• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Putin is a happy camper

veritas1 said:
She had an unsecured server that was compromised. She deleted emails and had devices purposely destroyed. She was careless and then obstructed the investigation of her carelessness. She should be kissing Comey's picture nightly.
Click to expand...

Debunked


Vox:
The FBI expressly says that there’s no proof that any attempted hack on Hillary Clinton’s personal email account was successful.
Click to expand...
Clinton, in other words, wasn’t a technocratic and savvy manipulator of State Department email protocol who gamed the system for her own good. She barely understood what the protocol was.
Click to expand...

Nor does Trump, but no one is hollering conspiracy theories about him.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/spinning-the-fbi-letter/

Trump said “Hillary bleached and deleted 33,000 e-mails after receiving a congressional subpoena.”

Trump is referring to 31,830 emails that Clinton’s lawyers had deemed personal. These emails did not have to be turned over to the State Department, which in the summer of 2014 requested all work-related emails that the former secretary of state had in her possession. (See “A Guide to Clinton’s Emails.”)

The department’s policy allows its employees to determine which emails are work-related and must be preserved. “Messages that are not records may be deleted when no longer needed,” according to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual (5 FAM 443.5). (See “Trump on the Stump.“)

That means Clinton was within her right to delete these emails, so that’s the first thing to know.
Click to expand...


Trump insinuates that there is something sinister about owning several mobile devices and destroying the old ones when they are replaced. But the FBI came to no such conclusion, and security experts interviewed by the technology website Wired said destroying old devices is a good way to erase data — if done properly.
Click to expand...

Wired, Sept. 7: Whether you’re a Secretary of State with a phone full of classified documents or an average sext-sending citizen, data removal is a crucial security step before you let a device leave your control or recycle it. And security experts agree there’s at least one surefire way to be certain that data is truly removed and unrecoverable: kill the hardware.
Click to expand...

If anything, Wired said, Clinton’s aides “should have wrecked them more thoroughly” than they did. The website said her staff should have used a “jackhammer” instead of a hammer, to ensure that data was destroyed and not just the mobile device.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
The facts, as you conveniently imagine you are clinging to, do not bear out the position you are taking, that is why nance does not take them.


Remember, he is a Republican.


Hillary directed her server manager to delete the personal emails long before a subpoena was issued. Your point is moot. Given that you got that one wrong, I can assume the rest of your comments is wrong, as well.

There is no evidence of classified emails. None of the emails the FBI examined were marked top secret. 3 were marked with a C, meaning confidential, and it was determined, I believe, those were in error. Even if they were not, no prosecutor is going to take on a high stakes prosecution on 3 out of 30,000 emails marked with a lowly confidential marking. At best, a public admonishment would the the appropriate action.
Yes, Comey asserted there were 100 emails that contained confidential information, but because the senders of those emails did not agree with him, and did not so mark them, his position constitutions an opinion, which means, in a court of law, opposing counsel will rip it to shreds. This is why no prosecutor is willing to affix his or her john hancock to an indictment of Hillary.

the right is given to unbelievable hysterics over scant evidence, as are you.
Click to expand...

I specifically stated it was the DNC server that was supposedly hacked.

Why, if we are to be accusing Russia of an action that could potentially lead to a declaration of war, would the FBI itself fail to forensically test the DNC SERVER that they tell us was hacked by the Russians?

Retired federal cyber investigator experts inform us that this was impossible at that time to hack, to download information at the speeds necessarily to be performed over communication lines and therefore must have been someone on the inside downloading to a USB flash drive.

Why would the FBI rely on Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm outside of the government, a firm hired by the DNC, to do the work that the FBI, especially if obtaining evidence for, at minimum, a criminal referral for prosecution, would have to be doing? This was a national security breach.

As regards the fat ladys emails, you are just flat out WRONG.

"The FBI investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information."

FBI investigation undermines Clinton email defense | PolitiFact
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I specifically stated it was the DNC server that was supposedly hacked.

