"The Moral Collapse of the Republican Party"

[habiru]

? none of that is true. Don't people care about facts?

People on this board knows how to google. All thsi is true facts. They just google GMO cocaine. If they were trying to get rid of this plant, having countries that possesed it, to burn them. Then why they had made a GMO version of it that can withstand harsh pesticide. Don't tell me that the natives down there knows about transferring genes from one specie of plant to another different specie of plant.

Monsanto, Big Pharma, George Soros, and the Push to Legalize Marijuana

. BBC NEWS | Americas | 'GM cocaine grown in Colombia'

 

[tytlyf]

People on this board knows how to google. All thsi is true facts. They just google GMO cocaine. If they were trying to get rid of this plant, having countries that possesed it, to burn them. Then why they had made a GMO version of it that can withstand harsh pesticide. Don't tell me that the natives down there knows about transferring genes from one specie of plant to another different specie of plant.

Monsanto, Big Pharma, George Soros, and the Push to Legalize Marijuana

. BBC NEWS | Americas | 'GM cocaine grown in Colombia'

I know that the Clintons and Trumps are friends, still are. Everything else you said is false.

 

[esmith]

People believing fake stories and propaganda.

proof?????

 

[tytlyf]

proof?????

Proof? It's common sense. It's clear people voted a certain way based on fake news and russian propaganda. Just sitting here listening to all the falsehoods repeated by conservatives shows they weren't informed voters. They were low-information.

 

[metis]

Proof? It's common sense. It's clear people voted a certain way based on fake news and russian propaganda. Just sitting here listening to all the falsehoods repeated by conservatives shows they weren't informed voters. They were low-information.

And independent surveys, such as we've seen with some of the Pew Polls, bear this out.

 

[esmith]

Proof? It's common sense. It's clear people voted a certain way based on fake news and russian propaganda. Just sitting here listening to all the falsehoods repeated by conservatives shows they weren't informed voters. They were low-information.

Wrong!. This is your assumption. Even the intelligence service says there is no proof that the hacking of the DNC or Podesta's emails had any affect on the election.
What other "fake news" are you whining about and what was it?

I suggest you stop listing and reading the propaganda that you use for your assumptions.

 

[esmith]

And independent surveys, such as we've seen with some of the Pew Polls, bear this out.

got a source to look at?

 

[Revoltingest]

Wrong!. This is your assumption. Even the intelligence service says there is no proof that the hacking of the DNC or Podesta's emails had any affect on the election.
What other "fake news" are you whining about and what was it?

I suggest you stop listing and reading the propaganda that you use for your assumptions.

It's common for Hilda supporters to say Russians created "fake news",
but none have presented any evidence. Even if Ivan were behind the
hacked info, it was damaging because it was not fake.
But much fake news was created by a Democrat.....

 

[tytlyf]

Wrong!. This is your assumption. Even the intelligence service says there is no proof that the hacking of the DNC or Podesta's emails had any affect on the election.
What other "fake news" are you whining about and what was it?

I suggest you stop listing and reading the propaganda that you use for your assumptions.

No, it's not wrong. Even the intelligence service says there is no way to gauge whether it changed votes. Don't spin things. I'm going with our intelligence experts and accepting that Trump worked with Russia to hack America in order to gain additional op research on Hillary. Which is exactly what happened. If a conservatives is telling falsehoods, they're definitely voting based on those falsehoods. It's common sense.

 

[tytlyf]

It's common for Hilda supporters to say Russians created "fake news",
but none have presented any evidence. Even if Ivan were behind the
hacked info, it was damaging because it was not fake.
But much fake news was created by a Democrat.....

Republicans, Hilda supporters, experts, intelligence community have all said this. Wikileaks is russian. Do you realize how much wikileaks was used this election season for propaganda/stories/spin and ammunition towards Hillary? RW media was there cheering the hacks the whole time too.
Now Trump gets caught hiring Russian/Ukranian campaign managers, apologizing for russia, saying look the other way. There's nothing to see there. heheheh

 

[esmith]

Wrong!. This is your assumption. Even the intelligence service says there is no proof that the hacking of the DNC or Podesta's emails had any affect on the election.
.

