Russia and trump

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,253
Media
213
Likes
32,163
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
With all this "Russia bad", "Trump dangerous" gaggle going on, I'm surprised no one is upset about Hillary selling them 20% of our supply of depleted uranium.

Or wondered why the hell they need/want it.

Hmmmm
It's because it never happened. Hillary didn't sell russia anything. That story was debunked.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...r-claim-donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-ga/
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: b.c.

marinera

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Posts
2,230
Media
0
Likes
1,325
Points
123
Location
Rome (Latium, Italy)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
... one presidential candidate who actually has significant, questionable ties to Russia is named . . . Hillary Clinton.

As The New York Times detailed in 2015, Hillary and her husband Bill were at the center of a deal that “gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Those responsible for engineering that deal gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, which “were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” Hillary herself approved the deal as Secretary of State, while Bill personally “received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”


Those are ties far more substantial than either Sanders or Stein have ever been shown to have to Russia...
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08...and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/
 

marinera

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Posts
2,230
Media
0
Likes
1,325
Points
123
Location
Rome (Latium, Italy)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Russia's Largest Bank Confirms Hiring Podesta Group To Lobby For Ending Sanctions
Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, has confirmed that it hired the consultancy of Tony Podesta, the elder brother of John Podesta who chaired Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, for lobbying its interests in the United States and proactively seeking the removal of various Obama-era sanctions, the press service of the Russian institution told TASS on Thursday.
"The New York office of Sberbank CIB indeed hired Podesta Group. Engagement of external consultants is part of standard business practices for us," Sberbank said.

.........
Podesta’s efforts were a key part of under-the-radar lobbying during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign led mainly by veteran Democratic strategists to remove sanctions against Sberbank and VTB Capital, Russia’s second largest bank.
The two Russian banks spent more than $700,000 in 2016 on Washington lobbyists as they sought to end the U.S. sanctions, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms and documents filed with the Department of Justice.
The Podesta Group charged Sberbank $20,000 per month, plus expenses, on a contract from March through September 2016.

...Podesta’s efforts were a key part of under-the-radar lobbying during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign led mainly by veteran Democratic strategists to remove sanctions against Sberbank and VTB Capital, Russia’s second largest bank.
The two Russian banks spent more than $700,000 in 2016 on Washington lobbyists as they sought to end the U.S. sanctions, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms and documents filed with the Department of Justice.
The Podesta Group charged Sberbank $20,000 per month, plus expenses, on a contract from March through September 2016.

“The Democrats are sitting there trying to convince us that the Russians are trying to throw the election to Trump,” a congressional aide who requested anonymity and met Teplitskaya told TheDCNF.
“And then they’re with us here in the House and meeting directly with the administration behind closed doors on the issue of the sanctions. The hypocrisy could not be any richer,” he said.

.Some more details on the meeting: joining the Podesta lobbying campaign was David Adams, who describes himself on the Podesta Group website as a “trusted adviser” to Hillary Clinton, serving as her as assistant secretary of state for congressional affairs. Another Podesta lobbyist was Stephen Rademaker, a former Department of State official in the George W. Bush administration. The Podesta Group represented Sberbank and its subsidiaries, Troika Dialog Group in the Cayman Islands, SBGB Cyprus Ltd in Nicosia, Cyprus, and SB International in Luxembourg. Troika Dialog also was related to Klein, Ltd., a Cayman Island organization that once funneled tens of millions of dollars to environmental groups to oppose low-cost fracking in the U.S., which was hurting the Russian oil industry.
...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...s-hiring-podesta-group-lobby-ending-sanctions


 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,253
Media
213
Likes
32,163
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
... one presidential candidate who actually has significant, questionable ties to Russia is named . . . Hillary Clinton.

As The New York Times detailed in 2015, Hillary and her husband Bill were at the center of a deal that “gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Those responsible for engineering that deal gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, which “were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” Hillary herself approved the deal as Secretary of State, while Bill personally “received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”


Those are ties far more substantial than either Sanders or Stein have ever been shown to have to Russia...
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08...and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/
Debunked long ago:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...r-claim-donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-ga/
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/
 
  • Like
Reactions: b.c.

rbkwp

Mythical Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Posts
80,266
Media
1
Likes
45,666
Points
608
Location
Auckland (New Zealand)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
RT reported Trump had a shit @ 22.47 on Jack off one, on his way back to the shit house after the family Easter break
he never played Golf in the entire 4 days, apparently?

unconfirmed, it is Russian media likely propoganda anyway

NO links so probably false news???
 
