I only respond to you how you respond to me..

And more bullshit from you. If you honestly think that hijacking the comments of posters trying to discuss political issues with other posters and referring to them as hysterical Party bigots because you disagree with them is "only" responding how you are responded to, then you're quite simply deluding yourself, but you'd be sorely mistaken if you thought for one minute that you're fooling anyone else.

If you wouldn't attack me personally, then you wouldn't be attacked personally...

Oh, come on. You can't seriously believe that nonsense, right? Charles Brown, Esq. invented Tamper Monkey and several people here employ it at times and/or read the blog without commenting or decide to bail out altogether in frustration (for which you've actually bragged about). This "if you wouldn't attack me" is utter nonsense on your part, and I cannot fathom why you'd attempt to delude anyone here with that ridiculous drivel.

You should try that bullshit of yours on a poster whose comments to others are not hijacked and trolled by you with the same mindless bullshit on a repetitive basis... if you can find one. :)

Sure.. Attack the host of this place..

GOOD Call.. :^/

Quite the contrary, and once again as you frequently do, you miss the entire point and substitute it with your fabricated bullshit... it's what you do here nearly every day. I'm simply saying that whatever you're paying him, it's not nearly enough to cover the bandwidth you occupy wherein you make a choice to troll others personally with the same repetitive and fabricated BS wherein you discuss them rather than discussing political issues, while at the same time you're wasting bandwidth with your excessive use of one-sentence paragraphs followed by dead space... so much bullshit and dead space adds up... exponentially so.

But it's a good thing you keep your CW attacks on old threads...

Don't worry. I won't tell on you.. :D

Thank you ever so much for proving my point. I make a comment that whatever you're paying CW to pay to play is not enough to cover the repetitive bullshit and the sheer amount of physical space with your one-sentence paragraphs so you naturally misrepresent that in your typical fashion. I think it's admirable that he allows people a voice, even the ones who spread their own brand of bullshit and that of the Big Liar of the United States... BLOTUS... along with the utter nonsensical conspiracy theory bullshit from the right fringe lunatics. Keep up your bullshit wherein you twist my words and fabricate, and I promise you now that it won't be the last time I discuss the pay-to-play issue, how I suspect you know you are full of it and that you are paying CW by the pound of it. I'm simply adding to that discussion that whatever you're paying him is clearly not enough. :)

Don't worry. I won't tell on you.. :D

I only respond to you how you respond to me..

If you wouldn't attack me personally, then you wouldn't be attacked personally...

It's really THAT simple..

Next time you pay to play, you should give Chris more cash for your use of hot air as well as your waste of line space. :)

Sure.. Attack the host of this place..

GOOD Call.. :^/

And you have NOTHING in the way of facts.. :D

If that were true, then you wouldn't have to resort to attacking me personally in the same manner you do everyone here in the same tedious and repetitive way ad nauseam. Your rants and one-note attack style rarely vary. You attack posters who say anything against your Orange Idol, and your hatred for Democrats and anyone who doesn't share your pathetic worldview and love of the Orange Prick is palpable. You ignore political issues that are posted by commenters and devolve nearly every topic into a repetitive rant and personal attack regarding Party.

Wow.. A grammar lame... Why am I not surprised.. :D

Because you're whining about grammar while I'm simply pointing out your apparent inability to not waste bandwidth and insist on posting in single sentences followed by wasted space.

I understand why you would want to drag CW into this, Veronica.. You just have to have an excuse why you are always getting your ass kicked each and every time..

It's delusional how you think your repetitive rants are ass kickings when you quite literally appear to be pasting the same bullshit over and over. Trolling posters with your one-note bullshit and claiming victory is a surefire way to prove nothing more than how high up your own ass your head must reside. *LOL* Whining incessantly about how you hate Democrats and calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a Democrat is very telling, and what it tells everyone is you got one argument, and other than that one, you've quite simply got nothing.

I didn't "drag CW into this," merely stated that you should double whatever you're paying him in order to cover the space you're wasting with your hot air and repetitive quotes as well as the dead space you waste by writing in single sentences.

Blame CW for yer ass-kicking... Blame the Russians for NOT-45's ass-kicking...

So you're doubling down on your ignorance? Your display of your inability to comprehend the written word is legendary, and your deflection to Hillary is predictable and right on cue. Once again, you totally missed the point and resorted to your mindless drivel and hysterical hate.

Here, let me write it in words with one sound and dumb it down to the speed of your wee small brain:

Next time you pay to play, you should give Chris more cash for your use of hot air as well as your waste of line space. :)

Facts are facts, regardless of what you wish/choose to believe.

And you have NOTHING in the way of facts.. :D

Do us all a favor and crack a book and learn to write a proper paragraph, m'kay?

Wow.. A grammar lame... Why am I not surprised.. :D

Otherwise, you should seriously consider doubling the terms of your "pay-to-play" arrangement with CW to account not only for all your fabricated hot air but also your excessive dead space. :)

I understand why you would want to drag CW into this, Veronica.. You just have to have an excuse why you are always getting your ass kicked each and every time..

Blame CW for yer ass-kicking... Blame the Russians for NOT-45's ass-kicking...