No, it's not wrong. Even the intelligence service says there is no way to gauge whether it changed votes. Don't spin things. I'm going with our intelligence experts and accepting that Trump worked with Russia to hack America in order to gain additional op research on Hillary. Which is exactly what happened. If a conservatives is telling falsehoods, they're definitely voting based on those falsehoods. It's common sense.

Oh boy you have really lost it.
I said "Wrong!. This is your assumption Even the intelligence service says there is no proof that the hacking of the DNC or Podesta's emails had any affect on the election."
Then you replied "No, it's not wrong. Even the intelligence service says there is no way to gauge whether it changed votes."
Would you please explain to all of us the difference between the two statements, other than just wording.

Now are you saying that the intelligence agencies are saying that (and I quote)"I'm going with our intelligence experts and accepting that Trump worked with Russia to hack America in order to gain additional op research on Hillary."
Where do you come up with such ideas. Would you please give us your factual source that our intelligence agencies have concluded the above.

Oh by the way none of the hacked emails had any research on the Hillary the emails were only on the DNC and Podesta ideas and brainstorming(?)
here you go from one of your approved media sources.
What we've learned from the hacked emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign - CNNPolitics.com

Emails posted by WikiLeaks reveal a buttoned-up campaign that analyzes nearly every decision, mirroring Clinton's reputation as a methodical and tactical politician. And secret transcripts of Clinton's paid speeches behind closed doors on Wall Street have failed to turn up any positions widely different than what she says in public.

 

[tytlyf]

Oh boy you have really lost it.
I said "Wrong!. This is your assumption Even the intelligence service says there is no proof that the hacking of the DNC or Podesta's emails had any affect on the election."
Then you replied "No, it's not wrong. Even the intelligence service says there is no way to gauge whether it changed votes."
Would you please explain to all of us the difference between the two statements, other than just wording.

Sure, you said there is 'no proof,' I said 'no way to guage.' I think it's common sense that people will vote a certain way if they see 2 candidates they've never seen before. If you believe fake information and vote for someone, you're voting based on false information. False information was able to sway your vote.

Now are you saying that the intelligence agencies are saying that (and I quote)"I'm going with our intelligence experts and accepting that Trump worked with Russia to hack America in order to gain additional op research on Hillary."
Where do you come up with such ideas. Would you please give us your factual source that our intelligence agencies have concluded the above.

I've arrived at that idea all my own, haven't read that anywhere. There's too many russian connections from Trump, starting way back near the beginning over a year ago. Everything was russia related with Trump. People he hired, people he got advice from. Put 2 and 2 together. I'm sure a little cash can buy some 'intelligence.'

Oh by the way none of the hacked emails had any research on the Hillary the emails were only on the DNC and Podesta ideas and brainstorming(?)
here you go from one of your approved media sources.
What we've learned from the hacked emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign - CNNPolitics.com

There were multiple hacks. Clinton foundation, email server, drip drip drip, bill clinton, etc. They hacked the RNC too, but didn't release their information (what I heard).

Propaganda ruled this election, Russia was successful.

 

[habiru]

Proof? It's common sense. It's clear people voted a certain way based on fake news and russian propaganda. Just sitting here listening to all the falsehoods repeated by conservatives shows they weren't informed voters. They were low-information.

Hillary Clinton's devotion to Monsanto's GMOs scares away Democrat voters

Why Did Donald Trump Win? Bernie Sanders Calls Out Hillary Clinton, Democrats Over Election 2016 Failure

Poll: 1 in 4 Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton

“The People Want Bernie” — Sanders Supporters Protest Hillary Clinton Nomination at DNC

Hillary Clinton, blind to her own greed, makes another blunder

Hillary’s Greed is Destroying Her Presidential Campaign

Nation of Islam leader likens Hillary Clinton to Adolf Hitler

http://jpupdates.com/2016/11/04/nat...after-clinton-for-support-of-1994-crime-bill/


Blaming it on Fake news,... yeah right....

 

[habiru]

? none of that is true. Don't people care about facts?

