Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.

Minichan

Topic: huh. i hadn't seen these yet. washington post transcripts of GOP discussing russian propaganda

squeegee started this discussion 3 months ago #62,429

"I think Putin pays Trump"

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-transcript-of-the-conversation-among-gop-leaders-obtained-by-the-post/2437/?tid=sm_fb

is this real?

When initially asked to comment on the exchange, Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Ryan, said: “That never happened,” and Matt Sparks, a spokesman for McCarthy, said: “The idea that McCarthy would assert this is absurd and false.”

After being told that The Post would cite a recording of the exchange, Buck, speaking for the GOP House leadership, said: “This entire year-old exchange was clearly an attempt at humor. No one believed the majority leader was seriously asserting that Donald Trump or any of our members were being paid by the Russians. What’s more, the speaker and leadership team have repeatedly spoken out against Russia’s interference in our election, and the House continues to investigate that activity.”

holy shit

it's from a recording. i wonder what paul ryan meant when he was explaining how russia funds "our populists" and "financing people in our government?"

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Meta !faggot joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #785,656

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Good thing the other candidate wasn't taking Russian money!

squeegee (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,657

https://twitter.com/ktumulty/status/864966156616118272

holy shit

squeegee (OP) double-posted this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,658

@785,656 (Meta !faggot)
who the fuck cares about her, dude, she can go to jail too, the entire fucking GOP is a russian money laundering ring intentionally destroying our country from within. they can all go to jail with clinton and have a big crooked party with each other. and trump will be right there with them.

have you been paying attention? every one of these crooks needs to go down. stop trying to let everyone off the hook "cause emails."

kook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,660

@previous (squeegee)
All politicians are scum

squeegee (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,662

@previous (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
well, instead of throwing our hands in the air and giving up how about we focus on ousting the ones who're specifically working to undermine our democracy and act under foreign influence. then we can move on to the more pedestrian kind of political scummery and work on that. fair enough?

Meta !faggot replied with this 3 months ago, 8 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,663

@785,658 (squeegee)
> she can go to jail too
Okay, Trumpy McTrumpster

> stop trying to let everyone off the hook "cause emails."
I never gave a fuck about the private server or the Podesta emails and neither did anyone else. Even if Hillary had kept all her Secretary of State emails on the most super duper secured top secret unhackable official government servers I'd still think she would have been a horrible President.

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 5 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,664

@previous (Meta !faggot)
Every time FSBLeaks dumped Podesta's emails, they were front page news for days even on liberal news sites. Why do you think they weren't influential in people's thinking?

Given everything that Trump has done so far, do you think she would have been worse than Trump?

(Edited 22 seconds later.)

squeegee (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 4 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,666

honestly, meta. kook. y'all should be fucking pissed. these guys in the GOP lied and manipulated to get your vote to install a criminal into the white house to destroy your country for personal financial gain. you should be livid. there's so much evidence stacking up. fucking recordings man...

Meta !faggot replied with this 3 months ago, 9 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,668

@785,664 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Every time FSBLeaks dumped her emails, they were front page news for days even on liberal news sites. Why do you think they weren't influential in people's thinking?
Because the Podesta emails show absolutely no evidence of any sort of wrongdoing or criminality. If you actually read them they're about as exciting as watching paint dry.

What matters though is how many people who had decided to vote for Hillary switched to Trump? I don't think many. Politics has become so polarized now that even if Hillary confessed to killing Seth Rich in a spirit cooking ceremony in the basement of Comet Ping Pong she wouldn't have lost more than about a dozen votes.

> Given everything that Trump has done so far, do you think she would have been worse than Trump?

I fear she would have started a war with Russia by now.

squeegee (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,669

@previous (Meta !faggot)
my brother would be one, he was so wrapped up in the podesta emails that he "worked" to comb through them for r_thedonald and even today he claims there's shady stuff in there, enough to send people to jail he thinks. also he firmly believes there's something fishy with seth rich, wikileaks, and the clintons. those things were firmly in his mind when he was making his judgement on clinton.

edit: oh yeah, and he made sure my parents were all up to date on the hillary email wikileaks huma abideen seth rich pizza ping pong gate the entire time. there was nothing i could say to influence my folks, she was just too surrounded by controversy. my dad voted for obama.

