15 People!! close to Trump in contact with Russians. No Conspiracy???

Jump to Last Post 1-20 of 20 discussions (339 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image90
    My Esotericposted 9 months ago

    Over 15, close or very close associates of Donald Trump or his campaign have had contacts with Russia and Russian spies.  How can this not be a conspiracy that Trump didn't know about??

    - Flynn - National Security Advisor (pleaded guilty)
    - Sessions - Former Attorney General (fired by Trump for recusing himself)
    - Cohen - Trump's personal lawyer (pleaded guilty, looking at many years in jail)
    - Kushner - Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser
    - Trump Jr. - Manages the Trump organization
    - Manafort - Trump's campaign manager (convicted, in jail)
    - Page - Trump campaign foreign policy adviser
    - Gates - Trump's deputy campaign manager
    - Gordon - Trump campaign foreign policy adviser
    - Papadopoulos - Trump campaign foreign policy adviser (pleaded guilty, served time in jail)
    - Stone - Trump confidant and outside adviser (probably will be indicted)
    - Ivanka - Trump's daughter
    - Caputo - Trump campaign aide
    - Berkowitz - Long time Kushner associate and White House aide
    - Prince - Trump envoy and brother to Education secretary Betsy DeVos
    - Scaramucci - Member of Trump transition team and later White House communications director

    https://themoscowproject.org/explainers … peratives/

    Is this enough smoke to reasonably presume that Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia to throw the election to him?

    1. IslandBites profile image85
      IslandBitesposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      No conspiracy, no collusion! Just ‘political synergy’ and ‘synergy on a government level’. big_smile

    2. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Haven't you been keeping up? None of this is evidence of collusion. There is ZERO evidence. None! Not even a tiny shred. Not. One. Iota.

      And, even if there were evidence, collusion is not a crime. And, even if it were an impeachable offense, unless Trump is found guilty in a court of law, he is innocent. Pure!

      This is nothing but a witch hunt, perpetrated by Democrats and the deep state. Oh, you say Mueller is a Republican appointed by a Republican appointed by Trump? That means zero, nada, nothing. The deep state runs so deep that even Trump's own appointees and the entire FBI are part of the plot. They're all a bunch of lying crooks, out to get Trump. Why? Because he is not a globalist. He is fighting back against not only the U.S. deep state but the entire world!

      Do you understand now? If not, you are obviously brainwashed by the lamestream media, college professors, and The View. Get your head out of the sand! Read a blog! Watch a Project Veritas video! Open your eyes!I

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        LOL, Yep, collusion is not a crime.  That is why I used the word conspiracy, which is.

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      No.  According to some folks it is, but then their desire to hurt Trump overrides any sense of justice and truth.

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        It would benefit America greatly if he would leave office.  Pence, as terrible as his social conservatism, church-first view of the world is, he is much preferable.

    4. MizBejabbers profile image89
      MizBejabbersposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      ME, do you ever get tired of not being able to fix stupid? Everybody said if Kennedy was elected President, the pope would run the country. We've been afraid that Trump would be Putin's puppet. Now even Putin hates the guy! (i.e., Putin's new pal the Crown Prince and their glaring at Trump.) Can it get more confusing! They say, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Heck, we can't even keep our enemies close, and where did all the friendlies go, long time passing.

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Just call me a masochist.  It will feel so good when stupid is gone, lol.

        I love your last two lines.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          As long as we have career politicians, the stupid will never be gone.

          IE - Nancy Pelosi - 30 years in Congress, lifelong politician.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            I'm seeing a trend here. Nancy Pelosi is replacing Hillary as the liberal conservatives love to hate.

            So, I have done some searching (admittedly, not much) to find out precisely what Pelosi has done to rise to the highest pinnacle of liberal boogeyman. My search has not been unsuccessful.

            So, here is your chance to tell me what makes Pelosi the worst of the worst. How is she more awful than, say, Bernie Sanders? From what I can see, her policies are less extreme than Bernie's, whose Democratic Socialism runs more counter to conservatism than does Pelosi's run-of-the-mill liberalism.

            So, what is it, exactly, that Pelosi has done to warrant this level of right-wing hatred?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Watched a short clip with Trump "negotiating" with 2 Democrats, one of which was Pelosi.  He wants 5B for the wall - her response was to say that there will be zero for the wall under any circumstances.  And then has the unmitigated gall to claim that she is willing to "compromise".

              "My way or no way" at all is the mantra from Democrats, with Pelosi at the head.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                That's it?

              2. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                lol, the reason WHY there will be NO money for the wall is because Bozo Trump is doing a pretty good job of building the wall even without money for it, at least that's what he claimed in the very same meeting where Nancy "Powerhouse" Pelosi made him look like the idiot he truly is:

                I didn't know the wall was already being built and WHY waste tax-payer money for it when progress is being made without financing ??


                https://hubstatic.com/14326046.jpg

              3. IslandBites profile image85
                IslandBitesposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                I must have missed that part. I did watched Trump said my way or I'll shut the government.

                Trump must be a Democrat or that mantra is spreading. hmm

                1. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I did to.  He said it and implied it several different times during the meeting as well as the day after - until he, as he does very often, changed his mind once it finally dawned on him how stupid he was.

              4. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                And there you are wrong again Wilderness.  She is willing to give what is in the budget, 2.6 B, I think.

                Also, "My way or no way" was Trump's line at the end of the meeting.  "I will OWN the shutdown" he says.  Did you miss that part??  He has also said on several occasions that "a shutdown is a good thing".

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  And I think your thought is completely wrong.  She is not willing to build a single foot of wall.

                  Trump will take responsibility for govt. shutdown.  And this points to Pelosi willing to negotiate?  Sorry, but that's a line of reasoning I cannot follow.

                  1. Valeant profile image95
                    Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    When well over half of America thinks the wall is a stupid use of taxpayer money, don't you believe Trump should listen and represent America's interests?

                  2. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    It's no "thought" Wilderness, it is a statement of fact, although the real figure is $1.3 billion now that I have looked.  To be sure, this is for border security.  But, the border barrier is part of border security.

                    "Democratic leaders plan to offer President Trump $1.3 billion in funding for a border fence when they meet Tuesday at the White House, a bid that falls far short of the $5 billion Trump is demanding to fund a border wall." - Washington Post, Dec 10

                    Given the Trump Wall that the Mexican's are going to pay for is a huge waste of time and money (only conservatives and Trump says it isn't), $1.3 billion is a much better deal.

                    Pundits say, however, the figure will end up around $3.2 billion which is probably needed for REAL border security.

          2. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I hope you never have to have a non-career neurosurgeon work on you one day.  It will only be then when it will occur to you how dumb castigating "career politician" is.

            There are only a few reasons a politician keeps office.

            1.  Gerrymandering
            2.  Doing a good job
            3.  An unengaged electorate

    5. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Just to add more gas to the fire:

      EVERYONE of the organizations associated with Trump are now under investigation as well as Trump himself.

      - Trump Foundation
      - Trump Organization
      - Trump Inauguration Committee
      - Trump Administration

      Just to name a few.  And guess what, Trump appointed the head of all of the federal investigators

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
        JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        They said Junior Trump was on a so called 'hunting trip' in Canada last weekend, as if being in Canada would save anyone from indictment:

        I wonder where he's headed this weekend ??

    6. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      WOW!  Looks like Mueller should start asking for indictments... We should get something out of this 30 some million dollar investigation. I just wonder why he is not wrapping this all up, with so much smoke, should be able to prove Trump did something crooked with Russia to win the election.

      1. Valeant profile image95
        Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        We have gotten something out of this one.  Actual indictments, guilty pleas and $42-46 million in assets from Manafort.  Results and he's turning a profit.  That's way more than any investigation of a Democrat ever yielded.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          What happened to that money?  Into the general fund?  All to the FBI to expand their power (that's what some police departments do, after all)?

          1. Valeant profile image95
            Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            More likely it went to pay for rooms at Trump International, DC.  I mean, as long as we're throwing out organizations (FBI) that aren't connected to Mueller's investigation in any way just to be conspiracy theorists, I'll lob out some of Trump's.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Might as well.  It makes as much sense as spending millions on a witch hunt, carried out by people with the full might and abilities of the United States behind them but no oversight.  It's been a great thing for those that keep a statue of J Edgar on their nightstand to worship each night.

              1. Valeant profile image95
                Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Spent 25, today's figure had the assets secured at 48 million.  There you go again trying to make the cost into a negative. 

                Mueller is a republican, appointed by a republican, to replace a fired republican, to investigate ties between republicans and Russia.  There has been oversight, from the DOJ, which is run currently by, you guessed it, republicans. 

                But it appears that by lack of oversight, you meant lack of partisanship to bury misdeeds.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  No, Mueller was hired to find dirt on Trump or anyone connected however remotely to Trump.  If it were to investigate ties between Trump and Russia (investigating only ties between republicans and Russia would be too low for even Clinton, let alone the rest of the Democrats) then he would have stuck to that.  But most of his findings concern matters completely irrelevant to that charge.

                  1. Valeant profile image95
                    Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    There is no way a decorated veteran like Mueller, an honorable public servant, would have taken a post just to dig up dirt on Trump.  The insinuation is insulting and shows just how far down the conspiracy theory wormhole you've gone Dan.  The fact that you even make such a claim is why many of us have little to no respect for the opinions you are posting here.

                    As for the Russia connections, do you think it was going to be strategic for him to unveil his results with a clearly partisan house and senate that did everything possible to protect Trump?  Waiting for a Democratic majority in the house assures people will act and not bury the results of his investigation.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Wrong again, Wilderness.  The vast majority of indictments and guilty pleas are directly related to Russian conspiracy by Trump and those in Trump's orbit and campaign.

                    Why do you remain so blind to reality?

    7. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      WOW!!!! Although, based on Trump's words and actions, I am not surprised!  I, and others, wondered allowed before Russia handed the Presidency over to Trump whether he was a "Manchurian Candidate".

      An ex-CIA analyst (probably Republican as, like with most law enforcement, most are) just said the FBI would have had to have HARD evidence on Trump to open a counter-intelligence investigation.

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/11/politics … index.html

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Yes Eso, the evidence of Trump's duplicity had to be very revealing to even start an investigation into his actions.

