Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
stevemagegod

My Thoughts on the Russia Conspiracy

368 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Tiggs
1 hour ago, Lilly said:

My Dad used to say, "consider the source" when obtaining any information. That British Agent Steele openly admits that his sources were a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin! And we're just going to believe that these men are telling us the truth? Really?

Quite honestly -- the entire Steele dossier could be a fairy tale, and it wouldn't make an iota of difference to what's currently happening.

The Special Counsel's investigation has access to intelligence resources far and beyond anything Steele had access to, when he wrote that dossier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
13 minutes ago, Tiggs said:



The Special Counsel's investigation has access to intelligence resources far and beyond anything Steele had access to, when he wrote that dossier.

I hope so...but when dealing with Russia (in general) I'm not comfortable in believing much of anything they say. But hey, I lived through the Cold War so I'm not exactly a 'fan' of Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
5 minutes ago, Lilly said:

I don't think Russia really affected anyone's vote...not that I've seen anyway.

If marketing wasn't effective, corporations would stop using it.

* Cracks open an ice-cold, refreshing Coke *

If you can stop someone from voting for the other team, then that's an extra vote for your team which isn't cancelled out.

Simply put -- the Podesta email release was timed to suppress Clinton voter turnout.
 

5 minutes ago, Lilly said:

I respectfully will just have to disagree with those who see this differently. From what I can see both Ds and Rs have "colluded' with Russia (under the current definition of collusion that is).

Fair enough.

As I said earlier in the thread -- let me know when multiple Western Intelligence agencies raise red flags about Team Clinton and Russia.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
Just now, Tiggs said:



Simply put -- the Podesta email release was timed to suppress Clinton voter turnout.
 

 

Were the Podesta emails real in your opinion? Just wondering because something hoaxed to discredit the opposition would seem to be worse IMO.

Anyway, time will tell how all of this plays out. Hey, Trump may get impeached and we'll have President Pence...which won't bother me all that much but might really bother the Democrats. The old saying, "Be careful what you wish for" does come to my mind frequently here lately.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
6 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

As I said earlier in the thread -- let me know when multiple Western Intelligence agencies raise red flags about Team Clinton and Russia.

The Clinton family is untouchable, do you agree?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
15 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Were the Podesta emails real in your opinion? Just wondering because something hoaxed to discredit the opposition would seem to be worse IMO.

I suspect they were mostly real, with some altered for propaganda purposes. That's typically the way that it's done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
27 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

The Clinton family is untouchable, do you agree?

Not at all -- but I can see why you'd believe that.

Do you think -- honestly, truthfully, with all of your heart -- that Pizzagate was real?

Spirit cooking? Benghazi?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 hours ago, Lilly said:

My Dad used to say, "consider the source" when obtaining any information. That British Agent Steele openly admits that his sources were a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin! And we're just going to believe that these men are telling us the truth? Really?

 

You don't need to believe they're telling the truth. So many claims of the dossier have now been proven true, that it's impossible to deny the significance of the document, regardless of how it was initially funded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
49 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

I suspect they were mostly real, with some altered for propaganda purposes. That's typically the way that it's done.

So they were altered which makes them not completely real. Why then is it so difficult to believe that the dossier on Trump may not be completely real as well?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Unicorn

My opinion is to let Mueller do his job. The focus now should be protecting people that are targeted by fake news on social media. It's plain and simple to do actually. All paid political adds should be required to show who paid for it on social media just like on US TV. The bots are still alive and well right now with our current elections. This needs to be regulated, this should be our focus.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

@Tiggs just debunked the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You don't need to believe they're telling the truth. So many claims of the dossier have now been proven true, that it's impossible to deny the significance of the document, regardless of how it was initially funded.

Where has the Trump dossier been proven to be real/true? Who's to say the information wasn't simply altered to reflect the needs of those who commissioned the dossier?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

@Tiggs just debunked the right.

Tiggs set forth his opinion on these issues. Others can and will have differing opinions. None of us have access to anything approaching 'the truth' in all of this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
3 minutes ago, White Unicorn said:

My opinion is to let Mueller do his job. The focus now should be protecting people that are targeted by fake news on social media. It's plain and simple to do actually. All paid political adds should be required to show who paid for it on social media just like on US TV. The bots are still alive and well right now with our current elections. This needs to be regulated, this should be our focus.

 

 

I have to agree, the news media needs to get back to reporting the news...not just supporting either political party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
46 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Not at all -- but I can see why you'd believe that.

Do you think -- honestly, truthfully, with all of your heart -- that Pizzagate was real?

Spirit cooking? Benghazi?

Of course I don't believe Pizzagate or Spirit cooking were real. That's Alex Jones type nonsense. How gullible do you think I am?

Benghazi was quite real indeed. I don't see where you mourned the deaths of 4 Americans. Maybe it's time to make up more excuses for the Clinton Crime family.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

I'm also convinced that Benghazi was real, mostly due to the testimony of those (who survived) on the rescue team. Also, the claims that some type of video was the cause of the Embassy attack has been discredited.

As for the other fringe stuff...complete rubbish.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
10 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Where has the Trump dossier been proven to be real/true? Who's to say the information wasn't simply altered to reflect the needs of those who commissioned the dossier?

 

Manafort, Carter Page and a few other items.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/10/25/what-the-trump-dossier-says-and-what-it-doesnt/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Here's the concluding paragraph from that link:

Conclusion

The Steele dossier makes a wide range of claims, many of which are rumors that couldn’t be independently verified. Many other claims involve things that would have been publicly known at the time the report was apparently drafted. Although it’s impossible to say that the dossier is entirely inaccurate (there are some glimmers of accurate predictions), it is also impossible to say that it has been broadly validated.

That unsatisfying answer has a side effect: It gives either side of the political fight all the ammo that it might want.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Here's the concluding paragraph from that link:

 

 

If you had read it you would have learned that some of the claims have been shown to be true. Which was what I said. 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
28 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

If you had read it you would have learned that some of the claims have been shown to be true. Which was what I said. 

Direct quote from the article: "Although it’s impossible to say that the dossier is entirely inaccurate (there are some glimmers of accurate predictions), it is also impossible to say that it has been broadly validated."

I think my reading skills are fairly good.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alaric
19 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

:lol:

I may be wrong but Hillary's "his finger on a red button" line is/was garbage...

There is a chain of command and Trump isn't the only link in that chain.

 

Cause you know what increases hotel occupancy and golf course usage? Nuclear Winter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alaric
3 hours ago, Lilly said:

Direct quote from the article: "Although it’s impossible to say that the dossier is entirely inaccurate (there are some glimmers of accurate predictions), it is also impossible to say that it has been broadly validated."

I think my reading skills are fairly good.

It’s amazing what bias can accomplish... they slanted the whole article so that those not really carefully considering what they were reading would draw the exact opposite conclusion from what’s actually stated in the “conclusion” portion of the article. Somehow some can read the sentence, “Although it’s impossible to say that the dossier is entirely inaccurate (there are some glimmers of accurate predictions), it is also impossible to say that it has been broadly validated."... and all they see is, “some glimmers of accurate predictions”.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
17 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

"What difference does it make now" 7 or 17... :lol:

My honest take on all this is some real good info on how dirty our country has been running the past decade or 2 will come out in the open,and we will get a great idea of just how left and right scumbags have been working together behind the scenes to enrich themselves...

As i told Claire way back around January,many will fall but it wont be any of the big names...I just hope when all is said and done and all the cards are on the table ALL AMERICANS will wake up and say enough is enough!

Dems,Reps,3rd parties can come together and all see we have been at each others throats over a bunch of super rich and powerful elite few and we have been working for them,instead of the way it was meant to be...THEY are supposed to work for US! ;)

You solved the problem. We have two parties. Those two parties *really* are the American Party and the Establishment Party. Trump is far from perfect, but I think that he's a member of the former party. It's likely no coincidence that he's hated by both the Bushes and the Clintons. We all know what their party is. In fact, the Establishment Party is likely just a category of the larger Globalism Party. That's why the Establishment Party members portray the American Party members as crazy bigots who are nationalist protectionists. Look at John McCain, for instance. He received money from George Soros, and he portrayed Trump as the new Franco or the new Mussolini. He had some involvement in the "Urine-gate" dossier too. I'll always take a Democratic member of the American Party over Republican politicians like him with their unconstitutional, job-destroying, warmongering globalism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
16 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It is amazing how it is evolving that 126 million views (Worldwide) has turned into 126 million US citizens influenced. I imagine in a couple days many "news" sites will stop using, "as many as...", and just state 126 million US citizens viewed a "Russian" Facebook post.

So, the internet says about 214 million US citizens have Facebook, and 1.8 billion people worldwide. So, that means about half the US Facebook users had ONE post (statistically) that came up on their Facebook, that was paid for by the Russians (supposedly). Half of which (I read) occurred after the November election date. And we're supposed to believe that that quarter of US facebook users (or 1/30th of US users (if we use the 1.8 billion worldwide users), as Facebook can't say where the posts were read exactly) were influenced by that one post that came across their feed... randomly?

I think it was facebook that said the Russian paid posts would be 1/4000th of one percent of their content. And we're to believe that such a thing affected the Presidential election?? ---Sigh--- 

I don't have facebook, but almost everyone else I know does, and they scroll past things like this without stopping. 90% of US Facebook users would have ignored these posts. The article below says how the Russian Trolls would get a couple dozen likes on such posts, and be happy about it. That really doesn't sound like it could have affected an election on a nationwide scale. ---- More NOTHING BURGER ----

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/30/media/russia-facebook-126-million-users/index.html

 

It's not a nothing burger. It's a 0.00004% burger ("where's the beef?"). It's clear to us and millions of other people that sore losers are grasping at straws with these ridiculous explanations as to why their queen lost yet again. Hillary was the worst candidate in contemporary history. She ran a horrid campaign while she slurred millions of Americans. That's not to mention how corrupt and crooked she and her campaign are/were. Add in the fact that she ignored vital states that she took for granted. The meddling story is lame on its face since we meddle even more than the meddling mentioned in this "shocking" news.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
14 hours ago, Tiggs said:

If you have evidence that multiple western intelligence agencies are raising red flags for Team Clinton's collusion with Russia -- let me know.

Wow! It's not about political partisanship with all of Clinton's critics. It's about her corrupt and crooked actions. Just ask Republican stalwart, Donna Brazile. Let's make a bet. I bet you that they will find absolutely no proof that Trump worked with the Russians. I also bet you that they will find more dirt on Clinton and/or Democratic operatives. They'll also likely charge Trump affiliates with crimes that show no proof of Trump working with Putin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.