Why, if we are to be accusing Russia of an action that could potentially lead to a declaration of war, would the FBI itself fail to forensically test the DNC SERVER that they tell us was hacked by the Russians?
Click to expand...
The FBI has concluded that, though an attempt to hack Hillary's server was made ( by someoneo called "Tor), whether the hack was successful is inconclusive.
Retired federal cyber investigator experts inform us that this was impossible at that time to hack, to download information at the speeds necessarily to be performed over communication lines and therefore must have been someone on the inside downloading to a USB flash drive.
Click to expand...
Debunked.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...ut-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong
Why would the FBI rely on Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm outside of the government, a firm hired by the DNC, to do the work that the FBI, especially if obtaining evidence for, at minimum, a criminal referral for prosecution, would have to be doing? This was a national security breach.

As regards the fat ladys emails, you are just flat out WRONG.

"The FBI investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information."
Click to expand...
Comey said only 3 were marked with the C, meaning confidential, the lowest level. So, the emails in question, apparently the senders of the emails disagreed with Comey's opinion, and that's what we are left with, Comey's opinion, noting that he was under tremendous pressure, so he had to have something for the right wing jackals shouting "lock her up", and Nunes, Jordan, and their ilk, so this was a political bone tossed to them.
FBI investigation undermines Clinton email defense | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

Yes, your link says

Importantly, Comey noted that "a very small number" of these emails contained classification markings,
Click to expand...

That very small number is 3. Out of 30,000 emails, one does not prosecute on 3, or Comey's opinion which was more of a bone toss to the right wing jackals to get them off of his back ( but they went after him anyway, as it turns out). Classifying information is often overdone, anyway, it's not an exact science, and no prosecutor is going to affix his or her name to an indictment charge, solely on this.

That's the bottom line.
 
OscarLevant said:
The FBI has concluded that, though an attempt to hack Hillary's server was made ( by someoneo called "Tor), whether the hack was successful is inconclusive.

Debunked.
Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong | TheHill

Comey said only 3 were marked with the C, meaning confidential, the lowest level. So, the emails in question, apparently the senders of the emails disagreed with Comey's opinion, and that's what we are left with, Comey's opinion, noting that he was under tremendous pressure, so he had to have something for the right wing jackals shouting "lock her up", and Nunes, Jordan, and their ilk, so this was a political bone tossed to them.


Yes, your link says



That very small number is 3. Out of 30,000 emails, one does not prosecute on 3, or Comey's opinion which was more of a bone toss to the right wing jackals to get them off of his back ( but they went after him anyway, as it turns out). Classifying information is often overdone, anyway, it's not an exact science, and no prosecutor is going to affix his or her name to an indictment charge, solely on this.

That's the bottom line.
Click to expand...

First, again, you keep trying to push the fat lady's illegal server which she hid, lied about and which was so insecure that almost certainly it was hacked by several sources. Certainly if they were actually intelligent foreign "intelligence" entities.

Fat lady was definitely using it for her work product, sending and recieiving classified information. Stands to reason the Secy of State would have to be if she were not using a government secured server. A national security breach. Whether it was 3 or 3000. Secondly, if she were going by the law none of this would even be a question mark.

Hillary created her own problems by intentionally establishing a server outside the secure government system.

Debunked isnt "probably wrong", as it says in your source, if debunked it means it IS wrong.

The FBI SHOULD HAVE FORENSICALLY EXAMINED THE DNC SERVER AS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY. We had a corrupt FBI and DOJ that was out to protect the DNC and the fat lady, let her off the hook. Meanwhile they were trying to sink the Trump campaign and has, since he won, continued to attack and undermine his administration.

The obvious take from all this is that they, our supposedly impartial law nforcement and national securty experts protecting us from foreign and domestic threats, fortunately for us are all comically bumbling idiots. They had all the modern intelligence and counterintel tools of obfuscation, recreation, data collection and manipulation and they screwed it all up.

This laughable investigation of the fat lady and her illegal server, transgressions re: classified materials, destruction of evidence and how the investigation was a kid gloves joke and most certainly not equal justice when compared to the bare knucles punching (every slip of the tongue prosecuted), raiding homes, offices guns drawn, overiding confidentiality of attorney client privilege in an effort to smear, prosecute and coerce...