  • Like
Reactions: marinera

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Ah. But calling names and telling people to "go f*** themselves" is ok?


Got it.

If you're referring to me, here's a bit of clarification for you:

1) I don't tell people to "go f*** themselves". I tell them (and have specifically told YOU, and on several occasions I might add, to "go ------------ yourself."

2) When I do say that, it's almost always because of some mischaracterization or INSULT someone has levied at ME.


3) And yes, when I say that, I mean every -------------- bit of it, the written as well as the omitted.

Got THAT?

As far as the supposed INCONGRUITY between Trump/Russian collusion and interference during the election and Trump's response to Syria, the latter which some are holding up as evidence that the first couldn't have possibly occurred, this is NO PROOF that collusion and/or cooperation to influence the election couldn't have possibly occurred.

The plain simple fact is that bullies are only buddies so long as either don't step on the others TOES. What USUALLY happens between two pompous, ego inflated blowhards is that sooner or later the shit hits the fan.

That's why anyone living under the DELUSION (and delusion it CERTAINLY WAS) that Trump’s foreign policy was going to be less contentious than what they (BOGUSLY) claimed Hillary’s would be, were living in a fool’s paradise, and WOEFULLY misinformed as to the kind of ego and mentality of someone like Trump, and how he’d respond to a provocation, even an indirect one, like Assad's use of chemical weapons in the face of ESTABLISHED policy and sentiment in that regard.

Translation: American foreign policy is USUALLY determined by FAR MORE than who happens to be in the White House.

And the ones who were most surprised by it (besides Assad, of COURSE, who no doubt thought Trump would do nothing about his use of chemical weapons because of THEIR mutual bud, Putin) were Trump’s own alt-right constituency:

Why the alt-right hates Trump’s Syria strike.
 
Last edited:

LittleBuzzSaw

Admired Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Posts
1,678
Media
0
Likes
750
Points
123
Age
44
Location
Texas (United States)
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
If you're referring to me, here's a bit of clarification for you:

1) I don't tell people to "go f*** themselves". I tell them (and have specifically told YOU, and on several occasions I might add, to "go ------------ yourself."

2) When I do say that, it's almost always because of some mischaracterization or INSULT someone has levied at ME.


3) And yes, when I say that, I mean every -------------- bit of it, the written as well as the omitted.

Got THAT?

As far as the supposed INCONGRUITY between Trump/Russian collusion and interference during the election and Trump's response to Syria, the latter which some are holding up as evidence that the first couldn't have possibly occurred, this is NO PROOF that collusion and/or cooperation to influence the election couldn't have possibly occurred.

The plain simple fact is that bullies are only buddies so long as either don't step on the others TOES. What USUALLY happens between two pompous, ego inflated blowhards is that sooner or later the shit hits the fan.

That's why anyone living under the DELUSION (and delusion it CERTAINLY WAS) that Trump’s foreign policy was going to be less contentious than what they (BOGUSLY) claimed Hillary’s would be, were living in a fool’s paradise, and WOEFULLY misinformed as to the kind of ego and mentality of someone like Trump, and how he’d respond to a provocation, even an indirect one, like Assad's use of chemical weapons in the face of ESTABLISHED policy and sentiment in that regard.

Translation: American foreign policy is USUALLY determined by FAR MORE than who happens to be in the White House.

And the ones who were most surprised by it (besides Assad, of COURSE, who no doubt thought Trump would do nothing about his use of chemical weapons because of THEIR mutual bud, Putin) were Trump’s own alt-right constituency:

Why the alt-right hates Trump’s Syria strike.
1) First off, yes, I fucking was referring to you as one of the ones in my statement, so let's not mince words here and stop with the painful fake civilities.

2) Mischaracterization? Highly debatable since your definition of such is coming from Internet forum chat stuffs. Don't get butthurt snowflake. Toughen up. Insult?!? You mad bro? See previous sentences.

3) I'm talented enough to actually fuck myself (and do occasionally). I lead by example. So.... now..... go fuck yourself.

Liberals bitch, cry, complain, and moan about the atrocities *supposedly* being committed by the Assad regime regarding the possible use of chemical weapons against civilians, but when someone steps in and shoves Thomahawks up their ass instead of drawing "non-existent red lines", now their pissed because it may have started something. Make up your fucking mind. More rhetoric and "demand" for ceasing of said act, or fucking action?

Again, I'll challenge you, *how the holy blue fuck could Russia have ANY influence on how American citizens elect a president? By releasing truthful documents? That's called honest reporting.

