These Russian money transfers were literally earmarked 'to finance election campaign of 2016'

[Political Junky]

More and more is revealed.

These Russian money transfers were literally earmarked 'to finance election campaign of 2016'

The Russian foreign ministry made dozens of money transfers in 2016 with memo lines that read "to finance election campaign of 2016," BuzzFeed News reports. The FBI is now reportedly investigating those transactions, which make up a large part of more than 60 suspicious transfers that totaled over $380,000 and went to Russia's embassies around the world, including in Afghanistan and Washington, D.C.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and that's how Putin made me flip my vote

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Hillary spent over a $billion$.
How does $380,000 compete with a $billion$ ?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The real interference in the 2016 election was the Dirty Democratic Party's voter fraud.
Democrats voting under multiple names and illegal aliens voting is a violation of the voting rights of millions of American citizens.

 

[Esmeralda]

More and more is revealed.

These Russian money transfers were literally earmarked 'to finance election campaign of 2016'

The Russian foreign ministry made dozens of money transfers in 2016 with memo lines that read "to finance election campaign of 2016," BuzzFeed News reports. The FBI is now reportedly investigating those transactions, which make up a large part of more than 60 suspicious transfers that totaled over $380,000 and went to Russia's embassies around the world, including in Afghanistan and Washington, D.C.

Mueller will get to the bottom of it, if Trump doesn't fire him first.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is illegal to accept Tens of millions from foreign governments in your foundation while you're running for potus

 

[frigidweirdo]

...and that's how Putin made me flip my vote

It's not about making people flip their vote. Many people are undecided, and they're influenced massively by advertising.

We know this because some of the biggest companies in the world, especially ones like McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, KFC etc, use advertising extremely effectively and convince people to buy their stuff. Politics isn't much different.

 

[Defiant1]

...and that's how Putin made me flip my vote

It's not about making people flip their vote. Many people are undecided, and they're influenced massively by advertising.

We know this because some of the biggest companies in the world, especially ones like McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, KFC etc, use advertising extremely effectively and convince people to buy their stuff. Politics isn't much different.

Yes!!!! I was really influenced by those Afghanistan ads.

Did you see them too?

 

[Theowl32]

No wonder the kuuuunt in a pants suit was such a horrific candidate.

 

[Theowl32]

That stupid Esmeralda moron is laughing. Does not know-how to deal with poignant rhetorical questions.

Most annoying and dumbest people on earth are American white liberal women. Nothing comes to close.

Most of them smell too.

 

[TNHarley]

yes we know. It doesnt mean American elections. Your link even says it.
but gawd forbid you retards read and think.

 

[frigidweirdo]

...and that's how Putin made me flip my vote

It's not about making people flip their vote. Many people are undecided, and they're influenced massively by advertising.

We know this because some of the biggest companies in the world, especially ones like McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, KFC etc, use advertising extremely effectively and convince people to buy their stuff. Politics isn't much different.

Yes!!!! I was really influenced by those Afghanistan ads.

Did you see them too?

You might not be, but some people are. That's the point.

 

[Defiant1]

...and that's how Putin made me flip my vote

It's not about making people flip their vote. Many people are undecided, and they're influenced massively by advertising.

We know this because some of the biggest companies in the world, especially ones like McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, KFC etc, use advertising extremely effectively and convince people to buy their stuff. Politics isn't much different.

Yes!!!! I was really influenced by those Afghanistan ads.

Did you see them too?

You might not be, but some people are. That's the point.

So you are against voters having access to information before they go to vote?

 

[frigidweirdo]

...and that's how Putin made me flip my vote

It's not about making people flip their vote. Many people are undecided, and they're influenced massively by advertising.

We know this because some of the biggest companies in the world, especially ones like McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, KFC etc, use advertising extremely effectively and convince people to buy their stuff. Politics isn't much different.

Yes!!!! I was really influenced by those Afghanistan ads.

Did you see them too?

You might not be, but some people are. That's the point.

So you are against voters having access to information before they go to vote?

Not at all. I'm against voters having access to "information" that isn't true or comes through foreign governments.

 

[Defiant1]

...and that's how Putin made me flip my vote

It's not about making people flip their vote. Many people are undecided, and they're influenced massively by advertising.

We know this because some of the biggest companies in the world, especially ones like McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, KFC etc, use advertising extremely effectively and convince people to buy their stuff. Politics isn't much different.

Yes!!!! I was really influenced by those Afghanistan ads.

Did you see them too?

You might not be, but some people are. That's the point.