The contrast IS stark.

Bottom line is Hillary broke SO MANY LAWS, that its like the hungry mosquito hovering over the jammed packed full nudist colony...where does one even decide to start?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I specifically stated it was the DNC server that was supposedly hacked.

Why, if we are to be accusing Russia of an action that could potentially lead to a declaration of war, would the FBI itself fail to forensically test the DNC SERVER that they tell us was hacked by the Russians?

Retired federal cyber investigator experts inform us that this was impossible at that time to hack, to download information at the speeds necessarily to be performed over communication lines and therefore must have been someone on the inside downloading to a USB flash drive.

Why would the FBI rely on Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm outside of the government, a firm hired by the DNC, to do the work that the FBI, especially if obtaining evidence for, at minimum, a criminal referral for prosecution, would have to be doing? This was a national security breach.

As regards the fat ladys emails, you are just flat out WRONG.

"The FBI investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information."

FBI investigation undermines Clinton email defense | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

"Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the relevant authorities—the National Security Agency, the Justice Department (via the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and the Central Intelligence Agency—leave these new findings without reply. Not credibly, in any case. Forensic investigators, prominent among them people with decades’ experience at high levels in these very institutions, have put a body of evidence on a table previously left empty. Silence now, should it ensue, cannot be written down as an admission of duplicity, but it will come very close to one."

There is one very good reason why silence now might ensue. There is no reason to believe that if this was a leak and an inside job that it was not conducted by Russian Intelligence. There is also no reason to believe that US Intelligence and Investigative agencies would just tell us what they are doing. I would not expect my US Investigation and Intelligence resources to respond to such a claim regardless of the source, ex agents or otherwise. US Intelligence might very well want those responsible for said possible leak to think they are way off the trail.

This constant never ending conspiracy inside US Intelligence nonsense is just ridiculous. You could make the case that Trump would know if said investigation was ongoing in the manner I am suggesting here and I could just as easily claim that the lying sack would not cease and desist his endless claims of foul in the hacked email investigation even if he knew better for no other reason than it suits him to do so.
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
"Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the relevant authorities—the National Security Agency, the Justice Department (via the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and the Central Intelligence Agency—leave these new findings without reply. Not credibly, in any case. Forensic investigators, prominent among them people with decades’ experience at high levels in these very institutions, have put a body of evidence on a table previously left empty. Silence now, should it ensue, cannot be written down as an admission of duplicity, but it will come very close to one."

There is one very good reason why silence now might ensue. There is no reason to believe that if this was a leak and an inside job that it was not conducted by Russian Intelligence. There is also no reason to believe that US Intelligence and Investigative agencies would just tell us what they are doing. I would not expect my US Investigation and Intelligence resources to respond to such a claim regardless of the source, ex agents or otherwise. US Intelligence might very well want those responsible for said possible leak to think they are way off the trail.

This constant never ending conspiracy nonsense is just ridiculous. You could make the case that Trump would know if said investigation was ongoing in the manner I am suggesting here and I could just as easily claim that the lying sack would not cease and desist his endless claims of foul in the hacked email investigation even if he knew better for no other reason than it suits him to do so.
Click to expand...

But you see...

It wasnt Trump hacking, it wasnt Trump rigging the Democratic nomination, it wasnt Trump slipping nationally televised debate Questions to the fat lady ahead of time, wasnt Trump establishing an illegal server, wasnt Trump trying to hide his Clinton Foundation pay-for -play corruption, wasnt Trump destroying emails under subpoena, wasnt Trump breaking Freedom of Information Act or National Security laws, thousands of times...the list is nearly infinite it seems as you can just keep going and going...

That was ALL the fat lady and the DNC. Yano?
 
Exquisitor said:
You stupid dumass voters who think you can hop up to a Candidate of the Party that just wrecked us because you can see nothing but crap and your brainwashed incubus tube!
Click to expand...

Calling people dumassses when you can't put together a coherent sentence is rather hilarious.
 
Why is Putin live rent free in so many heads? We need to keep our friends close and our enemies closer. It is as simple as that. What is the alternative?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
But you see...