It's a pattern with you...

A sad and pathetic pattern...

Suuuree ya do.. :D

Facts are facts, regardless of what you wish/choose to believe.

Once again, I think it's cute how you think yer actually relevant here.. :D

And I think it's mentally psychotic to claim to know what other people think... how you just constantly choose to create bullshit and obsess over other posters rather than actually discussing political issues; your modus operandi reveals so much more about you than it does any other poster or anyone else.

Veronica, I don't even READ your posts.. I skim them to find the obvious pieces of bullshit I can point out and laugh at... Unlike you who has stated she reads everything I write... :D

This bullshit of yours AGAIN? While I'm certainly not the first poster to point this out, you have a problem wherein you expect every poster to discuss the same bullshit over and over going back to square one as if it's a totally new topic when it's actually been discussed ad nauseam... your obvious and ever-present reading comprehension issue and inability at retention. So now here you are again... back to making up bullshit and choosing to believe what you wish; thanks for proving my point. *LOL*

You say the same thing over and over in a desperate and futile bid to be relevant..

Coming from the poster who is most likely to post repetitively, most often referred to as "troll," and ignored completely by deployment of "Tamper Monkey," this is truly some side-splitting hysterical comedy on your part. *LOL* :)

You throw out tons of ass-kissing comments to others hoping they will like you.. :D

Again, you're claiming to know what somebody thinks/hopes. Your propensity to make up bullshit and obsession with discussing posters rather than issues is once again and always duly noted. Also, you've apparently found "tons of ass-kissing comments" in posts you "don't even READ." Pardon me while I throw that nugget of yours onto my "shitty LEO" evidence pile. :)

But me?? Yer mildly amusing.. :D

Do us all a favor and crack a book and learn to write a proper paragraph, m'kay? Otherwise, you should seriously consider doubling the terms of your "pay-to-play" arrangement with CW to account not only for all your fabricated hot air but also your excessive dead space. :)

I have voice recognition software that types out what I say... so once again

Suuuree ya do.. :D

Once again, I think it's cute how you think yer actually relevant here.. :D

I actually do understand why you've got no rebuttal to my posts.

Veronica, I don't even READ your posts.. I skim them to find the obvious pieces of bullshit I can point out and laugh at... Unlike you who has stated she reads everything I write... :D

Sorry, Victoria.. Yer just not that interesting... :D

You say the same thing over and over in a desperate and futile bid to be relevant.. You throw out tons of ass-kissing comments to others hoping they will like you.. :D

But me?? Yer mildly amusing.. :D

Have you noticed that you take HOURS to write a big long missive that is nothing but your same old bullshit with absolutely NO supporting facts.. :D

I laugh my ass off at your attempts to be relevant here.. :D

I have voice recognition software that types out what I say... so once again, you're woefully uninformed and making up bullshit about something you really know nothing whatsoever about. Have you noticed how often you either make up lies or assume things about people/issues you actually know nothing about? You can add this bit of BS to the evidence that you must have been a shitty LEO, because if you'll look at the time stamps on the posts above, you won't find an hour's worth of time spent there. Besides, if you'd like to concern yourself with the "HOURS" being spent on the board, you should probably worry about yourself and less about others.

I actually do understand why you've got no rebuttal to my posts. I've quoted Your Worship multiple times where he implicates himself by opening his orange blowhole, and there simply is no defense for spewing prolific fabrication and saying dumb shit that self-incriminates... so you have that in common with BLOTUS. :) *LOL*

Have you noticed that you take HOURS to write a big long missive that is nothing but your same old bullshit with absolutely NO supporting facts.. :D

I laugh my ass off at your attempts to be relevant here.. :D

Your personal opinion of any candidate -- including your Orange Worship -- isn't relevant. Many of your statements on this blog would lead one to believe you were a shitty LEO... again, not relevant to the case.

This was a free, fair and legal election...

If that is true, then Donald Trump had nothing whatsoever to worry about and no need to fire James Comey in order to save the taxpayers' money he wasn't going to save by lengthening the investigation he claimed had gone on too long that he said he might lengthen.

And your candidate lost....

Get over it...

I'm fine. You seem to be stuck in November 2016, though, but to each his own. Knock yourself out. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." The one who spent months insisting no one from his campaign met with any Russians. Why lie about a thing like that if it was so innocent? Stay tuned.

This was a free, fair and legal election...

Because Odumbo said so....

Cite? Still waiting on that from your prior posts.

Just as we know that Odumbo didn't care about Russian "hacking" when he was first briefed because he figured that NOT-45 was going to win..

Total BS but not really relevant to the case regardless. Mueller is concerned with the evidence against the multiple Trumps, Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, etc. The FBI has been working on it since mid 2016 and aren't going to be stopping any time soon. If the New York Times had little Donnie's email, imagine what Mueller and those 16 prosecutors must already have.

It was ONLY when NOT-45 got her ass handed to her and was DEVASTATED by President Trump, did the Russian "hacking" take front and center...

Wrong. If you think the IC and Obama not alerting the public (and thereby alerting the subjects of their investigation) regarding said investigation, then please tell us all why we shouldn't conclude you must have been a shitty LEO... actually, don't... it's simply not relevant.

