The Russian collusion story they have kept pushing since post election, @Andreyich. It has had many factual holes put into it, but they had refused to let it die until just recently. There's also an investigation being opened into, what many are seeing now, Fusion GPS, the DNC, Awan, and so on. To me, the dropping of the narrative - which they admitted was fake and only for ratings - tells me they are either unable to gain the public's attention or something more important is coming, which a few like OANN an WikiLeaks are suggesting with some of the information coming across.

There's rumor that the Scaramucci excursion and the quote on military transgender policy were all a smoke screen to cover the launching of a Department of Justice investigation, which did indeed happen. No less, it earned approval and is in the works. It fell in about the same timeline as the healthcare issue which the media latched on to, albeit that was just McCain betraying his constituents and not so much part of what might be a distraction.

There's something going on and the only real reason I think it to be part of a larger picture is that the mainstream media has dropped the collusion propaganda.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity
But I meant what degree of it. I'm a pretty big unironic fan of Putin, even if simply because he's the least smelly of the turds in Russia, and while the whole idea of Russians hacking and manipulating the elections is for people who aren't very smart to put it simply, you can't deny there was at least some Russian interference, funding of "friendly" groups and such. Of course, hilary also got funding from not the best places but that's a whole new story to tackle.

When the news manages to go a few days without talking about "Russia" and leveling collusion on the President, I would say that the narrative is truly dead; they themselves have let it go. The only thing I can be sure of in the entire ordeal was that the Russian government did indeed prefer this outcome of the Trump administration than the Hillary campaign, whom they reasonably saw as a far worse threat; as you said, they offered funding to those who were "friendly" to their advance where they could. However, at this point we know that the hack on the DNC was not remote, it was inside from an inside device such as a specially modified flash drive and by someone who specifically had access, who many theorize to have been Seth Rich, and that it was not on behalf of another state based on how it was transferred. As far as voting and election warfare itself? Certainly not Russians - thus far the review is showing plenty of fraudulent votes, but not yet any from a foreign source. The sitting President is no "illegal President" by any metric.

It helps none that the people the Trump administration did meet with in the infamous "collaboration" were there by the opposing party's actions, no less special exceptions. There's some information to suggest it was intentional, but as the proof showed, they left when they realized there wasn't intelligence to be gathered; going so far as to text someone to receive a phone call so they could leave.

I believe the degree of failure in the narrative to be massive, @Andreyich. I mean they were caught red handed that it was a hoax for views and that there was no real evidence.

it was a hoax for views and that there was no real evidence.

To be fair, that's pretty much all news, even if CNN more than other sources.

I think you got the rest of it spot on though.

There are always going to be errors in reporting, but egregious and intentional ones that are sensationalist and drive a divide between the people of the country are harmful. If anything there should be some measure of accountability here, @Andreyich. I never participated much in the mainstream media and I am certainly glad I did not. The whole notion seemed absurd from the get, that the Russians somehow hacked the election sufficiently to merit such massive wins for the Trump administration or somehow hurt the Hillary campaign. It might just be too incredible that people would rather vote for Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton; if you had asked me years ago I would not have believed such an outcome, but from what I see, the pieces do fit and there's no need for the Russian hysteria.

More is coming forward with time and I truly do hope we see all the pieces put together then, other than on various wings of the internet and news pushing their conspiracies or agendas. That is a far fetched dream, but it would do wonders to put a fair amount of the constant battling to rest.

you can't deny there was at least some Russian interference, funding of "friendly" groups and such.

"funding" =/= "interference"*

* Unless it's a republican **

** But not McCain, ie funding Ukranian opposition riots ***

*** But okay sometimes McCain though, like in 2008

....you get the idea. The whole thing is so duplicitous, laughing and mocking the "COLLUSION" wolf-crying campaign isn't enough -- though it is sometimes satisfying. The DNC is literally -- not figuratively -- calling for blood in the streets over a nothingburger -- not because they think it'll work, but because it's successfully distracting people from the actual treason we're uncovering against their best efforts. There should be consequences.

**** Incidentally nobody's been able to show the Russians funded any part of Trump's campaign, so what are we even talking about?

@mdk
Trump friendly groups I meant.

@mdk
Trump friendly groups I meant.