  2. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
    JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months ago

    The Washington Post is a fabulous source of fact based info but I'm just surprised it took them this long to create  the "Bottomless Pinoccio" for this weirdo's habitual fabrications which he either realizes he's telling or perhaps he doesn't which would only add to the dangerous proposition he represents to the USA: His latest tall tale whether he actually realizes he's telling it or not ?? he actually said yesterday in OUR white house that the great useless concrete wall is already being built which of course everyone knows is a bald faced LIE:

    Honestly, at this point in our darkest times, where his indictment is looming large, WHO still listens to this horse manure ?? Yeah right, he never even heard of Russia: lol

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j1I8af50sc

    1. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      So true.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Yes even the WP gets it right now and then.

      "But when it comes to the real barometer of presidential truthfulness — keeping his promises — Trump is a paragon of honesty. For better or worse, since taking office Trump has done exactly what he promised he would."
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … c6281ae679

      1. hard sun profile image85
        hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Mexico paying for the wall, repealing Obamacare, quickly balance the federal budget, remove Syrian refugees, even the Medicare trust fund was cut

        Then there's this ""I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off.”"

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, he has made mistakes, and ys all his campaign promises have not been kept. As all past presidents, he has made promises he can't keep, and many of us knew Mexico would not be paying for a wall... I was pleased to see he was taking up the problem of immigration and had little faith in his ability to get Mexico to pay for a wall. He has got Mexico to help with the current caravan problem by keeping strong keeping out immigrants that don't come in legally. Mexico has offered the immigrants a chance to become Mexican citizens and is currently holding job fairs for these people that had hoped to enter the USA. It ell appears Trump has a good relationship with Mexico.

          The article I posted gives examples of some of the positive accomplishments that the president has brought about. We all have strong opinions on his progress or lack of progress. I respect your right to an opinion, please respect mine.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            "many of us knew Mexico would not be paying for a wall"

            Anyone with a grain of sense knew that, but it makes a great point to scream that "He lied!" or that he didn't keep his political promise.

            1. hard sun profile image85
              hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              With this logic, anyone can say anything and just say, duh, you can't believe me anyway. That's a bad direction for any people or nation to take.

          2. hard sun profile image85
            hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            First, I do respect your opinion, and I have learned a thing or two by reading your perspective. I just pointed out several of the promises that Trump hasn't kept.

            Has Trump done anything good? Yes. For example, I like the bipartisan crime bill. As you likely know though, I think he's one of the worst things to ever happen to America. In fact, I don't think he even knows how to put America's interests before his own. He's disrespecting generations of patriots and our ancestors.

  3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 9 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14326088.jpg

    I'll never vote for a Democrat in my life. I'm actually interested in the continued health and wealth of the USA.

    You've 6 more glorious years of Trump reversing the Obama/globalist agenda ahead of you. Perhaps you should seek the aid of a physician in order to cope with this wonderful thing.

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
      JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      https://hubstatic.com/14326147.jpg

      I'm not quite sure a person can run for president of the USA from a prison cell, i'd check on that stipulation if I were you:

    2. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I take it you are an enemy of AMI's David Pecker, Trump's good friend.  Seems like the Trump campaign official #1 that was in the room with Cohen and Pecker scheme to hide embarrassing facts IN ORDER TO help win the election was - TRUMP HIMSELF, lol..

      He is SO screwed.  Before this is all over, the Felon Trump will be in jail.

  4. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
    JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14326848.png

    Looks like piece by piece, bit by terrible bit the entire charade is crashing down before our very eyes on national television:

    How did his inauguration manage to get over 100 million for a tiny event when President Obama used only half that amount for his enormous unprecedented occasion? Who gave the campaign that much money, where did it come from and where did it go ?? Some reports are fingering guess who ?? Yup, Russians, ya don't say :

    UNREAL:

    "Trump Inauguration Spending Under Criminal Investigation by Federal Prosecutors"

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-inau … 1544736455

  5. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 9 months ago

    I just love this thread. When someone from the right points at the massive body of evidence against Clinton.........silence or derision from the left. Poor Hillary, the damned witch hunt. Flip the coin and they go ballistic indignant.

    What a hoot.

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
      JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Yeah but who really cares about President Clinton ?? She's not systematically destroying the USA day by day like Bozo Trump is:

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        LOL. Keep deluding yourself.

  6. Leland Johnson profile image91
    Leland Johnsonposted 9 months ago

    MyEsocteric- James Comey said "I don't remember" 250 times during his deposition.  WOW!  Can you think of any issue you've personally been involved in that you could say "I don't know" 250 times?  Comey is one of the head hunters trying to frame the president.  15 conspirators?  I hardly think so.  You've been duped by the liberal media with their leftist agenda who will stop at nothing in trying to destroy a man who is restoring strength and honor to our country.

    1. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Can you offer a link from a credible source with Comey saying he doesn't remember 250 times?

      Even Fox News said it was only a small fraction of that amoumt.

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Is that 250 times in his life time or just in one sitting with a bunch of Angry Republicans?  The former seems reasonable and the latter is just wrong or some sort of distortion of reality.

        I hope that link has all 250 "I don't know" quotes in it.

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          I think you're right. It might be a lifetime. If he's Hindu and believes in karma, maybe it's multiple lifetimes.  smile

      2. Leland Johnson profile image91
        Leland Johnsonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        you know how a search engine works.  use one.  if you don't agree with my point no link exists that you would accept.

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          I obviously did. And I found no link to any source backing up your claim including Fox News.

          You know how the truth works. Give it a try.

          1. Valeant profile image95
            Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            He obviously just parroted a Fox News talking point, repeated from Trey Gowdy.  I linked the actual interview here, doubt he even went back and wondered why Comey might have answered 'I don't know' so many times.  He had no rebuttal for the example I laid out to why he did.

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Yep, I agree. If not Sean Hannity, then Breitbart or Alex Jones.

          2. Leland Johnson profile image91
            Leland Johnsonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            if you "obviously did" why didn't you include it in your response?  again, you get to decide what's credible, right? so regardless of what site I link you'd disagree with it.  stop trying to look open minded.  You're not.

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              You are the one who made the claim of 250 "I don't remember".

              All I did was ask you to back up your claim with a link to a credible source. Can you do so or not?

              While we're at it, are you Russian or American? If you are Russian, please don't post here anymore. If you are American, please quit repeating Russian propaganda from Facebook.

              1. Leland Johnson profile image91
                Leland Johnsonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Interesting- I don't do facebook.  Looks like more false accusations just like the people you defend.  Interestingly, I posted my real name.  Does it look Russian?  BTW don't bother asking me NOT to post anywhere unless you're a hubpages moderator.  It's not your job to suppress freedom of expression Mr... uhh.. uhh.. oh that's right, you don't post your name.  Is it Ivan?  BTW- I'm an American veteran.  I've earned the right to speak my mind, I even defended your right to do the same while you nit pick people who have actually served their country.

                1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
                  Wesman Todd Shawposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  He's not a moderator, and has no more authority here than you do. I also get called a 'Russian bot' twenty times a day by the sad, insecure ones.

                  I got a nice chuckle one day when someone suggested Wesman was a Russian name.

                  1. promisem profile image97
                    promisemposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Saying I can't ask for a link because I'm not a moderator is just plain silly. People constantly post links here to back up facts they post in their comments.

                    Authority has nothing to do with it. It's simply about speaking the truth.

                    There is no place on here for propaganda from either side of the issues.

                2. promisem profile image97
                  promisemposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Still no proof of the 250? I get it. It's OK to admit your post was just propaganda.

                  Michael Flynn is a veteran too.  wink

                  1. Leland Johnson profile image91
                    Leland Johnsonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    The proof is the transcript itself.  It's available.  Try reading it.  Also, try to stop bashing veterans with 5 years of combat service, 30 overall.  You risked nothing and get to say anything due to him, and people like him, who've actually contributed more than snide remarks to this country.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Duped?

      He's a card carrying member and fulltime supporter of all things anti-Trump.  If anything, he thinks the media is too soft, and the Democrats too mild mannered, complacent even.

      1. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        He's partly right. Fox News and Breitbart are way too soft on Trump.

    3. Valeant profile image95
      Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      When Gowdy asks what Strozk meant in his text messages, pretty sure Comey should answer I don't know.  Perhaps the GOP should have asked him things that actually pertained to him.  You stated 'an issue personally been involved in,' well Comey wasn't involved in those text messages, so why wouldn't he answer he didn't know the intent of them.  Plus, Gowdy already asked Strozk directly about those messages and got direct answers.  Asking Comey was idiocy.  Gowdy was grandstanding and literally beating a dead horse. 

      But just taking some right-wing talking point about Comey not answering questions without listing the actual questions, gives your point no credibility.

      Here's the actual document:  https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-tr … committees
      I only got to page four before understanding why Comey had to say he didn't know so often.

      1. Leland Johnson profile image91
        Leland Johnsonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        what you are saying is just untrue.  you or I can read what Strozk wrote about HRC becoming president and know exactly what he's talking about.  Did you think no one would read the link you provided? (thanks for that btw) Comey was being evasive from the get go and if you can't see that I'm sorry for you.  It's obvious what Comey was doing.  How can you not see that based on the transcript?

        1. Valeant profile image95
          Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          When Gowdy asks Comey, 'What did Strozk mean when he said this?' 

          I would have said, 'Well, you asked that to Strozk and he told you what he meant, so why are you asking me what someone else meant when he wrote something?'

          Comey opted for the polite version of saying 'I don't know.'  It's speculation to guess what someone else meant by something they said and one of the first rules of law is that you don't answer speculative questions.

          It's a dumb question to ask of another person.

          1. Leland Johnson profile image91
            Leland Johnsonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            too bad Comey didn't have you for his attorney. I bet he would've sounded better had he.

          2. Leland Johnson profile image91
            Leland Johnsonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            The point in asking Comey was to determine his position regarding Strozk's attitude.  ie, was it one of political neutrality as Comey has alleged in the past?  Obviously not, which is why Comey won't answer the question.  This is right out of the Clinton playbook.  If you say "I don't know" or "I don't remember" you cant be charged with perjury.  Comey's a snake, not an idiot.

    4. hard sun profile image85
      hard sunposted 9 months ago

      It sincerely seems there is a faction that will choose Trump over America, and ALL of our institutions, every time. Unfortunately, this cult-like behavior is not surprising.

      There really is NO evidence that will ever be enough to convince them that Trump is anything but their savior. Even attempting to have reasonable conversations with that certain faction will render nothing but absurdity. Such is life.