If your Orange Worship did nothing wrong, he'd have no need to lie about it, right? No need to fire Comey or to fire anybody else and/or attempt to further lengthen the investigation into the routine meddling -- the investigation that he claimed had gone on too long -- and blamed Obama for not doing anything... unless, of course, you count the "wire tapp" he blamed on Obama... a mischaracterized FISA request that began many months before the election. Oh, you must have forgotten that you claimed Obama would be doing a "perp walk" for Trump's "wire tapp" claim. That FISA request was started in June 2016, many months before the election... and BOOM, that blows your incorrect "Sep/Oct" argument that Obama did nothing... hoisted by your own petard. :)

Which is why ya'all are doing your damnedest to nullify the election and overturn the results JUST BECAUSE you don't like them..

If ya'all would stop worshiping Benedict Donald and sucking on the orange goop and take a breath and a glance every now and then at the moving goalposts of the Red team, perhaps you won't have goop all over your face when the game nears the 2-minute warning... because when people think the game is nearly over, it'll just be getting started... and in the end, some of the Red team is going to jail.

These little town blues are melting away
I'm gonna make a brand new start of it in old New York
A-a-a-nd if I can make it there, I'm gonna make it anywhere
It's up to you, New York, New York. :)

You stated Obama said as much... that we wouldn't be hearing a peep about Russia, and you supply no cite yet request a cite where Trump admits he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation he called a hoax.

I'm still waiting for your quote from Obama that backs up your claim, but here is the quote from the Trump/Holt interview that everyone except you seems to have heard already:

Donald Trump to Lester Holt: He [Rosenstein] made a recommendation, he’s highly respected, very good guy, very smart guy. The Democrats like him, the Republicans like him. He made a recommendation. But regardless of [the] recommendation, I was going to fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time to do it!

And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

If the Trump campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with Russia's routine election meddling, then there was absolutely no need whatsoever to fire Comey for looking into the routine Russian meddling.

Except that it was a complete waste of time and taxpayer money...

Again, what should Obama have done that was in your acceptable price range in order to stop the Russian interference that you claimed happens in every election except no proof it happened in 2016 and was all made up within 24 hours after the election? Except, of course, all those many times it was discussed before the election.

Perhaps you also missed the part in Trump's interview with Lester Holt where he said he might lengthen the investigation. Saying you might lengthen an investigation doesn't exactly convey your concern about cost to taxpayers, wouldn't you say? When Holt pressed Trump on the topic, he maintained that he wanted the investigation “to be absolutely done properly.” Since he was concerned the firing would “confuse people,” he went on, perhaps he would even “lengthen” the investigation:

Trump to Holt: Look, let me tell you, as far as I’m concerned I want that thing [the Russia investigation] to be absolutely done properly. When I did this now I said, “I probably, maybe, will confuse people, maybe I’ll expand that, you know, I’ll lengthen the time” — because it should be over with, in my opinion it should’ve been over with a long time ago, because all it is is an excuse. But I said to myself, “I might even lengthen out the investigation.”

How fortunate for Trump that his desire to "lengthen out the investigation" and for "that thing to be absolutely done properly" has played out as per his statement to Lester Holt.

Because Russia, as it always does, TRIED to interfere..

Time will tell you what many already know and have sworn under oath, but I doubt you'll accept the findings unless they fit the multitude of lies as told by the Trump campaign and Trump himself... you know, those lies about no one in his campaign meeting with any Russians at all... and then the moving of the goalposts each time they're caught in the lie... then the next lie... then the next lie. Without the Trump sycophants missing a beat, their Orange Worship has gone from "no one in the campaign met with any Russians at all" to "it's not illegal to collude."

Newsflash: It is illegal to work with a foreign adversary to attack American democracy. "But, but, but... they can't prove a single vote was changed," the sycophants whine on cue. Oh, come on. This utter nonsensical BS is like claiming that Julius Rosenberg shouldn't have been prosecuted for espionage unless the prosecutor could prove the Soviet Union successfully produced a Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star. Duh.

There are no FACTS that prove they succeeded...

M'kay... but unless you were a shitty LEO, you're well aware that people don't have to succeed in committing a crime in order to be found guilty of intent. Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner met with a lawyer with ties to the Kremlin with the clear intent of obtaining information after having been forewarned in writing that this was part of an effort by Russia to support the election of Donald Trump. We also have Trump making statements on the campaign stump shortly after this meeting that he would be disclosing some "very interesting material" on Clinton, which renders his claim that he didn't know about the meeting utterly implausible. Dang... if that's not evidence of intent, then what the hell qualifies?

Yes, we've come quite a long way from your Orange Worship insisting that no one in his campaign met with any Russians to now, wouldn't you say? Yep. Tip of the iceberg, though. :)

There IS no proof that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but it's common knowledge that Russia ROUTINELY tries to interfere in US elections..

As I have said many times, someone could rub your face in shit, and you'd insist it didn't stink. You agreed with Don's statement that Russian interference was serious... using the term "exactly" and stating that "this kind of interference happened in 2012, 2008 etc etc." Now you've moved the goalposts to "tried to interfere" and surprised exactly no one.

