Obama, Hillary, Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and possibly more could be charged with Treason.

a reply to: Sillyolme

This is why such corruption exists and maintains power. Keep their supporters vehemently partisan where truth means nothing. Replace Clinton with Trump and you will be singing a different tune.

a reply to: deltalima74

I don't know.

I wasn't there.

Unless you have proof of her influence, your opinion is just that.

Show me proof and I will believe you.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Sillyolme

This is why such corruption exists and maintains power. Keep their supporters vehemently partisan where truth means nothing.Replace Clinton with Trump and you will be singing a different tune.

LOL, so true.

a reply to: Justoneman

According to the NRC no Uranium was shipped to Russia.

And I'm wondering what in the world is the big deal here.

According to the EIA only 11% of the uranium purchased by nuclear reactor operators came from domestic producers. We import the rest.

Also, according to the NRC, Uranium One only now accounts for 10% of in-situ recovery production capacity in the US.

As far as I can tell. The purchase of Uranium One isn't so much about the Uranium here in the USA. But about the Uranium in other countries. Such as the large uranium mine holdings in Kazakhstan.

The more I read about this the more I see that this is nothing more than a political boogie man.

But but Hillary I mean Obama it's all there fault. For people so quick to call the media fake news they sure love their own delusions of fake news

a reply to: wantsome

You honestly think the news the major media channels spout isn't fake 24/7!!??

a reply to: Hewhowaits

ISIS is not a country.

a reply to: deltalima74

She wasn't even one of nine. The state department was one of nine agencies. The actual vote was cast by a staff member.

a reply to: St Udio

Cliques... are they like secret societies?

You hit all the buzz words though.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

It's not. You're being hyperbolic.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Sillyolme

This is why such corruption exists and maintains power. Keep their supporters vehemently partisan where truth means nothing.Replace Clinton with Trump and you will be singing a different tune.

LOL, so true.

If course it is and they know it. I don't time have time for long winded tit for tat with these people. They arent interestimg in the truth, just defend their "side." Its useless.

a reply to: Sillyolme


The terminology is far less important than their end game as well as criminal acts whatsoever that may have been perpetrated by Strozok, Page, Ohr, McCabe and whomever else.

At a bare minimum, they need to go the way of Sally Yates and lose their jobs/pensions/insurance.

Although I'm liking the idea of a continued Mueller investigation, provided he starts examing all of DC in such detail.

a reply to: Sillyolme


It is. MSM = entertainment news

They are legally allowed to lie and push a false narrative, no crime there. Doesn't mean we can't punish them in their pocketbooks.

a reply to: Sillyolme


They don't have to be a country to declare war, look at the war on terrorism. Granted, declaring war on a "tactic" isn't the brightest idea I've ever heard, considering terrorism is a tactic and not an ideology. ISIL is a clearly defined Islamic Caliphate... Or was, rather. Trump has virtually eradicated them in the year he's been in office. Obama just kowtowed (as usual) and allowed them to expand a vast empire through the middle East. including acquiring fissionable materials from labs and research institutions.

a reply to: JBurns

Yeah like the war on drugs...

a reply to: mkultra11


That is for certain. I always like to refute or simply point out their baseless statements after they've written them all up.

Evidence, or it never happened = the golden standard

a reply to: JBurns
Punish them in their pocketbooks is exactly why this isn't fake news.
They sell advertising to make money. The advertisers buy time on their platform based on viewership. I was an Arbitron participant for an eighteen month period a few years back so I know how they count viewers.
If they start offering fake news they loose viewership. If they lose viewers they lose advertisers because the advertisers want their advertising seen so they can sell products and ideas. The news agencies depend on their reputations to maintain viewers. Their reputations depend on presenting quality accurate reporting of the days events not lies and fake news. .
You do know this whole fake news thing originated as a smoke screen for trump to hide behind and deflect eyes away from his ineptitude and shady behavior?
Every time they report something negative he yells fake news. Then it turns out not to be fake.
It's a deflection... like saying those women who accused him of sexual harassment were all liars. Or that judge was against him because his parents were Mexicans. It's always someone else' fault. He's always the victim and everybody is out to get him. I really don't understand how you don't see the pattern or why you defend him for that matter. He's nothing to you you are nothing to him.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I was an Arbitron participant for an eighteen month period a few years back so I know how they count viewers.

Always interesting to have some insight there, makes thing a bit more clear that is for sure

And believe me, I'm not just attacking CNN or MSNBC. It is all the "entertainment news" sources, including Fox/Breitbart. In my opinion, they all try to push a certain agenda

That said though..

You do know this whole fake news thing originated as a smoke screen for trump to hide behind and deflect eyes away from his ineptitude and shady behavior?
Every time they report something negative he yells fake news. Then it turns out not to be fake.

I know. Keep in mind I am not making excuses for some of the things he says/does, especially some stuff that comes out on Twitter. There is no denying as well that a certain part of the media will denounce him or find fault in whatever he does. That is the nature of free speech, and I don't seek to limit that in any way. But it is a crappy thing to do. I don't see how that stuff is beneficial at all. I don't hold it against him either, free speech and all, but I personally would've dropped the Twitter after inauguration or turned it over to WH communications team

I just believe Trump could truly have a positive and good impact on this country, provided he's given a chance to govern. We both know the 2018/2020 elections are going to be razor-close, and if Trump fails to deliver a good part of his economic/infrastructure agenda it is highly unlikely he'll be re-elected. So what is the harm in giving him a shot to shake things up in DC?

Personally, I'm giving him every chance in the world. But if at the end of this 4 year term we realize he was just more of the same old BS, then I'll vote my conscience and go for the libertarian candidate every single time. I haven't seen that in him, myself. I've seen a potentially great & strong leader who needs some polishing, but I've been wrong before and I'm usually one of the first people to admit when they've made a mistake/were wrong about something of great importance

Wake me up when Obama, Hillary, Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein are formally charged with treason.

I won't be holding my breath.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: thepixelpusher

It's not. You're being hyperbolic.

You're being Naive. I work in advertising and I know the journalism groups have been folded into the advertising groups to ensure nothing gets on air to offend advertisers for the media. Furthermore, many news stories are paid and packaged advertisements for their customers like Big Pharma. Thinly veiled ads instead of news fills the time. On top of that the news media fills other time with pointed agenda topics. Of course it's propaganda 24/7. How in the world can you not see this!?