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
        JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        hard sun, the silver lining is this: What's remaining of the Bozo Trump cult  base is rapidly shrinking for an infinite number of obvious reasons as this insane quasi-dictatorship and republican party unravels and crashes into the dirt before our very eyes: The total REBUKE of Donald John Trump in our midterms as republicans were trounced in the elections is just one more exhibit of evidence to prove that point which indicates there a far fewer individuals who are still willing to stick their heads in the proverbial sand while this vile, disgusting 72 year old orange blob perched in our white house carries on with his mad insanity, dismantling our once great country bit by bit while practically kissing Vladimir Putin's dirty boots on global television in Helsinki: UNREAL:

        Everyone needs to read the SHOCKING statement released by the NY Attorney General yesterday which describes the incredibly vile unlawful actions by the Trump family in regard to the soon to be defunct Trump Foundation where prosecutors say money donated by ordinary people with the intent to help children or veterans or other individuals in need, was used by these unconscionable dregs for self enrichment: DISGUSTING and Unacceptable in the USA:

        I guess now we know why FINANCES is where the red line was drawn right?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Shrinking base?  Is that like the $5 or $10 gasoline you kept saying we're seeing while the price drops more every week?  lol

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            To know what is true, pay close attention to moonshine. The opposite of what he says is always true.

            Orange Man Bad! LOL


            https://hubstatic.com/14333123.jpg

          2. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
            JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Typical Trump Follower embellishing to distort: I NEVER said I paid $10 per gallon of gas but I did pay $5 just a short time ago which is outrageous, but enough of that nonsense:

            Some around here have been asking WHY Bozo Trump hasn't been indicted or impeached yet and we are now discovering the reason why: Because ALL of his and his families despicable unlawful actions must be unearthed and identified first, and so far we have an enormous trove of damning evidence that seems to be growing hourly and of course Donald listed as essentially an un-indicted co-conspirator for felony crime charges in NY which say that he and others conspired to influence our presidential election and now his quote unquote "foundation" where according to prosecutors in NY. he and families members used YOUR Charitable Donations to purchase personal portraits: Let that despicable abomination of a notion sink in for a moment: Money that YOU gave to benefit children or veterans, was reportedly used to buy an inflated priced crappy orange portrait of Bozo: NICE:

            And then his last remaining followers wonder WHY this dark, soulless mad 72 year old cretin must be REMOVED from our oval office ASAP and of course WHY he, junior Donald, precious little entitled Ivanika and Eric had better get fitted for orange jump suits that can withstand HELLISH White Hot Heat when the good lord takes them ??

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              "I NEVER said I paid $10 per gallon of gas but I did pay $5 just a short time ago"

              I know you didn't.  You didn't pay $5 either, unless you were in Canada or somewhere way off in the sticks where there was no competition.

              1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                lol, Not sure how much more wrong you could possibly be with a few short sentences wilderness but WoW:

                * First off, you've got the WRONG Topic, this is a discussion about Bozo Trump and Russian Conspiracy for which it could result in Bozo's 3rd indictment, this is not a discussion about gasoline prices skyrocketing under the collapsing administration of the tiny handed orange elderly dude:

                * Regardless of your assumptions, I did indeed pay approximately $5 per gallon of gas not too long ago here in Bozo Trump's insane economy so you're wrong on that point as well:

                * I certainly don't nor do I desire to ever live in the sticks of Idaho or Wyoming or Alaska nor do I live in the beautiful country of Canada so you're WRONG about that as well which means 3 STRIKES and you're out:

                After watching Nancy Pelosi EMASCULATE Donald Trump the other day in our white house which is difficult to do considering his manhood is definitely in question, no worries, when the indictments and convictions have subsided, Nancy Pelosi will make a STRONG, Intelligent Exceptional president who will bring an agenda for we the people, strong against our enemy Vladimir Putin, repairs to our NATO allies, Healthcare for all, minimum wage increases and enhancement to social security and medicare: 

                "Judge Napolitano: I Expect Donald Trump Jr. to Be Indicted"

                https://www.mediaite.com/online/judge-n … -indicted/

        2. hard sun profile image85
          hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Yes. I think you are correct as far as his support, but the want for change and the gullibility of some Americans never surprises me. They poked fun of Obama for the "hopey changey" thing and then voted for Trump, a well-known scumbag, with the hopes that he would change things

          I think the financial red line will amount to much more than even the horrific charity/campaign scam. I do think he will be forced to run from the country when he's no longer President.

    5. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 9 months ago

      Your source for this article "the Moscow Project" could hardly be considered unbiased.  Your allegations are nothing but humor.  Thanks for the laugh and attempt to deceive as if you have provided anything worth reading. 

      The Moscow Project is an initiative of the Center for American Progress Action Fund 


      The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a public policy research and advocacy organization which presents a liberal[2] viewpoint on economic and social issues. It has its headquarters in Washington, D.C.

      The president and chief executive officer of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton's campaigns.[3]The first president and CEO was John Podesta, who has served as White House Chief of Staff to U.S. President Bill Clinton and as the chairman of the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.[4] Podesta remained with the organization as chairman of the board until he joined the Obama White House staff in December 2013. Tom Daschle is the current chairman.[5]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_fo … n_Progress

      1. Valeant profile image95
        Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        The information in their article is all public information at this point taken from investigations.  Please, prove any of it false if you find it so laughable.  We'll wait, because I seriously doubt you'll be able to.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Oh, there are a few details missing...which makes it nothing more than liberal propaganda. So, that is what makes it funny.  Good propaganda that means nothing...except for humor.

          1. Valeant profile image95
            Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Like what?  You keep making claims with no specifics.  If you're going to make an argument, back it up with information.  We'll still be waiting.

        2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
          Wesman Todd Shawposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          The notion that 'progressive' equates to objective progress is false. Progressivism is communism, and communism is the most violent ideology in all of human history. It is also economically illiterate. Why would an intelligent person read something cancerous? They wouldn't.

          Vlad Lenin became a good progressive on 21 January 1924
          Joseph Stalin became a good progressive on March 5, 1953
          Che Guevara became a good progressive on October 9, 1967.

          Do you understand?

          1. crankalicious profile image90
            crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Progressivism is only communism if you watch Fox News all the time. I know we're all basically just trolling each other now, but that kind of analysis just demonstrates an education based on right-wing media sources.

            At it's core, progressives are for change. Conservatives are for the status quo. That's the basic starting point for both political ideologies. They are obviously in conflict based on that.

            1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
              Wesman Todd Shawposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              You're goddamned right we're for the status quo. This is the most prosperous and powerful nation in the history of the world. Progressivism aims to change that.

              1. crankalicious profile image90
                crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                No, it doesn't. Progressives got women the right to vote. Progressives got gay people the right to get married. Progressives passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills. Progressives got tobacco companies to put warning labels on cancer sticks; etc.

                Conservatives fought against all those things.

                Communists fight for Communism and against Capitalism, but that is not progressive by definition.

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  You need to do a little historical research on these topics.  You are wrong.


                  WOMEN VOTING

                  “The Republican Party pioneered the right of women to vote and was consistent in its support throughout the long campaign for acceptance. It was the first major party to advocate equal rights for women and the principle of equal pay for equal work”

                  http://www.nfrw.org/women-suffrage

                  CIVIL RIGHTS

                  “Republicans were generally more unified than Democrats in support of civil rights legislation, as many Southern Democrats voted in opposition.”

                  https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/17/ … crats-did/

                  CIGARETTE WARNING LABLES

                  The Senate committee was not such a sure thing. The six Republicans were reliable enough, for this was clearly a crucial issue for Senator Thruston B. Morton of Kentucky, second-ranking GOP member of the committee, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and current chairman of the fund-dispensing Senate Republican campaign committee. On the Democratic side, however, the only member whose political life required defense of the tobacco industry was Ross Bass of Tennessee, a freshman. Early in the hearings, Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana, another Democratic committee member, emerged as a tireless cross-examiner of those who opposed the industry's point of view

                  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar … ss/304762/

                  GAY MARRIAGE

                  Yes. Republicans fought against it.

                  1. crankalicious profile image90
                    crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    You need to do the research and understand the definition of words. I did not distinguish between Republicans and Democrats. I distinguished between progressives and conservatives.

                    And the Republican Party of the 1910's does not resemble the Republican Party of today nor does the Republican Party of the 1960s resemble the Republican Party of today, so I did not use those labels.

                    We are discussing those who fight for change and those who fight against it. Party is irrelevant, but you can distinguish between those two groups with the labels "progressive" and "conservative".

                    1. Live to Learn profile image82
                      Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                      You go. Way to ignore uncomfortable truths.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  That makes me a progressive, then, for I was for all of those things except the warning labels that did nothing but cost a corporation money.  Certainly no one ever read them and took it to heart, quitting smoking because of those silly labels.

                  Somehow the label doesn't fit well, for there is lots and lots more to being a progressive, starting with massive wealth equalization programs.

                  1. promisem profile image97
                    promisemposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Wealth equalization has nothing to do with being a progressive.

                    A progressive is someone who defends old ideas that work and new ideas that make society better.

              2. hard sun profile image85
                hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                This makes about as much sense as a football bat. Trump voters are for the status quo after all the screaming about how the system must be changed? I'm not sure some people even have a grasp on what they think about politics.

                If it's the most prosperous and powerful nation in history why MAGA? It makes no sense..none.

                "We will make America strong again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And we will make America great again." DJT

                That doesn't sound like a guy who likes the status quo.

          2. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
            JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            lol @ Wesman: That's funny, because the only yellow coward I;ve ever seen practically bow down to a communist leader ON GLOBAL Television as the world watched in utter astonishment is Bozo Trump, and thank God, his past is catching up to him and he's finally beginning to pay a hefty price for ALL his past betrayals and corruption:

            Thank God, if we still have laws in this country and it appears as if we do, he'll be REMOVED from our oval office very soon but perhaps not soon enough:

            Donald Trump sides with our enemy Vladimir Putin against the USA on Global Television: UNREAL:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Xw0_2eMJg

            1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
              Wesman Todd Shawposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Nobody is going to look at a link you post. Is there a reason, an intelligent one, for someone to view links you post?

              I don't have any proof that you are even a teenager.

              I'm willing to give credit where credit is due.You, Sir, make a fine word salad. I've never, in all my days, encountered a word salad man who could even be deemed worthy to tie your shoes.

              1. crankalicious profile image90
                crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Look, I think Jake is a troll, but that link is a completely factual one. It's merely a video of the Trump/Putin press conference, showing Trump throwing his intelligence services under the bus and taking Putin's word for things.

