Just an opinion nothing personal
First of all let me say this I disagree with most of that lengthy article seakolony ..their opinions are formed by the information they have at hand so in that aspect no matter how massive is still somewhat limited..so what maybe true for the information they possess could be quite wrong if one was to encompass all,or imply that it does...and let's face it after all it is just their opinion and mine as well..The article pretty much stereotypes those in each group ....I don't see a set guldeline for why people choose the way they do reasons for some may not be the reasons shared by all..because they may choose whoever for different reasons not shared by others within the same group.. article implies as if to say they come from the same mold..not to mention that candidates change,as do choices made .

I find it to be quite myopic (there are those as well) that one would merely choose a candidate simply because they share the same political party versus their views or stance on different subjects. One could find themselves changing political parties merely on the grounds of their feelings for the candidate or their platform ,maybe not so incomprehensible after all,a grey area that exist between the two ..of course there are the diehards but that is a subset as well..so yea I find the article to be rather limited and close minded based on limited data no matter how massive..It may work for the group interviewed or the observations made..it still doesn't encompass all ..and leaves a rather sizeable margin for error ..Again just an opinion like theirs and nothing personal..

so, the theory is DNC tried to work with Russia to influence the elections? And that proof, I'm sure, is going to come 'soon', I'm sure?

smh.

did the DNC also collude to make sure damning FBI talk was released the DAY Before election on 're opening' an investigation?

And they did this because they are ANTI Trump?

okay.

Let them continue to investigate Trump when he is out of office too. And if he any of them are found to have committed a crime, let a fee be their penalty, Like Trump's consequence for housing discrimination. And are they going to investigate all current and living ex politicians? That could be costlier than Healthcare reform, you do know that right?


The law is the law. I cant change if nothing came up to indict Trump, anymore than Hilary haters can change that nothing came up on Hilary. Respect the law or dont. But be consistent in respecting it or consistent in not respecting it.

If you dont believe Hilary was investigated correctly, the same sources must not have investigated Trump correctly either. If they missed Hilary's alleged crimes, they probably missed Trumps too. I only wish people would be consistent and logical.

I call it switch hitting. Depending on the prima4ies if possible at least I have a say in who is running. But there are people out their that will follow their parties fantically. Proven by every assassin or assignation attempt oh on most Presidents in history. And yes the area of the US you live in or where you were determine your political basis. Including teacher religious leaders friends in school the micro and macro areas. I didn't say I agreed with everything the article had to say. But I do believe Socieconomical standing, view in the area you live lifestyle, gender, religion all play a factor in the opinion basis of political beliefs and opinions.

Seakolony I never said you agreed with everything in the article..I just said that I didn't agree with the article..I just didn't want you to take offense,,I found that the article stereotypes too much..the only thing stereotypical about the members of a certain political party is that they all belong to the same party While some may share the same view to say that they are all one way or another in my opinion goes far beyond logical reasoning..again I just didn't want you to take it personal..I just wanted to make sure you knew I meant no offense being that it was your article..it was just my opinion..and I didn't want you to take it the wrong way..

Trump calls for Schiff to resign from Congress

"President Trump on Thursday joined the chorus of Republicans calling for Rep. Adam Schiff’s resignation as the House Intelligence Committee chairman refuses to drop his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Moscow".

My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.

“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.

“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.

“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designates secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”

“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”

“And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise.’

“And that is the subject of our hearing today.”

Each of the factual points the chairman raised is supported by evidence, and as best as I can tell, none of the factual assertions have been contested by Trump, any of his allies, or the contents of Attorney General Bill Barr’s memo.

In theory, this should represent the end of the Republican tantrum over Adam Schiff.
***********************************************************************************
All Trump can do is call the man out of his name. Like a little 5th grader out on the school playground. Trump doesn't like it because Schiff is holding him accountable for his actions. We all know the little dictator wannabe doesn't like it when someone stands up to him. It's OK though. Several states are waiting there turn to take a bite out of Trump. Either way, it goes, he's a crook.

What the Collapse of the Trump Foundation Tells Us About Donald Trump


"The Donald J. Trump Foundation agreed to shut down after the New York attorney general’s office said it had found a “shocking pattern of illegality".

"Just when you’re getting ready to wrap it up for the holidays and take some time off from anything Donald Trump-related, up pops another story to remind you what sort of man is occupying the Oval Office. On Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers reached an agreement with the New York attorney general, Barbara Underwood, to shut down the Donald J. Trump Foundation, an entity that officially had charitable status but was perhaps best known for its purchase of a life-size portrait of Donald J. Trump—or, possibly, for the seven dollars it donated to the Boy Scouts of America, in 1989".

http://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-the-collapse-of-the-trump-foundation-tells-us-about-donald-trump

Trump’s Dirty Money

"Russian money saved Trump when his projects were on the verge of collapse. Will it now be the cause of his political demise? "

http://ips-dc.org/trumps-dirty-money/

The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet

"Last week, a few days before Trump’s inauguration, former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos sued him in New York state, accusing the president of defamation. Zervos, who is represented by the famous lawyer Gloria Allred, was one of the several women who accused Trump of sexual assault or misconduct prior to the election. She claims that he kissed her and pressed his genitals against her non-consensually. Trump denied those claims, saying all of the women who had accused him had made their stories up. So Zervos sued him for defamation".

