Anti-Trump dossier author was hired to help Hillary challenge 2016 election results

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The idea that anyone can say trump is the corporatist president, when compared with hillary is just hilarious. Really highlights their ignorance.

It also seems out of step with one of their other accusations: The accusation that Trump's tariffs are damaging to corporations and consumers. We're not dealing with logically thought out arguments here, rather the Russel Stover mixed box of presidential grievances variety of complaints. "I hate coconut cremes, give me the nougat, oh hell what happened to the box map, yuck I got something with fruit..."

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Aallanon

one, he was hired by the republicans before he was hired by the dems while the election was in the primary stage.
two... the dems picked him up right after the primary when they knew that trump was gonna be their opponent. ya know, long ago, when everyone thought trump didn't have a chance of winning???

could he have been hired after the election to keep looking and seeing what they can dig up? maybe. but by then, any crimes that theer might be had already been committed and I am pretty sure that the investigators aren't relying solely on the work of one man.

Christopher Steel was hired by FusionGPS after the Washington Free Beacon stopped research.

“All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele.”

Thank you.

I read that on page one, and was like surely someone will correct this lie that is told over and over again.

No republican ever paid money while steele was compiling his dossier, the free beacon (those republicans mentioned) were out long before steele was brought on.

On to the OP.

You mean to tell me while Hillary Obama and the media were telling us that once hillary won trump questioning the legitimacy of the election would destroy democracy, Hillary herself was setting up a plan to question the legitimacy of the election if she lost?

Who would have thought!!!!

But hey, just anther double standard, like getting dirt from russians is a huge crime, unless its the democrats.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

In the leftist box, it all has either fruit or nuts.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

I am glad you noticed we do not have a democracy and never did. It is a constitutional republic, and the electoral college serves a very important function. It ensures that all the states have a proportional voice.

There were 50 popular votes that night. Every red state you see is the outcome of one popular vote Trump won. He won far more of them than Hillary did. However, because it is recognized by the system that that isn't always enough, simple majority, there is a proportional system designed to give weight to the greater populations of some of those states meaning that it is possible for more states to be one color of the other and for that candidates to still win less electoral delegates because overall more people will be represented in the electoral system.

It is an elegant system that worked the same back when there were 13 colonies, and it's by design back then, too.

I understand about systems of proportional representation, but this is the 21st Century, not the wild west.

The wealth of the parties and the small number of electoral college voters means that the situation begs for corruption (Vote my way and I'll quietly slip a million dollars into any bank account you nominate). Because of the low numbers to be bribed, bribery is a real and doable option (and easy to cover up).

One person, one vote. Anything else reduces the rights and powers of individuals. Invalidating their votes.

To override an actual vote of the populace with the votes of only 270 people is oligarchy and makes the voting of the actual populace just a sham for the cameras.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Aallanon

one, he was hired by the republicans before he was hired by the dems while the election was in the primary stage.
two... the dems picked him up right after the primary when they knew that trump was gonna be their opponent. ya know, long ago, when everyone thought trump didn't have a chance of winning???

could he have been hired after the election to keep looking and seeing what they can dig up? maybe. but by then, any crimes that theer might be had already been committed and I am pretty sure that the investigators aren't relying solely on the work of one man.

Christopher Steel was hired by FusionGPS after the Washington Free Beacon stopped research.

“All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele.”

That is different from what I have read. Can you provide some supportive links because every time I have searched I get the same thing.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

The U.S. Constitution has the Electoral College System to prevent mob rule.

i.e. like New York and California running the whole Country.

⚔🐴⚔

What mob would they be? Americans?

a reply to: chr0naut

The wealth of the parties and the small number of electoral college voters means that the situation begs for corruption (Vote my way and I'll quietly slip a million dollars into any bank account you nominate). Because of the low numbers to be bribed, bribery is a real and doable option (and easy to cover up).

It's exactly the opposite, in reality. The decentralization makes cheating very hard in presidential elections (don't get me wrong, it happens, but it's a crap shoot). But no you can't bribe EC voters, they're bound to vote by their state laws. You just don't seem to understand how the system works.

dbl

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: RazorV66
Trump won on a technicality?....

The technicality of winning the most states and, thus, the most electoral votes. This only seems to be a problem when folks hate the individual who won.

States don't vote.

You are being conned and owned by corporate entities. Your individualism is being invalidated and you call me a leftist!

But you are a leftist, if you believe that a Democracy actually works.

We went with a Republic instead.

Corporate entities have nothing to do with the Electoral College and everything to do with the fact that our Founders knew, through observing history, that a Democracy just doesn't work.

Because in the end, it doesn't represent all the States.

Otherwise, California and New York would just pick our President.

A point lost on someone who can't tell the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

Read my footer.

You are one of those voters whose choice was made by someone else.

So you are comfortable that your individual vote is invalid and that someone else has power over you, just 'because'.

a reply to: chr0naut

I can't speak for lumenari, but the fact that people like you would cancel out my vote in a pure democracy makes me very comfortable with it. I'm fine with my local voters cancelling out my vote, I'm not fine with coastal liberals cancelling out my vote. The electoral college was a stroke of genius.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: RazorV66
Trump won on a technicality?....

The technicality of winning the most states and, thus, the most electoral votes. This only seems to be a problem when folks hate the individual who won.

States don't vote.

You are being conned and owned by corporate entities. Your individualism is being invalidated and you call me a leftist!