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  NOPE, I'm certainly not a troll crankalicious and everyone around here including you know that for a fact, it's just that my truth about Bozo Trump and his repugnankins frightens the alt righters to tears:

                  I just read a post in here where Wesman was commenting about communists and whatever, and decided to show him and everyone else a relatively recent film clip of his orange false idol practically kissing the boots of the number one communist in the world on global television and here it is again, a SHOCKINGLY Astounding encore performance of his pathetic betrayal of the USA:

                  Oh and by the way, the Trump foundation appears to be on its way to DEFUNCT-Town because NY prosecutors say the Trump de Dumps used charitable contributions which should have been used to help children or veterans, was actually used FOR PERSONAL Benefit:

                  At this point, according to my teachings, I guess it's safe to say whomever STILL follows and worships this charlatan after ALL his abominations, shall receive the same punishment as he in the Christian after life:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Xw0_2eMJg

              2. hard sun profile image85
                hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                And you're a Trump supporter speaking against word salads. Huh. Trump can't tie his shoes.

          3. hard sun profile image85
            hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Any "ism" is whatever people want to make them out to be. The reality is that systems don't work inside the neat little ism boxes.

            Meanwhile, we have a very stable genius. He is all we need.

    6. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 9 months ago

      Jake, you missed Obama pledge to Vladimir on national television.  I will say as far as the Ukraine, President Donald Trump has been a true help providing offensive weapon systems so it can defend itself.  Obama let the Russians have Crimea and worse.

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama … ty-russia/

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
        JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        That's just another ridiculous false comparison but yet still no real defense for Bozo Trump and his betrayals of the USA because here in the land of truth, there is no defense and even his last remaining followers know that:

        Almost every day on his little twitter rant machine or when he pollutes our national air-waves, Bozo Trump proves to the world that he can do ANYTHING and say anything to his dwindling group of followers with impunity, but fortunately for this nation, his base of followers is rapidly shrinking:

    7. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 9 months ago

      Trust me, the Republicans in the 1910s and the 1960s was far more conservative than the Republicans of today.  At those times there were no such things at RINOs.  Did you know that there was a civil rights act in the 1950s signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower?  You can't get any more conservative than Eisenhower. 

      http://crdl.usg.edu/events/civil_rights … 7/?Welcome

    8. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 9 months ago

      You really got my attention with that one Ken, I hopped on my Googlecycle to check it out.

      I admit I stopped after less than a dozen links, but I think I had the gist of it by then. I just couldn't find the catastrophe you spoke of.

      I apologize ahead of time for the link-dropping, (and maybe the flip tone), but I wanted to be sure you could check what I found.

      First, from the UN Secretary General's Congratulatory Statement regarding the signing:

      "The Compact is a non-legally binding agreement that reaffirms the foundational principles of our global community, including national sovereignty and universal human rights, while pointing the way toward humane and sensible action to benefit countries of origin, transit and destination as well as migrants themselves."

      It's a compact not a law.  Comparable to our our legislative 'Resolutions', maybe?

      Then, there are 29 to 33 non-signatory nations which do not recognize the validity of compact -- even as a non-binding thing.

      "The US pulled out at the negotiating stage, and 28 other countries decided not to sign the non-binding pact.
      New UN compact for migration falls short on health

      And that heath care requirement doesn't seem as drastic either:

      “The Compact forms a frame of reference for our advocacy,” says Younous Arbaoui from Morocco’s Platform Nationale Protection Migrants. “It is true that this pact is not binding, but Morocco and other countries have a moral obligation to respect its commitments. Already we are integrating aspects of the Compact to demand access to services for migrants in Morocco.”
      Reactions on the Ground to the Global Compact for Migration

      The Brookings Institute linked to the text of Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, and had this to say:

      The Global Compact on Migration: Dead on arrival?
      "Curiously, relatively few statements favoring or opposing the compact have emerged from prominent foreign policy experts in the United States. One reason for this silence may be that the Compact does not have the"status of a treaty; it is not binding on countries that commit to it.

      After that Seth Richards affirmation in one of your comments I was hoping this one had more substance.

      GA

      1. Ken Burgess profile image91
        Ken Burgessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Well done GA, and well researched, however you did not dig deep enough, nor did you consider how 'government agencies' truly work.

        Allow me to provide some additional info (found in the links below):

        Angela Merkel explains [when this was brought up to her just days ago] on the tape that when two-thirds of the U.N. members agree to the pact, it’s binding. A total of 164 nations have signed it.

        It’s binding even for states that didn’t sign.

        “That’s how majority decision-making works,” Merkel said on the tape.

        A FRENCH REVOLT OVER MACRON’S TREASON

        A group of French military generals wrote an open letter to President Emmanuel Macron accusing him of committing “treason” by signing the U.N. migration pact.

        The pact was said to not be legally binding at the time of the letter, but, it calls for unlimited migration as a human right and criticism of it to be treated as hate speech.

        The letter written by General Antoine Martinez and signed by ten other generals, an admiral and a colonel, as well as former French Minister of Defense Charles Millon, warns Macron that the move strips France of sovereignty and provides an additional reason for “an already battered people” to “revolt”.

        The letter accuses Macron of being “guilty of a denial of democracy or treason against the nation” for signing the pact without putting it to the people.

        “The French state is late in coming to realize the impossibility of integrating too many people, in addition to totally different cultures, who have regrouped in the last forty years in areas that no longer submit to the laws of the Republic,” states the letter, adding that mass immigration is erasing France’s “civilizational landmarks”.

        It is treason and it is not a human right to invade another country at will.
        British MEP Janice Atkinson said the UN pact would lead to Europe being flooded with 59 million new migrants within the next 6 years.

        The pact will destroy the culture and laws of each nation. Why would the U.N. do it except to destroy what exists?

        The hate speech laws could even lead to the term ‘illegal immigrants’ being made labeled hate speech.

        That is already happening in the United States. I had a post removed from facebook for using the legal term ‘illegal aliens’. It was deemed too offensive.

        Macron’s approval rating is at 18%. Who are the 18% who support him and what’s wrong with them?

        https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/ … vereignty/

        https://www.independentsentinel.com/un- … er-states/

        https://www.lifezette.com/2018/12/criti … obal-pact/

        I have written articles in the past on this, how Obama ceded many of our Nation's sovereign rights over to the U.N. (or the W.B. or the W.T.O) so that their authority would supercede America's authority and their courts and rulings would supercede our Nation in the way that the Federal Government and the Supreme Court is superior to State courts.

        This is just one more step toward that U.N. control.  It is a 'wolf dressed as a sheep' type of pact.

        1. Valeant profile image95
          Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Funny, I thought the United States was a mix of cultures already.  So how do you ruin that by adding more to the mix?  Or do you prescribe to the Tucker Carlson and David Duke theory that we are founded as a European culture and should remain that way?  Not insinuating anything with the Duke reference, asking a serious question of your philosophy.

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Hi Valeant, I don't think this has anything to do with "adding more to the mix," or to a "European culture" mindset.

            I think it has to do with national sovereignty and laws.

            GA

        2. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Ken, It is not that I think this Compact is harmless, I don't. I see it as just as dangerous as I saw the various UN organizations support for the Mexican caravans to be. It is an impetus for advocating open borders internationally.

          But, I still don't see it as the legally binding and damaging "law" that you claim it is.

          From your first link, the National Review, the article ended with this:

          "Encouraging more mass migrations will only lead to more suffering. Sadly, that is exactly what this non-binding global compact is most likely to do."

          Your second link, from the Independent Sentinel, quoted from the National Review article, so it seems safe to assume the author felt the Review article was authoritative - and I have already noted how that author concluded it.

          Also, when referring to that two-thirds makes it binding thing, the author quoted Merkel in a german-speaking tape -- noting he didn't have a full transcript to verify the on-screen translations.  But even taking those as truthful, the author got it wrong -- or maybe I am a victim of semantics -- when he said she said it was binding. What she actually said was that it would be "valid."  I think there is a difference.

          That same author then sows more hints of doubt when he says: "Even if it is non-binding, nations will be pressured to abide by it. "

          And again when speaking of "the general's" letter to Macron: "The pact was said to not be legally binding at the time of the letter,.."

          Which is it? The article misquotes Merkel to reach a conclusion, and then offers hints of doubt that the conclusion is correct.

          Unfortunately, from my perspective, that second link went further downhill when it concluded with statements like this: "The pact, formed by socialists, will destroy the culture and laws of each nation. Why would the U.N. do it except to destroy what exists?"

          Your third link, Lifezette, didn't seem very helpful for your contention either. Not much substance there. Notably, it's declaration that:

          "...if ratified, would actually threaten national sovereignty, criminalize anti-migration speech, thwart freedom of the press, and maybe even establish a problematic legal framework."

          Is kind of diluted by its following explanation that nations are "asked" to do things. Not compelled or required, but "asked."

          At this point, I will stick with the understanding that my first Google cruise found, and which two of your three links also concluded, (or hinted): the agreement is a non-binding compact. No more compelling, (or legally binding), than a Senate or House resolution.

          However, to be sure I am not missing something, and am not completely wrong, I will dive into the text of the document itself and get back to you tomorrow.

          GA

          1. Ken Burgess profile image91
            Ken Burgessposted 9 months agoin reply to this



            Agreed.

            You and I both know how such pacts and laws work.  We have a couple hundred years of history to look back upon to see.

            We created a Centralized bank, years later it was abolished, and then created again, and then abolished, until finally we had the Federal Reserve and it stuck.

            We had the Income Tax, and then years later it was abolished, and then created again, and then abolished, until finally the IRS and the Income tax stuck.

            We had the League of Nations, it was abolished, and then we created the United Nations, and it stuck.

            The United Nations created a 'non-binding action plan' known as Agenda 21 in 1992, an action agenda for the UN and other international organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels.  It has been affirmed and had a few modifications at subsequent UN conferences.  Since 2015, Sustainable Development Goals are included in the Agenda 2030.

            https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/c … %20web.pdf

            "We reaffirm the outcomes of all major United Nations conferences and summits which have laid a solid foundation for sustainable development and have helped to shape the new Agenda.
            These include [Agenda 21], the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the World Summit for Social Development, the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, the Beijing Platform for Action and the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. 
            We also reaffirm the follow up to these conferences, including the outcomes of the Fourth  United  Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, the third International Conference on Small Island Developing States, the second United Nations Conference on  Landlocked Developing Countries and the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster  Risk Reduction."