It wasnt Trump hacking, it wasnt Trump rigging the Democratic nomination, it wasnt Trump slipping nationally televised debate Questions to the fat lady ahead of time, wasnt Trump establishing an illegal server, wasnt Trump trying to hide his Clinton Foundation pay-for -play corruption, wasnt Trump destroying emails under subpoena, wasnt Trump breaking Freedom of Information Act or National Security laws, thousands of times...the list is nearly infinite it seems as you can just keep going and going...

That was ALL the fat lady and the DNC. Yano?
Click to expand...

In the first place, HRC did not need any complicated plot and co-conspirator Russians to win the Democratic nomination. She had the willing compliance of the Dem Party which was flat broke going into 2016 and was floating on a pillow of Clinton money. Why would she pay for the nomination and then conspire with anybody to win what she had already bought. If she had co-conspirator Russians up her sleeve, given the closeness of the actual election results there would be a Clinton in the WH again right now.
 
jnug said:
In the first place, HRC did not need any complicated plot and co-conspirator Russians to win the Democratic nomination. She had the willing compliance of the Dem Party which was flat broke going into 2016 and was floating on a pillow of Clinton money. If she had co-conspirator Russians up her sleeve, given the closeness of the actual election results there would be a Clinton in the WH again right now.
Click to expand...

or, with all the help...
 
Lovebug said:
or, with all the help...
Click to expand...

One of the things that floors me about the Right, alt-right whatever is that they think we give a rats behind about HRC and the entire Clinton crowd. I could care less. If the government has a case against her make it or shut up! At some point Trump should realize that stridency does not make much sense to anybody not drinking the kool-aid.

We willingly will adjudge charlatans from the left and call them out as charlatans. The Right just thumps along willing to swallow any pack of lies or swill Trump meets out because they have a single ideological purpose and that is all they care about. Does not matter how much damage Trump does, does not even matter that their ideological intent is cockeyed, cement headed nonsense. Does not even matter how unbelievably treacherous and disrespectful Trump is to the actual flag Trump claims to honor in his stupid NFL dispute.
 
jnug said:
In the first place, HRC did not need any complicated plot and co-conspirator Russians to win the Democratic nomination. She had the willing compliance of the Dem Party which was flat broke going into 2016 and was floating on a pillow of Clinton money. Why would she pay for the nomination and then conspire with anybody to win what she had already bought. If she had co-conspirator Russians up her sleeve, given the closeness of the actual election results there would be a Clinton in the WH again right now.
Click to expand...

But you see...

Even after the fat lady buying her nomination (amazing how she was so flush with money being bankrupt upon getting moved out of public housing in 2001 ), she had, undeniable by the intellectually astute political observer, done all these bad things...

Now fair and square, had it ever been so, she very well mightve beaten Bernie... but she, they, couldnt chance it. Unlike Bill, she wasnt liked, much less adored. People had to be forced into the fat ladys camp. So...

Nothing could be left to chance. More than the hated Nixon, who cannot be forgiven Watergate as he had that election in the bag. The fat lady was only initially made to seem, with influence polls and media at her back pushing her glorious feet foward even when, ie, 9 11 2016, she literally fell flat on her face... that she was destined to win.

They could leave nothing to chance. Unfortunately, for the establishment anyhow, they had promoted those loyal to the artificially royal, they had become soft. Had appointed the true do their bidding but not so bright types to power positions... smooth talking, high esteem, low wattage leaders in the critical areas... but where actual brainpower was necessary.

The only ones in the entire crew on that side with any brains were BJ and slenderman. But they couldnt be everywhere and besides, they didnt know how to play anything but the old style political games. Had no idea, nobody does, how to properly combat a Trump type.

He wasnt playing by their rules... mainly because he wanted to win. That was not in the cards, not if playing by their rules.

For the Russian hoax to be plausible you would have to believe the Russians pitting a piddling amount into placing some facebook and other extraneous marketing movement... drop in the bucket negligible. That and believe they put all the rest of their eggs, from way way back before he ever declared, into the Trump basket.

In my best Dr. Gorka immitation, thats lahhffable.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
But you see...

