http://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/oops-trump-wrongly-claims-his-father-was-born-in-germany-again-20190403-p51a92.html
Every day another lie why?
He can not help himself
Our Hasbeen throws Bill Clinton at me, in a feeble effort to stall opinions about Trump
Feeble in deed Hasbeen

mhaze,

You stated that your list of sources were not the
only sources that you used. Nice to hear. But why
not allow that assumption to others as well instead
of pointing out that they're biased and implying
that you're not. Perceptions of bias and
inaccuracy differs as we all know (or should) based
on people's political persuasions - especially with
regard to news outlets in the US like - Fox News,
Breitbart News, CNN, and MSNBC to name just a few.

According to A.Gallup/Knight Foundation and people
surveyed - the only two media organisations that
Republicans said were not biased were Fox News
and The Wall Street Journal. President Donald Trump
takes issue with outlets like CNN and The New York
Times for publishing critical stories about his
administration. In many tweetstorms Trump has described
the media as "Ënemy of the people" especially CNN
and The New York Times. And of course any Trump
supporter would naturally agree.

Overall survey respondents said PBS News and The
Associated Press were the least biased outlets.

Dear mhaze,

What? Is that it? How on earth does any of that have any bearing on the charge of collusion/conspiracy? It doesn't.

What else do you have?

Look the word collusion in this case is probably better defined as conspiracy, especially as there is really little mention of the word collusion in the legal framework around this.

So whatever assistance the Russians gave Trump and whatever concessions Trump delivered as a result really don't matter in this instance. For the charge of conspiracy to be upheld it has to be demonstrated there was a direct agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act.

“Black's Law Dictionary defines collusion as "a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party..." A conspiracy, on the other hand, is defined as "a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purposes of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators."  “

It would be interesting to know what would have happened if the Russians had directly hacked Hillary's emails rather than the DNC after Trump called for them to do so.

Dear Hasbeen,

You write;

"In retrospect Steely, I take it back. You are a fool, in fact an egotistical opinionated fool to be accurate. To help you, it is your high opinion of your self that makes you such a dill."

Firstly I'm not sure what you are taking back but secondly we really are peas in a pod aren't we. This must be why we get on so well.

In fact you really are my 'brother from another mother' as they say in the classics.

Bro.

"Is Trump a racist?"
An article in The Nation tells us that:

The emphasis on one
individual's personal views, actions or statements misses
the point, if the goal is to dismantle racism.

Martin Luther King clarified the distinction in 1963 when
he challenged the idea that legislation - "Has no great
role to play in this period of social change because you've
got to change the heart and you can't change the heart through
legislation."

King replied - "It may be true the law cannot make a man love
me but it can keep him from lynching me!"

The problem in the US we're told - is not the backward views of
individuals, even if one of those individuals occupies the
Oval Office.

What plagues the US is a vast array of
public policies and practices that perpetuate a status quo
that is grossly unequal and unjust after centuries of
explicit radicalised economic exploitation that is
maintained by widespread contemporary implicit bias.
It is these public policies and practices that are the
problem and that need to be addressed.

Far more dangerous than Trump's personal beliefs are his
public actions to "Make America White Again." His
political efforts to consolidate the support of millions
of individuals who fervently believe that White Americans
are under siege from people of colour, especially Mexicans,
Mexican Americans, Muslims, and so on. At a recent Trump
rally in El Paso, Texas, a Trump supporter articulated the
public policy priorities of far too many Americans when
he said, "Build the wall, deport them all."

The Nation tells us that the Democrats and
progressives made a fatal miscalculations in 2016 when they
emphasized Trump's personality over his policies. HUndreds of
millions of dollars were spent by the Clinton campaign and
progressive allies highlighting the shortcomings of Trump's
temperament, sending the message that something was wrong
with "him."

Had they highlighted his racial hateful and harmful agenda
instead, then voters, especially moderate white voters,
would have had to wonder if something was wrong with "them"
if they chose to side with his candidacy.

cont'd ...

Foxy,

I'm not accusing you of bias (at least not this time). What I'm trying to get you to understand is that you so badly misunderstood the collusion myth because of the sources you put your faith in. CNN were the worst in this regard, but NYT were not good either.

They actively pushed the anti-Trump line and promoted every story that supported the collusion myth and actively avoided any mitigating data. They were willing participants in helping FBI leakers and accepted so-called anonymous sources without question so long as it promoted the anti-Trump line.

All those who believed the CNN/MSNBC/NYT line were equally duped and are equally trying to work out how they got it so wrong.

Unlike you, massive numbers of viewers have abandoned CNN and MSNBC since the Mueller bombshell and most have gone to Fox who alone of all electronic press, always remained clear-headed about the collusion story.

All I'm saying is that, if you diversify your sources, you will be less likely to be duped next time.

Here's another source people would do well to follow...Mollie Hemingway
http://thefederalist.com/2019/04/01/heres-why-i-didnt-fall-for-the-russia-trump-conspiracy/#.XKIsQIxJsmQ.twitter

I read her regularly. She's a treasure.

SR,

Try to change the issue all you like. Call it conspiracy if you want. But the Mueller probe was a collusion probe.

But no matter what you call it, you fell for the myth and accepted that Trump was beholden to Putin. That has coloured your already jaundiced understanding of the Trump administration and will continue to do so. Again, it would do you well to examine how you were duped and seek to rectify it, even if you haven't got the wherewithal, unlike Belly, to admit you were willingly misled.

"It would be interesting to know what would have happened if the Russians had directly hacked Hillary's emails rather than the DNC".

They didn't need to. The Clinton server had already been breached by the Chinese who were receiving real-time copies of all emails into and out of that server. The Chinese will have been sharing anything interesting with the Russians and probably ISIS - remember Benghazi.