Donald Trump colluding with Russia sounds like the plot for a terribly 80's movie, and at first the story seemed almost too much to believe even for the strongest trump opponents, but with Flynn's resignation and the latest story that he discussed sanctions with russia its gaining more and more credibility.

I thought I would highlight and summarize all the various claims

In July 2016 Carter Page visits Moscow (fact) and reportedly receives an offer to lift sanctions in exchange for 19% of Rofsnet (claim) among other discussions.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-30/trump-russia-adviser-carter-page-interview
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.gw5nG13V7#.uforV7val

Later that month, Trump made his only significant change to the RNC platform: it gutted the GOP's anti-Russia stance regarding Ukraine (fact)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.f614f9575fb7

In July wikileaks dumps the DNC emails and claims immediately start that they are from Russian hackers (claim, corroborated by intelligence agencies), and in Trump's last press conference he said he would consider lifting Russian sanctions and joked that they should continue to hack Clinton (fact)
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/trump-crimea/493280/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.ce05f4c86744

Carter Page, Trump's advisor, was being investigated for his ties to russia and continued to visit moscow throughout the investigation (fact). Page has deep ties to Gazprom (fact) an office near trump tower (fact) and may be involved in shady deals (claim)
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/world/europe/carter-page-donald-trump-moscow-russia.html?_r=0
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-30/trump-russia-adviser-carter-page-interview
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-advisers-public-comments-ties-to-moscow-stir-unease-in-both-parties/2016/08/05/2e8722fa-5815-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html?utm_term=.ac474c2f7b38

In December, Igor Schefin, who is discussed in the steel dossier (the golden showers report) was shot twice in his car in an alley that the russian state media reported as a heart attack (fact). Per the dossier shefer was the one who may have authorized the deal to page (conjecture)
https://cgrozev.wordpress.com/2017/01/14/tower-of-cards-part-1/

Paul Manafort was under investigation for his ties to Russia, he was very likely paid by a pro-russian ukrainian political party (claim, somewhat corroberated)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html

Rex Tillerson, Trump's Secretary of State, has extensive ties to russian oil and lobbied for reductions in sanctions while at exxon (fact). He has ties to the company that reportendly offered Carter Page the rosfnet deal (fact), he may be hiding oil assets offshore (claim) and has been awarded the russian order of friendship honor by putin (fact). Tillerson also negotiated a $500 Billion deal with Sechin between Rosfnet and ExxonMobil
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/12/15/trump-russia-exxon-tillerson/&refURL=&referrer=#662ae3e63a63
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-rosneft-idUSBRE83H0UE20120418
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/12/18/20563/tillerson-directed-offshore-company-used-russia-deals
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/18/leak-rex-tillerson-director-bahamas-based-us-russian-oil-company

Roger Stone, another Trump adviser, is a former business partner to Paul Manafort (fact), has a history of dirty campaigns and influence peddling going all the way back to nixon (fact), was the communicator between assange and the trump campaign (fact) and is under investigation by US intelligence (fact)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1986/06/16/the-rise-and-gall-of-roger-stone/d8ce308b-7055-4666-860e-378833f46e17/?utm_term=.9dad13b06cec
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/02/trump-adviser-clinton-emails-wikileaks-roger-stone
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

Russia has also recently arrested two high ranking cyber intelligence officials, potentially because or their role as us spies (fact and conjecture)
http://wccftech.com/fsb-official-us-spy-russia/

Mike Flynn resigned because it was confirmed that he had discussions with Russia about sanctions and he lied about this to VP Pence (claimed now confirmed)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/donald-trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn.html

Now Trump has said that he is open to lifting sanctions on Russia (fact) and 19.5% of Rosfnet has been sold to an unknown party (fact) and the japanese prime minister may have discussed russian sanctions during the visit with trump (mixed reports on if this was discussed)

Russian officials are celebrating the trump win (fact) and all of this shit seems incredibly shady.

Congress needs to put Trump under oath and ask him questions about these connections.

2/14/2017 1:34:46 PM

man I would love to see Trump under oath. Don't see it happening though.

