Raving Trump

[aelf]

The biggest force driving hate, partisanship and divisiveness in this country is Rush Limbaugh. For three hours every day 12 million people listen to his hate filled political entertainment. His goal is to feed the fires of hateful partisanship and keep this country divided so his ratings will stay high.

That's his business. We must counter him with rational arguments. But there's no hope of convincing Trump supporters with rational arguments, so we must use emotional rhetoric about hopes and dreams.

I think I've summed it up there.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I agree that Rush has made a profitable business on spreading hate and divisiveness. A stroke is our only hope for cooler rhetoric.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I agree that Rush has made a profitable business on spreading hate and divisiveness. A stroke is our only hope for cooler rhetoric.

I've listened to Rush before, and I can see why he has so many listeners.

He likes to highlight how much hatred Christians suffer from the left, how much hatred gun owners suffer from the left, how much hatred anyone who thinks an early fetus is a life and ought not be killed gets from the left, how much hatred people who believe in traditional gender roles suffer from the left, how much the media villifies Republicans after they win elections, how much the media is OK with Republicans once they are out of power, how much the left hates anyone who speaks out in favor of men on any issue whatsoever, how much the left hates anyone who thinks environmental laws have gone too far, and how much the left wishes he would just drop dead even though he just talks everyday.

It really is all hate, all the time.
Trying to put backbone into dying, backward traditions and ideas really promotes divisiveness.
I don't think he agreed with a single thing Obama did besides kill Bin Laden.
And even then he lightly mocked the President for acting so pleased.

He is 67 I think, and won't be around forever.
Anyone who thinks the other side doesn't have a few good points is a hopeless partisan and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I'd lump Hannity in with him as both hopelessly partisan, while Hannity is more polite and less intelligent.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Rush, Hannity; they aren't partisans, they are professionals. They couldn't care less about the issues they "report" on if they tried. They have a target audience, and they say what they need to say to keep that audience tuned in. Since that audience is driven by hate and paranoia, their "coverage" is about hate and paranoia. It's actually pretty simple.

 

[zxcvbob]

As it bears on the thread topic... the Senate investigation has concluded that Russian agents, under the orders of Putin, interfered in the US election with the specific goal of helping Trump win.

I think this will not move the needle one bit towards impeachment, removal, or anything else...

Why would it? If they find persuasive evidence that Trump or his minions conspired with the Russians to interfere with the elections, that's a totally different matter.

I think the Russians were mainly sowing chaos in our elections, and don't know if it was significant or not (but I doubt it) It very well might have benefited Trump more than Clinton.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Rush, Hannity; they aren't partisans, they are professionals. They couldn't care less about the issues they "report" on if they tried. They have a target audience, and they say what they need to say to keep that audience tuned in. Since that audience is driven by hate and paranoia, their "coverage" is about hate and paranoia. It's actually pretty simple.

Yes professional purveyors of hate and discord with huge followings that have made them rich because they have been fed a continuous diet of vile stuff for many years.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why would it? If they find persuasive evidence that Trump or his minions conspired with the Russians to interfere with the elections, that's a totally different matter.

No its not, because they've already found evidence of that and folks like you are saying stuff like the above, still pretending that it didn't happen.

Again... It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented, the folks who want to deny it will just keep denying it.

 

[Kaitzilla]

No its not, because they've already found evidence of that and folks like you are saying stuff like the above, still pretending that it didn't happen.

Again... It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented, the folks who want to deny it will just keep denying it.

I keep hearing this, but when I look into the details it is just:

Russian Lawyer - Hey, I have proof directly from the Kremlin that Russia funded and supported Hillary Clinton.
Do you want to meet and get it?

Trump minions - That's great! Sure thing.

Later that week....

Russian Lawyer - I lied.
Just wanted to meet about oligarch sanction stuff.

Trump minions - ... OK, we're done here if you don't have anything.

Yes folks, that's the whole collusion with Russia thing.
As breathtakingly inane as it can possibly get.

Those three Trump minions should get just as much jail time as Hillary for rigging the DNC primary.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I keep hearing this, but when I look into the details it is just:

Russian Lawyer - Hey, I have proof directly from the Kremlin that Russia funded and supported Hillary Clinton.
Do you want to meet and get it?

Trump minions - That's great! Sure thing.

Later that week....

Russian Lawyer - I lied.
Just wanted to meet about oligarch sanction stuff.

Trump minions - ... OK, we're done here if you don't have anything.

Yes folks, that's the whole collusion with Russia thing.
As breathtakingly inane as it can possibly get.

Those three Trump minions should get just as much jail time as Hillary for rigging the DNC primary.

Ah... the remix... Translation:

"The news keeps reporting the collusion that happened, but since its lamestream liberal media fake news, I don't believe it, so I'll have to check FOX News/talk radio to get the real details."
"Once I check what the FOX says, I find out that the collusion was just some minor inane collusion."
"Also whatabout Hillary?!?"
"So there was no collusion"

Again... truly dizzying.

Original song quoted for reference:

I do not know there was collusion. Since we are using a microscope, we may be able to find a few minor issues, but nothing of consequence. Based on the way things have been done throughout this farce, that any substantive allegation would have been leaked, which makes me think he has nothing.

Translation:

"I don't know if there was collusion."
"Well if you investigate closely, you find that there were a few minor instances of collusion."
"This close investigation into collusion has been a farce throughout its entirety."
"Since this close investigation is an amateurish farce, any evidence of collusion would have been leaked by these amateurs by now."
"So since there has been no evidence of collusion leaked by these amateurs, I can conclude that there was no collusion."
"So there was no collusion"

Truly dizzying logic...

