Trump

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/trump-russia/577024/

Donald Trump Gave Russia Leverage Over His Presidency

A foreign adversary has possessed potentially damaging information about the president for an extended period of time.

ROFL!


Meanwhile: "Based on the fact that the ships and sailors have not been returned to Ukraine from Russia, I have decided it would be best for all parties concerned to cancel my previously scheduled meeting (...) in Argentina with President Vladimir Putin. I look forward to a meaningful Summit again as soon as this situation is resolved!" -Trump

Puppet indeed!


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-team-fires-back-at-mueller-probe-hysterical-coverage-of-cohen-deal

Trump was identified as “Individual 1” in court documents filed in connection with Cohen’s guilty plea, for lying to Congress about a since-abandoned Russia development project. Such projects also were the subject of a written question Mueller put to Trump, though the president’s legal team insists there was no “contradiction” with Trump’s answers on the matter.

LoL! Mueller doing a little University-6 and Coach-2 troll job.

Just love Rudy's response:

Trump intimated early on that he would ****-can Mueller if he trespassed onto his vast business dealings of which there are many. I think the fat lady is warming up on this one. Mueller's nerf-ball launcher is now obviously empty and he's relegated to throwing the empty gun at big meanie Trump in hopes of landing a final political shot.

If he's going to fire him he needs to do it before the conclusion of the current Congress term. I'd really like to see Mueller finish his career in disgrace a la Comey. He's operated like a turncoat partisan hack. He needs to ascend/descend to his rightful place as a paid special guest on Fake News Central.


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-team-fires-back-at-mueller-probe-hysterical-coverage-of-cohen-deal

This article is Exhibit A on why Fox News has the highest ratings of any news source (and it's not close).

Read the article carefully. It's just the news.


T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...-of-cohen-deal

This article is Exhibit A on why Fox News has the highest ratings of any news source (and it's not close).

Read the article carefully. It's just the news.


T


...:cool:

It's strange to point to web journalism to talk about how Fox has the highest TV ratings. Fox is not the highest rated online news source (and it's not close). I believe HuffPo, CNN, and NYT are all significantly higher. Talk radio is primarily conservative. It's not because Rush et al are really the most objective news source on the radio. TV news coverage has CNN and MSNBC, but they are far outpaced by Fox. Again, it's just a measure of how people consume news. It's not because Fox is the most objective. If it were because they were the most objective, we would necessarily have to conclude that HuffPo, CNN, and NYT online are all more objective than Fox's online content.

By the way, at some point, bias shows through by what you fail to report. Fox printed Trump's quote about the Russia deal ("Everybody knew about it. It was written about in newspapers. It was a well-known project."), but they fail to say anything else about that. Really? Did we all know about it? When Trump was ranting about having absolute no involvement with Russia of any kind? About how he's never done any business in Russia? Through all of this, we ALL knew about the deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow and give the penthouse to Putin, in the height of the 2016 election? Maybe I glossed over those countless articles.

[shockfan89_]

By bias on what a news organization fails to report, I guess that would also include all the fake news media and MSM (yes, that includes CNN, MSNBC, HuffPo, and NYT) that continue to push the Russian collusion narrative when they know, for a fact, there isn't now, and never was, one shred of evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia! They have lied by omission every day for over two years now. Fair point?

Also, please provide the address to the Trump Tower in Moscow? A billionaire developer talking to a country about building a luxury hotel is not against the law. Especially when Trump had not even won the primary yet. It likely wouldn't have been illegal for Trump's business to sign a deal to build a hotel in Moscow (giving Putin the penthouse) the day after the election. There is no evidence of any crime!!! Another lie by the MSM to try to make something up where nothing exists...

In fact, Trump did state the he had done business with Russia for Miss Universe and he also stated they had "looked at" business deals in Russia but said he had never done any business in Russia. How is this not a true statement?