I never once said Trump's foreign policy would be any less contentious than others, nor said Hillary's would be any more; you keep wanting to assume that. Get your shit straight if you want to call me out.

Rather than some fool "setting deadlines" drawing "red lines" now someone with cojones is in charge. My local dollar store has deals on toilet tissue; you're gonna neeed it for the next 4-8 years.

Cry me a river.

And GO FUCK YOURSELF, MA'AM.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
1) First off, yes, I fucking was referring to you as one of the ones in my statement, so let's not mince words here and stop with the painful fake civilities.

2) Mischaracterization? Highly debatable since your definition of such is coming from Internet forum chat stuffs. Don't get butthurt snowflake. Toughen up. Insult?!? You mad bro? See previous sentences.

3) I'm talented enough to actually fuck myself (and do occasionally). I lead by example. So.... now..... go fuck yourself.

Liberals bitch, cry, complain, and moan about the atrocities *supposedly* being committed by the Assad regime regarding the possible use of chemical weapons against civilians, but when someone steps in and shoves Thomahawks up their ass instead of drawing "non-existent red lines", now their pissed because it may have started something. Make up your fucking mind. More rhetoric and "demand" for ceasing of said act, or fucking action?

Again, I'll challenge you, *how the holy blue fuck could Russia have ANY influence on how American citizens elect a president? By releasing truthful documents? That's called honest reporting.

I never once said Trump's foreign policy would be any less contentious than others, nor said Hillary's would be any more; you keep wanting to assume that. Get your shit straight if you want to call me out.

Rather than some fool "setting deadlines" drawing "red lines" now someone with cojones is in charge. My local dollar store has deals on toilet tissue; you're gonna neeed it for the next 4-8 years.

Cry me a river.

And GO FUCK YOURSELF, MA'AM.

BWAHAHAHAHAHHHA... A HILARIOUS outburst typical of a petulant child. You've verified everything I've said so Thank YOU, for making my evening. I'll probably be laughing over this for another few hours or so. LOL.

So now that we've both dispensed with the "painful fake civilities," on to the topic at hand.

NOWHERE in any of my statements regarding Trump's response to Assad's use of chemical weaponry had I indicated that I was "pissed" because of that response, or pissed that "it may have started something" (whatever the fuck that means... oh... btw, it's "they're pissed..." not "their"......) and as a somewhat hawkish liberal I've offered neither praise NOR condemnation of it. That's HARDLY "crying a river," ma'am.

Nor have I, like some others, tried to defend Assad or argue that he couldn't have possibly used chemical weapons against his own people.

All I've said about it was that Trump has done what Hillary's opponents and critics claimed she would do. YOU may not have said it, but as I've ALREADY said in a previous response, that bit wasn't directed at YOU personally, ma'am. It was directed at those who've made that particular argument. GOT it?


Further, as I (and others) have already argued, a HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE. So if Russia, Russian based fake news outlets, Assange, et al only released "truthful documents" about HALF of the candidates running for the presidency (see if you can keep up with me now) then that's bias with the DELIBERATE INTENT to influence and SWAY the election in one and ONLY one direction.

Got it?
 
Last edited:

Bigbailey12

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2016
Posts
1,917
Media
16
Likes
2,176
Points
133
Location
Connecticut (United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
BWAHAHAHAHAHHHA... A HILARIOUS outburst typical of a petulant child. You've verified everything I've said so Thank YOU, for making my evening. I'll probably be laughing over this for another few hours or so. LOL.

So now that we've both dispensed with the "painful fake civilities," on to the topic at hand.

NOWHERE in any of my statements regarding Trump's response to Assad's use of chemical weaponry had I indicated that I was "pissed" because of that response, or pissed that "it may have started something" (whatever the fuck that means... oh... btw, it's "they're pissed..." not "their"......) and as a somewhat hawkish liberal I've offered neither praise NOR condemnation of it. That's HARDLY "crying a river," ma'am.

Nor have I, like some others, tried to defend Assad or argue that he couldn't have possibly used chemical weapons against his own people.

All I've said about it was that Trump has done what Hillary's opponents and critics claimed she would do. YOU may not have said it, but as I've ALREADY said in a previous response, that bit wasn't directed at YOU personally, ma'am. It was directed at those who've made that particular argument. GOT it?


Further, as I've (and others) have already argued, a HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE. So if Russia, Russian based fake news outlets, Assange, et al only released truthful documents about HALF of the candidates running for office (see if you can keep up with me now) then that's bias with the DELIBERATE INTENT to influence and SWAY the election in one and ONLY one direction.