Even after the fat lady buying her nomination (amazing how she was so flush with money being bankrupt upon getting moved out of public housing in 2001 ), she had, undeniable by the intellectually astute political observer, done all these bad things...

Now fair and square, had it ever been so, she very well mightve beaten Bernie... but she, they, couldnt chance it. Unlike Bill, she wasnt liked, much less adored. People had to be forced into the fat ladys camp. So...

Nothing could be left to chance. More than the hated Nixon, who cannot be forgiven Watergate as he had that election in the bag. The fat lady was only initially made to seem, with influence polls and media at her back pushing her glorious feet foward even when, ie, 9 11 2016, she literally fell flat on her face... that she was destined to win.

They could leave nothing to chance. Unfortunately, for the establishment anyhow, they had promoted those loyal to the artificially royal, they had become soft. Had appointed the true do their bidding but not so bright types to power positions... smooth talking, high esteem, low wattage leaders in the critical areas... but where actual brainpower was necessary.

The only ones in the entire crew on that side with any brains were BJ and slenderman. But they couldnt be everywhere and besides, they didnt know how to play anything but the old style political games. Had no idea, nobody does, how to properly combat a Trump type.

He wasnt playing by their rules... mainly because he wanted to win. That was not in the cards, not if playing by their rules.

For the Russian hoax to be plausible you would have to believe the Russians pitting a piddling amount into placing some facebook and other extraneous marketing movement... drop in the bucket negligible. That and believe they put all the rest of their eggs, from way way back before he ever declared, into the Trump basket.

In my best Dr. Gorka immitation, thats lahhffable.
Click to expand...

Ifl that means that Trump broke the law in order to win the election, Hallelujah and I agree . You seem to have admitted that possibility. Lock him up then. What else can we do?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You assumed wrong. Your bad, not mine.
Click to expand...

"Not playing by the rules" certainly can mean breaking the law. What "rules" are you talking about if not the law? The rules about running a candidacy for President are called election laws as far as I know. Perhaps Trump thinks laws are meant to be broken? He has acted that way his whole life why would he stop now? Trump university is also an example of not playing by the rules. None of his "instructors" were even accredited teachers and he paid $25 million in settlements to avoid trial when his "students" sued him.. Apparently he didn't "know" that a "University" cannot just take peoples money and give nothing in return.
 
Last edited:
Gaugingcatenate said:
First, again, you keep trying to push the fat lady's illegal server which she hid, lied about and which was so insecure that almost certainly it was hacked by several sources. Certainly if they were actually intelligent foreign "intelligence" entities.

Fat lady was definitely using it for her work product, sending and recieiving classified information. Stands to reason the Secy of State would have to be if she were not using a government secured server. A national security breach. Whether it was 3 or 3000. Secondly, if she were going by the law none of this would even be a question mark.

Hillary created her own problems by intentionally establishing a server outside the secure government system.

Debunked isnt "probably wrong", as it says in your source, if debunked it means it IS wrong.

The FBI SHOULD HAVE FORENSICALLY EXAMINED THE DNC SERVER AS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY. We had a corrupt FBI and DOJ that was out to protect the DNC and the fat lady, let her off the hook. Meanwhile they were trying to sink the Trump campaign and has, since he won, continued to attack and undermine his administration.

The obvious take from all this is that they, our supposedly impartial law nforcement and national securty experts protecting us from foreign and domestic threats, fortunately for us are all comically bumbling idiots. They had all the modern intelligence and counterintel tools of obfuscation, recreation, data collection and manipulation and they screwed it all up.

This laughable investigation of the fat lady and her illegal server, transgressions re: classified materials, destruction of evidence and how the investigation was a kid gloves joke and most certainly not equal justice when compared to the bare knucles punching (every slip of the tongue prosecuted), raiding homes, offices guns drawn, overiding confidentiality of attorney client privilege in an effort to smear, prosecute and coerce...

The contrast IS stark.

Bottom line is Hillary broke SO MANY LAWS, that its like the hungry mosquito hovering over the jammed packed full nudist colony...where does one even decide to start?
Click to expand...