2/14/2017 1:57:51 PM

As long as Trump is willing to play ball on key agendas with Republicans in the Legislature they'll never touch him.

2/14/2017 2:06:00 PM

Photographic Evidence:

2/14/2017 5:05:38 PM

How do you feel about posting, not necessarily clear connections between Trump and Russia but more general foreign policy moves between US/Russia?

Literally the day that Flynn is canned, We in the US get reports that Russia has some kinda god damn missle pointed at Western Europe and several of their jets were again flying way too god damn close to US ships.

Which is all concerning enough on it own,
I mean if Trump "gets tuff" on Putin, and Putin "complies."

Shouldn't that belong ITT. Because that'll be some bullshit...

2/14/2017 6:43:29 PM

I feel like a special committee - of the same sort they put together for Clinton - needs to be convened for this investigation. He should be treated with the same respect (or disrespect) with which Hillary was treated.

2/14/2017 6:54:47 PM

^^ they also have a spy ship off the east coast

2/14/2017 9:25:36 PM

Is Trump the unwitting pawn being manipulated, or is he an active participant (it doesn't matter for culpability but I just don't think he's smart enough to be this plotting).

From a resource standpoint this is far cheaper way to get sanctions lifted than a war or having to cede something diplomatically. If the tables were turned and it was the USA pulling strings in another country, we'd be pretty pleased.

I also think this makes Obamas team look a lot better for keeping the pressure on Russia despite their effectivene clandestine operations.

2/14/2017 9:50:55 PM

Seeing speculation that Obamas order in his last days giving intel agencies access to each other's data was in relation to the investigations into Trumps Russia contacts.

2/14/2017 11:38:39 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

2/14/2017 11:51:12 PM

^^^ no. It's his people. Doesn't matter though.

2/15/2017 6:15:54 AM

we learned in the 90s you can commit a bunch of felonies as president and it doesnt matter if you dont have votes in the house/senate to do anything about it

2/15/2017 6:58:37 AM

Is it obvious to anyone else that this unsubtle display of aggression shown by Russia in the last couple of days is just a manufactured opportunity to "prove Trump is tough on Putin" when he gets them to "back down"?

2/15/2017 7:39:08 AM

I'm not so sure about that, i don't think russia has a continued interest to help trump. for example, some japanese and american media reported that russian sanctions were not discussed during shinzo abe's meeting but russian media reported that trump encouraged japan to soften sanctions. if they wanted to prop up trump now as being hard on russia i don't think that's how they would have reported the story.

2/15/2017 9:11:16 AM

Partisan intelligence agencies working with a partisan press to undermine the new POTUS based on a narrative invented to hide how they were partisan and their party lost.

Did I miss anything?

Just look at these smear campaigns from the leftist media

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?_r=0

Quote :

"Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence"

Despite such a clickbait headline, later on in the article:

Quote :

"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. The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation "

Even with Obama's hacks in the rogue intelligence agencies, they can't find any evidence of collusion. But as we all know, since when is evidence necessary for a leftist narrative?

2/15/2017 10:11:26 AM

I like how JCE tries to show an article and say it's a slanted attack and then shows us a quote from the very article he posted that indicates it's being reasonable and impartial.

Also, the headline is a factual statement. "Trump Campaign Aides had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence." Yes, that actually happened.

2/15/2017 10:19:48 AM

Is JCE 18 and this is his first presidency as an adult?

2/15/2017 10:24:00 AM

Quote :

"I like how JCE tries to show an article and say it's a slanted attack and then shows us a quote from the very article he posted that indicates it's being reasonable and impartial."

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in the article, how it uses a headline to suggest one thing, and then further down admits it can't prove a thing. Essentially revealing it is a partisan hit piece written by hacks.

Quote :

"Also, the headline is a factual statement. "Trump Campaign Aides had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence." Yes, that actually happened."

Yes, Trump Campaign Aides had contacts with many foreign government representatives. Why are they singling out Russia to act as if it is a big deal? The Narrative.

The story can't be about the corrupt DNC and the leftist media colluding with them, the story can't be about how wrong the leftist media was about the election, the story can't be about intelligence agencies undermining the POTUS as part of partisan politics... it has to be RUSSIA.