[Kung Wu]

Fox printed Trump's quote about the Russia deal ("Everybody knew about it. It was written about in newspapers. It was a well-known project."), but they fail to say anything else about that. Really? Did we all know about it? When Trump was ranting about having absolute no involvement with Russia of any kind? About how he's never done any business in Russia? Through all of this, we ALL knew about the deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow and give the penthouse to Putin, in the height of the 2016 election? Maybe I glossed over those countless articles.

Here is an article in June of 2016 about Trump working on a deal to establish a Tower in Moscow: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7a0_story.html

Here are more leftist articles talking about it ...

July 31, 2016: https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/new...p-russia-ties/

August 15, 2016: http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

April 27, 2016: https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/trump-tower

I can post enough articles discussing it to tide you over for a solid month of reading if you want?

[jdshock]

Here is an article in June of 2016 about Trump working on a deal to establish a Tower in Moscow: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7a0_story.html

Here are more leftist articles talking about it ...

July 31, 2016: https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/new...p-russia-ties/

August 15, 2016: http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

April 27, 2016: https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/trump-tower

I can post enough articles discussing it to tide you over for a solid month of reading if you want?

While I am certain that similar articles are what will cause Trump's base to completely ignore the new allegations, these are not at all what I was talking about in my first post. Every single one of these is about attempts to get a Trump Tower in 2013 and before.

The reason this is newsworthy is because the conversations to build Trump Tower occurred in the middle of the 2016 election campaign. While Trump was publicly saying he had no dealings with Russia of any kind, Trump (the company) was actively considering and negotiating to place a Trump Tower in Moscow. While he was saying stuff like:

His business was working on a deal to give Putin the penthouse.

[shockfan89_]

I don't get the issue. The Tweet you posted above is 100% factual even if he was working on a deal to get Putin the penthouse on 7/26/16. Looking at a deal, or working on a deal is not an investment.

This seems far less concerning then a career politician (Hillary Clinton) accepting millions or tens of millions from foreign countries. What law does this break? The left is so full of TDS they can't even think logically. They are so convinced that Trump must show his taxes, must have some connection with Russia, even though it just isn't there.

We have been looking at it for more than 2 years, and this is the best evidence? Trump is obviously lying about Russian connections because his company was looking at potential deals when he was tweeting he had ZERO investments in Russia? I would support your concern if Trump had signed a deal to build a Trump Towers Moscow on or before 7/26/16. But I wouldn't even have a problem with this had they inked a deal on 7/27/16. Guess what, this is 11/30/18 and it is still 100% factual!

[wufan]

The “new allegations” are actually just “new lines of investigation”. It only matters if he was using Trump Towers, Moscow in order to gain Russian election collusion. We will have to wait another 3-6 months to see if that was actually the case. Too bad for Putin if he was planning to use this Penthouse as another secret home, because apparently Trump welched on the deal.

[shockfan89_]

I love this logic. Trump, came up with a scheme in 2013 to spend just under 1 Billion dollars to build a Trump Tower Moscow in order to gain Russian election collusion to secure a job paying $400,000 a year which Trump is actually donating the salary to charity? Wouldn't it have made more sense to donate $1.6 million to charity and call it good?

All of this for Russian election collusion, even though there is no evidence that even one vote was changed, or even attempt made to change a single vote. What would be the purpose of this collusion?

[wufan]

You can certainly make a lot of money by having key influence in the US gov. Ask Bernie, Biden, or Hillary. I’m sure there are tons of Republican examples as well.

[Kung Wu]

Wait, are you saying there is a claim that Trump so badly wanted a Trump Tower in Moscow that he couldn't do it without becoming the President of the United States of America, so he bribed Putin with a penthouse offer if he would help by interfering in the election?

[jdshock]

Nah... I'm just saying this is another example--in a long line of examples--where the president was misleading about his ties to Russia before, during, and after the election. As far as we know, nothing shows Trump committed perjury. As far as we know, we don't have a smoking gun that there was "collusion" between Trump and Russia.

We do know that many of Trump's key folks have been indicted. We do know that some of those indictments relate to lying about Trump's involvement with Russia. And we know, without a question of any kind, that Trump misled America about his involvement with Russia. Time and time again.