But nothing that rises to a level in a high-stakes case where a prosecutor would be willing to put his or her name to an indictment charge and that's the bottom line.

So none of it really matters. There are bigger fish to fry like the president of the United States who is a threat to National Security.
 
iguanaman said:
"Not playing by the rules" certainly can mean breaking the law. What "rules" are you talking about if not the law? The rules about running a candidacy for President are called election laws as far as I know. Perhaps Trump thinks laws are meant to be broken? He has acted that way his whole life why would he stop now? Trump university is also an example of not playing by the rules. None of his "instructors" were even accredited teachers and he paid $25 million in settlements to avoid trial when his "students" sued him.. Apparently he didn't "know" that a "University" cannot just take peoples money and give nothing in return.
Click to expand...

Listen man, you hate Trump...that is all that truly matters to you.

You wont be convinced by facts... or by a comparison to the fat ladys mountain of sins (known crimes). It could be proven scientifcally that he was the reincarnation of George Washington and youd still want to tar and feather, run him out of town on a rail.

We laugh, its all there really is that one can do...but you folks sure get annoying.
 
OscarLevant said:
But nothing that rises to a level in a high-stakes case where a prosecutor would be willing to put his or her name to an indictment charge and that's the bottom line.

So none of it really matters. There are bigger fish to fry like the president of the United States who is a threat to National Security.
Click to expand...

Bull Schiff.

McCabe, no doubt, for an exchange of power, money, position (he thought she d win), and same with Comey, will be indicted. Lynch might wriggle out, but her reputation is destroyed. Strzok and Page will surely see some pen time. We still have to get into who at state department were the conduits on the dossier, coordination of the Downer papaD "initiation" of the counterintel operation. Samatha Power and Rice unmasking so many Americans? Why? Clapper and Brennan are going down too, the bungling fools.

So many going down from the "scandal free" misadministration.

HillBillary are too big not to jail.., slenderman...once all those many others start flopping like fish out of water, hooked and in the boat, he may not slither off the hook either.

Two former presidents in orange jumpsuits will sell a lot of copy..,
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
But you see...

Even after the fat lady buying her nomination (amazing how she was so flush with money being bankrupt upon getting moved out of public housing in 2001 ), she had, undeniable by the intellectually astute political observer, done all these bad things...

Now fair and square, had it ever been so, she very well mightve beaten Bernie... but she, they, couldnt chance it. Unlike Bill, she wasnt liked, much less adored. People had to be forced into the fat ladys camp. So...

Nothing could be left to chance. More than the hated Nixon, who cannot be forgiven Watergate as he had that election in the bag. The fat lady was only initially made to seem, with influence polls and media at her back pushing her glorious feet foward even when, ie, 9 11 2016, she literally fell flat on her face... that she was destined to win.

They could leave nothing to chance. Unfortunately, for the establishment anyhow, they had promoted those loyal to the artificially royal, they had become soft. Had appointed the true do their bidding but not so bright types to power positions... smooth talking, high esteem, low wattage leaders in the critical areas... but where actual brainpower was necessary.

The only ones in the entire crew on that side with any brains were BJ and slenderman. But they couldnt be everywhere and besides, they didnt know how to play anything but the old style political games. Had no idea, nobody does, how to properly combat a Trump type.

He wasnt playing by their rules... mainly because he wanted to win. That was not in the cards, not if playing by their rules.

For the Russian hoax to be plausible you would have to believe the Russians pitting a piddling amount into placing some facebook and other extraneous marketing movement... drop in the bucket negligible. That and believe they put all the rest of their eggs, from way way back before he ever declared, into the Trump basket.

In my best Dr. Gorka immitation, thats lahhffable.
Click to expand...

The SuperDeligate system meant nothing in that nominating process was left to chance. You are groping. As for Trump's constant yammering like I said, they should put up or shut up. Either indict it and have at it or he should shut up about it.

Actually for my part I would rather Trump keep yammering on about it. That sort of stridency makes him a perfect fit for his following. When will the drool start to form at the corner of his mouth? Can't be long now.
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
The SuperDeligate system meant nothing in that nominating process was left to chance. You are groping. As for Trump's constant yammering like I said, they should put up or shut up. Either indict it and have at it or he should shut up about it.

