To do... what, exactly? There's a recent court ruling that the Federal Election Commission has been wrongly allowing PACs to hide their donors, but Justice Roberts issued a stay almost immediately. So, for the moment, they've done nothing wrong, mores the pity.

Also, ITYM "Special Counsel": a lawyer looking into misdeeds by governments... not individual citizens.

[Greater Germany]

This was posted on the MAGA thread, but I think it's more relevant to the topic here:

Trump's call for an increase the military budget (700 billion dollars to be exact) was rather recently (September 9th if I'm not mistaken?) put to vote. Shockingly, only Bernie Sanders voted against it from the Democratic side, with more Republicans voting against it overall. Suspicious behavior to vote for an increased military budget under a man the Democrats think to be firmly under the thumb of a foreign power, is it not?

Not really suspicious at all.

The Democrats and Republicans agree on like 90% of things, including supporting America's military-industrial complex.

[The Dacian League]

Definitely.
I see you're just diverting attention to give Trump a pass.

I'm just stating something otherwise suspicious, but let it be known, Trump has also done some suspicious things himself such as his alleged breach of the Emoluments Clause of the constitution

This ruling appeared to mark the first time a federal judge had interpreted those constitutional provisions and applied their restrictions to a sitting president.

If the ruling stands, it could bring unprecedented scrutiny to Trump’s businesses — which have sought to keep their transactions with foreign states private, even as their owner sits in the Oval Office.

Messitte’s 52-page opinion said that, in the modern context, the Constitution’s ban on emoluments could apply to Trump — and that it could cover any business transactions with foreign governments where Trump derived a “profit, gain or advantage.”

“This includes profits from private transactions, even those involving services given at fair market value,” Messitte wrote.

In the past year, the Trump Organization has held several large events paid for by foreign governments and reported about $150,000 in what it called “foreign profits” last year.

All I'm attempting to point it is that Democrats seem to be rather fine with voting for some of Trumps bills in droves all the while calling him Putin's puppet.

[Geneviev]

Not really. They're like the exact opposite. And everything is at least a little fake, at least in America.

Also, you're calling practically everyone I know brainwashed and mentally unstable. Maybe don't?

I'm talking about the hardcore base.

Trumpublicans.

But like, the hardcorest of hardcore Trumpublicans, the ones that frequent Breitbart like a cult, not the casual commenters.

The Alt-Right is basically psychopathic so eh.


And the Republicans seem to be crying Fake News, what else should I call it? To me seems delusional at the very least, and blinded by hate.

They're not that bad. Not even the most intense. And practically everything is fake. They're not wrong.

[Dahon]

Note to OP: Whataboutism is NOT a defense.

[The South Falls]

I'm just stating something otherwise suspicious, but let it be known, Trump has also done some suspicious things himself such as his alleged breach of the Emoluments Clause of the constitution

This ruling appeared to mark the first time a federal judge had interpreted those constitutional provisions and applied their restrictions to a sitting president.

If the ruling stands, it could bring unprecedented scrutiny to Trump’s businesses — which have sought to keep their transactions with foreign states private, even as their owner sits in the Oval Office.

Messitte’s 52-page opinion said that, in the modern context, the Constitution’s ban on emoluments could apply to Trump — and that it could cover any business transactions with foreign governments where Trump derived a “profit, gain or advantage.”

“This includes profits from private transactions, even those involving services given at fair market value,” Messitte wrote.

In the past year, the Trump Organization has held several large events paid for by foreign governments and reported about $150,000 in what it called “foreign profits” last year.

All I'm attempting to point it is that Democrats seem to be rather fine with voting for some of Trumps bills in droves all the while calling him Putin's puppet.

Everything is suspicious. About normal.

[Fartsniffage]

All I'm attempting to point it is that Democrats seem to be rather fine with voting for some of Trumps bills in droves all the while calling him Putin's puppet.

You're upset with Democrats voting for a bill they think is good despite the fact that Trump is President?

Should they just vote against everything on principle rather than trying to govern the country? They're not Republicans....

