http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/russian-hackers-targetted-down-ballot-races-900049475900 It will take a while to absorb this information,so, for those who aren't interested in getting to the truth about how the election was hacked please, don't waste the time of others who actually care about getting to the bottom of this scandal. There are four videos you will need to watch. But, after watching the four you will not only have a better understanding of what actually happened, but you will also see that so many in the Trump organization are tied to these dumps of information that were targeted towards Hillary Clinton to make her look criminal. And unfortunately it worked.http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/insider-s-view-of-russia-s-election-hacking-900922435845 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/the-danger-in-letting-russia-s-hacking-slide-900934723885 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/did-the-trump-campaign-collude-with-russia-900940355557
Rachel Maddow??HAHAHAHAHAHA Her reputation is highly questionable. L The woman who crowed about Trump's tax returns only to realize too late that he pays a higher tax rate than Obama? The woman who's viewership went down 36% due to her lunacy? Clinton LOST all by herself because she's corrupt, but the kicker was her pathetic, elitist "deplorables" comment. It turns out that SHE was/is the only deplorable one, You people should really take a good look in the mirror. People are laughing at Libs and their unhinged desperation. We dealt with Obama for 8 grueling years and now it's your turn. Take it like a man...
Fake News Nonsense. This is simply more of the Hillary Dead-enders refusing to accept that even though Dirty Donna helped Drunken Hillary steal the nomination from Bernie, that all this resulted in was Democrats running the ONLY candidate that couldn't beat Trump. Sad! This week that guaranteed Trump's re-election and Republican gains in 2018 and 2020 March 13, 2017, was the day President Trump was guaranteed his re-election and Republican congressional gains in 2018 and 2020. Taxes and spending. CBO announced that the repeal bill reduces taxes by almost $900 billion and reduces federal spending by $1.2 trillion over the next decade. This reduces deficit spending by $300 billion over the next 10 years. The CBO, as official umpire, announced that the GOP Obamacare repeal plan may be enacted through "reconciliation," the process that requires a simple majority in the House and only 51 votes in the Senate. No filibuster allowed. The $300 billion in deficit reduction gives Republicans a great deal of wiggle room to amend their basic plan to win votes in the House and Senate to win those 218 congressmen and 51 senators. Tax cuts can be added into the mix. Thanks to the CBO score and the underlying power of the legislation, Obamacare repeal will now pass. The path is clear. The GOP legislation empowers, strengthens, and expands Health Savings Accounts and other consumer-directed tools such as Flexible Spending Accounts, and creates high-risk pools to take care of those with pre-existing conditions without burdening all other insurance buyers with those costs. Tax credits will help lower-income Americans afford the insurance they want. The attractiveness of consumer-driven healthcare and the failure of Obamacare's insurance products — on price and quality — will drive Trump's plan forward. Name-calling and dire predictions will not survive contact with reality, or be remembered two Novembers from now. Passage of Trump's repeal of Obamacare means the baseline for revenue — against which tax reform must be compared for it to pass inside reconciliation — is about $1 trillion lower. This means that the tax cut/tax reform package will also pass as the power of the lower business tax rate, the immediate full business expensing, and the abolition of the Death Tax and AMT will drive House and Senate members to pass the bill that will spur economic growth in time for the 2018 and 2020 election. The CBO score makes the passage of Obamacare repeal possible and likely. Obamacare repeal makes it easier to pass the tax cut/reform. Lower tax rates, full expensing, and trillions in lower taxes will drive economic growth to Reagan-era rates. Such growth wins elections. Win/Win! http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...on-gop-gains-in-2018-and-2020/article/2617794
The solution is obvious: quit running dirty candidates if you're afraid someone is going to hack the skeletons out of their closets. It would be sooo easy to make this a non-issue if Dems would just run good clean candidates. But apparently that is impossible for them and therefore transparency is to Democrats what sunlight is to vampires.
Good or bad candidates have nothing to do with it. Thanks for your non-existent counter argument to mine.
LOL just I said a few weeks ago, they're going to keep this one going like the 2000 election and how the court system "stole" the election from Gore.
Right wingers just don't seem talented enough to keep up. Try and remember, Maddow did not produce the tax returns. Someone dropped them in a mail box so the Left could see it first. Imagine that! And the 05 returns said nothing. Imagine that! Why did they send the one year that showed nothing? Hmm, let me guess. Could it be that Trump's recent tax returns do say something, and the 05 returns were a smoke screen? And no return address? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out what the 05 tax returns were all about. If anything, Maddow was the messenger we needed to understand with a high degree of confidence, that Trump's latest tax returns are probably very problematic.
Only ones who question Rachel Maddow are the extreme alt-right. As expected, since they're one of her main targets. And where she has had great succcess. But Rachel's depth, fairness and obsession with getting the story right are very well regarded even among moderate Republicans. She always always asks the subjects of her research for their comments before she goes on air, allowing them the opportunity to respond. And if they don't respond she makes it clear that they are always asked to come afterwards to do so. Rachel is a very foreign concept to the extreme right, because she shows what investigative journalism should be. If anybody needs an example of what exactly that is, just follow bwk's links.