At the beginning of the 20th century, cocaine began to be linked to crime. In 1900, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an editorial stating, "Negroes in the South are reported as being addicted to a new form of vice – that of 'cocaine sniffing' or the 'coke habit.'" Some newspapers later claimed cocaine use caused blacks to rape white women and was improving their pistol marksmanship. Chinese immigrants were blamed for importing the opium-smoking habit to the U.S. The 1903 blue-ribbon citizens' panel, the Committee on the Acquirement of the Drug Habit, concluded, "If the Chinaman cannot get along without his dope we can get along without him." Harrison Narcotics Tax Act - Wikipedia

 

[habiru]

Just a few weeks ago, reports broke that Bill Clinton had flown at least 11 times on “The Lolita Express” — a private plane owned by the mysterious financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. According to Virginia Roberts, who claims to have been one of Epstein’s many teenage sex slaves, Clinton also visited Epstein’s private Caribbean retreat, known as “Orgy Island.” Bill’s libido threatens to derail Hillary — again | New York Post

 

[esmith]

There were multiple hacks. Clinton foundation, email server, drip drip drip, bill clinton, etc. They hacked the RNC too, but didn't release their information (what I heard).

Propaganda ruled this election, Russia was successful.

Sorry there you've been listing or reading too much LW propaganda
1. Information on Hillary's private email server did not come from any hacked emails.
2. There were no hacks of the Clinton Foundation
3. There were no hacks of Bill Clinton's emails...don't even think he has an private email address

Seems you Dem's blamed the FBI Director, Fox News, angry white men, and probably space aliens if you could or anything else besides the truth....You had a bad candidate.
Whoops, let that out of the bag....my bad....there are no space aliens on planet Earth.

 

[tytlyf]

Sorry there you've been listing or reading too much LW propaganda
1. Information on Hillary's private email server did not come from any hacked emails.
2. There were no hacks of the Clinton Foundation
3. There were no hacks of Bill Clinton's emails...don't even think he has an private email address

Seems you Dem's blamed the FBI Director, Fox News, angry white men, and probably space aliens if you could or anything else besides the truth....You had a bad candidate.
Whoops, let that out of the bag....my bad....there are no space aliens on planet Earth.

No one repeats what I say. That's our difference.
1. The information on the server was irrelevant, there was no wrong doing
2. The Clinton foundation is not a criminal crime ring
3. That didn't stop RW media from making Bill the candidate.

Hillary was a credible and responsible choice. Not a bad candidate. The only people who think she was bad are conservatives like you who rely on false information. You'll claim she lies, but not nearly as much as Trump. But that doesn't matter to you. You vote establishment every election.

 

[esmith]

No one repeats what I say. That's our difference.
1. The information on the server was irrelevant, there was no wrong doing
2. The Clinton foundation is not a criminal crime ring
3. That didn't stop RW media from making Bill the candidate.

Hillary was a credible and responsible choice. Not a bad candidate. The only people who think she was bad are conservatives like you who rely on false information. You'll claim she lies, but not nearly as much as Trump. But that doesn't matter to you. You vote establishment every election.

Well to some the Hillary was a credible and responsible candidate but to those who put President-elect Trump into the White House she wasn't. So you can *****, complain, and make up all the excuses you want but when it comes down to the facts she lost. Now you probably will not get over it but you are going to have to live with it. Now you understand how those of us that did not like the Obama's agenda felt. The only difference is we didn't try and make any excuses on why he won and our candidate lost and in actuality we blamed our candidate for losing. Why don't you try that.

 

[tytlyf]

Well to some the Hillary was a credible and responsible candidate but to those who put President-elect Trump into the White House she wasn't. So you can *****, complain, and make up all the excuses you want but when it comes down to the facts she lost. Now you probably will not get over it but you are going to have to live with it. Now you understand how those of us that did not like the Obama's agenda felt. The only difference is we didn't try and make any excuses on why he won and our candidate lost and in actuality we blamed our candidate for losing. Why don't you try that.

No, I'm pointing out how independents and other voters were swayed by disinformation to vote a certain way.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I'm pointing out how independents and other voters were swayed by disinformation to vote a certain way.

It's a risk facing us all.
One must be careful about believing all that one hears.
Some useful tips....
- If the import of a proffered quote mattes to one, then its source should be verified.
- All media are biased, so a variety of sources will enhance exposure to all relevant stories & perspectives.
- Don't become emotionally invested in a candidate.