(Edited 3 minutes later.)

kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,670

@785,666 (squeegee)
I didnt fucking vote for Trump

squeegee (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 56 seconds later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,671

@previous (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
oh. my mistake. who'd you vote for?

edit: if you're a trump voter just substitute your name in for kooks and feel bad.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,672

@785,668 (Meta !faggot)
> Because the Podesta emails show absolutely no evidence of any sort of wrongdoing or criminality. If you actually read them they're about as exciting as watching paint dry.
I did read a bunch of them, I agree with your assessment, and that means absolutely nothing. Politics is 95 percent appearance, 5 percent substance. If it LOOKS bad but isn't actually bad, then that is more damaging than something that actually IS bad but looks benign.

> What matters though is how many people who had decided to vote for Hillary switched to Trump? I don't think many.
That is one of about twelve things that mattered. Just off the top of my head: how many people who had decided to vote Hillary decided not to vote/vote third party? How many reluctant Trump supporters felt extra motivation to vote? How many people who were undecided decided not to vote or vote Trump? How many Bernie Sanders supporters decided not to vote/vote third party/vote Trump? And so on and so on. Elections are not just two discrete blobs of people filing into voting booths. There's a lot going on.

> I fear she would have started a war with Russia by now.
By doing what, exactly? Bombing syrian airbases after Assad uses chemical weapons? Ratcheting up our drone strikes and bombings in other countries? Putting immense pressure on Russian allied nations like NK and Iran? Because...well...Trump's doing that all and we haven't gone to war yet. By appointing Russia hawks like Jim Mattis and H.R. McMaster as SecDef and National Security Advisor? By leading a Russia sketpical party? I just genuinely do not see the concrete foreign policy differences that would have led to her going to war with Russia.

(Edited 47 seconds later.)

Meta !faggot replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,673

@785,669 (squeegee)
So your brother had decided to vote for Hillary, then the Podesta emails come out and he switches his support from Hillary to Trump, even volunteering to sort through them looking for incriminating evidence for r/the_donald?

> he claims there's shady stuff in there, enough to send people to jail he thinks
I'm not saying he's wrong (I haven't read all 50,000 emails so I honestly don't know if there is or not) but can he, like, say specifically who committed what crime(s) and which law(s) were broken? If not, your brother sounds mentally ill.

(Edited 39 seconds later.)

squeegee (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #785,674

@785,672 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
the election is over, y'all. there's not much point debating what ifs when there's, like, legit possible treason going on and stuff. things are moving really fast right now, not a good time to dwell. let's talk about this new thing :)

Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 months ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #785,676

@previous (squeegee)
Yeah the Obstruction of justice, Repubs admitting privately that they thought trump was a Manchurian candidate, Special Prosecutor being appointed by Roesenstein w/o consulting Trump first, etc. is all exciting too I guess.

squeegee (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 13 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #785,677

@785,673 (Meta !faggot)
well, he was a democrat going in and all the stuff leading up to and during the election cemented him as a republican, and there's also the online alt-right influence. he's been shying away from talking about that stuff mostly lately though. but yeah, he was swept up in the election and it all started pretty early. but going in he was a very liberal democrat. now convinced the democrats are a corporate oligarchy and she was to be queen.

now that all seems like massive projection.

Killer Lettuce🌹 !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #785,678

The things the Repiblican party tolerates for Trump's sake is incredible. When does it become too much?

squeegee (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #785,679

@785,676 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
i know! i mean shit! i never thought it was actually this bad. if the rico charges rumors are actually legit then holy holy shit. and it seems like in this recording ryan is admitting to knowing about the DNC hacks, russia, and money. so it could be true. i mean wow.

really i just need to quit trying to predict the ending like a thriller movie and just watch it all unfold.