But you are a leftist, if you believe that a Democracy actually works.

We went with a Republic instead.

Corporate entities have nothing to do with the Electoral College and everything to do with the fact that our Founders knew, through observing history, that a Democracy just doesn't work.

Because in the end, it doesn't represent all the States.

Otherwise, California and New York would just pick our President.

A point lost on someone who can't tell the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

Read my footer.

Some in America (and on ATS) would describe Adolf Hitler as a Communist (well he did lead the Democratic Socialist Party, didn't he?).



So anyway call me a leftist nazi communist fascist if you want. I am really quite 'centrist' but pick and choose the policies I think are best without consideration of party or label.

a reply to: chr0naut

Don't worry, they're in the midst of overriding the vote of the people as we speak. It's just a very slow coupe.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: RazorV66
Trump won on a technicality?....

The technicality of winning the most states and, thus, the most electoral votes. This only seems to be a problem when folks hate the individual who won.

States don't vote.

You are being conned and owned by corporate entities. Your individualism is being invalidated and you call me a leftist!

But you are a leftist, if you believe that a Democracy actually works.

We went with a Republic instead.

Corporate entities have nothing to do with the Electoral College and everything to do with the fact that our Founders knew, through observing history, that a Democracy just doesn't work.

Because in the end, it doesn't represent all the States.

Otherwise, California and New York would just pick our President.

A point lost on someone who can't tell the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

Read my footer.

Some in America (and on ATS) would describe Adolf Hitler as a Communist (well he did lead the Democratic Socialist Party, didn't he?).

So anyway call me a leftist nazi communist fascist if you want. I am really quite 'centrist' but pick and choose the policies I think are best without consideration of party or label.

Actually, Hitler was a Socialist. His enemies at the time he rose to power in Germany were Communists.

And I am not calling you a lefty communist nazi fascist.

I was merely pointing out that you are a Socialist.

Much like Hitler was, ironically...

a reply to: Dfairlite

really?? I thought she lost because she went into the election carrying too much baggage and surrounded by too much controversy. I know that's why I wouldn't vote for her. If she had won, I knew that she would have had just as many investigations and crap as well, come to find out, trump has. they may have been different, but still she would have been tied up and made ineffective from all the crap, weather the crap was true or made up wouldn't have mattered.
but, you listen to yourselves... because what I am hearing is that the whole russia things was created by a group conspiring to either:
come up with an excuse for her losing the election
come up with a way to reverse the election because she lost
or, to influence the election...

but, there is just no way according to yous that there might actually be a there, there!!!

well, sorry, I don't need an excuse as to why she lost the election, she lost... oh well, when you get to be my age you realize... you win some and you lose some. the world goes on. and what makes this idea even more insane to me is that this election was a choice between frick and frack and neither of them were worth the trip to the polls to vote!!!

and as far as reversing the election, well, sorry, but we are past the midterms, there is not gonna be a reversal of the election with the keys of the kingdom being handed over to hillary. that ain't gonna happen.

but, what I am addressing in this thread is the idea that it was manufactured (with the obama administration, the fbi, the nsa, hillary, with them all working with each other) to influence the election. that makes no sense to me since if they went through all that trouble to conjure up the story, we would have heard much more about before the election and not the "oh, by the way, we've reopened the email investigation" that we heard!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

Don't worry, they're in the midst of overriding the vote of the people as we speak. It's just a very slow coupe.

We've all gotten way off-topic.

I'm actually waiting for Propagandalf's links to who funded the Steele dossier. That seems really pertinent to the topic.

a reply to: dawnstar

Are you in wisconsin, pennsylvania or michigan?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: RazorV66
Trump won on a technicality?....

The technicality of winning the most states and, thus, the most electoral votes. This only seems to be a problem when folks hate the individual who won.

States don't vote.

You are being conned and owned by corporate entities. Your individualism is being invalidated and you call me a leftist!

But you are a leftist, if you believe that a Democracy actually works.

We went with a Republic instead.

Corporate entities have nothing to do with the Electoral College and everything to do with the fact that our Founders knew, through observing history, that a Democracy just doesn't work.

Because in the end, it doesn't represent all the States.

Otherwise, California and New York would just pick our President.

A point lost on someone who can't tell the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

Read my footer.

Some in America (and on ATS) would describe Adolf Hitler as a Communist (well he did lead the Democratic Socialist Party, didn't he?).

So anyway call me a leftist nazi communist fascist if you want. I am really quite 'centrist' but pick and choose the policies I think are best without consideration of party or label.

Actually, Hitler was a Socialist. His enemies at the time he rose to power in Germany were Communists.

And I am not calling you a lefty communist nazi fascist.

I was merely pointing out that you are a Socialist.

Much like Hitler was, ironically...

I'll just quietly leave this here: Man says Nazis were socialist, gets schooled by history writer

a reply to: Dfairlite

no, I am in a state where we all knew how would be the winner before the vote was even cast, which kind of takes all the fun out of it really.

a reply to: dawnstar

ave. stars per post: 1744.86

pretty good

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

Don't worry, they're in the midst of overriding the vote of the people as we speak. It's just a very slow coupe.

We've all gotten way off-topic.

I'm actually waiting for Propagandalf's links to who funded the Steele dossier. That seems really pertinent to the topic.

My comment has everything to do with the OP. The Steele dossier is the lynchpin of the coupe we're seeing.