[Dahon]

So Democrats did something entirely legal in order to campaign against Republicans.

Um.

Who gives a shit?

By my lights, while this might be entirely legal, this is also unethical and ought to be curtailed by legislation as far as possible.

[Petrasylvania]

Welcome Mr.Anderson what I have planned for you is gonna be huge and it's gonna be great.

...
Why?

Because anything to lionize Donnie. Frankly it's an insult to the Agents. They're intelligent, calculating enemies of humanity worthy of respect. And Donnie? Unintelligent, impulsive and the last thing you'd respect.

[The South Falls]

All I'm attempting to point it is that Democrats seem to be rather fine with voting for some of Trumps bills in droves all the while calling him Putin's puppet.

You're upset with Democrats voting for a bill they think is good despite the fact that Trump is President?

Should they just vote against everything on principle rather than trying to govern the country? They're not Republicans....

If that's how anything worked, politics would come to a standstill.

[Shofercia]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dem-super-pac-meddled-in-arizona-republican-primary-using-new-dark-money-tactic/ar-AAAASTy?li=BBnbfcL

Just found this gem of a story on MSN and read it through. Turns out a bunch of democrats formed a super PAC a month before the election in several states in order to hide their donors and meddle in the Republican races. I think a special Council is in order. I find it ironic that the democrats blame Russian meddling for Hillary losing the 2016 presidential election yet here we are almost two years later and now there meddling. I'm pretty sure none of the democrats have heard the saying "pot calling the kettle black"

So what do you think?

I was wondering why McSally was doing so poorly and this certainly explains it. Republicans - if you don't use this ammunition to win Arizona, you deserve to lose.

A mystery super PAC that spent nearly $2 million meddling in the Arizona Republican Senate primary was revealed to be funded by Democrats after the group's August Federal Election Commission report was published last weekend. That super PAC, blandly titled "Red and Gold," was able to conceal its donors -- and thus its links to national Democrats -- and avoid disclosure until after the election with a tactic increasingly used by other Democratic super PACs this cycle. Last May, a pair of Democratic super PACs meddled anonymously in the West Virginia Republican Senate primary using the same arrangement.

In Arizona, like in West Virginia, the super PAC avoided disclosure by forming on August 1, within a month of the August 30 primary, and electing to file monthly FEC reports. Per FEC requirements, that meant the group wouldn't file a report detailing its fundraising and spending until September 20, nearly a month after the contest took place. By forming shortly before the contest, getting a rush of contributions from other PACs and donors, and bombarding voters with ads over the final month, the Democratic groups played a significant, and anonymous, role in the election even over a short period of time.

In both cases, the Republican establishment's preferred candidate -- Rep. Martha McSally in Arizona and Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in West Virginia -- ultimately won their primaries against competitive conservative challengers seen by Democrats as more favorable general election matchups in key races. But even though Democrats didn't swing the nominations in either state, they were still able to anonymously bloody the leading Republican in each race.

According to Red and Gold's August FEC report, the group received nearly $3 million total in just a month from another leading Democratic super PAC, Senate Majority PAC, and from liberal megadonors like George Soros and James Simons. Senate Majority PAC has itself has received significant contributions this cycle from Simons and other major liberal donors like Donald Sussman, Fred Eychaner and Reid Hoffman, totaling more than $95 million since the beginning of 2017.

So all of you guys that are perfectly ok with this, you're all also ok with ALEC forming PACs like "Social Justice Now" and electing Black Lives Matter Democrats in swing district primaries, right? Perhaps after they're bankrolled by dual citizens from... say Israel and the US. Because that's exactly what the Democrats attempted to do. The solution is quite simple: have a law that says that if a PAC wishes to participate in an election, it must be formed three months before the election, and must disclose all of its donors within a week of receiving their donations. Problem solved. Next.