            Its a lot to read through, all of those conference agendas and pacts, but it is clear the agenda is to eradicate nation states, there is a lot more of course, but the primary point I am making is that with the Global Compact for Migration, it is the beginning, the first step forward, toward a one-world government and the eradication of National Sovereignty.

            There is no Nation State that can absorb tens of millions of immigrants in a very short span and have its social and cultural norms survive, the welfare states will collapse, National governments will collapse and its citizens become uncontrollable (we see the beginnings of this in France now)… which will lead to the next phase, an international military under the control of the United Nations, which will be used to put down revolts within nation states during the coming century of transition from Nations to International control.

            When a Nation can no longer keep control of its populace, when it can no longer feed them, when order is lost and chaos reigns, there will have to be an International power that comes to the rescue... at the cost of that nation's sovereignty, of course.

            The populations of France, America, etc. would never give away their National Identity, their independence, willingly.  But when faced with anarchy and starvation they will gladly hand over their independence and their sovereignty for order and peace.  The way to get them to that point is to overwhelm them with tens of millions of new mouths to feed that don't identify with that nation, or that society and its beliefs.

            I don't believe the people in the U.N. making these decisions want the chaos, in fact I suspect plenty of them believe this type of transition can be made peacefully, there are always fools totally out of touch with reality, and those are quite often the ones making the decisions the 'masses' have to then contend with.

            I do know it will never work the way they want it to without violence, without massive upheaval, and without a powerful military presence forcing it upon nations that don't want it.

    9. hard sun profile image85
      hard sunposted 9 months ago

      How about the Syrian withdrawal and sanctions lifting. This isn't consistent with being a hawk on Russia:

      "Trump's decision to ditch US leverage in Syria, which fulfills one of Russian President Vladimir Putin's goals, will spark fresh speculation about Trump's motives as his relationship with Russia comes under increasing scrutiny.
      In another win for Moscow, the administration on Wednesday told Congress it was lifting sanctions on two Russian firms. But reflecting the strange duality of US policy on Russia, Washington announced sanctions against 15 members of Moscow's GRU intelligence service and four entities over election interference, an assassination attempt in Britain and other "malign activities."

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics … index.html

      1. Leland Johnson profile image91
        Leland Johnsonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Fresh speculation?  Are you serious?  All there has been is fresh speculation and that's all there will be with the democrats.  Their objective is to unseat Trump which means they will be providing informational fodder to smear him until he is re-elected.  As for brining the troops home- I trust his judgment.  Bring them home.  I'm a veteran and I'm tired of seeing our guys getting killed and maimed over there.  Bring them home.

        1. hard sun profile image85
          hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          You trust his judgment, lol

        2. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Speaking of speculation, you mentioned earlier:


          https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4050465

          The only sources I can find for that information are right-wing blogs or tabloid sites, which I don't consider reliable sources.

          Did you personally count every occurrence in the transcript and arrive at that figure? If not, please provide the source, so people can decide how reliable it is.

          I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if you've answered this already.

          If there is no reliable source, then you're presenting potentially false and misleading information, which I'm sure you wouldn't deliberately want to do, not least because that would make criticizing others for speculating somewhat ironic.

          1. Leland Johnson profile image91
            Leland Johnsonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Read the transcript for yourself.  That's the only source that matters.  On p.24 alone Comey says "I don't know, I don't remember" 10 times.  He answered "I don't know" to questions he wasn't even asked!  He offered pre-emptive "I don't know" and "I don't remember" responses.  Until you have read the transcript you really shouldn't even comment.  I didn't visit any right wing blog or site period.  I did happen to hear Hannity interviewing one of the committee members who confirmed the number with one caveat:  Hannity said, "is it true that Comey said "I don't know" 250 times?"  The committee member replied, "No, it was more like 200, but he responded similiarly with phrases such as "I don't remember" or "I can't speak to that" for a total of some 250 times."  Then I went and read the manuscript from Comey's interview and was surprised it wasn't more than 250.  I don't think Comey gave a straight answer other than affirming his name.  The point all of this leads to is that Comey is dishonest, duplicitous, and deceitful.  If you want an exact count all you can do is go to the site (provided by valeant in this thread) and count it for yourself.  Until you do that and can confirm or rebut it what point is there in disputing it at all?  Besides, it'll give you something constructive to do for the next hour or so.

            1. Valeant profile image95
              Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Page 24 was fun, it was where Gowdy believes that every investigation started by the FBI has to be approved by the Director of the FBI.  When Comey says investigations are started below the directorial level, Gowdy seems stunned.  Just another example by Leland of providing no context to his foolish point about Comey's answers.

            2. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Thanks for clarifying the initial source of your claim was Sean Hannity and (I assume) a Republican Committee member, via (I assume) Fox News.

              If those assumptions are correct, I don't consider any of those reliable sources of information, so I'm glad you went to a primary source, the transcript.

              I did too.

              The words "I don't remember" don't appear 250 times, or even 200. They appear exactly 73 times.

              The phrase "I can't speak to that", which you directly quoted from the Committee member, doesn't appear at all. "I can't speak to . . ." appears twice.

              In total, comments that could reasonably be described as synonymous or similar to "I don't remember" are made roughly 94 times across the nearly seven-hour session(1).

              The claim that Comey said "I don't remember" (or similar) 250 times, is therefore demonstrably false.

              If you'd like me to check any other sources of information for you, I'd be more than happy to.

              (1) https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/ … cted-1.pdf

              1. promisem profile image97
                promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                An exceptional and factual answer.

                I await the denials and evasions, claims that your glasses are foggy, how dare you dispute Hannity, etc.

              2. Ken Burgess profile image91
                Ken Burgessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Your glasses must be foggy.

                Who are you to dispute Hannity.

                "In total, comments that could reasonably be described as synonymous or similar to "I don't remember" are made roughly 94 times across the nearly seven-hour session(1)."

                It seems quite a lot to me, I guess it depends on the context of the questions, which I admit, I can't be othered with.

                I do commend you, or whoever it was who took the time to sift through and count them, its not something I would do willingly.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  "I do commend you, or whoever it was who took the time to sift through and count them, its not something I would do willingly."

                  Pull up the transcript and press Cntrl F.  It will find every instance of the phrase you input, count them and report that total along with where they are.  Chrome (and others as well) is your friend in this.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image91
                    Ken Burgessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Ah, I hope I remember that, it might come in handy some day.

                  2. Leland Johnson profile image91
                    Leland Johnsonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    not a bad idea, but it has a flaw.  there are instances when Gowdy or other committee members as Comey a leading question prefaced with "Do you recall.." wherein Comey answers simply, "no."  I don't think a search like the one you suggest would capture every instance of Comey's misleading behavior.

              3. Leland Johnson profile image91
                Leland Johnsonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                I just stopped counting on page 40 and Comey had answered "I don't know, I can't answer, I wont answer, I don't remember" etc 35 times.  Of course you don't consider Hannity a credible source.  You've under represented the numbers demonstrating the fact that Comey answered this committte's questions evasively.  That's the whole point.  To nit pick and strain out gnats is something the left does in an attempt to distract from the truth.  That's what Don W did.  For any who doubt, just read the transcript for yourself.  Sheesh.

                1. Valeant profile image95
                  Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  It's not evading to say you don't know to questions that don't pertain to your knowledge of a subject.  There were so many ridiculous questions posed by the GOP, as usual.  That should have been the real headline.  GOP asks Comey stuff that he wouldn't know the answer to, story at 5.

                  And Don literally went through the entire transcript, I'd trust him over your incomplete tally and false reporting.

                  1. Leland Johnson profile image91
                    Leland Johnsonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    you trust him because you agree with him.  how long have you known "Don?"  How many times have you met him?

                    1. Leland Johnson profile image91
                      Leland Johnsonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                      The following is an excerpt from the interview.  Remember, Comey is an attorney.

                      Mr. Gowdy.  When you say "lying," I generally think of an
                      intent to deceive as opposed to someone just uttering a false
                      statement. 
                      Mr. Comey.  Sure.   
                      Mr. Gowdy.  Is it possible to utter a false statement 
                      without it being lying?   
                      Mr. Comey.  I can't answer -- that's a philosophical
                      question I can't answer.   
                      Mr. Gowdy.  No, I mean, if I said, "Hey, look, I hope you
                      had a great day yesterday on Tuesday," that's demonstrably false.   
                      Mr. Comey.  That's an expression of opinion.   
                       
                       
                      107
                      Mr. Gowdy.  No, it's a fact that yesterday was -- 
                      Mr. Comey.  You hope I have a great day --   
                      Mr. Gowdy.  No, no, no, yesterday was not Tuesday.   
                      Mr. Comey.  Oh, see, I didn't even know that.  Yeah.   
                      Mr. Gowdy.  So is it possible to make a false statement
                      without having the intent to deceive?   
                      Mr. Comey.  Yes.   
                      Mr. Gowdy.  All right.  Is making a false statement without
                      the intent to deceive a crime?   
                      Mr. Comey.  I don't know.  I can't answer that without
                      thinking better about it.

                    2. My Esoteric profile image90
                      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                      Since he did the counting and you didn't and have an obvious, obsessive bias against anyone who questions Trump, yes, I believe Don.  (I also verified a few of his numbers myself.  You should try real research sometime? But then again you oppose any science._

                2. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  So following several clarifications, as a result of your comments being challenged by several people, your view can now more accurately be summarized as:

                  "Sean Hannity and a Committee member reported that Comey said 'I don't remember' or something similar 250 times in his deposition. I don't know if that's true, but after reading the first 40 pages of the transcript, many of Comey's replies seemed evasive in my opinion".

                  Can you see the difference between that and . . .

                  "Comey said I don't know 250 times. WOW!"(1)

                  Granted, the former is not as dramatic or exciting as the latter, but, it's not misleading, even if I do disagree with it.

                  Having an expectation that people will be honest about when they guess something is true and what they know it is, is not nitpicking. It's the basis of civil discourse, and I think the minimum we should be able to expect from each other.

                  So the issue is not whether Comey said 'I don't remember' 250 times. We know he didn't. The issue is that your comments are misleading. Essentially you tried to make your opinion seem factual with a spurious "fact" from an unreliable source, and Hannity is an unreliable source(2). But by engaging in such shenanigans you do yourself a disservice.

