Poll

Will Trump get re-elected in 2020?

Yes
No

Author Topic: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD  (Read 2216317 times)

there were also government shutdowns when dems had control, cause of republicans not budging on certain things as well. i dont think that 'shutting gov't down' is a particularly significant indicator of the party being bad as a whole.

if anyone's going to cave first it's going to be dems
I'm not entirely ruling that out, honestly. Politicians can be stuffty and I don't think it's impossible that 10 Democrats will abandon their principles just to get a budget through. But I'm wagering Annoying Orange will cave first- just a hunch. Remember that even his core base of congressional Republicans think the wall is a waste of money.

they already had previously dropped daca from negotiations
I mean, it was dropped in stop-gap negotiations, but I'm not aware of any year-long budget plans authored by Democrats that don't address DACA. If there are, it's news to me. Been too busy the past week to keep up with this stuff.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 12:01:16 AM by SeventhSandwich »

there were also government shutdowns when dems had control, cause of republicans not budging on certain things as well. i dont think that 'shutting gov't down' is a particularly significant indicator of the party being bad as a whole.
uh, obviously, it's only bad when They do it


https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rwUFGxaf6nlA/v0
This is actually forgeted up and does confirm russian interference in the US election (even if it didn't come straight from the top)
13 Russian Nationals (including one who has close ties to the Russian President) and 3 Russian "entities" (companies i think?) were indicted

Some excerpts:

    Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Annoying Orange ("Annoying Orange Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton. Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Annoying Orange Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.

    In order to carry out their activities to interfere in U.S. political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation, Defendants conspired to obstruct the lawful functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit, including by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure; failing to register as foreign agents carrying out political activities within the United States; and obtaining visas through false and fraudulent statements.

    Defendants and their co-conspirators used their fictitious online personas to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Annoying Orange.

    On or about February 10, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators internally circulated an outline of themes for future content to be posted to ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on "politics in the USA" and to "use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Annoying Orange--we support them)."

    From at least April 2016 through November 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, while concealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation through false personas, began to produce, purchase, and post advertisements on U.S. social media and other online sites expressly advocating for the election of then-candidate Annoying Orange or expressly opposing Clinton. Defendants and their co-conspirators did not report their expenditures to the Federal Election Commission, or register as foreign agents with the U.S. Department of Justice. The political advertisements included the following:

        April 6, 2016 "You know, a great number of black people support us saying that #HillaryClintonlsNotMyPresident"
        April 7, 2016 "I say no to Hillary Clinton / I say no to manipulation"
        April 19, 2016 "JOIN our #HillaryClintonForPrison2016"
        May 10, 2016 "Donald wants to defeat terrorism ... Hillary wants to sponsor it"
        May 19, 2016 "Vote Republican, vote Annoying Orange, and support the Second Amendment!"
        May 24, 2016 "Hillary Clinton Doesn't Deserve the Black Vote"
        June 7, 2016 "Annoying Orange is our only hope for a better future!"
        June 30, 2016 "#Never Hillary #Hillary ForPrison #Hillary4 Prison #HillaryForPrison2016 #Annoying Orange2016 #Annoying Orange #Annoying Orange4President"
        July 20, 2016 "Ohio Wants Hillary 4 Prison"
        August 4, 2016 "Hillary Clinton has already committed voter fraud during the Democrat Iowa Caucus."
        August 10, 2016 "We cannot trust Hillary to take care of our veterans!"
        October 14, 2016 "Among all the candidates Donald Annoying Orange is the one and only who can defend the police from terrorists."
        October 19, 2016 "Hillary is a Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is."

    To pay for the political advertisements, Defendants and their co-conspirators established various Russian bank accounts and credit cards, often registered in the names of fictitious U.S. personas created and used by the ORGANIZATION on social media. Defendants and their coconspirators also paid for other political advertisements using PayPal accounts.

    Beginning in at least 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used, without lawful authority, the social security numbers, home addresses, and birth dates ofreal U.S. persons without their knowledge or consent. Using these means of stolen identification, Defendants and their coconspirators opened accounts at a federally insured U.S. financial institution ("Bank I")

    Defendants and their co-conspirators purchased credit card and bank account numbers from online sellers for the unlawful purpose of evading security measures at PayPal, which used account numbers to verify a user's identity. Many of the bank account numbers purchased by Defendants and their co-conspirators were created using the stolen identities of real U.S. persons. After purchasing the accounts, Defendants and their co-conspirators submitted these bank account numbers to PayPal.