2/15/2017 10:35:53 AM

Quote :

"Yes, Trump Campaign Aides had contacts with many foreign government representatives. Why are they singling out Russia to act as if it is a big deal? The Narrative. "

They are singling out Russia because none of the other calls involved private U.S. citizens negotiating national terms. With Russia, they were flat out saying they would have United States sanctions lifted which is a negotiation on national terms. That's against the law. On top of that, Russian interference during our campaign with respect to hacking and providing intelligence to the Trump campaign makes this a big deal.

Quote :

"I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in the article, how it uses a headline to suggest one thing, and then further down admits it can't prove a thing. "

The headline suggested a fact which is true. In the article they elaborated on the facts by stating more facts. Again, you really, REALLY, have a problem with critical reading comprehension.

2/15/2017 10:58:10 AM

i did my best in my original post to distinguish the facts, claims, and conjecture. the point of summarizing everything is to show all of of the known facts paint a picture that this really looks more than coincidental

in regards to the russian contact; flynn discussed sanctions, and that is a big deal by itself, but then he lied to the VP about it and the WH knew that he lied about it but didn't care that he lied to the VP about it
________________________________________________________________________

i'd encourage everyone to just ignore JCE2011 in this thread, it should be obvious to you that he is trolling and has no interest in a good intentioned debate or discussion

[Edited on February 15, 2017 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2017 11:20:50 AM

Quote :

" They are singling out Russia because none of the other calls involved private U.S. citizens negotiating national terms"

That only applies to Michael Flynn's case. This article is about different advisors, as the article clearly says:

Quote :

"The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael T. Flynn"

So the fact that the leftist NYT selectively references Trump's team communicating with Russian aides, when they communicated with aides from every government, is just blatant grasping at straws.

Quote :

"The headline suggested a fact which is true. In the article they elaborated on the facts by stating more facts. Again, you really, REALLY, have a problem with critical reading comprehension."

I'm not disputing that the headline is factually accurate, I'm disputing the bias and agenda of the NYT based on what they choose as their headline.

The issue isn't with my reading comprehension, it is with you taking my post and deceptively distorting it into a straw man for you to argue with. As you did in the other thread, you attack something I am not arguing and refuse to acknowledge what my argument actually is.

2/15/2017 11:35:29 AM

Quote :

"i'd encourage everyone to just ignore JCE2011 in this thread, it should be obvious to you that he is trolling and has no interest in a good intentioned debate or discussion"

2/15/2017 11:39:28 AM

Headline before the election lest anyone forget that James Comey is a piece of shit.

2/15/2017 11:43:34 AM

i think that ran in the very same edition where they had the comey story above the fold

2/15/2017 11:45:22 AM

Quote :

"they also have a spy ship off the east coast"

This is pretty common in international waters, isn't it? I'm sure we do similar.

2/15/2017 11:52:15 AM

Quote :

""i'd encourage everyone to just ignore JCE2011 in this thread, it should be obvious to you that he is trolling and has no interest in a good intentioned debate or discussion""

Why don't you leftist hacks just stick to the HuffingtonPost comments section, if one dissenting voice in your echo-chamber bothers you so much?

I'd love a good debate, but the last person who tried was Cherokee, and as soon as I called him out for changing his argument mid discussion, he got pissed and gave up.

2/15/2017 11:56:09 AM

Quote :

"This is pretty common in international waters, isn't it? I'm sure we do similar."

Yep. Was way more heightened during the Cold War (for obvious reasons) but that's absolutely a BAU activity.

Quote from the NY Times Article: "The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, and Sergey I. Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States. In those calls, which led to Mr. Flynn’s resignation on Monday night, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December."

In reference to this:

Quote :

"That only applies to Michael Flynn's case. This article is about different advisors, as the article clearly says:"

One set of intercepts applies to Flynn's case. Other sets of intercepts apply to the other members associated with Trump, who were private citizens and who were engaged in abnormal communication with Russian nationals who are monitored by U.S. intelligence.