And yet, here you are, hysterically trying to prove me wrong.. :D

I'm pointing out that you're contradicting your own statements. Your prolific use of the term "hysterical" and its derivatives render the term pointless, boring, redundant... crack a book and expand your vocubulary, please. You're insisting there's no proof of Russian interference in 2016 yet claiming "this kind of interference" is routine. You are blaming Obama for doing nothing about Russian interference that you claim there is no proof ever happened, yet you claim that continuing an FBI investigation is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. What should Obama have done about the interference that you claim didn't happen that would have been within your acceptable spending range?

Donald Trump: “Well I just heard today for the first time that Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it. But nobody wants to talk about that. The CIA gave him information on Russia a long time before they even – before the election…. It’s an amazing thing. To me – in other words, the question is, if he had the information, why didn’t he do something about it? He should have done something about it. But you don’t read that. It’s quite sad.”

Donald Trump blames Obama for doing nothing about a Russian cyberattack that he also insists never happened. This kind of utter nonsense works well with goobers and rubes because thinking things through is not really their strong suit and requires some kind of critical thinking skills.

In June 2016, Russians were blamed for cyberattacks on Democratic and Republican campaigns; Donald Trump blamed both the Democratic National Committee and Russians for the hacks. In July 2016, more hacked DNC emails were released, and Trump invited Russia to meddle in the campaign.

Donald Trump: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. … They probably have them. I’d like to have them released.”

Russians hacking into the DNC was discussed in all three televised debates between Clinton and Trump. Where was Trump? He then claimed nobody brought it up until after the election.

Donald Trump tweet: Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before election?
8:21 AM - Dec 12, 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/every-russia-story-trump-said-was-a-hoax-by-democrats-a-timeline/?utm_term=.7bb0078fe3f3

It was brought up before the election, Donald... many, many times... by you as well as many others.

The USA has finally learned to make world class beer and wine. 'Bout time. I still can't learn to like the taste of bourbon...even the high rated stuff.

So, you have taken my advice and written what looks to be about a 725 word white paper. This is technically know in some circles as "piggy backing on somebody's blog."

My comments:

While it’s true that roughly 80% of individuals polled think too much money is spent on elections it is equally true that the candidate raising the most money wins congressional races 80-90% of the time. When it comes to actual voting, big money repugnance among voters doesn’t typically lead to rebellion on election day. Voters apparently weigh a market basket of other issues more heavily than just big money.

Most voters don’t contribute a penny to any candidate, and a few big donors give 3 times as much as all the small fry. Individual donations are also outgunned 3 to 1 by: self-financing by candidates, PACs and other miscellaneous donations. These data don’t even include mushrooming Super PACs and other forms of dark money which don’t count as donations to individual candidates. Oh, and campaign laws are very weakly enforced.

One other thing. A 1Demand registration of resistors is going to require substantial overhead. To be credible, that is “1 person, 1vote,” it must be a shadow voter registration system to prevent ballot and stuffing and other fraud. Computers, software and the people who how to make them go. Transparency, so outsiders have confidence in your lists. $$$$. All for a non-binding pledge.

All in all, I conclude 1Demand is threatening candidates and their apparatchiks with what is perceived as a very small stick. This is why “politicians, pundits, activists, etc.” aren’t embracing your concept. I agree with them. You are simply losing out in the market place of ideas. This market is sometimes wrong, but not often. As the old saying goes “if you are not queen, do not think you are wronged.”

“People have a romantic notion that somehow the media is competing to find the story no one else has first like in the movies.” Really? Not anybody who has ever tried to publish anything. Peer review is brutal, but it makes for higher quality publications. Man-up and embrace it. There really isn’t much choice. Nobody is stopping you from promoting your idea, but people generally don’t jump into what looks to be a leaky boat.

Most of my numbers source to the OpenSecrets web site, some from an article in the Atlantic.

How do we know??

Because Odumbo said so....

Just as we know that Odumbo didn't care about Russian "hacking" when he was first briefed because he figured that NOT-45 was going to win..

It was ONLY when NOT-45 got her ass handed to her and was DEVASTATED by President Trump, did the Russian "hacking" take front and center...

Which is ironic because it was ya'all who accused President Trump that he wouldn't accept the results of the election...

Ironic because it's YA'ALL that are refusing to accept the results of the election..

Which is why ya'all are doing your damnedest to nullify the election and overturn the results JUST BECAUSE you don't like them..

There IS no proof that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but it's common knowledge that Russia ROUTINELY tries to interfere in US elections..

You should bookmark this post for review when you're wondering why no one seems to take you seriously. :)

And yet, here you are, hysterically trying to prove me wrong.. :D

Donald Trump has already admitted publicly that he fired Director Comey because of the Russia investigation and claimed it was a hoax.

Cite...

If the Trump campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with Russia's routine election meddling, then there was absolutely no need whatsoever to fire Comey for looking into the routine Russian meddling.

Except that it was a complete waste of time and taxpayer money...