Maybe the lies are all just because he didn't like the perception of being friendly with Russia. Maybe it's more sinister. Who knows? But it's silly to act like we didn't just learn new information (as you will recall, this all stems from a claim that Fox is unbiased and reports just the facts).

[shockfan89_]

Yes, we learned the incredible, amazing, earth-shattering information that a billionaire business man was looking for investments in other countries. Unheard of, shocking, almost hard to imagine especially since nobody thought he was going to become President, that he (or others working for him) would continue to operate his business by looking for future investments. Thank god we have this new information!!!

[wufan]

Wait, are you saying there is a claim that Trump so badly wanted a Trump Tower in Moscow that he couldn't do it without becoming the President of the United States of America, so he bribed Putin with a penthouse offer if he would help by interfering in the election?

Obviously the goal of this presidency is to put every Russian citizen into a Trump property. This is certainly the best outcome for the USA as they will breathe new life into Russian capitalism due to their new American residence.

America First! America Forever! MAGA, MAGA, MAGA!

[C0|dB|00ded]

It's strange to point to web journalism to talk about how Fox has the highest TV ratings. Fox is not the highest rated online news source (and it's not close). I believe HuffPo, CNN, and NYT are all significantly higher. Talk radio is primarily conservative. It's not because Rush et al are really the most objective news source on the radio. TV news coverage has CNN and MSNBC, but they are far outpaced by Fox. Again, it's just a measure of how people consume news. It's not because Fox is the most objective. If it were because they were the most objective, we would necessarily have to conclude that HuffPo, CNN, and NYT online are all more objective than Fox's online content.

By the way, at some point, bias shows through by what you fail to report. Fox printed Trump's quote about the Russia deal ("Everybody knew about it. It was written about in newspapers. It was a well-known project."), but they fail to say anything else about that. Really? Did we all know about it? When Trump was ranting about having absolute no involvement with Russia of any kind? About how he's never done any business in Russia? Through all of this, we ALL knew about the deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow and give the penthouse to Putin, in the height of the 2016 election? Maybe I glossed over those countless articles.

I guess I just ASSumed that FOX dominated all considering they've been #1 in cable news for 200 months straight!

It makes sense that online Liberal "media" sources would be competitive considering their constant flaming and clickbait tendencies.















Now here's the "other" news source.







Of course I couldn't find many articles via "Trump" on Google (what everybody uses to search Trump news), I had to type "Trump Fox" to get the fox media links. Maybe that has a little bit to do with their lack of competitiveness online? Hmmm... :rolleyes: Meanwhile, all the Fake News I posted above is available front and center with 5 keystrokes.

The funny thing is, I allow Google to track my every move. They know what I normally search and click for yet all they give me is MSNBC and CNN bullshit.


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

This is absolutely and proveably true! It may not be the case that it’s sinister though. CNN, Huffpost, and NYT are number one in clicks, so the google algorithm puts them first in search results. They then get more clicks and stay at the top of the algorithm.

When you look at youtube, however, it is totally dominated by the right.

[C0|dB|00ded]

It's strange to point to web journalism to talk about how Fox has the highest TV ratings. Fox is not the highest rated online news source (and it's not close). I believe HuffPo, CNN, and NYT are all significantly higher. Talk radio is primarily conservative. It's not because Rush et al are really the most objective news source on the radio. TV news coverage has CNN and MSNBC, but they are far outpaced by Fox. Again, it's just a measure of how people consume news. It's not because Fox is the most objective. If it were because they were the most objective, we would necessarily have to conclude that HuffPo, CNN, and NYT online are all more objective than Fox's online content.

By the way, at some point, bias shows through by what you fail to report. Fox printed Trump's quote about the Russia deal ("Everybody knew about it. It was written about in newspapers. It was a well-known project."), but they fail to say anything else about that. Really? Did we all know about it? When Trump was ranting about having absolute no involvement with Russia of any kind? About how he's never done any business in Russia? Through all of this, we ALL knew about the deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow and give the penthouse to Putin, in the height of the 2016 election? Maybe I glossed over those countless articles.