                  Even if it were true that the majority of Comey's replies were in the negative (and I have no reason to doubt that's the case). It's still a matter of opinion whether that's dishonesty, or if it's because the questions were idiotic, and Comey answered them to the best of his ability and recollection (while also doing as much as he legally could to make it clear that he believes the whole exercise is a political stunt). I think it's the latter.

                  Sadly I have no dramatic or exciting "WOW!" statements to go with that. It's my opinion, based on what I've read of the transcript, my understanding of current events, and the social and political context in which the events are happening. And I know this may seem shocking, but it's also very likely Sean Hannity doesn't agree with me.

                  (1) https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4050465
                  (2) https://www.politifact.com/personalities/sean-hannity/

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    To put in perspective and how you assert a fact (like Hannity did and Don repeats) that while true on the face of it, because there is no context leads to a very wrong analysis.  Did you know Comey said "I do" 382 times in that same transcript? (WOW!!)

                    Problem is - Sometime it had the words "Yes," in front and a "sir" after.  Other times it was followed by "not" when he didn't know the answer (like will the sun come up tomorrow?) or wasn't allowed to by the Justice Department.

                    Silly isn't it.  But that is what Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh deal in.

            3. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Gowdy - In the course of human history, has anyone won
              an election 100 million to zero, to your knowledge?
              Mr. Comey. In the United States?
              Mr. Gowdy. Anywhere.
              Mr. Comey. I don't mean to be facetious. I can't speak
              to Stalin's reelection or Mao Tse-tung reelection campaigns.

              Gee, there is one of the 250.  What else was Comey supposed to answer to such a stupid question.  And most of the other 250 times were in response to similarly stupid questions.

              1. Leland Johnson profile image91
                Leland Johnsonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                It wasn't a stupid question.  Gowdy was using hyperbole to expose how evasive Comey is.  He asked Comey an incredibly obvious question to make a point and Comey responded in typical Clintonesque speech.  He started talking about the elections of Mao and Stalin.  Gowdy was pointing out the fact that two of Comey's subordinate alledgely "a-political" agents were anything but.  The agents had just exchanged texts saying Trump should lose by 100 million votes.  Thats the context.  Gowdy wasn't asking a random question.  It was specifically aimed at showing the fact that Comey's agents were not "a-political."

                1. Valeant profile image95
                  Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  It was grandstanding and a waste of time, especially since Strozk had been questioned by Congress and there wasn't one action that they could point to that he took in his official role that was considered biased.  This according to the Inspector General report that was already issued.  So Gowdy was trying to raise issues already investigated and concluded, by the GOP.  Like the answers were going to change.  Like I said, it was a waste of time going down this avenue of questioning again since conclusions had already been reached by more thorough investigations.

                2. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  It was a stupid, rhetorical question.  Gowdy already knew Comey couldn't answer yet he asked it anyway in order to get Comey to say "I don't know."

                  Leland - when did you stop beating your mother?  It is that type of unanswerable question (unless, of course, you really did beat your mother).

      2. Ken Burgess profile image91
        Ken Burgessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        I am curious, what do you see as our reasons for wanting to escalate the conflict in Syria?

        What has been the benefit of turning Syria into a broken state?

        What was the benefit of turning Libya into a broken state?

        How have those nations faired since our interference?

        How many millions have suffered, how many lives lost, for what purpose?

        1. hard sun profile image85
          hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          My point relates to the comments about being a Russian hawk. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/worl … syria.html

          My full report on the other matters will be submitted to the State Department. Oh, they have experts there already.

          Besides, leaving troops there is somehow escalating the matter?

          For 35 cents a word I will provide a full report on Syria right here on HubPages comments.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image91
            Ken Burgessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            I don't care what the NYTimes has to say about what Putin says, Russia has had relations with Syria going back to when it was the U.S.S.R.

            In fact, it is no coincidence that since the fall of the U.S.S.R. we have targeted every former ally that they had, and have put extreme pressure on Russia.

            Whether we are sanctioning Russia, overthrowing their allies and installing a puppet government (Ukraine), toppling them militarily (Libya, Iraq, Syria) our press on Russia and its allies has been non-stop for a couple of decades now.

            America has done nothing to make Iraq, Libya, or Syria more stable or safer, those countries are decimated because of our interference and all the citizens of those nations far worse off for it.

            Just keeping it real with you.  I know why we did what we did, and I know who benefited.  But do you?

            Because it wasn't the people who lived there, or who live there still.

            1. Valeant profile image95
              Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Keeping it real until it's time to allow them refugee status in our country for the interference we caused.  Guess there's the line of culpability you're willing to go down.

            2. hard sun profile image85
              hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              I don't think you really know much about the matter at all. I don't think any Americans not involved in the decision making process know much. However, I bet we still understand more than Trump. I can speculate all day about why and who benefited. Should we have ever been there? Maybe not. Is this type of abrupt withdrawal good for anyone involved? Likely not.

              "n fact, it is no coincidence that since the fall of the U.S.S.R. we have targeted every former ally that they had, and have put extreme pressure on Russia."

              Yeah? So? Do you think the Russians aren't attempting to do everything they can to take down the US after the collapse of the Soviet Union? We are not exactly on good terms with the Russians but I'm on America's side every time.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image91
                Ken Burgessposted 9 months agoin reply to this



                I know more than most, and more than anyone who wasn't privy to TS information at that time.



                Nope, they are not, nor are they in any position to attempt to do so.

                1. hard sun profile image85
                  hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Oh, ok. Putin is a weak helpless KGB guy who likes that the US helped take down the Soviet Union. I was around before the right wing alternate reality hit.

                2. crankalicious profile image90
                  crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  You know nothing, Ken Burgess! (you watch GOT?)

                  Anyway, funny how Republicans are sounding like dove-ish Dems and Dems are sounding like hawkish Republicans.

                  1. hard sun profile image85
                    hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    The irony is not lost on me either. I don't think Dems are exactly advocating to escalate matters in Syria, but pulling troops so quickly just seems illogical. However, The irony is even more salient after all the right wing clamoring of how weak Obama was on ISIS, etc.

                    It's as though many people just state "If Trump does it, then it must be good." That's just outrageous, and horrible for our country,

            3. Leland Johnson profile image91
              Leland Johnsonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Absolutely right, Ken.  Russian advisors were on the Syrian border when Syria and Egypt launched the six day war against Israel.  Russia (then USSR) supplied armor for both Arab nations.

            4. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              " it is no coincidence that since the fall of the U.S.S.R. we have targeted every former ally that they had, and have put extreme pressure on Russia." -does this mean you are Russia's friend and want to see them prosper in order to cause more harm to America??

        2. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Why are in such a rush to surrender the battle field to ISIS, Russia, and Iran??  That is what he is doing.  He is giving them carte blanche to do what they want in the Middle while Trump picks his nose and tweets.

          Also, why are you in such a rush to see tens of thousands of Syrian Kurds, American's allies but obviously not Trumps, murdered by Turkey.  They are just itching to kill them and they make no bones about it.

          Why are you so eager to simply turn tale and run like Trump is.  ISIS IS NOT DEFEATED.  Nobody with access to the facts says they are defeated.  Of course, being a Trumpette, you don't believe anything our intelligence service or military says.

          1. Leland Johnson profile image91
            Leland Johnsonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Our guys have been over there for nearly 20 years.  When will ISIS be defeated?  What does victory over a terrorist group look like?  PLO, Hamas, IRA, ad infinitim.  Everytime we beat one group another pops up to take its place.  Should we just have troops everywhere in the world?  Aren't you tired of seeing our guys killed and maimed?  Don't you think its about time Iraqi's and Afghani's start providing their own security?  Seriously, how long should we stay over there?   You tell me.  were you so against our troops coming home when Obama implemented staged withdrawls?  I'm tired of our troops coming home with PTSD as well as physical wounds, and worst of all in coffins.  If our presence hasn't established democracies in the ME what is the point of us remaining?  Just state a reason.

            1. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              How about keeping our enemies (you know Russia, Iran) from getting 100% control of a critical part of the world.

              Or how about keeping the Taliban and al Qaeda from setting up bases from which to attack America - Again.

              Why don't you think those are important??

              (and yes, I was opposed to Obama's staged withdrawals, it was dumber than dirt)

    10. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 8 months ago

      Not sure if you realize ISIS is all but annihilated in Syria and Iraq?  Trump totally untied the military hands the moment he came into office. Just not sure how you could come to the conclusion he is on ISIS payroll? That sounds very foolish.  Time to move on from this kind of rhetoric.
      https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 … -isis.html

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
        JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        A betrayal of the USA in broad daylight is still a betrayal of the USA and once again, nobody on this planet believes Trump's lie that ISIS is defeated and once again, the only person who seems to approve of his insane action of unilaterally withdrawing our troops apparently without notice to our once close allies, is of course the puppet master, Vladimir Putin: I wonder WHY ??

        "Russia's Putin hails Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria"

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor … 373305002/

      2. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        So you believe Trump when he says ISIS is defeated.  Why is it then that zero military agree with him or you?

    11. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 8 months ago

      Please offer a reference to back your statement. ISIS has been defeated in Syria and Iraq, and ys they may open up shop in other countries around the world, but the Pentagon has made the claim that we will support the defeat of ISIS wherever they pop up. Not sure why you don't believe that ISIS has been defeated in Syria and Iraq? I have not hard anyone dispute that ISIS is no longer in Syria or Iraq? 

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/p … rawal.html

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I didn't say "Please offer a reference to back your statement. ISIS has been defeated in Syria and Iraq,'   I said ISIS has NOT been defeated.
        Presuming that is what you meant, the headline on your source says something like "Trump declares ISIS is defeated."  But everyone knows that Trump is a liar and prone to make at least 10 false statements a day. Further, the story goes on to contradict the idea that ISIS is defeated.

        They control several small towns and 10s of thousands of fighters left, according to military reports I heard.

        Your previous Military Times reference only says that "Mattis was empowered to Annihilate ISIS"; not that he did it.  Try this Military Times story instead.

        https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2018 … -in-syria/

      2. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 8 months ago

        My understanding is most of the illegal drugs coming into the country is through legal entry points or on huge container ships in the ports. How will a wall fix this?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Why are you trying to divert attention from the primary purpose of the wall - to slow illegal entry?  Is it because it would work but you don't want anything proposed by your president?