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

Good. !

Personally as far as the accusations against Trump are just that and whether there is an ongoing law suit in my opinion these accusations should not be made public until the trial has come to it's conclusion..As we have seen these accusations can and have been used for nothing more than to smear the reputation of those accused or falsely accused..considering the atmosphere of the political spectrum that we have witnessed over the past few years..

One can see why leaving these accusations out of the public's eye is important considering we have seen so many false flags that have been used to do nothing more than to ruin reputations or remove certain people from office..Not to mention we have seen accusations that have ruined reputations and were never proven to be true but still had an adverse effect not only on elected officials but their families as well..

***** And again gathering information does not constitute collusion..*****

and odd yet not how the Dems made Mueller out to be a great lawyer until he didn't reach the conclusion they sought..Now they turn on their own..their agenda is quite clear..Get the president out of office no matter who is defamed..even if its their own

The DNC is so bogus and butt hurt they will stop at nothing to get Trump out so that some can continue on with their GLOBALIST agenda..

Pencil neck Adam Schitt was caught on tape colluding with the Russians..or was he gathering information..

There are a couple of political viewpoints expressed in these forums that I have a difficult time comprehending.

Supposedly Russia stole a large batch of DNC Emails and gave them to Wikileaks to publish. There has never been any accusations that those stolen Emails weren't real and the information they contained not accurate. While they really shouldn't have been stolen and released by ANYONE, the contents did paint an accurate picture of a corrupt political organization. What is the difference who stole them?

Supposedly Russian operatives purchased many ads on Facebook and other social media platforms and used those to influence the 2016 elections. Numerous other groups did also and did so in 2018 and will again in 2020 and use the same methods that Russia used. Why are we outraged at Russia for using misleading or fake stories to influence our elections but not as equally outraged at other organizations doing the same things in a similar manner? Is it not as destructive to our election process no matter who does it? Should we not hold everyone to a similar standard of honesty? Should I not know the political affiliation of anyone purchasing advertising including on social media? Should I not know the political affiliation with any journalist publishing an "opinion or analysis" piece?

We now have a political process in America that is very corrupt. The truth about any candidate is never shared nor their actual beliefs. We get fed what the pollsters think we want to get fed that will influence our vote. We really don't know who is hiding in the wings behind the parties, all the political organizations, the news organizations or any other political operative. It has become who can twist some fact about their opponent in the most negative way or dig up some dirt from 40 years ago. Honesty in politics is dead and we are worse off as a country because of it.

OMG you actually think FB ads influence people.....wow.....especially after fb in the news and congressional hearings. Most people clue others in to fake ads on fb. FB did not cause people to like Trump more. People justed hated Hillary more than they hated Trump and felt a good business mind was needed to establish some sensical method of bringing expenses into a manageable basis going into the future. No Company stays in business with higher expenses than income. We can't have all these programs without an increase in taxes. Or we need to lose programs but something's got to give.

I have to say I definitely agree with that OLD KID..not so much the FB ads,, from what I heard most of those didn't come out until after the election..what makes it even worse is that the news media is complicit..I suppose they have to make the issue more about who sent the emails to Wiki Leaks as opposed to what they contain to deflect..and it worked..Not only has our political system taken a hit but also our judicial system..Trump has definitely got his hands full and seems to be the only one with a handful of others willing to do something about it..

The main reason they want him out so that the Deep State can continue on with their nefarious ways unimpeded..If people only knew the depth of the corruption at hand, I feel they would be more willing to stand behind those who are attempting to fix the problem rather than inadvertently helping those who are trying to destroy our country..but that is the difference between those who listen to the media vs those who do the research..The news is no longer unbias reporting but bias opinions

When I try to tell people that we have quite a few pedophiles in our government I wonder how they would feel that one of the main child trafficking pedophiles is running for president in 2020..and her name is HILLARY CLINTON..also check out Creepy Joe Biden..and there are more

We definitely have two different sets of rules for two different sets of people in this country..my only question is why are they allowed to get away with it..and who really is in charge of this zoo..

Part of the reason the UN is sending all those illegals over our border is to help destroy our economy and destroy our sovereignty so their unelected azzes can bring us under a NEW WORLD ORDER..by forcing upon us the UN Migration Pact that we opted out of..We have only to look at the EU to see what will be coming our way if we don't stop it..