Got it?
 

LittleBuzzSaw

Admired Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Posts
1,678
Media
0
Likes
750
Points
123
Age
44
Location
Texas (United States)
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
BWAHAHAHAHAHHHA... A HILARIOUS outburst typical of a petulant child. You've verified everything I've said so Thank YOU, for making my evening. I'll probably be laughing over this for another few hours or so. LOL.

So now that we've both dispensed with the "painful fake civilities, on to the topic at hand.

NOWHERE in any of my statements regarding Trump's response to Assad's use of chemical weaponry have I indicated that I was "pissed" because of that response, or pissed that "it may have started something" (whatever in the fuck that means... oh... btw, it's "they're pissed..." not "their"......) and as a somewhat hawkish liberal I've offered neither praise NOR condemnation of it. That's HARDLY "crying a river," ma'am.

Nor have I, like you and some others, tried to defend Assad or argue that he couldn't have possibly used chemical weapons against his own people.

All I've said about it was that Trump has done what Hillary's opponents and critics claimed she would do. YOU may not have said it, but as I've ALREADY said in a previous response, that bit wasn't directed at YOU personally, ma'am. It was directed at those who've made that particular argument. GOT it?


Further, as I've (and others) have already argued, a HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE. So if Russia, Russian based fake news outlets, Assange, et al only released truthful documents about HALF of the candidates running for office (see if you can keep up with me now) then that's bias with the DELIBERATE INTENT to influence and SWAY the election in one and ONLY one direction.

Got it?
Buckle up buttercup. I'm glad I can entertain you.

"Pissed that it 'started something' or that 'it was the response'", wasn't directed toward you, as I thought you would be able to decipher, but alas, I was unfortunately incorrect. It was directed at the "typical" left crowd.

I'll not go into grammar analyzation of your response since you're such an easy target, I'll just respectfully assume you either type fast or just suffer from "fat thumbs" when typing on a cell (as I do). But if you'd like to point out one grammatical error in a discussion, please at least have the education to spot your own, including use of commas, to include Victorian.

Your ignorance of involvement with Russia by both parties (especially over the last 40 years) absolutely proves your bias.

I'll "go you one better".... you made the accusation that Asange released "truthful documents on only 'half' of the candidates'"..... care to offer proof other than "well it only came about one; we don't know about the other". ..... because this statement would say "They proved one thing but we argue they haven't proved it about the other ..... in other words "fishing for something (that as of now) simply doesn't exist.

GO!!!
 

LittleBuzzSaw

Admired Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Posts
1,678
Media
0
Likes
750
Points
123
Age
44
Location
Texas (United States)
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
BWAHAHAHAHAHHHA... A HILARIOUS outburst typical of a petulant child. You've verified everything I've said so Thank YOU, for making my evening. I'll probably be laughing over this for another few hours or so. LOL.

So now that we've both dispensed with the "painful fake civilities," on to the topic at hand.

NOWHERE in any of my statements regarding Trump's response to Assad's use of chemical weaponry had I indicated that I was "pissed" because of that response, or pissed that "it may have started something" (whatever the fuck that means... oh... btw, it's "they're pissed..." not "their"......) and as a somewhat hawkish liberal I've offered neither praise NOR condemnation of it. That's HARDLY "crying a river," ma'am.

Nor have I, like some others, tried to defend Assad or argue that he couldn't have possibly used chemical weapons against his own people.

All I've said about it was that Trump has done what Hillary's opponents and critics claimed she would do. YOU may not have said it, but as I've ALREADY said in a previous response, that bit wasn't directed at YOU personally, ma'am. It was directed at those who've made that particular argument. GOT it?


Further, as I (and others) have already argued, a HALF TRUTH IS A WHOLE LIE. So if Russia, Russian based fake news outlets, Assange, et al only released "truthful documents" about HALF of the candidates running for the presidency (see if you can keep up with me now) then that's bias with the DELIBERATE INTENT to influence and SWAY the election in one and ONLY one direction.

Got it?
My apologies. I forgot my closing.

Got it?

(Even though "got" is a horrid sign of lack of grammar and educational knowledge).
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Buckle up buttercup. I'm glad I can entertain you.

Indeed you do. LOL

At first I was worried for ya, thinking perhaps you'd lost your edge with that griping about being told to "go -------------- yourself." But seeing as how you can apparently dish it OUT, HOPEFULLY I'll see no more pitiful whining FROM you about that.