A little bit on Fox's competitiveness online.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/foxn...e-views/357495

For the month of January, FOXNews.com passed by CNN.com in the digital metric of page views.

According to comScore, in January FoxNews.com drew 1.43 billion multi-platform total views, to CNN.com’s 1.409 billion, a very slim +1.4 percent lead for Fox. When the full CNN Digital business is rolled up (including business and international) CNN has more than 1.69 billion views.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoy.../#1d5eb8f0764f

Fox News misses few opportunities to boast about its unmatched streak as the top-rated cable news network--now closing in on 200 consecutive months at number one. But Fox hasn't always been eager to talk about digital, which has long lagged behind CNN. But the first half of 2018 has marked a milestone, as Fox for the first time has claimed victory of CNN in digital--and begun using some of the same swagger to describe its digital efforts as it does with TV's Fox News Channel.

"Averaging 1.377 billion multi-platform page views, FOXNews.com had an 8 million views advantage over CNN.com, marking the third time this year FNC outperformed CNN in the category," the network said in a statement last week. But unlike the clarity of the viewership data released by Nielsen (where Fox News in May destroyed its competition, with an average total audience of 2.381 million viewers, compared to MSNBC's 1.384 million and CNN's 835,000), there are seemingly endless metrics by which brands can slice up--and add up--the digital audience.

CNN cites comScore data that puts CNN first among news brands for total unique visitors, with 126 million. CNN was followed in May by The New York Times (93 million) and Fox News (86 million). But among total page views, FoxNews.com edged ahead of CNN.com.

This last bit stirs up the troll in me. I wanna say that CNN and (the failing)NYT's receive less page views because all the Libtards carrying Obama-phones haven't the literacy or attention span (between periods of drug-seeking) to read past the headlines. Most of the Fox News consumers (many hayseeds/hicks) can actually read and have adult-level focus.

All ribbing aside, I've long stated that Liberal online Fake News is disseminated via headlines with the article content adhering much more to reality. The preceding metric may have just proven my point. Fake News agencies understand their customer base well and are getting the necessary "programming" to them via their chosen mode of consumption, a 2-second glance (after which they pass back out in their mom's basement).


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-rules-against-trump-administration-sanctuary-case-n942361

The Trump administration cannot withhold millions of dollars in public safety grants from so-called "sanctuary" states, a federal judge in New York ruled Friday.

The "court concludes that defendants did not have lawful authority to impose these conditions," Judge Edgardo Ramos wrote in his 43-page decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Ramos

On May 4, 2011, President Obama nominated Ramos to a seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that had been vacated by Judge Stephen C. Robinson, who resigned in 2010.^[3] On September 15, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported his nomination to the Senate floor by voice vote. The Senate confirmed his nomination on December 5, 2011 by a vote of 89 ayes to 0 nays.^[4] He received his commission on December 6, 2011.^[2]

Anybody think the judge to file this case in front of was a big part of the strategy? lol

This is the war on American sovereignty and borders folks, happening unseen to the majority of the American public.

P.S. Notice how the Republicans honored the right of the president to nominate his own judges. He passed 89 to ZERO.

Obstructionists.


T


...:cool:

[Kung Wu]

CNN, Huffpost, and NYT are number one in clicks, so the google algorithm puts them first in search results.

That's not a safe assumption.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Yes. See the "Uhhh.. Google is a problem" thread.


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

That's not a safe assumption.

But it’s true! Perhaps the algorithm is **** and perhaps it is done maliciously, but I don’t attribute malice to anything that can be accomplished via incompetence.

[wufan]

Here’s something for you:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/38884/leaked-documents-google-employees-considered-ashe-schow

I imagine that if CNN, NYT, and HuffPost were below Fox, then google would change the algorithm. They are ignorant to their self-perpetuating search results.