Since you are the one claiming Russia performed this kind of interference in multiple elections and also the one who keeps claiming over and over like a broken record that 2016 was a free, fair, and legal election, perhaps you could explain how Russia interfering into United States elections on a regular basis makes them free, fair, and legal

Because Russia, as it always does, TRIED to interfere..

There are no FACTS that prove they succeeded...

NOT-45 was a shitty candidate.. She ran a shitty campaign..

And THAT is why she lost...

This was a free, fair and legal election...

And your candidate lost....

Get over it...

Exactly...

This kind of interference happened in 2012, 2008 etc etc...

You've gone from insisting there is no proof Russia interfered in the 2016 election to insisting that they interfere routinely. You should bookmark this post for review when you're wondering why no one seems to take you seriously. :)

We're only hearing more about it now because the Establishment got their asses handed to them and they are doing their best to nullify a free, fair and legal election...

Donald Trump has already admitted publicly that he fired Director Comey because of the Russia investigation and claimed it was a hoax. Somebody should have told Poor Donald that Russia did this in 2012, 2008, etc., etc. If the Trump campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with Russia's routine election meddling, then there was absolutely no need whatsoever to fire Comey for looking into the routine Russian meddling. What would be the big deal with the FBI investigating these mundane, routine matters if the Trump campaign had absolutely nothing to do with Russia's regular interference?

This isn't a Right v Left or Dem v GOP issue..

It's an Establishment v Middle Class issue...

Wrong. It's a Russia v. the United States having a free, fair, and legal election issue. Since you are the one claiming Russia performed this kind of interference in multiple elections and also the one who keeps claiming over and over like a broken record that 2016 was a free, fair, and legal election, perhaps you could explain how Russia interfering into United States elections on a regular basis makes them free, fair, and legal and why it makes any sense whatsoever to fire the Director of the FBI or anyone in the United States intelligence community or working with the DOJ to investigate such routine Russian interference and how it happened in 2016. If this kind of interference is so darned routine and happens all the time, why would Trump fire the FBI director for trying to investigate it in 2016? Do tell.

And if you make absolute black/white claims that are easily proven false, you lose the debate...

If you need a presidential action to waive the rule of law, you are proving my point, not yours.

And nice straw man btw.

A

Climate activists in shock at Gore sequel bombing at box office: 'This was not supposed to happen'
'Al Gore Gets Ripped Off Again'
'He should have demanded a recount.'
Gore fans reduced to blaming the distributor. 'A botched strategy by Paramount Pictures effectively sabotaged the nationwide release' of Gore's sequel.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/07/under-performance-gores-sequel-comes-in-dismal-15th-at-box-office-gore-fans-allege-film-was-sabotaged-by-paramount/

BBBWWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yer Climate savior!!

AL 'Crazed Sex Poodle' Gore....

:D hehehehehehehehehehehehe

Now THAT's funny :D

You said that shooting down an airline is ALWAYS illegal..

I just proved you wrong..

So... yea... I guess the debate IS over..

And you lost.. :D

If you need to stoop to an exception that requires a presidential order, it's safe to say this debate is over.

A

Good.. Cuz I wouldn't have believed ya... :D

That should read:

And NeverTrumper obstructionism and violence has absolutely NOTHING to do with it??

So, you are saying now that Obama's problems had NOTHING to do with GOP obstructionism???

If Donald wants someone to blame for his administration not being accepted or respected, her should look in a mirror.

And Democrat obstructionism and violence has absolutely NOTHING to do with it??

And moose poop I say!!

Ya'all yerselves have commented on how fanatically devoted Trump supporters are to President Trump..

Do you HONESTLY believe that if the NeverTrumpers force President Trump from office over some piddley real-estate shenanigan from decades ago that those supporters are going to sit idly by and say, "Eh... OK, no biggie..." ????

Because if you honestly believe that, I have some swampland down here I wanna sell ya... :D

Which is COMPLETELY contrary to what ya'all were saying at the time...

That's total bull-puckey

Yea, Trump has made some mistakes, sure...

But claiming that is like claiming that the person most responsible for Obama's fuck-ups was Obama..

The plan was created within 24 hours of NOT-45 losing to de-legitimize Trump's presidency and nullify the election results.

This is well documented from statements by NOT-45's own campaign..

The things you own end up owning you.
~fight club

The Washington Post published complete transcripts of President Trump’s phone conversations with the president of Mexico and the prime minister of Australia. There was no news value in them; they simply took out portions to present out-of-context to embarrass the president. That was enough for the Post to stop its presses, but it is a decision that will do real damage to the presidency and the country.
https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2017/08/06/were-witnessing-a-slowrolling-coup-n2365059

Yep... Yep..

And how does a nation respond to a coup against a freely, fairly and legally elected President??

By force of arms, if necessary...

As opposed to all ya'all's claims on how BAD President Trump would be for the markets?? :D

Since 45 has done nothing from a legislative perspective he can't point to an action that stimulated the capital markets (even though he takes full credit),

Why not??

Ya'all were giving FULL BLAME for the huge stock market crash before it even happened??

How are ya'all's actions any different than President Trump's???

Aside from the fact that ya'all were completely and utterly wrong?? :D

Perfectly legal..