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
            JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Just FYI wilderness, immigration is at a multi decade low: If immigrants enter the USA any slower you'll be paying $15.99 for a small basket of fresh blueberries, $2.50 is about what I pay now and that's as high as I want to pay so we need a reasonable flow of undocumented immigrants to achieve a fine balance while keeping a lid on fruit and vegetable prices:

            "Trump Claims Border Crisis Amid 46-Year Low in Crossings"

            https://immigrationforum.org/article/tr … crossings/

            Oh, and by the way:

            "Russian operative Maria Butina pleads guilty to conspiracy"

            https://immigrationforum.org/article/tr … crossings/

          2. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Not my idea of a POTUS in any shape or form, Dan. YOU and a minority of voters decided he was fit for the job, so don't blame me for your mistake.

      3. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
        JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months ago

        https://hubstatic.com/14354912.png

        And here they are in vivid living color: If we still accept Fact Based Data, it appears as if CONSPIRACY has already been proven from public evidence alone, just wait until the criminal investigations conclude:

        1. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          And now it has come out that much of the "Dossier" has been proven true. Further, I don't believe any of the findings have been shown to be false. That increases the likelihood that the rest of it is true.

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
            JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            From my research you are correct My Esoteric, many components of the dossier have been verified and some have yet to be confirmed, facts  which apparently Sean Hammity has yet to understand:

            The recent Manifort criminal court filing where his lawyers neglected to redact is just another astounding mega-bombshell to corroborate the "Trump Campaign Criminal Conspiracy": All the pieces seem to falling into place, it appears as if Trump relaxes sanctions for Vladimir Putin in exchange for espionage, data gathering, online social manipulation from foreign lands and perhaps even voting machine modification performed by Russian Spies to help Donald illegally and illegitimately infiltrate our oval office:

            Very logical assumption and theory and the evidence to support this Earth Shattering treasonous conglomerate is growing fast: Impeachment and Indictment

            The republican platform suddenly and without great publicity, morphed into a much more favorable stance for Vladimir Putin at the GOP Convention, an act which logic says Donald Trump himself must have approved before it was announced:

      4. Valeant profile image95
        Valeantposted 8 months ago

        This one might leave a bit of a mark...clearly Trump campaign colluding with the Russians here by both Manafort and Gates.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/p … imnik.html

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Yes indeed, a bruise colored green, yellow, and especially blue!  lol

        2. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          So, lets directly address some facts from the NYT Article.


          “Paul Manafort shared political polling data with a business associate tied to Russian intelligence”

          Polling data?  So he saved the Russian a few bucks so he didn't have to purchase polling data like everyone else.  Polling data is quite available on the open market. 

          “The document also revealed that during the campaign, Mr. Manafort and his Russian associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, discussed a plan for peace in Ukraine.”

          Discussed a plan for peace?  This upset you?  Discussion about ending a war?  I hope those discussions were successful.  Over 10,000 people have died in the war in the Ukraine. 

          “the now-famous meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan with a Russian lawyer promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton.”

          So?
          1.They didn't discuss Hillary Clinton.  They talked about the Magnitsky Act

          2. Hillary Clinton paid money from her campaign to a foreign agent for a fake dossier about Donald Trump.  So, where is the outrage about this?

          "Steele was paid $160,000 to create the Trump dossier for Fusion GPS. The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic National Committee financed the work. So the FBI and Justice Department used opposition research from a presidential campaign to launch an investigation into that campaign's political opponent — a likely illegal use of federal government surveillance for political purposes."

          https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … -on-trump/

          “For Russia, trying to influence the incoming Trump administration’s policy on Ukraine was of paramount importance.”

          Guess what?  All countries have lobbyists who work on their behalf and speak with members of congress.  Israel does this, Spain does this as well as every other country with an embassy in Washington DC.  How do people at the New York Times not know this? 

          “In one previously reported case, for instance, an obscure Ukrainian lawmaker, Andrii V. Artemenko, worked with two associates of Mr. Trump’s, Felix Sater and Michael D. Cohen, to deliver one Ukraine “peace plan” to the White House.”

          I hope they develop a good peace plan.  If they are successful, trust me, there will be many very happy Ukrainians. 

          Collusion = Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

          Sharing polling data? Discussing peace in a war-torn country? Discussing the Magnitsky Act?  If this is all you have...you have absolutely nothing.

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Mike, you just wrote a long comment based on a wrong fact.  You said "Polling data?  So he saved the Russian a few bucks so he didn't have to purchase polling data like everyone else. " --- well you left out a word either on purpose or because you didn't read the report properly.

            The polling data that was shared was "INTERNAL" polling data KNOWN ONLY to the Trump Campaign.  So, NO, YOU can't purchase this data.

            1. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              So what?  Internal polling data?  You ever work on a campaign?  Money is paid to a company by a campaign for this polling data.  Internal polling data is often shared with the media, companies and donors.  It's often used as a way to encourage donations from followers.  It's not a big secret...it's just a tool.  A campaign donor could have just as easily given a Russian internal polling data.  I hope you realize internal polling data is NOT classified information.  In many cases, it could be very inaccurate information.  Trust me...I've seen internal polling data that was WAY off.

              Again...it is a NOTHING burger.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Lol, you're on a roll.

              2. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                This burger may have some "special sauce" on it, Mike! tongue

              3. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                How do you know, Mike, that this internal polling data was in the public domain?  Did you see it reported by media or see the raw numbers in a Trump donation ad?

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Never said it was in the public domain.  "Internal polling data is often shared with the media, companies and donors."  This is what often happens with internal polling data.  I've gotten dolor letters with "Our internal polling data shows X,Y,Z."  A company who does this agrees to release its findings  only to the campaign.  It is often polling designed by the campaign for the polling company to carry out.  It is not a state secret.  Again, internal polling can be very wrong, I'm sure the Hillary Clinton campaign had some very faulty internal polling results.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Never said it was in the public domain.  "Internal polling data is often shared with the media, companies and donors."  This is what often happens with internal polling data.  I've gotten donor letters with "Our internal polling data shows X,Y,Z."  A company who does this agrees to release its findings  only to the campaign.  It is often polling designed by the campaign for the polling company to carry out.  It is not a state secret.  Again, internal polling can be very wrong, I'm sure the Hillary Clinton campaign had some very faulty internal polling results.

                    1. Valeant profile image95
                      Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                      We could ask the Russians about Clinton's internal polling results, they hacked them and had those too.  So when they targeted certain states, they had both Clinton's and Trump polling data.  And Manafort willingly coordinated with Russia to get them the Trump side of the info.  Why would he insist the data go to a Kremlin source unless he knew it was going to be used to help his campaign?

                      1. Readmikenow profile image95
                        Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                        Maybe he was trying to save the Russians the cost of paying for their own polling data.  If they followed Hillary Clinton's polling numbers, boy did they get a shock. 

                        Polling data is no big deal. 


                        "The New York Times reported Tuesday that while most of the polling data that Manafort shared with Kilimnik was public, “some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the [Trump] campaign.”

                        https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/10/trump-i … n-spy.html

      5. Leland Johnson profile image91
        Leland Johnsonposted 8 months ago

        Definitely colluding.  Thank you your honor.

      6. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 8 months ago

        Really, would you happen to have a respectable source to back up your statement? I actually can't find any information on proving even one of the allegations in the dossier?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Really Shar, it was reported on all the major networks several times lately. Of course, Fox probably didn't report it as the Dossier is a major talking point of Hannity and Limbaugh. Naturally, they're still calling it fake despite much of it being proven true with  none of it shown to be false at this point in time.

        2. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
          JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Sharlee01, there are MANY reputable and respected sources like CNN and MSNBC which have already documented the fact that many aspects of the Trump Dossier have already been proven but I'm highly confident even though Chris Wallace of Fox DESTROYED Sarah Huckleberry's Blatant LIES about terrorists he other day and good for him, you won't see them on Fox Foney Channel nor on Rush Limpy's daily montage of slobby snowflakey anti-American grumbles, crying, whining an sobbing about everything American:

          Interested in finding out what parts of the Trump Dossier have been proven? READ this for a SHOCKER *****: Prison Awaits and it must happen ASAP:

          "WHAT’S TRUE IN TRUMP-RUSSIA DOSSIER? KEY PARTS PROVED OVER LAST YEAR"

          https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-d … ven-929839

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks Jake, I doubt Shar will believe the article though!

          2. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Yawn!

            Jake's article is from 5/17/18.  Here is an article from USA Today from 12/18/18, which makes it a bit more current.

            “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there's good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false."

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 347833002/

            So, those of you who support the Steele dossier must believe in collusion with a foreign government to influence an election.  This is how the Steele dossier was created.  So, why are you so supportive of Hillary Clinton AND the Democratic party paying for such research from a foreign government?  It was clearly meant to influence an election.  If there are any liberals who are NOT hypocrites please reveal yourselves.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Are you seriously equating the Steele Dossier with Manafort's colluding with the Russians, Mike? Steele was a former British agent who our intelligence agencies depended on many times in the past for his veracity in reporting.


              As Jake pointed out, GPS is an American company. And your article doesn't say none of the reporting is true. All of the reporting in the link Jake linked shows some of the Dossier was correct.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Randy, Manafort is accused of giving some polling data that was mostly public.

                Now, I don't believe you grasp the concept of what is collusion.

                "Steele was a former British agent who our intelligence agencies depended on many times in the past for his veracity in reporting."  Means nothing. 

                Hillary Clinton and the Democrat party PAID for information from a BRITISH agent. 

                Manafort gave some polling data that was mostly public.

                Are you able to see the difference?

                Collusion is the secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

                I would say paying a British agent for fake information on a candidate qualifies. 

                I would also say providing polling information that is mostly public is not.

                I can't make it any more clear.  Either you understand it or you don't.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  "mostly public". How about you finding the data if it's so easy, Mike? You don't care if Manafort colluded with foreign powers to help Trump win, do you?

                  1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                    JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    mike doesn't seem to understand the Trump Dossier, much of which has been proven to be correct, is just a tiny fraction of the public evidence that already would convict Donald Trump of several serious felony crimes and we've yet to see what the covert Trump Campaign Criminal Investigations have unearthed:

                    But it's still a good thing for the last remaining Trump followers to "Pretend" the facts don't exist, I guess they're practicing "Reality Denial" for when Bozo Trump is finally thrown behind bars which must come soon of we are still a land of laws:

            2. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Mike, you forgot, I wonder why, to include this quote along with your other one.

              ""Steele was clearly onto something" in his probe into the campaign's Russian connection but evidence has not surfaced to support some of his specific assertions.

