Russia and our election

[Dill]

(07-18-2017, 11:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trumps-and-the-truth-1500332545

Don’t you get it, guys? Special counsel Robert Mueller and the House and Senate intelligence committees are investigating the Russia story. Everything that is potentially damaging to the Trumps will come out, one way or another. Everything.

Umm, isn't it possible that they DO get it? 

Perhaps they know that "transparency" will kill the Trump presidency. The "stonewalling" Clintons released their tax returns for decades back.

[xxlt]

(07-18-2017, 11:06 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Are you even reading the articles you post? Or are you just C&P'ing every negative Trump article you can find?

You replied to me, then 2 minutes later posted a whole article. Then 3 minutes after that posted a whole different article, and I imagine there had to be at least SOME time in between finding each one.

I think Dino chose to post one of those articles because has a new fondness for The Wall Street Journal. The Journal is changing it's slogan from, "The daily diary of the American dream," to "The Wall Street Journal: Taking down conservative Presidents with negative articles since 1889!"

[Belsnickel]

(07-19-2017, 09:22 AM)xxlt Wrote: I think Dino chose to post one of those articles because has a new fondness for The Wall Street Journal. The Journal is changing it's slogan from, "The daily diary of the American dream," to "The Wall Street Journal: Taking down conservative Presidents with negative articles since 1889!"

I know you're having some fun with sarcasm, but it has been interesting to see several pieces of the Murdoch empire ripping Trump. Murdoch talks to Trump all of the time, but we are seeing an increase in negative press from those properties towards him. We even had the Fox News reporter go toe-to-toe with SHS in the briefing room yesterday and then get on air and blast the administration for the lack of on-camera briefings.

[xxlt]

(07-19-2017, 09:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know you're having some fun with sarcasm, but it has been interesting to see several pieces of the Murdoch empire ripping Trump. Murdoch talks to Trump all of the time, but we are seeing an increase in negative press from those properties towards him. We even had the Fox News reporter go toe-to-toe with SHS in the briefing room yesterday and then get on air and blast the administration for the lack of on-camera briefings.

Well, they say politics makes strange bedfellows.

And you know who blame for that?

Obummer, that's who!

[Bengalzona]

(07-19-2017, 09:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know you're having some fun with sarcasm, but it has been interesting to see several pieces of the Murdoch empire ripping Trump. Murdoch talks to Trump all of the time, but we are seeing an increase in negative press from those properties towards him. We even had the Fox News reporter go toe-to-toe with SHS in the briefing room yesterday and then get on air and blast the administration for the lack of on-camera briefings.

Fox seems to be making some sort of effort to portray themselves as a "mainstream" news source since Trump was elected. They have been siding with the rest of media when Trump attacks the media. It is rather interesting, considering their past and how they built their support. But then again, criticizing a conservative political figure and actually agreeing with liberals or progressives on any issues (whatsoever) are two very different things.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-19-2017, 11:56 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Fox seems to be making some sort of effort to portray themselves as a "mainstream" news source since Trump was elected. They have been siding with the rest of media when Trump attacks the media. It is rather interesting, considering their past and how they built their support. But then again, criticizing a conservative political figure and actually agreeing with liberals or progressives on any issues (whatsoever) are two very different things.  

Well, especially with what is going on in the White House, it isn't at all surprising. When the Obama administration treated Fox poorly, the others rallied around and called it out. There is more concern for just reporting the truth and having access than people like to admit.

[Belsnickel]

Senator Burr turned down lunch at the White House.

Sen Burr is ordering lunch in the Senate carry out.
Not going to WH while investigation under way he says.

— Erica Werner (@ericawerner) July 19, 2017

[Dill]

(07-19-2017, 11:56 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Fox seems to be making some sort of effort to portray themselves as a "mainstream" news source since Trump was elected. They have been siding with the rest of media when Trump attacks the media. It is rather interesting, considering their past and how they built their support. But then again, criticizing a conservative political figure and actually agreeing with liberals or progressives on any issues (whatsoever) are two very different things.  

I see a split at Fox. On the one side you have guys like Wallace and Hume--the people who want to do legitimate news and give tough interview, even to rightists. "Moderates" like Greta and Megyn have left.

On the other side, though, Fox is worse than ever--the Five, the Gutfield show, Watters, Hannity, and on radio Rush and Levine.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2017, 04:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I see a split at Fox. On the one side you have guys like Wallace and Hume--the people who want to do legitimate news and give tough interview, even to rightists. "Moderates" like Greta and Megyn have left.

On the other side, though, Fox is worse than ever--the Five, the Gutfield show, Watters, Hannity, and on radio Rush and Levine.

I don't think Rush and Levin are Fox.  And nobody tries to pretend Sean Hannity isn't biased including Sean Hannity.  

Greta was let go from Fox, and then MSNBC. Did MSNBC get rid of her because she was moderate as well?

And now Megyn Kelly is a moderate?

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/04/11/comprehensive-guide-megyn-kelly%E2%80%99s-history-right-wing-media-misinformation/209854

http://fortune.com/2017/01/03/nbc-megyn-kelly/

[Dill]

(07-19-2017, 04:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think Rush and Levin  are Fox.  And nobody tries to pretend Sean Hannity isn't biased including Sean Hannity.  