I mean, if you really WANT to put it into the ridiculous context of legal/illegal.. :D

The simple fact is, the Vincennes downing of the airliner was justified.. You can characterize it as an accident, a mistake, an illegal act and other irrelevant labels..

But the simple fact is that, given the circumstances of shots being fired and the information available at the given moment, the Captain's actions were justified..

It's the same as the Calisto shooting in Minneapolis or any other cop shooting you want to whine about...

Yes, there will always be second guessers and arm-chair quarterbacks..

ANYONE can have a "valid" opinion with the advantage of 20-20 hindsight..

DOJ Document Dump to ACLJ on Clinton Lynch Meeting: Comey FBI Lied, Media Collusion, Spin, and Illegality
https://aclj.org/government-corruption/doj-document-dump-to-aclj-on-clinton-lynch-meeting-comey-fbi-lied-media-collusion-spin-and-illegality

Postulate a scenario where an airliner under terrorist control is heading towards a high population area with the intent to plow the airliner into that high population area...

The POTUS orders that airliner to be shot down..

Perfectly legal....

High tax burden companies surged after the unexpected election result in anticipation of a cut in business taxes, but over time these have slowed in growth and the lightly taxed companies have overtaken them and are further ahead.

Since 45 has done nothing from a legislative perspective he can't point to an action that stimulated the capital markets (even though he takes full credit), and this chart shows that even his bluster is wearing off:

http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/taxbreaks.png

"The action doesn't lend itself to the legal question.."

Bull.
Repeating a false claim doesn't make it true.
There are laws that cover the incident.
The case was argued in a court of law, and was settled... in all likelihood because US lawyers thought they might lose.

"The only question is, is it justified.."

Bull.
By definition, an accident is not justified.
And if it was justified, it wasn't an accident.
The official line was that it was an accident.
You are only offering excuses for the cause of the accident.

Going back to your false "if it's justified, it's legal" claim-
Vigilantism may be justified, but it's illegal.
All sorts of examples of justifiable actions are illegal... cancer patients smoking pot in what 18 states still, etc.

"I am disavowing your definition of them...."

They aren't my definitions.
The definitions of torture and wars of aggression are from US and international law, written in an effort led by US legal experts.

They formed the basis of many prosecutions of Nazis by US military lawyers at Nuremberg.

Your disavowal of the official legal definitions doesn't change them, but does prove your disregard for the rule of law, and a twisted view of the world where war crimes are acceptable.

A

"Careful there, your anti-institutional bias is showing"

No it's not.
Calling it an accident means it wasn't justified.
They are inherently contradictory.

"Every investigation of that event showed it to be a mistake."

Mistake and accident are different?
In any case, the only investigation I am aware of was by the military of itself, unless you're counting congressional hearings or journalism... or the Iranian investigation that contradicts your claim.

"You could argue that it was stupid, but you can't make a case that it was malicious."

I made no such case.
Shooting down a civilian airliner doesn't need to be malicious to be illegal.

That said, two journalists for Newsweek did make that case, Iran made that case, the Aegis system recorder contradicted crew statements, numerous initial claims were shown to be false, the Vincennes illegally entered Iranian territorial waters well before launching the missiles and the captain was known to be overly aggressive, the captain of the nearest US ship openly questioned the actions of the captain of the Vincennes, and the plane was in Iranian territory inside a recognized civilian flight path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

"It's the reason that American ships in the Persian Gulf regularly put up with the games that the Iranians play with speedboats."

You mean they put up with our games half a world away from home while they patrol their territorial waters right?

A

i don't think don would vote for such a paleolithic candidate just because they accepted only small donations. to him the small donation is necessary but not sufficient. he'd sooner vote for someone who has less of a chance of winning than someone who EITHER accepts large contributions OR has horrific policy preferences.

JL

Just as workers can go on strike by withholding their labor to get better pay, working conditions, etc., citizens can withhold their vote from and vote against the Big Money candidates and demand small contribution candidates.

You have made this point multiple times in conversations on here, but I still cannot figure out how not voting or writing in my own name would send the message that I am demanding small contribution candidates. To most, it sends the message that I just don't care about politics anymore.

Receiving large donations does not make a candidate dirty anymore than only receiving small donations makes for a good candidate! What happens when the OneDemand candidate running in my district is running on a platform that would force gays into conversion therapy camps? If they get 20% of the votes in my district, is the message that most people will take away from this be that small contribution candidates are in demand or is it that I should probably find a new place to live?

Small contribution candidates cannot run on that alone. I think of the fact that a candidate chooses to only accept smaller contributions as being bonus points when I score a candidate -- like having served in the military. I don't fault a candidate that didn't serve -- it makes no sense to do so. Neither does it make sense to not vote for a candidate that shares identical views on the major issues that I do simply because they do accept larger donations.

It makes for a great side dish, but not the main entree.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!!!!

:D

"You have GOT to stop reading these magazines so much!!!"
"I only look at them for the naked pictures.."
-MORK & MINDY

:D

The action doesn't lend itself to the legal question..

Just like killing someone..

The only question is, is it justified..

If it was officially called an accident, it wasn't justified.