I really dont agree that knowing the political affiliation of others is a must know. Political affiliation leads only, in my opinion, to broad over generalization of people's beliefs or motivations. I do agree that elections are influenced by people all the time, that is kind of the point of political ads.

The difference is if a POLITICAL CANDIDATE or their circle make promises to a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT in return for such influence. To me, that goes beyond the every day influence that advertising is meant to have.

I do not think honesty is any deader in politics than in the general population. I think politics reflects the culture of the citizens who vote.

logic. if there is a DEEP STATE, than would it be safe to assume someone that has become a billionaire under those conditions would have NO INTEREST in trying to 'discontinue' it?

Other than a change of heart one would say they probably have no reason to want to change it..that is why it has to be exposed..the only problem is that the network they have built over the decades/centuries makes that almost an impossibility..except for one thing.. Trump.. I hope..But could we be exchanging one corrupt faction for another..that is a possibility..I just hope that's not the case..time will tell..

I guess that word 'pedophile' has a different meaning in the UK from in the US. Incidentally, I read somewhere that Hillary Clinton will NOT be in the running for the 2020 election, but I could be wrong about that.

Knowing the source of a story and what their agenda is either makes the story believable or make believe. Very seldom do any of the stories/comments put out by someone with an agenda actually have any truth.

I agree with you about making promises that are not public. My point is the methods used to manipulate the electorate through those heavily biased or fake stories. It makes no difference if it is Russia, the RNC, or the DNC; it is all a dishonest attempt to manipulate and needs to be stopped!! You want to know who contributes to a PAC; I want to know what their agenda is!! Each political ad, especially on the internet, should require a link to a policy statement/agenda of whoever paid for the ad! We see catchy names but the reality is often much different. Americans for Prosperity; Americans for Justice; Equality for All - nice names with a partisan political agenda!!

AP FACT CHECK: Trump twists facts of a migrant girl's death

"WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is misrepresenting the circumstances of a 7-year-old migrant girl's death as he seeks to steer any potential blame for it away from his administration.

Trump, after mockingly painting asylum seekers as a "con job" in a rally the previous night, asserted on Friday that Jakelin Caal Moquin was given no water by her father during their trek to a remote border area and that the dad acknowledged blame for his daughter's death on Dec. 8. Those assertions are not supported by the record".

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-trump-misrepresents-migrant-childs-death-022818632.html

Trump: Pulitzers awarded to NYT, Washington Post should be revoked for 'fake' Russia coverage

"WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump called for the Pulitzer Board to revoke the prizes awarded to The New York Times and The Washington Post for coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign".

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/29/president-trump-pulitzer-new-york-times-washington-post/3316086002/



You might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians. You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t. You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t. You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent. You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designates secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI. You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion. Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way. And I will tell you one more thing, I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise.


http://www.11alive.com/article/news/adam-schiff-fires-back-at-calls-by-trump-republicans-to-resign/507-d0d20421-1484-407d-bac9-4ca940b69fa3

There have been PLENTY of criminal cases in the history of the US where the prosecutors decided not to proceed with a case against a suspect simply because the amount of evidence they have isn't enough to get a conviction. That is to say, if NEW strong evidence were to come up linking Trump with Russia during the election, a case against him could proceed. Mueller's report doesn't give Trump immunity from future investigations - this collusion case can be reopened.

But you think it was ok for the DNC to pay a foreign spy to gather unproven information on a Republican Presidential candidate? You think it was ok for a DNC operative to feed debate questions to her chosen candidate? Or for a DNC operative to attempt to undermine the candidacy of another potential democratic candidate? Let's get this straight!! You think it was collusion for the Russians to support their preferred Republican candidate but the unethical actions on the democratic side were just politics as usual!!! And you want us to trust the democratic party and their paid press?? Not happening!!!!! So, who is the "chosen" democratic Presidential candidate for 2020? My guess is is either Biden or Beto!!

For as many articles that you can produce saying it was the border agents fault I can produce as many that says it wasn't..so whose telling the truth.



.USA Today..Migrant girl who died in U.S custody had rapid progressive infection autopsy finds STREPTOCOCCAL SEPSIS...

First of all Biden is a lecherous pedophile....no way....nuh uh.....not sure about the other candidates yet but we will see what both parties have to offer....

YEP..sorry to inform those who don't believe but Joe Biden..he's a CREEPY PEDOPHILE..go to youtube..type it in "Biden is a pedophile" and scroll..MANY articles....from what I've read he's even undergone surgery for it..but still Joe is Creepy..so stay away from Joe he will creep up on ya..

And Hillary check out what the NYPD found on Anthony Weiner's lap top concerning her..real sick.. .. (Huma Aberdin"s husband )...he's a pedophile too..