So you are against voters having access to information before they go to vote?

Not at all. I'm against voters having access to "information" that isn't true or comes through foreign governments.

So you would have censored all of Hillary's ads?

The only ads I saw by foreign entities on American media were made by organizations supporting illegal aliens.
I don't see anyone complaining about that.

What great plan do you have that would suppress a person in a foreign country from posting on the internet?

And how would you suppress voters in this country from accessing posts from outside the country?

 

[dannyboys]

More and more is revealed.

These Russian money transfers were literally earmarked 'to finance election campaign of 2016'

The Russian foreign ministry made dozens of money transfers in 2016 with memo lines that read "to finance election campaign of 2016," BuzzFeed News reports. The FBI is now reportedly investigating those transactions, which make up a large part of more than 60 suspicious transfers that totaled over $380,000 and went to Russia's embassies around the world, including in Afghanistan and Washington, D.C.

From the Buzzfeed report: "It is unclear how the money that was transferred was actually used, or if the "election campaign of 2016" is in fact referencing the U.S. election. "Seven nations had federal elections during the span when the funds were sent — including the Duma, Russia's lower house of Parliament, on Sept. 18, 2016," writes BuzzFeed News. "Russian embassies and diplomatic compounds opened polling stations for voters living abroad."
Dear GOD you are a fucking IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's not about making people flip their vote. Many people are undecided, and they're influenced massively by advertising.

We know this because some of the biggest companies in the world, especially ones like McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, KFC etc, use advertising extremely effectively and convince people to buy their stuff. Politics isn't much different.

Yes!!!! I was really influenced by those Afghanistan ads.

Did you see them too?

You might not be, but some people are. That's the point.

So you are against voters having access to information before they go to vote?

Not at all. I'm against voters having access to "information" that isn't true or comes through foreign governments.

So you would have censored all of Hillary's ads?

The only ads I saw by foreign entities on American media were made by organizations supporting illegal aliens.
I don't see anyone complaining about that.

What great plan do you have that would suppress a person in a foreign country from posting on the internet?

And how would you suppress voters in this country from accessing posts from outside the country?

To be honest, if I were able to control this, I'd change the whole thing to A) include more political parties by B) having proportional representation so people can vote positively and not negatively and I'd limit campaign spending to a certain figure that isn't too high. I'm currently reading a John Grisham book about this very thing, yes, it's fiction, but based on fact.

Basically a large company wants to put in place a right wing judge and the cost of the election spirals for everyone and most of the stuff being targeted at people just isn't true, or half truths etc.

People should be presented with facts and in a manner that is fair, so that people's views and opinions are the thing that is noticed, and not the fake nonsense.

 

[Defiant1]

Yes!!!! I was really influenced by those Afghanistan ads.

Did you see them too?

You might not be, but some people are. That's the point.

So you are against voters having access to information before they go to vote?

Not at all. I'm against voters having access to "information" that isn't true or comes through foreign governments.

So you would have censored all of Hillary's ads?

The only ads I saw by foreign entities on American media were made by organizations supporting illegal aliens.
I don't see anyone complaining about that.

What great plan do you have that would suppress a person in a foreign country from posting on the internet?

And how would you suppress voters in this country from accessing posts from outside the country?

To be honest, if I were able to control this, I'd change the whole thing to A) include more political parties by B) having proportional representation so people can vote positively and not negatively and I'd limit campaign spending to a certain figure that isn't too high. I'm currently reading a John Grisham book about this very thing, yes, it's fiction, but based on fact.

Basically a large company wants to put in place a right wing judge and the cost of the election spirals for everyone and most of the stuff being targeted at people just isn't true, or half truths etc.

People should be presented with facts and in a manner that is fair, so that people's views and opinions are the thing that is noticed, and not the fake nonsense.

What you want isn't American. It isn't freedom.

Do you seriously believe Congress could pass a bill limiting how much a person/candidate can spend of his own money?

Didn't Trump just prove that it isn't just money you need to win?

There is no law now limiting the number of parties, but you would force people to be in a certain party based on "proportions."

Parties are private organizations, no one is forced to be a member of any party. It's a personal, private choice, voters make about their bodies and you want to take it away.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

More and more is revealed.

These Russian money transfers were literally earmarked 'to finance election campaign of 2016'

The Russian foreign ministry made dozens of money transfers in 2016 with memo lines that read "to finance election campaign of 2016," BuzzFeed News reports. The FBI is now reportedly investigating those transactions, which make up a large part of more than 60 suspicious transfers that totaled over $380,000 and went to Russia's embassies around the world, including in Afghanistan and Washington, D.C.