              Steele was correct to suspect "that there was a major Kremlin effort to interfere in our elections, that they were trying to help Trump's campaign, and that there were multiple contacts between various Russian figures close to the government and various people in the Trump campaign,""

              You also forgot to mention that Cohen DID go to Prague to meet Russians as the dossier said.

              http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/ … ussia.html

              Again, no specific claim in the dossier has been proven false after two years of searching by Trump acolytes.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Nothing has been proven true after two years of searching by Democrats and the main stream media. 

                "Cohen DID go to Prague to meet Russians"  So?  Any evidence of what they discussed?  Facts are more powerful than allegations.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  So! lol You can't see the forest for the trees, Mike. When Mueller releases his report you'll be left with nothing but embarrassment for ever thinking Trump was on the up and up.

                2. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Come on Mike, you must be smarter than you write.  The dossier said Cohen went to Prague to discuss stuff with Russians.  Cohen DID go to Prague to discuss stuff with Russians.  Any intelligent mind would draw the conclusion that Steele got that one right.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    I have been a skeptic of the Steele dossier. I have done the same Google searches others have done, and found no proof that any of the dossier's claims have been proven.

                    Proven, that is the key. But, if this McClatchy article. (which supports your statement My Esoteric), is true, then that one proven claim opens the door for honest consideration of many of the other claims.

                    (according to promisem, we should be able to trust mcclatchydc.com, and at this point, I agree)

                    GA

                    1. My Esoteric profile image90
                      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                      Interesting, thanks GA.  Here is some things from https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-doss … rospective

                      From the Dossier - "Over the period March-September 2016 a company called [redacted] and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct “altering operations” against the Democratic Party leadership. Entities linked to one [redacted] were involved and he and another hacking expert, both recruited under duress by the FSB, [redacted] were significant players in this operation."

                      Additionally, it reports:

                      "the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing email messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to the Wikileaks platform.  The reason for using Wikileaks was "plausible deniability" and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team."

                      This was corroborated with the indictment of 12 officers of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU) corroborates these allegations from Steele’s sources. (See article for details)

                      Another tid-bit -
                      "Another report in the dossier adds a layer: “The Kremlin’s cultivation operation on Trump also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia, especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament. However, so far, for reasons unknown, Trump had not taken up any of these.”

                      And we have "That leads us to the material in the criminal information and sentencing memorandum for Michael Cohen—Trump’s former attorney—filed by the Special Counsel’s Office in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These documents relate to Cohen’s false statements to Congress regarding attempted Trump Organization business dealings in Russia. The details buttress Steele’s reporting to some extent, ..."

                      There is more.

                      1. GA Anderson profile image92
                        GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                        I gave an inch My Esoteric, don't get carried away stretching it to more than it was. ;-)

                        I have never  doubted there was evidence of a a Russian interference effort.

                        GA

            3. Valeant profile image95
              Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Again, Mike, stop lying about who Clinton paid.  She paid GPS Fusion, an American company.  THAT company subcontracted out to Steele.  How many times will your twisted brain ignore those proven facts?

              Yes, some of the sensational allegations, like hookers peeing in a hotel room, may never be proven.

              But your same article goes on to say the following:
              “During the campaign, Trump had encouraged Russia’s hacking and dumping – of which he was the chief beneficiary,” the book concludes. “Whether or not the investigations would ever turn up hard evidence of direct collusion, Trump’s actions – his adamant and consistent denial of any Russian role – had provided Putin cover. In that sense, he had aided and abetted Moscow’s attack on American democracy.”

              That's information that was definitely alluded to in the dossier.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                "She paid GPS Fusion, an American company.  THAT company subcontracted out to Steele."

                Okay, so, indirectly, Hillary Clinton paid for opposition research that was provided by a foreign agent.

                It has been labeled as  "A private intelligence report comprising memos written between June and December 2016 by Christopher Steele."

                https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018 … mp-dossier

                Again, THIS fits the legal definition of collusion.

                Collusion is a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.   

                A private intelligence report.  I still wonder why the Hillary Clinton campaign is not under investigation for collusion.

                "That's information that was definitely alluded to in the dossier." No proof, just allegations.

                1. Valeant profile image95
                  Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Ok, by your definition, if Manafort gave some private campaign polling data to the Russians and Trump paid him, Trump colluded.  I doubt you'd be willing to concede that about Trump, so have the same standard for Clinton's campaign who paid an American company.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you.  The polling given was mostly public.  No money changed hands.

                    So, if the Hillary Clinton campaign was subject to the same level of scrutiny the President Donald Trump campaign was given, I wonder what would be discovered? 

                    It's obvious she paid for a private intelligence report provided by a foreign agent for the sole purpose of influencing an election. 

                    My point is...if you're okay with what Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party did with paying for the dossier against President Donald Trump...giving some polling data should not even get a whisper of attention.

                    1. Valeant profile image95
                      Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                      'Mostly.'  Like I was mostly innocent so I shouldn't be charged with that crime?  I was mostly under the speed limit officer, please do not ticket me.  Let me know how that works out for you.

                      Manafort owed money to these oligarchs.  The information given was to pay off that debt, so I'm going to disagree with payment.  And given the fact that Trump's campaign changed their platform to be pro-Russia in regards to Ukraine shortly after giving the data and getting the hacked e-mails released, it's fairly obvious they were working in conjunction with the Russians.

                      I'm not sure how many other ways we can say that her campaign paid an American company.  If you'd care to go check the testimony from GPS Fusion to Congress, you'd find out her campaign wasn't even aware GPS had hired Steele.  Your collusion points fall apart with those facts.

                      1. Readmikenow profile image95
                        Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                        "changed their platform to be pro-Russia in regards to Ukraine"

                        Whoa, whoa, whoa...hold on to everything here.  The Ukraine is very near and dear to my heart and my relatives who live there.  President Donald Trump has provided the most modern versions of offensive weapons for the Ukraine military.  These are weapons designed to destroy tanks and airplanes. These many weapons he provided are probably THE only reason Russia hasn't invaded the Ukraine from Crimea.  Trust me, Russia was furious Ukraine got these weapons from the Trump administration.  So, if you don't believe me, read the Kyiv Post.

                        You need to realize collusion does not require payment to a company.  Here is the legal definition. 

                        Collusion is a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. 

                        I will still state a private secret intelligence PROVIDED by a foreign agent qualifies as collusion.   

                        "Manafort owed money to these oligarchs.  The information given was to pay off that debt"

                        Proof? 

                        Who pays off a debt with polling data that is mostly public?
                        Probably wasn't much of a debt.

                2. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  To have conspiracy, you have to have a crime they are conspiring to do.  Getting oppo information is not a crime, even using a foreign agent, therefore no conspiracy.

                  Feeding confidential polling data to the Russians to help influence the election in your favor IS a crime - it is called Defrauding the Government of the United States.  A crime of which a couple of Trump associates have already pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    I'd say you need to check the definition of "defraud" as well.

                    de·fraud
                    [dəˈfrôd]
                    VERB
                    illegally obtain money from (someone) by deception.

                    So far no one has obtained money from the government by deception in the astounding, shocking matter of Russian collusion.  Not even by fixing the election.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image90
                      My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                      Cute, Wilderness - https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-res … defraud-us

                      An attempt to change the outcome of a federal election (probably successful now that a lot more info is known) easily fits the definition.

        3. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Then you didn't Google it, did you Sharlee?  Try one of your own favorite sources - Fox

          https://fox4kc.com/2018/12/15/fbi-relea … n-dossier/

      7. Leland Johnson profile image91
        Leland Johnsonposted 8 months ago

        a media who hates Trump because he defeated their beloved Hillary, a combination of left and right wing politicians who despise him because they comprise the swamp he promised to drain, bitter members of the electorate, and liberal judges combine to create an atmosphere where very LITTLE evidence has to be present to start an investigation.  If there is so much evidence and it's so revealing, why does it continue to drag on and on?  The left can't beat Trump, the media can't outsmart him, so they use their power of media to try and persuade the masses that he's a criminal.  Yesterday I heard a montage of some 20 democrat politicians giving soundbytes about Trump's border speech.  They uniformly used the phrase "manufactured crisis" over and over and over again.  Talk about collusion!  They couldn't even come up with a decent synonym.  Trump has already achieved so much.  40 year low unemployment rates, 20 year low gas prices due to allowing oil companies to drill and produce, Kim Jong Un ceasing testing of nuclear weapons program, release of hostages in N. Korea.  It's such a shame that democrats are doing everything they can to slow down our progress just as we were emerging as the mightiest super power on earth- the one that does the most for humanitarian causes and responds to the needs of billions around the world.  Democrats aren't just hurting the US, they are a bane to the world at large.  It's such a needless, tragic, shame.

        1. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          "a media who hates Trump because he defeated their beloved Hillary" = a falsehood

          "a combination of left and right wing politicians who despise him because they comprise the swamp he promised to drain" = Trump brought the swamp (and mafia) with him.

          "combine to create an atmosphere where very LITTLE evidence has to be present to start an investigation" - falsehood; there is lots of evidence, you just ignore it.

          "why does it continue to drag on and on?" - 1) because Mueller's investigation is short when compared to others and 2) there is so much to go through it takes lots of time to do a thorough job.

          "persuade the masses that he's a criminal" - they only REPORT what Trump does and says.

          "They uniformly used the phrase "manufactured crisis" over and over and over again" - that is because it is true.  Do you want the media to lie like Trump does almost all of the time?

          "40 year low unemployment rates," - a continuation of Obama's record

          "20 year low gas prices " = False again, they were lower under Obama

          "due to allowing oil companies to drill and produce" = False - that happened under Obama, not Trump

          "Kim Jong Un ceasing testing of nuclear weapons program" - 1) after he increased them a lot (including missiles) in response to Trump's war rhetoric and 2) Un was done testing; it wasn't from anything Trump did.

          "It's such a shame that democrats are doing everything they can to slow down our progress just as we were emerging as the mightiest super power on earth" - 1) LOL and 2) America WAS the greatest superpower on earth, now Trump has destroyed that mantle.
          "Democrats aren't just hurting the US, they are a bane to the world at large.  It's such a needless, tragic, shame." - FALSE - that title goes to you and those who think like you.



          "

       
      working

      This website uses cookies

      As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

      For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

      Show Details
      Necessary
      HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
      LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
      Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
      AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
      HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
      HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
      Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
      CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
      Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
      Features
      Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
      Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
      Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
      Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
      Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
      VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
      PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
      Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
      MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
      Marketing
      Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
      Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
      Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
      Statistics
      Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
      ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
      Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
      ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)