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #785,684

@785,678 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !!iNo3FkiZx)

> The things the Repiblican party tolerates for Trump's sake is incredible. When does it become too much?

trump is the party now

kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 3 months ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #785,686

@785,671 (squeegee)
I didnt vote. I hate them.both.

kook !!OPZbEQMT1 double-posted this 3 months ago, 33 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #785,687

@785,673 (Meta !faggot)
The Podesta emails really were spooky and creepy

Meta !faggot replied with this 3 months ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #785,712

@785,672 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I did read a bunch of them, I agree with your assessment, and that means absolutely nothing. Politics is 95 percent appearance, 5 percent substance. If it LOOKS bad but isn't actually bad, then that is more damaging than something that actually IS bad but looks benign.
If there's one person on this forum whose Trump support and loyalty is beyond reproach, it's me. I probably support him more than his own kids do. When the media made a big deal about the Podesta emails, I said to myself "I wanna see this for myself" and I did. I went to Wikileaks, and wasted 4 hours of my life reading a bunch of boring bullshit that proves NOTHING. Believe me if there was ANYTHING bad in those emails I would be crowing about it nonstop for months. But there isn't. Maybe they'll have some value to future political science students to study how campaigns are run but they do absolutely nothing to discredit Hillary and, if anything, actually vindicate her. We know the emails are honest because they were never intended for public consumption.

So, if even a serious Trump supporter was not even remotely swayed by the emails, I don't see how a moderate or fence-sitter would be.


> That is one of about twelve things that mattered. Just off the top of my head: how many people who had decided to vote Hillary decided not to vote/vote third party?
The 3rd party question is interesting because both Stein and Johnson ran in 2012, which I think was a fairly conventional election and would serve as a good "baseline" of genuine Stein/Johnson support vs. Bernie Bros and #NeverTrumps

In 2012 Stein got 0.36% of the vote and Johnson got 0.99%. In 2016 they got 1.27 and 3.28%, respectively. That's an increase of 3.52x for Stein and 3.3x for Johnson. But there was also Evan McMullin at 0.54% of the vote, running as an explicit #NeverTrump candidate.

I think if you put a gun to their heads, most of the increase of Stein voters would describe themselves as basically Democrats who didn't like Clinton, and most of the Johnson/McMullin voters would say they're Republicans who don't like Trump. Both nominees pissed off a LOT of people in each party, creating an incentive to vote third party. I've been a libertarian for many years now and I can tell you decadent statism is not 3.3x less popular than it was in 2012.

> How many reluctant Trump supporters felt extra motivation to vote?
Hard to say. But I imagine it was at least canceled out by reluctant Hillary voters voting against Trump.

> How many people who were undecided decided not to vote or vote Trump?
I can't imagine someone who had decided not to vote ending up voting for Trump based on the Podesta emails (which again had NOTHING criminal at all in them). Trump was absolutely unqualified for office, while Hillary was actually very well qualified.

> How many Bernie Sanders supporters decided not to vote/vote third party/vote Trump? And so on and so on. Elections are not just two discrete blobs of people filing into voting booths. There's a lot going on.
Again I think third party hurt Trump MORE than Hillary.

> By doing what, exactly? Bombing syrian airbases after Assad uses chemical weapons? Ratcheting up our drone strikes and bombings in other countries? Putting immense pressure on Russian allied nations like NK and Iran? Because...well...Trump's doing that all and we haven't gone to war yet. By appointing Russia hawks like Jim Mattis and H.R. McMaster as SecDef and National Security Advisor? By leading a Russia sketpical party? I just genuinely do not see the concrete foreign policy differences that would have led to her going to war with Russia.
By being even more aggressive than Trump. By doing dumb shit like trying to enforce a no fly zone over Syria.

(Edited 5 minutes later.)

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #785,727

@previous (Meta !faggot)

Most people aren't interested in the truth, just making truth fit the narrative.
:
[upload]

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting, also keep in mind you can minify URLs using MiniURL and generate image macros using MiniMacro.