The left out the word "Clinton" on the transfers? How rude and inconsiderate can they be?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You might not be, but some people are. That's the point.

So you are against voters having access to information before they go to vote?

Not at all. I'm against voters having access to "information" that isn't true or comes through foreign governments.

So you would have censored all of Hillary's ads?

The only ads I saw by foreign entities on American media were made by organizations supporting illegal aliens.
I don't see anyone complaining about that.

What great plan do you have that would suppress a person in a foreign country from posting on the internet?

And how would you suppress voters in this country from accessing posts from outside the country?

To be honest, if I were able to control this, I'd change the whole thing to A) include more political parties by B) having proportional representation so people can vote positively and not negatively and I'd limit campaign spending to a certain figure that isn't too high. I'm currently reading a John Grisham book about this very thing, yes, it's fiction, but based on fact.

Basically a large company wants to put in place a right wing judge and the cost of the election spirals for everyone and most of the stuff being targeted at people just isn't true, or half truths etc.

People should be presented with facts and in a manner that is fair, so that people's views and opinions are the thing that is noticed, and not the fake nonsense.

What you want isn't American. It isn't freedom.

Do you seriously believe Congress could pass a bill limiting how much a person/candidate can spend of his own money?

Didn't Trump just prove that it isn't just money you need to win?

There is no law now limiting the number of parties, but you would force people to be in a certain party based on "proportions."

Parties are private organizations, no one is forced to be a member of any party. It's a personal, private choice, voters make about their bodies and you want to take it away.

Ah, freedom to buy people, freedom to be bought.

I'm sorry, but I don't see politicians taking a shit load of money from big business to represent big business instead of the people they were elected to represent as freedom. I'm sorry you do.

Yes, I believe, if Congress weren't a partisan cesspool of evil, that it could limit the amount of money spent.

Let's have a look at some figures to show how fucking crazy the USA is.

Party finance in Germany - Wikipedia

The CDU, the "winning" party in the German Federal elections in September spent about 200 million Euros in an election year. That's about $236 million. This include money for staff wages, everything, basically the campaigning would cost about $100 million for the whole country for the major parties in German for an election year.

Key Senate race now the most expensive ever as outside money pours in

"Candidate committees and independent groups have spent more than $113 million on the Senate race in the key state of Pennsylvania,"

So, about the same amount of money was spent by the major party in Germany, as the two main candidates in ONE SENATE RACE in the USA.

Come on, why is so much money being spent?

In the US they had to report the money that was coming in, and report what was spent. The rich didn't like this, so they made super PACs, basically a way of funneling money into the system so that bribery looks like legitimate campaign financing.

There are ways of limiting campaign financing, for example banning TV ads. Giving each candidate TV time to make their points.

Things can be done, but when the Supreme Court basically opened up campaign financing to the rich and wealthy, it's all gone shit up the wall in the US.

No, there's no law limiting the number of political parties in the US. I didn't say there was. There is, however, law that DOES LIMIT political parties.

Again, back to Germany.

Germany votes FPTP like the US does, AND it also votes PR on the same day for the same political parties.

FPTP is negative voting. People will often vote for someone to stop someone else getting in power. It benefits the major parties basically.

To prove this. German federal election, 2017 - Wikipedia

The CDU/CSU gained 37.2% of the votes in FPTP. They gained 231 seats out of 299 seats. Yeah, they only had 37.2% of the vote but gained 77% of the seats.

It's not a fair system.

The SPD, the other main party gained 24.6% of the vote and 59 seats.

Now, in PR where there's positive voting the CDU/CSU gained 33% of the vote. So, 4.2% of people in German who voted decided to vote for the CDU under negative voting, but then decided to switch their vote to a smaller party for positive voting.

The SPD gained 20.5% and saw 4.1% of people go and vote for smaller parties. That's 8.3% of people (down from about 10% the previous election) decided to switch their votes. That's more than 4 million people who decided they needed to vote negatively in one race, and positively in another.

The FDP gained zero seats in the FPTP, though they had 3.2 million people vote for them. However they gained 80 seats with PR because 5 million people voted for them.

Do you see the problems here.

In the US the FDP would not be a viable party because they couldn't get any seats because they don't have enough support within a localized area. But nationwide they had 10.7% support. So you can imagine in the US that 10.7% of people are effectively disenfranchised because their party can't gain enough votes in a single area to get them into parliament. So people don't vote for them. They vote Republican or Democrat depending on who they DON'T want to get in.

The system has this massive impact on how people vote.