And this, in your mind, constitutes "hacking the US election?"

Before you answer -- Clinton staffers wrote (in "Shattered," their book recounting the campaign process and the post-election fallout) that she and Podesta invented the Russia story altogether. Here's CNN's assessment of things, before they knew they lost. Here's Obama laughing about the very concept of an election being hacked, and note my personal favorite part, where he talks about what he and Clinton ought to do if Trump wins (lol). Here's Hilary saying shut up about election rigging, and talking about respecting the results of the election -- she didn't know yet that she lost, so that explains why she can smugly call anyone who questions the outcome of the election a "threat to democracy."

I can show you what the rest of the DNC was saying about it too, but I'm on the clock here.... The point is, what I'm demonstrating here is, by their own admission, none of it ever happened, none of it was ever possible, and to even suggest such a thing would cause chaos and that very same chaos was the only real threat in the whole scenario. Then they lost so they said "Fuck it, the chaos won't hurt us as much as the truth, let's go with Russia hacking." And you're swallowing it. Don't.

Find a quote of me saying "hacking the US election"

I said there was interference, that's it.

That's a deliberately vague term. What, precisely, are you alleging? The complete and total charge, the whole shebang. Lay it out for me.

That's a deliberately vague term. What, precisely, are you alleging? The complete and total charge, the whole shebang. Lay it out for me.

Clearly the current Trump is really a Russian impostor who took the place of the actual Trump sometime in the early 90's, shortly after the supposed 'fall' of the U.S.S.R. Every action he has taken since then has really all been part of the soviet plot to undermine American democracy, to corrupt and pervert the republic into a caricature of what it once was.

<Snipped quote by mdk>
... to undermine American democracy, to corrupt and pervert the republic into a caricature of what it once was.

Ouch.

Well, America does seem to be a bit of a farce atm. You're not entirely wrong, other than the imposter part.

Growing up I had a sort of idealized version of America. They were these people that could do anything, that beat the Nazi's and the Soviets. They were champions of free speech and free press and freedoms in general. Maybe childhood just implies a lack of nuanced, but its hard to square that rosy vision with the racist assholes that seem to lurk under every rock.

Growing up I had a sort of idealized version of America. They were these people that could do anything, that beat the Nazi's and the Soviets. They were champions of free speech and free press and freedoms in general. Maybe childhood just implies a lack of nuanced, but its hard to square that rosy vision with the racist assholes that seem to lurk under every rock.

I too am getting fed up with Jim Accosta.

@PennyI was actually talking to my friend about this. I'm not entirely certain if you've seen the movie Armageddon, but there's this scene where NASA and its representatives are telling the main character (Bruce Willis) about him being their one and only hope for survival, and he goes on this huge rant on how this cannot be possible.

Harry Stamper: What's your contingency plan?
Truman: Contingency plan?
Harry: Your backup plan. You gotta have some kind of backup plan, right?
Truman: No, we don't have a back up plan, this is, uh…
Harry: And this is the best that you-that the government, the U.S. government could come up with? I mean, you're NASA for crying out loud! You put a man on the moon! You're geniuses! You're the guys that're thinking shit up! I'm sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking shit up and somebody backing them up! You're telling me you don't have a backup plan, that these eight boy scouts right here [gestures to USAF pilots], that is the world's hope, that's what you're telling me?
Truman: Yeah.

And I realized 'this is such a 90's way of seeing the Government. I can completely tell this movie came out 98, because today when I watch a hearing at Congress or the president speaking, I wouldn't trust most of them with my laundry.

I think the U.S. has a very competent and rich, and successful history, but it's stagnant.

And I realized 'this is such a 90's way of seeing the Government. I can completely tell this movie came out 98, because today when I watch a hearing at Congress or the president speaking, I wouldn't trust most of them with my laundry.

The biggest difference between the 90s and today, with respect to government, is that you've got seventeen extra years of experience under your belt now. For instance, did you know that Clinton's first term was every single bit as chaotic as Trump's? Possibly even more so? I mean maybe you've looked that up or read about it somewhere but.... was that the impression you had, back then? Not me, I was in grade school. The concept of a late-appointed chief undersecretary of the labor department swearing in was invisible to me, as I imagine it was to most people my age and younger.

TL:DR they weren't better back then, you were just littler.