All of this is related and hence is being investigated and reported on as such. One of the key aspects of journalistic reporting is providing context. You cannot isolate Flynn's situation from the rest of this. Taken together, they indicate a pattern. So, once again, they didn't selectively report anything. They reported appropriately given the context and based on the facts as they know them to be at this time.

Quote :

"Two days after the election in November, Sergei A. Ryabkov, the deputy Russian foreign minister, said “there were contacts” during the campaign between Russian officials and Mr. Trump’s team."

Quote :

"“Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Mr. Ryabkov told Russia’s Interfax news agency. The Trump transition team denied Mr. Ryabkov’s statement. “This is not accurate,” Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, said at the time."

The back and forth lying is part of what plays into this context. Once again, your critical comprehension skills are abysmal.

Quote :

"I'm disputing the bias and agenda of the NYT based on what they choose as their headline."

They chose a fact as their headline. How is that biased towards anything other than the truth? Would you have preferred the headline read "Donald Trump Is A Very Nice Guy?"

Quote :

"The issue isn't with my reading comprehension, it is with you taking my post and deceptively distorting it into a straw man for you to argue with. As you did in the other thread, you attack something I am not arguing and refuse to acknowledge what my argument actually is."

Your argument was this (and this, again as I've done before, is a direct quote from you):

Quote :

"I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in the article, how it uses a headline to suggest one thing, and then further down admits it can't prove a thing. Essentially revealing it is a partisan hit piece written by hacks."

There was no hypocrisy. The title was factual. The article was factual and pointed out instances where they either hadn't confirmed something or there had been no suggestion of wrongdoing to date.

Quote :

"Yes, Trump Campaign Aides had contacts with many foreign government representatives. Why are they singling out Russia to act as if it is a big deal? The Narrative."

The narrative of the truth?

Quote :

"The story can't be about the corrupt DNC and the leftist media colluding with them, the story can't be about how wrong the leftist media was about the election, the story can't be about intelligence agencies undermining the POTUS as part of partisan politics... it has to be RUSSIA."

The DNC wasn't corrupt - it was doing what it has every right to do as a private organization. People forget, the DNC is not a government entity nor is it something mandated by the Constitution. They can choose whoever they want to be their nominee. The voters can either go along with it or speak their minds with their primary votes. That being said, it should not be understated that what was leaked by Wikileaks was true and people should care.

As for the leftist media, you're spouting phrases without thinking about what you're saying. Most people do that though, so I will let that slide. As for intelligence agencies undermining people, Comey is the only individual who blatantly has done that and he did that to benefit Republicans. So unless you're as upset about that as the rest of this supposed "slant" then you, are in fact, being a hypocrite.

Quote :

"i'd encourage everyone to just ignore JCE2011 in this thread, it should be obvious to you that he is trolling and has no interest in a good intentioned debate or discussion"

If you take a look on the ChitChat thread regarding Trump, you'll see I learned that first hand (approximately pages 12 through 15). I'll stop poking the retarded tiger now and get back to you sane people who actually understand what you're reading.

[Edited on February 15, 2017 at 12:21 PM. Reason : a]

2/15/2017 12:14:42 PM

Sorry for the double post but just one more thing to add. JCE, you keep complaining that the DNC stuff wasn't reported on. Here are just a few examples that prove you are wrong and also prove you refuse to actually do research. I individually listed three from the NY Times since this is in the context (there's that word again) of the NY Times article we were already discussing which you claim is a leftist media entity that doesn't report on the DNC.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/insider/how-we-identified-the-dnc-hacks-patient-zero.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

+ all of the referenced articles here (there are 81 of them): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

That's just a few...

[Edited on February 15, 2017 at 12:29 PM. Reason : a]

2/15/2017 12:29:01 PM

Quote :

" " They are singling out Russia because none of the other calls involved private U.S. citizens negotiating national terms""

Quote :

"One set of intercepts applies to Flynn's case. Other sets of intercepts apply to the other members associated with Trump, who were private citizens and who were engaged in abnormal communication with Russian nationals who are monitored by U.S. intelligence."

You changed “private citizens negotiating national terms” (Wrong) to “abnormal communication”.