NOT a current event, and on the same credibility level as claiming "read this to see the leprechauns' secret bigfoot taming technique." What a farce.
No, here's a better understanding: FAKE NEWS CONSPIRACY THEORIES CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE ABSENSE OF EVIDENCE NO EVIDENCE ZERO EVIDENCE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL ****ING LACK OF EVIDENCE Meanwhile we have feral thugs roaming the streets killing people over tennis shoes, subhuman illegal invaders gang raping preteen girls, and savage Muslims evading the "extreme vetting" to land on our soil and plot their terrorism. But oh no, hold on guys, wait a minute, lets get in a big ****ing butt-hurt mouth foaming state of perpetual outrage over the latest bit of sheep-feed from our DNC masters. PATHETIC!
Madcow obviously didn't read or understand the return before she went on to hype it either. Maybe she should have gotten Geithner to show her how to read a return.
Information targeted? You mean the e-mails that Clinton and her staff sent to each other? The Russians didn't write those e-mails. The incrimination words on those e-mails belonged to Clinton and her staff. And I'm not watching anymore of Rachael Maddow. She blew her reputation with the "big story" on Trump's taxes.
Here let me sum it up for you. Hillary and company were doing crooked and illegal ****. Through ways that the intelligence community have yet to disclose, the Russians got ahold of the evidence for all the ****ed up **** the Dems were doing. They gave this to Wikileaks who then published it to the net. Rather then look and realize their party was run by a bunch of ****ed up and crook clowns, the Dems were driven pretty much insane and decided that the crooked **** that was revealed wasn't the problem, but how it was revealed. This quickly evolved into some wild bullshit tangent about how trump is actually a Russian agent and day by day the Dems lose more and more of their sanity going full double down on the very tactics and attitudes that have resulted in them losing power in every field of government. Pretty much hit the nail on the head with this.
Surprise, surprise - the 'security services' have had time to join forces and finally dream up 'How it was done - those darn Russkies!' What with this, and our dim-witted fool Michael Fallon having just sent 800 British troops to Estonia because of 'the ongoing Russian aggression', I actually do believe our ruling classes are going ****ing insane. For **** sake - what 'aggression'? I haven't seen any Russian sabre-rattling, only NATO sabre-rattling. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...d-in-estonia-for-nato-mission-to-deter-russia
I haven't figured out how to debate video. If I say I disagree with something I can't cut the bits I disagree with and post them, you can't post back bits that refute what I disagree with either. Why not post a transcript (it's just too long). I would note that this "down ballot" claim is a different problem though, what lefties have been claiming until now is that Trump arranged with the Russians for them to interfere with the elections so that he would win (not so that Republicans running other campaigns would win). Democrats got trounced "down ballot" too, my impression is that their policies simply were not that attractive, the electorate wanted change rather than more of the same. Hillary epitomized more of the same, she promised more of more of the same better than anyone else and other Democrats who pitched as she did also were rejected.
What's questionable about it? She has the best research staff in cable TV news. and one of the best in journalism. Unlike her neighbors across the street. You may not like her ideology, but she is in firm command of the facts. Points of view are not facts. But facts are facts. She rarely gets facts wrong, and when she does, she makes a large point of issuing a correction;again, unlike her sloppy and highly partisan neighbors across the street. Contrary to your false claim. Maddow's ratings have soared in the last few weeks, including a 36% one days spike on the day when she did Trump's bidding with his tax return play. (which was almost undoubtedly "leaked" by Trump). http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rachel-maddow-tops-cable-news-as-ratings-thrive-985789
Well, lets look at that. Your first claim is not supported by any facts or evidence. Your second claim acknowledges the fact that Russian intelligence was indeed Wikileak's source and, by inference, that their aim was to undermine American political institutions. The timing of the releases of Wikileaks dumps confirms that the intent was to help Trump (no better way to undermine your rival than to help install an arrogant, weak incompetent). Since the Russians did not target the RNC at all, this is the only conclusion available. And an interesting admission of the established facts, given the way the far right even denied these facts not so long ago. The rest of your post melts into gibberish. It does seem to reflect the common right wing meme that the Democratic primaries were not democratic. So? Primary elections are not democratic. If they were, Donald Trump would not be the GOP nominee. He never got even 50% of the GOP vote in any primary state before he clinched the nomination. The process would have gone to the floor of the convention, and the party's leaders would certainly have got rid of him.
They read it. What's your point? They even acknowledged that Trump was a most likely source for it in their initial reporting. Oddly, right wingers attacked her by claiming the Trump punked her with this, mainly because most of them learned about the Maddow broadcast from other rigth wing blogs telling them what to think about it, rather than from the source itself (that happens a lot on right wing fake news world). Trump's 1040 form revealed very little, a fact Maddow pointed out. We did not see the thousand or so supporting paperworks, documents that would have revealed his property holdings at the time and provided a window on the sleazy dealings with Russian oligarchs who he was in deals with even then.
I ,for one, don't attach much import to a RM love feast with two political operatives from a losing campaign, with an atrocious candidate.