Yes it was... Given the circumstances and the frame of mind of the captain, the action was justified..

Are you disavowing your previous support for illegal wars of aggression and torture?

I am disavowing your definition of them....

Careful there, your anti-institutional bias is showing. Every investigation of that event showed it to be a mistake.

I remember an article in Playboy (back when people read Playboy for the articles) about the crash of a DC-10. After extensive investigation, the author reported that a case could be made that dozens of people had conspired to bring that plane down, because of all the things that had to line up to make that crash happen.

Of course, that's nonsensical. Nobody wanted a plane full of innocent people to crash then, just as nobody wanted a jetliner filled with Iranians to be accidentally blown out of the sky in 1988. You could argue that it was stupid, but you can't make a case that it was malicious.

Anyway, eventually the US settled with Iran in the International Court of Justice for an amount that came out to a little over $213K per passenger.

It did have an effect on US policy. It's the reason that American ships in the Persian Gulf regularly put up with the games that the Iranians play with speedboats.

"It's an incident that CAN'T be framed as 'legal/illegal'..."

Bull.
Shooting down civilian airliners is illegal.

"If it's justified, by definition, it's "legal".."

No. Not generally or in this case.
If it was officially called an accident, it wasn't justified.

"If I were a supporter of war crimes"

Are you disavowing your previous support for illegal wars of aggression and torture?
Both are war crimes.
You've supported both.
You even claimed personal experience with the effectiveness of torture.

Are you evolving?

A

Israel just joined Arab monarchs in censoring the press.

Al Jazeera is being shut down for "incitement"... as they reported on security issues at holy sites in Jerusalem that angered the Palestinians.

Got that.
Instituting the measures is not the incitement, reporting on them is, and that justifies censorship.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40843126

A

It's an incident that CAN'T be framed as 'legal/illegal'...

The incident was officially called an accident by the US because shooting down civilian airliners is not legal...

It's like trying to frame killing someone as legal or illegal..

If it's justified, by definition, it's "legal"..

But as a supporter of war crimes including torture, and blatant disregard for the rule of law, I am not the least bit surprised your opinion on this incident is comparably twisted... a red flag for all reasonable people.

If I were a supporter of war crimes, you would have a point..

But, as with your "definition" of everything else, it's self-serving that has little or nothing to do with reality and everything to do with ignorance and Party zealotry...

"It doesn't make it illegal either...

It was an unfortunate accident brought on by the belligerence of the Iranians..."

"Legal/illegal is not the issue.."

Yes, the legality is the issue as that was the framing in my comment... not whether or not there was criminal intent, or excuses offered.

The incident was officially called an accident by the US because shooting down civilian airliners is not legal... not just so that we didn't look like assholes.

And, no.
The Iranians did not cause the supposed accident.
The US misidentifying the aircraft was the cause according to their claims.

Just as a reference point, about a week ago, the US fired warning shots at an Iranian vessel in the Persian Gulf.
The US released an official statement claiming the warning shots were fired after sounding five warning signals... the official procedure recognized internationally.

The video the dumbasses released clearly showed the official statement was false, as the warning shots were fired after the 2nd and 4th blasts of the warning signal... in violation of the official procedure... with no time for the Iranians to react prior to the supposed justification for firing warning shots.

There is a long history of the official narrative not jibing with the facts, including in Trump's failed raid in Yemen, and Obama's attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz Afghanistan... and countless other incidents going back.

It happens frequently enough that blind faith in the accuracy of their claims is naïve.
And there are indeed disputes over the facts in the Iranian airliner case.

But as a supporter of war crimes including torture, and blatant disregard for the rule of law, I am not the least bit surprised your opinion on this incident is comparably twisted... a red flag for all reasonable people.

A

That's why I posted it at that time.. :D heh

Good timing my friend. Always a cold one waiting if you and your better half come over to visit :)

That, I suppose, is the test of a great beer, is it good warm.

Still prefer cold ones however.

You have great beers in Canada as I remember (I lived there before moving to London) (after Nigeria and Scotland) (I had an itinerant childhood).

I know..

That's why I posted it at that time.. :D heh

Yer home. Go drunk :D

We were not popular in the local bars but our bar tab and subsequent tip usually helped smooth over any hurt feelings.

Good one :)

Definitely stealing that.

Sitting at a cafe in Paris (dream vacation with wife, the honeymoon we couldn't afford 25 years ago) drinking a Heineken as I saw this! Good timing!

yeah, american adjunct lagers are basically just soda.

That's putting it mildly.

It doesn't make it illegal either...

Legal/illegal is not the issue..

Was the shoot-down JUSTIFIED??

Yes it was..

Just like the Calisto shooting in Minneapolis...

It was a tragic accident, but it was justified...

It doesn't make it illegal either...

It was an unfortunate accident brought on by the belligerence of the Iranians...

Ahhhhhh But it WASN'T a deliberate action to blow a CIVILIAN AIRLINER out of the sky now was it??

It was a deliberate action to blow an attacking F-14 out of the sky...

The fact that it wasn't an attacking F-14 doesn't change the intent..