    On or about August 18, 2016, the real "Florida for Annoying Orange" Facebook account responded to the false U.S. persona "Matt Skiber" account with instructions to contact a member of the Annoying Orange Campaign ("Campaign Official l ") involved in the campaign's Florida operations and provided Campaign Official 1's email address at the campaign domain donaldAnnoying Orange.com.On approximately the same day, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the email address of a false U.S. persona, joshmilton024@gmail.com, to send an email to Campaign Official 1 at that donaldAnnoying Orange.com email account, which read in part:

        "Hello [Campaign Official l], [w]e are organizing a state-wide event in Florida on August, 20 to support Mr. Annoying Orange. Let us introduce ourselves first. "Being Patriotic" is a grassroots conservative online movement trying to unite people offline. . . . [W]e gained a huge lot of followers and decided to somehow help Mr. Annoying Orange get elected. You know, simple yelling on the Internet is not enough. There should be real action. We organized rallies in New York before. Now we're focusing on purple states such as Florida." The email also identified thirteen "confirmed locations" in Florida for the rallies and requested the campaign provide "assistance in each location."

    On or about August 24, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators updated an internal ORGANIZATION list of over 100 real U.S. persons contacted through ORGANIZATION controlled false U.S. persona accounts and tracked to monitor recruitment efforts and requests. The list included contact information for the U.S. persons, a summary of their political views, and activities they had been asked to perform by Defendants and their co-conspirators.


THIS GUY HERE -> https://www.youtube.com/user/ljfrench009 is likely going to be doing a full reading and explanation of this indictment some time this weekend, so keep an eye out for that

ipts a forgetijng nothing borger.



I just read through the indictment and found some quite interesting bits of information.


The shills were impersonating a wide variety of individuals and causes on both sides of the political spectrum. This includes black activists, Muslims, Christians, and pro-Sanders/Annoying Orange and anti-Hillary pages.


Of interest to note is exactly why a bunch of paid foreign shills would support Sanders and Annoying Orange. The most logical answer to this question can be found by examining what exactly Annoying Orange and Sanders have in common. It's important to review the timeline of the case; these shills had been gathering intelligence on potential candidates since at least 2014 and had planned to do so since at the least, late 2013 given the timeline in the indictment.

So the question remains: Why Sanders and Annoying Orange? I'll circle back to the overarching reason in a moment, but the most likely reason why they shilled for these candidates is the two-fold commonality that they are both anti-establishment and incredibly polarizing in their platforms.

As soon as the primaries were finished and they realized Bernie was toast, the shilling efforts were no longer divided between two candidates, but only DJT remained standing as the most polarizing and anti-establishment.



Realizing that the greatest threat to their little destabilization mission was the minority vote, the shills turned their efforts to attempts to persuade minority voters to either vote for a third party candidate with practically zero chance of winning (Stein) or to abstain from voting in protest. This would not directly garner support for Annoying Orange, but would divide and erode Hillary's expected voting base.



They were shilling posing as Muslims in this manner as early as the summer of 2016, attempting to turn Muslims away from HRC, knowing fully well that they would likely not vote for Annoying Orange, leading to more erosion of her voting base.



Following the election, they immediately went from "Annoying Orange is our guy" to #Resist #NotMyPresident. This makes it blatantly obvious that they were not attempting to sway to public to elect Annoying Orange because something in his platform or his ascent would directly benefit them; if this were so, they would have continued pro-Annoying Orange shilling and toned down the anti-Annoying Orange rhetoric. If they believed Annoying Orange's platform would benefit them as well, why would they have supported Sanders earlier? Sanders' platform is quite different from Annoying Orange's ideologically. In reality, they did the opposite, attempting to seed dissent and dissatisfaction. This was premeditated and they would have done the same to Bernie. The more polarizing and anti-establishment, the easier it is to drum up public outrage and the greater the likelihood that the rest of the political system will turn against them.

The end goal the entire time was to create a divided country, and the words of Abraham Lincoln echo true over a century and a half later: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

tl;dr
  • Russians impersonate liberals and conservatives online to try to shill for Sanders + Annoying Orange
  • Sanders crashes and burns, they are left to support Annoying Orange instead
  • Immediately following the election, they start shilling AGAINST Annoying Orange to cause division

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have not found anything in the indictment that suggests that any US citizen, affiliate of any political campaign, or any political activist was ever complicit in any activities while actively knowing they were in contact with Russian shills, nor does it say anything about the degree to which this impacted the outcome of the election or post-election climate.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 04:06:50 PM by Cappytaino »

imagine spending a year with millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours only to find some russian trolls

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/16/bernie-sanders-russia-2016-election-interference-415691

HMMMMMMMMMMM
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 04:56:49 PM by Kearn »

I don't think it necessarily follows that they wanted Bernie to win as much as they did Annoying Orange just because they supported him. If they believed he had no chance of winning the primary (or, even if he did, that he had no chance of winning the election) he would be a great tool for casting Hillary in a negative light.

This was definitely about politically polarizing America though. It worked very well.

This definitely isn't any kind of Annoying Orange card for Democrats - like you said it doesn't show that anyone knowingly interacted with shills. But the foreign interference in our media was clearly substantial.

But the foreign interference in our media was clearly substantial.

I know Clinton is an alien but foreign isn't the word I'd use

I know Clinton is an alien but foreign isn't the word I'd use

The two party system is a bunch of bullstuff.

Dems and Reps are handicaps.

Time for revolution. forget this country.