Classic Cherokee moving the goal posts…

For future reference, when you constantly reword your arguments, that isn’t the opposition lacking reading comprehension, that is you flip-flopping and getting called out for it.

Quote :

" They chose a fact as their headline. How is that biased towards anything other than the truth?"

Remember when you were criticizing the immigration data I posted earlier? The data the source posted was factually accurate, yet bias can be exposed in what you choose to select or omit from your report.

So the NYT referencing something commonplace like “Trump aids communicating with Russian officials” isn’t factually inaccurate, it is just blatantly biased and meant to get the words “TRUMP” and “RUSSIA” in headlines to further the narrative.

2/15/2017 12:56:51 PM

Quote :

"You changed “private citizens negotiating national terms” (Wrong) to “abnormal communication”. "

"context context context"

Intercept Set 1 - Michael Flynn was a private citizen violating the Logan Act (presuming the intercepted comms are what we're lead to believe they are.

Intercept Set 2 - Manafort/Stone/other team members were private citizens engaged in abnormal communication

I haven't changed anything or moved goal posts. I specifically distinguished between two different things (as did the NY Times article, mind you) and explained how they are related by context.

Quote :

"Remember when you were criticizing the immigration data I posted earlier? The data the source posted was factually accurate, yet bias can be exposed in what you choose to select or omit from your report."

Your data source was literally miscalculating the data. As a very simple example, they were taking 100 numbers, grabbing two of them (we'll say five and eight as an example) and then presenting a report that says "5 + 8 = 147."

The NYT article did nothing of the sort. The headline said there were communications (where there were). The content of the article said nothing misleading or misinterpreted any facts.

Miscalculating the underlying data is very different than a slant. A slant is like "immigration is bad, no matter what the numbers say." What your source does is take the source data, corrupt it and then say "look how bad immigration is."

You are really bad at this.

***Actually, let me apologize. I really don't mean to insult you. It's just incredibly frustrating. You are not making rational arguments. I am an unaffiliated voter who has positive and negative opinions of both parties. I have no bias or slant. I just want truth and rational governance. So I will continue attempting to debate but you really have to get better about your arguments.

[Edited on February 15, 2017 at 1:49 PM. Reason : apology]

[Edited on February 15, 2017 at 2:02 PM. Reason : a]

2/15/2017 1:39:42 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE

2/15/2017 1:46:33 PM

^You may want to try other sources than RT. Just saying.

That being said, going just on the video - I'd be interested to know what was going on before and after that 29 second excerpt was posted. Is there a link to a full video anywhere?

Here's a reputable link.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326

Quote :

"As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time - "particularly with missile defense" - until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues. "I understand your message about space," replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May. "This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev, Putin's protégé and long considered number two in Moscow's power structure."

Sounds like he was basically saying "I have no leverage to get anything done until after my election." Not sure this is some nefarious thing. This is a fundamental aspect of governing. Up until and after the election, Congress would stonewall him on trying to get anything done on something as serious as missile defense. Every Congress does this to every president, irrespective of party affiliation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6maypMdfB0

I don't see it as any different than this, really.

[Edited on February 15, 2017 at 1:59 PM. Reason : a]

2/15/2017 1:57:59 PM

Quote :

"context context context" Intercept Set 1 - Michael Flynn was a private citizen violating the Logan Act (presuming the intercepted comms are what we're lead to believe they are. Intercept Set 2 - Manafort/Stone/other team members were private citizens engaged in abnormal communication"

The article I posted and criticized was on intercept 2.

You posted a rebuttal talking about intercept 1.

So you apparently aren't understanding the context. If your argument is that the Russian aspect of intercept 2 is relevant because of intercept 1, that is fine. My point is that by itself, intercept 2 isn't a story, and it is only being presented as such because it furthers the narrative that the liberal media wants.

2/15/2017 2:08:25 PM

^^ Not to mention he was the sitting president already, which is really the only counter needed.

[Edited on February 15, 2017 at 2:09 PM. Reason : X]

2/15/2017 2:08:45 PM

^^The article you posted (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?_r=0) covers both.

But yes, they're both relevant because of each other.