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dem-super-pac-meddled-in-arizona-republican-primary-using-new-dark-money-tactic/ar-AAAASTy?li=BBnbfcL

Just found this gem of a story on MSN and read it through. Turns out a bunch of democrats formed a super PAC a month before the election in several states in order to hide their donors and meddle in the Republican races. I think a special Council is in order. I find it ironic that the democrats blame Russian meddling for Hillary losing the 2016 presidential election yet here we are almost two years later and now there meddling. I'm pretty sure none of the democrats have heard the saying "pot calling the kettle black"

So what do you think?

I was wondering why McSally was doing so poorly and this certainly explains it. Republicans - if you don't use this ammunition to win Arizona, you deserve to lose.

A mystery super PAC that spent nearly $2 million meddling in the Arizona Republican Senate primary was revealed to be funded by Democrats after the group's August Federal Election Commission report was published last weekend. That super PAC, blandly titled "Red and Gold," was able to conceal its donors -- and thus its links to national Democrats -- and avoid disclosure until after the election with a tactic increasingly used by other Democratic super PACs this cycle. Last May, a pair of Democratic super PACs meddled anonymously in the West Virginia Republican Senate primary using the same arrangement.

In Arizona, like in West Virginia, the super PAC avoided disclosure by forming on August 1, within a month of the August 30 primary, and electing to file monthly FEC reports. Per FEC requirements, that meant the group wouldn't file a report detailing its fundraising and spending until September 20, nearly a month after the contest took place. By forming shortly before the contest, getting a rush of contributions from other PACs and donors, and bombarding voters with ads over the final month, the Democratic groups played a significant, and anonymous, role in the election even over a short period of time.

In both cases, the Republican establishment's preferred candidate -- Rep. Martha McSally in Arizona and Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in West Virginia -- ultimately won their primaries against competitive conservative challengers seen by Democrats as more favorable general election matchups in key races. But even though Democrats didn't swing the nominations in either state, they were still able to anonymously bloody the leading Republican in each race.

According to Red and Gold's August FEC report, the group received nearly $3 million total in just a month from another leading Democratic super PAC, Senate Majority PAC, and from liberal megadonors like George Soros and James Simons. Senate Majority PAC has itself has received significant contributions this cycle from Simons and other major liberal donors like Donald Sussman, Fred Eychaner and Reid Hoffman, totaling more than $95 million since the beginning of 2017.

So all of you guys that are perfectly ok with this, you're all also ok with ALEC forming PACs like "Social Justice Now" and electing Black Lives Matter Democrats in swing district primaries, right? Perhaps after they're bankrolled by dual citizens from... say Israel and the US. Because that's exactly what the Democrats attempted to do. The solution is quite simple: have a law that says that if a PAC wishes to participate in an election, it must be formed three months before the election, and must disclose all of its donors within a week of receiving their donations. Problem solved. Next.

How many votes do you think are there for campaign finance reform in the GOP controlled House and Senate?

[Shofercia]

How is Americans impacting American elections a problem?

Elections are meant to be decided by Republicans.

During primary elections, one should vote for the best candidate, rather than attempt to fuck the other party over. That's what the general elections are for! People ask why the politicians who survive the primaries suck so much; this is most certainly part of the reason. If this happened in my district, I wouldn't vote for Democrats in the next three election cycles, just to drive the point home.

When you want to take a dig at collusion.

Aye, the OP is being a petty whiny partisan rn.

OP raised a perfectly legitimate issue. Primaries are not meant to be fucked up. Democrats deliberately made primaries more fucked up. Next time I hear Democrats whining about ALEC, I'm bring this up.

I was wondering why McSally was doing so poorly and this certainly explains it. Republicans - if you don't use this ammunition to win Arizona, you deserve to lose.



So all of you guys that are perfectly ok with this, you're all also ok with ALEC forming PACs like "Social Justice Now" and electing Black Lives Matter Democrats in swing district primaries, right? Perhaps after they're bankrolled by dual citizens from... say Israel and the US. Because that's exactly what the Democrats attempted to do. The solution is quite simple: have a law that says that if a PAC wishes to participate in an election, it must be formed three months before the election, and must disclose all of its donors within a week of receiving their donations. Problem solved. Next.