Greta was let go from Fox, and then MSNBC.  Did MSNBC get rid of her because she was moderate as well?

And now Megyn Kelly is a moderate?

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/04/11/comprehensive-guide-megyn-kelly%E2%80%99s-history-right-wing-media-misinformation/209854

http://fortune.com/2017/01/03/nbc-megyn-kelly/

LOL Megyn is a "moderate" with quotation marks--a Fox News moderate.

I don't know why Greta left either of those stations. I don't really watch her. I just assumed she moved because she wanted to. But it may well be she was too moderate or mild for either of those stations.

Most of Hannity's callers don't seem to think he is biased. Trump certainly doesn't. Rush and Levin are presented by the Fox news radio in my area of PA.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2017, 05:40 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Megyn is a "moderate" with quotation marks--a Fox News moderate.

I don't know why Greta left either of those stations. I don't really watch her. I just assumed she moved because she wanted to. But it may well be she was too moderate or mild for either of those stations.

Most of Hannity's callers don't seem to think he is biased. Trump certainly doesn't.  Rush and Levin are presented by the Fox news radio in my area of PA.

Megyn left for a pay day.  She wanted $15 million from Fox.  (I can't believe what news people get paid these days.)  not sure what she ended up with.

[hollodero]

Could someone explain to me how after attempted election meddling, plus an actual leaked NSA file explaining how Russians actually hacked a voting machine vendor in Florida, after all this talk of Russian influence, it seems like a good idea to kill an agency called Federal Election Agency, that is supposed to ensure election safety?

And how at the same time the Trump administration collects voter data from everyone, including all kinds of stuff. I always figured you Americans were much more aware of securing our personal info - and now Trump tries to collect all kinds of data about you, while killing this FEA? How is all that not a bigger deal. Isn't it? Or are you all blind to the most crude policies that have Putin (and open crudeness) written all over them? I'm really not sure, help a fellow out.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2017, 08:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: Could someone explain to me how after attempted election meddling, plus an actual leaked NSA file explaining how Russians actually hacked a voting machine vendor in Florida, after all this talk of Russian influence, it seems like a good idea to kill an agency called Federal Election Agency, that is supposed to ensure election safety?

And how at the same time the Trump administration collects voter data from everyone, including all kinds of stuff. I always figured you Americans were much more aware of securing our personal info - and now Trump tries to collect all kinds of data about you, while killing this FEA? How is all that not a bigger deal. Isn't it? Or are you all blind to the most crude policies that have Putin (and open crudeness) written all over them? I'm really not sure, help a fellow out.

I would say because it can be done by the FBI,Homeland Security, and the Federal Election Commission.

Trump shouldn't be concerned with voter data, and more importantly, the states shouldn't give it to him.

[hollodero]

(07-19-2017, 09:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I would say because it can be done by the FBI,Homeland Security, and the Federal Election Commission.

Maybe so. But these seem like times where election security looks endangered. Not the best of times to remove agencies concerned with that. Just from the looks of it.

(07-19-2017, 09:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Trump shouldn't be concerned with voter data, and more importantly, the states shouldn't give it to him.

No they should not. Why is Trump attempting it?

[GMDino]

(07-19-2017, 10:08 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe so. But these seem like times where election security looks endangered. Not the best of times to remove agencies concerned with that. Just from the looks of it.


No they should not. Why is Trump attempting it?

My best guess is Trump wants to make a show of trying to prove something he just made up.

The actual collecting of the data isn't important to *him*.  And honestly after seeing the committee created he probably won't give two hoots about it unless he can tweet about the "amazing job they are doing".

Someone in his admin or around him wants that data though.  The question is who and why.

[hollodero]

(07-19-2017, 10:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Someone in his admin or around him wants that data though.  The question is who and why.

That's pretty much where I'm at. As for the why, my guess would be selective targeting of certain groups with certain pieces of information, or misinformation. My guess would also be that someone like Putin taking a keen interest in influencing elections would be very interested in this kind of data. The rest is... speculation?

(For me from the outside, it isn't too much speculation any longer. Just the who is packed with suspense.)

[Dill]

(07-19-2017, 10:08 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe so. But these seem like times where election security looks endangered. Not the best of times to remove agencies concerned with that. Just from the looks of it.

Not to worry, Hollo. I think Trump has not given up on his idea of forming a combined task force with the Russians to make our elections un-hackable.

With the Russians on our side, we will never stop winning.  Never!

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2017, 10:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's pretty much where I'm at. As for the why, my guess would be selective targeting of certain groups with certain pieces of information, or misinformation. My guess would also be that someone like Putin taking a keen interest in influencing elections would be very interested in this kind of data. The rest is... speculation?

(For me from the outside, it isn't too much speculation any longer. Just the who is packed with suspense.)

Just out of curiosity, isn't it 3:00 am there?

[hollodero]

(07-19-2017, 11:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just out of curiosity, isn't it 3:00 am there?

Oh yeah. My posting habits are largely based on me not having to work early hours and a severe case of insomnia.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-20-2017, 09:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Oh yeah. My posting habits are largely based on me not having to work early hours and a severe case of insomnia.

I've never had real insomnia, but one sleepless night gives me an idea of how miserable that would be.