Actually for my part I would rather Trump keep yammering on about it. That sort of stridency makes him a perfect fit for his following. When will the drool start to form at the corner of his mouth? Can't be long now.
Click to expand...

Even creative fiction has to be somewhat reasonable.

Unless, of course, its intended to be comedy or just plain fanciful. If its the former, need to stick to reality at least a bit. Its like that song by Leonard Cohen.


Except we actually have the real bad guys and girls on the run. Finally. Good song, understandably negative... but knowing.

Hey, whaadabout the new Supreme Court pick coming up tonight, eh, wink nudge nudge...iddnt great? Stay tuned.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Even creative fiction has to be somewhat reasonable.

Unless, of course, its intended to be comedy or just plain fanciful. If its the former, need to stick to reality at least a bit. Its like that song by Leonard Cohen.


Except we actually have the real bad guys and girls on the run. Finally. Good song, understandably negative... but knowing.

Hey, whaadabout the new Supreme Court pick coming up tonight, eh, wink nudge nudge...iddnt great? Stay tuned.
Click to expand...


Who's on the run ...who's not on the run. One of the biggest problems with the current political environment is that people particularly from the Right now treat it like entertainment. In fact Trump treats it like entertainment which is in part why his rally attendees don't care when he lies through his teeth. They find it entertaining and that is really what they came out for that evening, a night of entertainment utterly oblivious to whether anything coming out of Donald's mouth makes the least bit of sense.
 
jnug said:
Who's on the run ...who's not on the run. One of the biggest problems with the current political environment is that people particularly from the Right now treat it like entertainment. In fact Trump treats it like entertainment which is in part why his rally attendees don't care when he lies through his teeth. They find it entertaining and that is really what they came out for that evening, a night of entertainment utterly oblivious to whether anything coming out of Donald's mouth makes the least bit of sense.
Click to expand...

What is it you dont understand exactly?

Seems pretty straight forward to us...it is in English you know. What areas are you confused about, not understanding? On immigration? Trade? Jobs/unemployment? Defense? Taking on terrorism and gangs to protect America? Making our NATO partners pay their agreed upon share? Denuking the Korean peninsula? The malfeasance of so many Democrats? Buiding a wall, tax cuts, opioid epidemic...winning, making/keeping America great?

Supreme Court appontments?

All seems easy enough to understand to me. Processing problem on your part perhaps? Not what you want to hear maybe? Too bad, so not sad.

All makes perfect sense to we, the sensible.
 
OscarLevant said:
Okay, let me see if I got this straight:

So Putin asked Trump if he could get back in the G8, so he is trying to do that.
Putin asked Trump to stop military exercises in South Korea, he complies.
Then Trump suggests it's okay for Russia to annex Crimea because "they speak Russian".
Then Trump threatens a pullout of NATO if the allies dont get to 2% spending on Defense.

And Trump wants to pull out of the WTO, kill NAFTA, he already pulled out of TPP, The Paris Accord, and the Iran Deal.

All the while Trump assails our allies and praises Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, and he accepts what Putin said, that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election.

If I were Putin, I'd be very pleased with the money I spent to get Trump elected.

Trump vexes allies as he calls for Russia to rejoin G7
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/russia-g7-633705

Trump Surprises with pledge to in military exercises in South Korea
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...litary-exercises-in-south-korea-idUSKBN1J812W

Trump warns NATO allies to spend more on defense or else
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/world/europe/trump-nato.html


Trump leaves door open to us recognizing Russia's Crimea grab
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-open-to-u-s-recognizing-russia-s-crimea-grab

Quit the EU for better trade deal Trump reportedly told macron
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-trade-deal-trump-told-macron-us-france-terms


And republicans are fine with all this?
Click to expand...

This meeting of Trump and Putin is not so much a meeting as it is Trump meeting with the boss for a performance review. I bet Trump is sweating bullets. "Really Mr. Putin, I am doing the best I can! Gimme just a little more time!":lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom