So weird. It's almost as if newspapers report on different stories from week to week.

?

Why do you care if the statues come down?

Yea, that's a red herring. Four weeks ago weren't you talking about Putin?

Then last week about war with NK .

And now racial violence.

Did Putin just STOP having committed election manipulation?

Oh yeah, he did, and they can't prove it--so let's get people up in arms about NK. Oh but now that's not happening anymore either.

It's crazy how these world events just fucking vanish and you move on. It's been a story for 6 months, sure, the only story.

But the hell with that. Suddenly it's the citizens attacking each other.

Yeah I fail to see your point. During the olympics news is dominated by new about the olympics. Why don't we hear anything now about the olympics?

I'm confused about what OP is attempting to show with this. The Russian story is still very much in the news but just not "front page" right now. These types of investigations can take years and just because there's not breaking news everyday of the week does not make it go away.

Shocking that you fail to see it. Like someone who already doesn't understand and/or objects to this post would.

So you're suggesting here that for 6 months literally nothing happened but Russia, right?

That's all they reported on after all.

So zilch else happened and there was no concerted effort to put our eyeballs on that story that has never had any actual evidence other than "anonymous intelligence individuals believe..."

So in your mind, no events took place while the Russia story went on. Because they only report on what's pertinent right?

And now that story has vanished. Gone.

But yeah, there's no plan as to what the people are allowed/deliberately led to hear.

No dude, I was making fun of op for suggesting that the Russian story went away because other news happened and it didn't make front page for a few days.

It's still the biggest story of our lifetime and it's not going anywhere any time soon.

Also, if you still think all they are basing this investigation on is the dossier then you have not been watching the news. It's gone so far beyond that now.

Really? How so?

Proof?

Do NOT send me anything that states "intelligence officials state.."

Bc intelligence officials are the ones causing all the problems. Purposefully. To hide their theft of the budget.

Dude, come on. You can't bury your head so far in the sand that you honestly think this is still just some rumors and secret memos that nobody has seen. Do you just jam your fingers in your ears and screen LALALALALA every time the news is on?

I feel like you must just be trolling because that's just crazy to me to think someone in this day and age is so far out of the loop.

Ok, I'll play along just in case you just got back from a cruse or something and have not seen the news in months. It's now a proven fact, verified by emails from a whole bunch of people in the White House that their was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. These emails were turned over, not leaked or hacked or just rumors from unnamed sources. Verified emails.

Ugh. Prove it. You've proven nothing other than you can accuse someone of being clueless . I'm done here.

Wait what? You need proof that Donald trump jr, manafort and kushner met with Russians? I don't need to prove that to you man.

Yes.I need proof other than the word of a bunch of lying warmongers who want their $600 billion budget (of which a portion goes missing every year).

Wow, just wow. Donald Trump jr willingly handed over the emails. This is not a rumor or a hunch or unnamed source. This is the guy in question admitting his actions and providing the proof to back it up.

That's not enough for you? The man said he did a thing and provided proof and that's not enough? So what, unless you were in the room with him you don't believe it?

No it's not enough.

He spoke to a person just like the Clinton campaign did. Campaigns do this.

Articulate the difference please?

Oh I didn't realize you were an expert on such matters.

It's kinda funny chatting with someone who is so oblivious to current events.

I noticed you haven't articulated the difference? Can you?

Difference? In how Clinton ran her campaign? She was shady as hell and I'm pretty sure she was cheating and breaking laws. I would love to see the dnc ban her from ever running for office again. If she were in office I would be all over that shit. But right now she's not and today we found out that trumps team met with a spy who is an ace at email hacking. And they knew going into the meeting that they were going to get dirt. Is that legal?

Ok. But how is that different from what Clinton campaign did?

For the sake of discussion let's say there is no difference. What then? Is your whole stance on this "well Hillary did or would have done the same things to get elected"?

Does that somehow make it ok?

Here's the thing: I don't support Clinton one bit so playing buttery males with me falls in deaf ears. I'm just interested in the biggest conspiracy of my lifetime. Any real American should be furious.

Ok, why? If the other campaign did it, isn't it just business as usual?

I mean HRC sold a Russian company US uranium and made millions off of it while SoS.

Why wasn't that the biggest conspiracy of our lifetime?

You're not articulating how it's different at all, just making broad statements like it's a huge deal, when the news didn't even report when HRC did it.

Why not?

To be clear, I'm not trying to bring up "but she did it." I'm trying to understand why the news cares when DT does it but not when HRC does.

I want the difference articulated.

It's very simple, if Clinton was in office I would would support an investigation. Like I said, as it stands she cheated the system during the primaries and should be barred from politics at a minimum.