The "abnormal communication" going back several months probably (I say this given everything else, but we don't have proof yet) relates to lobbying efforts to 1) reduce sanctions 2) recognize annexation of Crimea 3) divide the US and NATO.

The intercepts regarding Flynn directly reference sanctions reductions and the like.

All of this happened during the RNC/DNC hacking stuff which US intelligence unanimously concluded were a Russian State effort to affect the outcome. Hence, the context matters.

2/15/2017 2:14:25 PM

lol, it doesn't seem like ChadLee989 realizes that Obama became president in 2008 and served 2 terms

[Edited on February 15, 2017 at 2:32 PM. Reason : lol]

2/15/2017 2:31:48 PM

Unhinged:
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/15/carter-page-at-center-of-trump-russian-investigation-writes-bizarre-letter-to-doj-blaming-hillary-clinton/

2/16/2017 8:27:02 AM

can someone point me to whatever righ-wing blog or talking head started the "obama talked to russia too!" talking point?

I can't find anything about this and want some more info. are they just talking about a new ambassador making introductions or something, because that is not a story and not comparable.

2/16/2017 10:19:02 AM

I think that was more of Obama talking to Iran in 2008

2/16/2017 11:11:55 AM

^^ChadLee989 (i think, i'm still looking, but he posted the RT thing).

NM - It was kdogg(c)
message_topic.aspx?topic=648206&page=8#16410379

Quote :

"Don't lie to the VP. Don't hire illegal immigrants. Easy enough. (Btw, Obama's Amb to Russia called his counterpart during transition...I wonder if Bush was listening in on that one?)"

[Edited on February 16, 2017 at 11:18 AM. Reason : a]

[Edited on February 16, 2017 at 11:21 AM. Reason : a]

2/16/2017 11:16:14 AM

I've seen it posted a lot, in facebook comments and reddit etc... but i can't find the source of this talking point nor can i figure out what they are talking about

2/16/2017 11:20:41 AM

I guarantee it's a C&P from the donald reddit forum. The people that read that typically copy and paste anything in there when they're debating someone on any particular topic rather than doing research on their own.

2/16/2017 11:22:41 AM

Quote :

"Is JCE 18 and this is his first presidency as an adult? "

I do wonder that, his posting style reminds me of tww when we were all younger and more reactive and every thread was mindless rambling, flame wars, and quote bombs (see infamous froshkiller rant). Maybe jce is just a kid. He could also be DoubleDowns alias...

2/16/2017 11:45:58 AM

@TerdFerguson

Good LORD that Intercept article is bizarre. That guy is 100% going down if he actually sent all that. No sane, innocent person would have done that.

2/16/2017 11:52:51 AM

^^It's definitely Trump's first presidency as an adult.

2/16/2017 11:53:31 AM

Yea, it's simultaneously not surprising that they would try to blame this all on Hillary and totally surprising that the best argument they could come up with were half-formulated, unhinged conspiracy theories.

2/16/2017 12:05:15 PM

Quote :

"I do wonder that, his posting style reminds me of tww when we were all younger and more reactive and every thread was mindless rambling, flame wars, and quote bombs (see infamous froshkiller rant). Maybe jce is just a kid. He could also be DoubleDowns alias..."

moron is a great example of how an echo-chamber stunts intellectual growth. I had him pegged for a naïve millennial Bernie-bot type SJW... but it's even worse than I thought.

I guess your capability for independent thought/debate stopped right about at the time you started posting HuffingtonPost propaganda on TWW.

2/16/2017 12:16:09 PM

^ lol

------

CNN says they have names. Still not clear what they talked about. Either way doesn't make them look good. If a campaign is going to talk with a foreign country, they would have gone through normal diplomats or business leaders, not intelligence agents.

2/16/2017 12:36:20 PM

diplomats and business people can be intelligence agents

2/16/2017 12:38:21 PM

Quote :

"I've seen it posted a lot, in facebook comments and reddit etc... but i can't find the source of this talking point nor can i figure out what they are talking about"

I think they're talking about that time Obama was caught on a hot mic telling Medvedev he would have more flexibility after his 2012 reelection.

2/16/2017 12:53:31 PM