How many votes do you think are there for campaign finance reform in the GOP controlled House and Senate?

I think both parties deliberately fucked over campaign finance reform. However, this is a dirty tactic that's more effective against Republicans than Democrats, so maybe the Republicans would be smart enough to deny its use in the 2020 elections. Pretending that the Party of Citizens United supports serious campaign funding reform is laughable. That said, what the Democrats did in Arizona and West Virginia was fucked up. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Fartsniffage]

I think both parties deliberately fucked over campaign finance reform. However, this is a dirty tactic that's more effective against Republicans than Democrats, so maybe the Republicans would be smart enough to deny its use in the 2020 elections. Pretending that the Party of Citizens United supports serious campaign funding reform is laughable. That said, what the Democrats did in Arizona and West Virginia was fucked up. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Republicans set the playing field, why should the Democrats not use it all?

[Shofercia]

The most interesting bit for me is at the end, where it's implied that Democrats gave funding to Roy Moore.

Insinuated, and if you use dirty tactics on such a low level, you deserve bullshit like that to be thrown at you. You're begging for it.

[Shofercia]

I think both parties deliberately fucked over campaign finance reform. However, this is a dirty tactic that's more effective against Republicans than Democrats, so maybe the Republicans would be smart enough to deny its use in the 2020 elections. Pretending that the Party of Citizens United supports serious campaign funding reform is laughable. That said, what the Democrats did in Arizona and West Virginia was fucked up. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Republicans set the playing field, why should the Democrats not use it all?

Both parties set the playing field. Deliberately lying to support unelectable candidates in the primaries, is a dirty, dirty, dirty tactic. If the Republicans stooped to the same level, they also deserve this kind of ridicule. This is like hitting below the belt in WWE. Even though it's fake wrestling, that's still fucked up.

[Fartsniffage]

The Republicans set the playing field, why should the Democrats not use it all?

Both parties set the playing field. Deliberately lying to support unelectable candidates in the primaries, is a dirty, dirty, dirty tactic. If the Republicans stooped to the same level, they also deserve this kind of ridicule. This is like hitting below the belt in WWE. Even though it's fake wrestling, that's still fucked up.

How did they deliberately lie?

[Petrasylvania]

Both parties set the playing field. Deliberately lying to support unelectable candidates in the primaries, is a dirty, dirty, dirty tactic. If the Republicans stooped to the same level, they also deserve this kind of ridicule. This is like hitting below the belt in WWE. Even though it's fake wrestling, that's still fucked up.

How did they deliberately lie?

Remember, Democrats are only allowed to go on the High Road while Republicans are allowed to tunnel rat like the Viet Cong all they want until they win.

[The Black Forrest]

So the possibility of engaging a foreign hostile power to meddle with the elections is equal to this......how?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/book ... eberg.html

If you believe the evidence of these journalists, who suggest that Russia was a cover story, not unlike President Trump’s allegations that the elections were rigged, the title makes a bit more sense, if not necessarily in the direction the OP intended.

What part of that says it's was a cover story?

H lost the election for many reasons. Russia's meddling is only one of them. Could be even a major contributor......

[The Black Forrest]

I was wondering why McSally was doing so poorly and this certainly explains it. Republicans - if you don't use this ammunition to win Arizona, you deserve to lose.



So all of you guys that are perfectly ok with this, you're all also ok with ALEC forming PACs like "Social Justice Now" and electing Black Lives Matter Democrats in swing district primaries, right? Perhaps after they're bankrolled by dual citizens from... say Israel and the US. Because that's exactly what the Democrats attempted to do. The solution is quite simple: have a law that says that if a PAC wishes to participate in an election, it must be formed three months before the election, and must disclose all of its donors within a week of receiving their donations. Problem solved. Next.

How many votes do you think are there for campaign finance reform in the GOP controlled House and Senate?

*throws hands up*

Eww EWW EWW

How abouuuuuuut three?