But none of that matters and the constant deflection with buttery males does nothing to address the issue. Is that all you have?

Again.

Can you articulate the difference or not?

Why didn't it matter when Clinton did it but it does now when trump did?

Like I said, maybe there is no difference. Can you live in a world where we investigate both the clintons and the trumps?

We can. But if there's no difference why wasn't the Clinton case on the news?

Why do you believe this is the story of a lifetime and not that?

Why do you personally think that?

Sorry man, you are wrong about why one is more important than the other.

It's really quite simple.

If both candidates made deals with foreign powers and compromised the security of our nation in order to get in elected then both should be investigated. But here's the kicker: only one got elected so only one is a direct threat to me right now.

If the clintons did commit crimes I would love to hear about it and have it come to light. But does it affect my life right now? No not at all.

Look at it like this, driving drunk is not cool and makes someone a menace to society. If you told me you knew a guy who drove home last year drunk from an office party I would still consider that a serious crime even though it happened last year.

But if you said there is a guy who is driving around drunk every day, through crowded school zones in every town and will keep doing it every day for the next 3+ years I would say this needs to end right now.

So the Secretary of State can make millions of dollars selling uranium to Russia, then when running for president call them back to get their help and backing to get elected, but since that was then and this is now, it's fine?

Because the populace chose the guy you didn't want?

Do you see how hypocritical that is?

If you didn't care then, then why would you care now? I'd definitely like an answer to this question.

I don't get what you are trying to argue here. I'm all for investigating Clinton. I have never supported her and if she broke laws then she should be held accountable.

You do know that it's possible to have two ongoing different investigations right? I'm so confused that you think that because one person possibly did something it's ok for Trump to do something.

Also, you should learn more about the uranium deal you keep bringing up. It's not so simple as you are making it out to be. She was one of many people who needed to sign off on the mining operation and it was not to sell uranium to Russia. It was to give a Russian company rights to mine but they could not take it back to Russia and she did not get paid. Her charity got donations and she does not get paid by the charity but I'm sure it influences policy and I am all for an investigation into that foundation. It smacks of corruption up and down and I am all about getting foreign money out of our political system.

I get that you're agreeing we can and should investigate Clinton, but that's not what I'm asking.

You didn't care then, and you didn't care that the Dems were doing it all along as well during the campaign. This is no different in any way. Why is this the event of a lifetime when back then it was whatever?

What makes you think it's going to work to keep deflecting? Like it's literally impossible for you to discuss current affairs without your buttery males.

I think that's an interesting thing to say bc I've asked this question over and over (and over) and can't get a straight answer from you.

Look- you care bc the news is telling you to. It was hidden when Clinton did it and got millions of dollars, but now that it's trump, it's suddenly all over the news.

Why aren't you asking yourself why that is? For yourself and for the media?

Is it possible for you to even have a political discussion without the buttery males?

Is it possible for you to not use the phrase "buttery males" in a single response?

I'm just calling it like it see it brother.

Oh, seriously?

Not me, no.

I'm calling it like other fucking people see it.

Yep, that's right. ANYBODY but me.

That's how I'm calling it. (Maybe not with the same phrase, over and over, but yep, that's still what I'm doing).

Go be a hypocrite to someone else.

By all means, I'm sure you will respond bc you can't help yourself, but I won't be reading it.

Best of luck to you.

Do you have some kind of evidence that the media organized the Unite the Right rally or something? While I don't trust most of the narratives the MSM tries to spin, why would it be a surprise that they would cover such a big, impactful event in detail?

It's more what they don't cover. Certain things, certain aspects of things, receive media black out.

It's so true. And go to facebook- they just fall right in line. It's sad and it's time we who get it make others know.

Who is "they"?

Did you read the post? The masses.

Fall in line with what on Facebook? My Facebook is just my family posting BBQ and beach pics.

Then you have no friends. Bc anyone with a Facebook account has seen a political post.

If you haven't you should get out more often, seriously. Which tells us you have no life and therefore no real point that can be useful to actual social humans.

So I'm done now.

Hahaha. That's fucking gold. Just because someone does not use Facebook as a source for news you somehow have determined that I must be some sort of basement dwelling outcast. I love that leap in reasoning. Pure gold.

Just so you don't make that leap again, you could not be further from the truth.

I love how you can't answer my logic so you jump to this.

Anyway all of us who are real people have seen at least one political post from our friends and family in Facebook. If you say you haven't, you're lying.

So all done here. Not getting anywhere with deliberate lying for...whatever reason.

Did you read the post? The masses.