"Pissed that it 'started something' or that 'it was the response'", wasn't directed toward you, as I thought you would be able to decipher, but alas, I was unfortunately incorrect. It was directed at the "typical" left crowd.

I'll not go into grammar analyzation of your response since you're such an easy target, I'll just respectfully assume you either type fast or just suffer from "fat thumbs" when typing on a cell (as I do). But if you'd like to point out one grammatical error in a discussion, please at least have the education to spot your own, including use of commas, to include Victorian.

ahhh... no biggie... just ------------ with ya.

Your ignorance of involvement with Russia by both parties (especially over the last 40 years) absolutely proves your bias.

Sure there's "involvement." We're not just talking involvement here, bud. When a presidential candidate who, as it turns out, happens to have members engaging in secret meetings with Russian operatives, stands on a NATIONAL STAGE and exhorts Russia to hack American servers, that's more than just "involvement." I'd have thought a "patriot" such as yourself would have taken umbrage at it.

I personally thought it was a despicable thing to do.


I'll "go you one better".... you made the accusation that Asange released "truthful documents on only 'half' of the candidates'"..... care to offer proof other than "well it only came about one; we don't know about the other". ..... because this statement would say "They proved one thing but we argue they haven't proved it about the other ..... in other words "fishing for something (that as of now) simply doesn't exist.
GO!!!

You seem to be saying (as best I can decipher this last bit) that Assange didn't hack/release information on Trump because it doesn't exist, and that assuming it does is "fishing for something."

Really!? You can't be seriously saying there is/was NO "dirt" to be had on the RNC, or Trump, the guy who has YET to release his tax returns?


If THAT'S what you believe, then it absolutely proves YOUR bias.
 

LittleBuzzSaw

Admired Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Posts
1,678
Media
0
Likes
750
Points
123
Age
44
Location
Texas (United States)
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
Indeed you do. LOL

At first I was worried for ya, thinking perhaps you'd lost your edge with that griping about being told to "go -------------- yourself." But seeing as how you can apparently dish it OUT, HOPEFULLY I'll see no more pitiful whining FROM you about that.






ahhh... no biggie... just ------------ with ya.



Sure there's "involvement." We're not just talking involvement here, bud. When a presidential candidate who, as it turns out, happens to have members engaging in secret meetings with Russian operatives, stands on a NATIONAL STAGE and exhorts Russia to hack American servers, that's more than just "involvement." I'd have thought a "patriot" such as yourself would have taken umbrage to it. I personally thought it was despicable thing to do.



You seem to be saying (as best I can decipher this last bit) that Assange didn't hack/release information on Trump because it doesn't exist, and that assuming it does is "fishing for something."

Really!? You can't be seriously saying there is/was NO "dirt" to be had on Trump, the guy who has YET to release his tax returns, or the RNC.


If THAT'S what you believe, then it absolutely proves YOUR bias.
1) "You"...... not "ya".
2) Capitalization after repeating statements is deemed prudent.
3) "Candidate *comma* who....
4) I never once defended the accusations you deplore, yet you are quite hypocritical on this specific subject, seeing how such more blatantly obvious violations have occurred previously, yet no outrage has proliferation from the left.
5) If you're worried about "tax returns", check your rules of hypocrisy.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
You fail to mention the mainstream media bias and it all out attempt to destroy Trump.. CBS, NBC, MSNBC Even Shep Smith on FOX news bashes Trump now. SNL has gone to a whole different level but let's not mention that.

Bias in the press goes both ways and I think there are equal representations of right and left winged bias in the media. I'm not talking about bias. I'm talking about FAKE ASS "news" originating from foreign (specifically, Russian based) sources for the specific purposes of disseminating misinformation, distortion, and LIES, COUPLED with the hacking of specifically targeted (DNC servers) in America - all to sway (INFLUENCE) the election in Trump's favor.
 

LittleBuzzSaw

Admired Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Posts
1,678
Media
0
Likes
750
Points
123
Age
44
Location
Texas (United States)
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
Bias in the press goes both ways and I think there are equal representations of right and left winged bias in the media. I'm not talking about bias. I'm talking about FAKE ASS "news" originating from foreign (specifically, Russian based) sources for the specific purposes of disseminating misinformation, distortion, and LIES, COUPLED with the hacking of specifically targeted (DNC servers) in America - all to sway (INFLUENCE) the election in Trump's favor.
You mean such I I saw, and was involved in, cover ups from the left regarding the sex trafficking proliferated by the Clinton Administration?