 

[Berzerker]

Special prosecutors should be appointed with every new President...even before they're inaugurated. Might reduce the number of scumbags getting elected.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Special prosecutors should be appointed with every new President...even before they're inaugurated. Might reduce the number of scumbags getting elected.

But then NO-ONE would get elected.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Ha-Ha! Trump can't block people who don't agree with him from viewing his twitter account!

US President Donald Trump may not "block" Twitter users from viewing his online profile due to their political beliefs, a judge in New York has ruled.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44232226

 

[Zkribbler]

Those three Trump minions should get just as much jail time as Hillary for rigging the DNC primary.

Let me try asking this once again:
Yes, I understand that the DNC leadership favored Hillary. But what did the DNC DO, what did Hillary DO, to "rig" the primaries?

 

[Lexicus]

Let me try asking this once again:
Yes, I understand that the DNC leadership favored Hillary. But what did the DNC DO, what did Hillary DO, to "rig" the primaries?

Simple, Hillary rigged the election by getting more votes
The ultimate rigging tactic

 

[Takhisis]

Simple, Hillary rigged the election by getting more votes
The ultimate rigging tactic

Margarine emails!

 

[Berzerker]

But then NO-ONE would get elected.

They can get elected, they just better have a clean slate... I mean, the FBI vets people for employment.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Let me try asking this once again:
Yes, I understand that the DNC leadership favored Hillary. But what did the DNC DO, what did Hillary DO, to "rig" the primaries?

Easy to answer.
$84 million worth of money laundering.
https://www.investors.com/politics/...mocratic-primary-and-may-have-broken-the-law/

How did Clinton rig an election? It wasn't hard, according to Brazile, the former interim DNC chair, in her new book, "Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House."

The Democrats were broke and in debt after bankrolling President Obama's second-term campaign, and he did little to help them raise the money they needed. Desperate, the Democratic National Committee made a deal with Clinton early in her campaign to jointly raise money together. Using Clinton's fundraising clout, the DNC was soon out of debt. In exchange, Clinton took control of the DNC, including hiring and firing, and used it as a political weapon against her foes.

The deal let Clinton raise money outside the limits of the campaign finance law, by in effect laundering campaign donations through the DNC. It may have been illegal.

Bernie didn't stand a chance. Nor did then-Vice President Joe Biden, who, after showing all the signs of running for president, suddenly bowed out in October of 2015 — months after Hillary took over the DNC.

A list of people saying Hillary rigged the DNC primary.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged/index.html

CNN asked Senator Elizabeth Warren if Mrs Clinton's contest against Democratic rival Bernie Sanders was rigged, and she said: "Yes."

The chairwoman of the DNC Donna Brazille says it was rigged.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.


So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

The nuts and bolts of the $84 million money laundering are outlined here:
https://www.investors.com/politics/...-clintons-84-million-money-laundering-scheme/

Here's what you can do, legally. Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party's main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it's legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party.

Here's what you can't do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.

On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.


Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.

Did any of these transfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct transfers to the DNC?

For perspective, conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference — in other words, straw man contributions. He was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation. How much money was involved? Only $20,000. HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!

The money laundering thing hasn't been proven in court yet, but it is completely obvious.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24...lary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/

The Supreme Court Made It Clear This Is Illegal
The illegality of this scheme isn’t a matter of debate. The Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC that this exact scenario would violate the law. Here’s how the court laid it out: “[A] donor gives a $500,000 check to a joint fundraising committee composed of a candidate, a national party committee, and most of the party’s state party committees. The committees divide up the money so that each one receives the maximum contribution permissible under the base limits, but then each transfers its allocated portion to the same single committee. That committee uses the money for coordinated expenditures on behalf of a particular candidate.”

The Supreme Court then declared: “Lest there be any confusion, a joint fundraising committee is simply a mechanism for individual committees to raise funds collectively, not to circumvent base limits or earmarking rules. Under no circumstances may a contribution to a joint fundraising committee result in an allocation that exceeds the contribution limits applicable to its constituent parts; the committee is in fact required to return any excess funds to the contributor.” And “the earmarking provision prohibits an individual from directing funds ‘through an intermediary or conduit to a particular candidate.”

This “scenario could not succeed,” the Supreme Court explained, “without assuming that nearly 50 separate party committees would engage in a transparent violation of the earmarking rules (and that they would not be caught if they did).” Caught Clinton was. Yet the FEC failed to act on Backer’s complaint, even though federal law authorizes any person to file “a complaint with the FEC alleging a violation of federal campaign finance law.”

The Supreme Court already said in 2014 that what Clinton ended up doing in 2016 was completely illegal.

 

[Lexicus]

$84 million worth of money laundering.

You understand that this is not an answer to the question you were asked, right?

 

[Takhisis]

You understand that this is not an answer to the question you were asked, right?

IIRC the correct answer at this point is ‘LOOK, A SQUIRREL!’.

 

[Kaitzilla]

You understand that this is not an answer to the question you were asked, right?

How about getting the debate questions before the debate?
That seems like more straightforward cheating than taking over the DNC.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...shared-debate-questions-with-clinton-campaign

Veteran Democratic operative Donna Brazile finally admitted that she used her former position as a CNN commentator to relay questions ahead of debates to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary.

For months, Brazile has avoided confirming that hacked emails from the campaign showed her forwarding the questions, which were asked at separate debates. But in a new essay for Time magazine looking back on the hackings, she said it was true.

"n October, a subsequent release of emails revealed that among the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and [Democratic National Committee] Vice Chair prior to assuming the interim D.N.C. Chair position was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign," she said.