{Hoists a Bud Light}

I'll drink to that... :D

As a matter of pure courtesy, I leave the decision of who gets to be a guest columnist entirely up to The Editor in Chief.

The problem I have with One Demand is that is appears to be an Evolutionarily Unstable Strategy. That is, politicians (and their supporters) who follow your strategy will usually lose elections and fail to prosper. Framed in reverse, politicians who take big donations will tend to win and go on to try again. It's not like the small donation candidate can't win - Senator Proxmire from Wisconsin won his senate seat many times accepting small donations and at least once accepting NO outside donations, but it's fairly rare.

Evolutionarily Stable Strategies are something I know a bit about - one Dissertation and the best paper I ever published plus more multidisciplinary papers on the subject over the years (it has lots of way cool applications). I got paid to do it, which by definition makes a professional. It's not the sort of thing I want to get into in detail on this site, unless you want to talk about saddle points, min max, information lags and partial differential equations to name a few odds and ends.

Another problem with 1D is that you don't really present an explicit model. It's hazy. For example you seem to believe that Big Money will magically surrender if 20% of the electorate signs a nonbinding pledge? Pardon me, but you need to connect some dots. What about dark money, which is supposedly "independent" of a candidate's campaign? Not even mentioned.

Red teaming a novel idea such as yours is an inherently brutal process (similar to the KGB final exam) and can be tough on a promoter, but it's an essential part of the game. You need to up your game in order for me to take you and your idea seriously. You should talk to some actual politicians and their handlers.

yeah, american adjunct lagers are basically just soda.

Iran upholding the deal in order to maintain the relationships with the other powers involved may well be what happens, and Iran is publicly working to that end to make Trump look ever worse, but the US is nonetheless violating the deal with the hopes of ending it, and Democrats are aiding Trump in that effort.

"The sanctions in the bill that Trump signed are narrowly targeted, and mostly symbolic"

Those words are only sort of pregnant.

"I can't imagine Democrats believing another word that comes out of Trump's mouth on anything that isn't backed up by irrefutable evidence"

Sarin.
How many Democrats refused to believe those claims again?
And we still don't have "irrefutable evidence".

Many humans have an ability to recognize a recurring pattern, and there is such a pattern that originated decades ago, but that has continued through the Trump regime.
Irrefutable evidence is not the standard Congress, the media, or Democrats in particular have used when deciding whether or not to support our wars.

Wanting to believe as you do in this case may be noble, but the evidence suggests your faith is misguided.

"But be reasonable: 'direct covert action' (i.e., introducing a computer virus to shut down Iranian centrifuges) was likely what brought the Iranians, finally, to the bargaining table"

Iran offered to negotiate prior to our cyber attack, so you are not the reasonable one here.
Sanctions didn't reduce the civilian nuclear energy program in Iran, our negotiations did.
And there's ample evidence those negotiations could have been successful years earlier, prior to the escalation of our sanctions and our illegal attack on their NPT guaranteed right to enrichment for nuclear power.

As reported in the NYT, our covert actions include numerous other efforts, and Congress has budgeted hundreds of millions of dollars to pursue them.

We should also remember that there's supposed to be a declaration of war based on a sound legal premise prior to attacks on a sovereign nation, but that little detail gets ignored.

"And there's no credible evidence that we deliberately shot down that Iranian civilian airline."

Launching a missile to blow a civilian airliner out of the sky is a deliberate action.
The missile didn't launch itself.

The intent may not have been criminal, but that doesn't make it legal.

And the supposed accident justifiably remains a sore point in Iran, and should still be a source of shame for us that should also help us understand Iranian skepticism about our actions, and the actions they have taken in response.

A

This one's for you...

The CEO of Budweiser orders a Bud Light..
The CEO of Miller orders a Miller Light..
The CEO of Coors orders a Coors Light..
The CEO of Guinness orders a Diet Coke..
The other CEOs ask him why he is not ordering a Guinness...
To which the CEO of Guinness replies, "If you guys aren't drinking beer, then neither will I!"..

:D

August.. Not April..

Odumbo knew in April of 2016 that Russians were trying to interfere in our elections..

But he chose not to do anything about it because he thought NOT-45 was going to win...

It was only in late Sep/Early Oct when it looked like NOT-45 was in trouble did Odumbo take steps...

This is all well-documented...

Exactly...

This kind of interference happened in 2012, 2008 etc etc...

We're only hearing more about it now because the Establishment got their asses handed to them and they are doing their best to nullify a free, fair and legal election...

This isn't a Right v Left or Dem v GOP issue..

It's an Establishment v Middle Class issue...

"working with Democrats on a sane alternative."

Schumer's proposal to give insurance companies billions more in subsidies to "stabilize" the price gouging health insurance market they've rigged to cause the problems in the first place is not a "sane alternative".

Your praise for the "problem solvers" working on the same thing, and your spinning it as award worthy, is full on denial that rewarding the insurance companies for the problems they caused is a good thing. The need to whitewash the source of the problem and the "solution" in an attempt to sell it to readers is telling.

Dems caving to corporate extortion by paying the bribes they demand painted as award worthy bipartisan problem solving is most impressive.

The "some Democrats won't like" the right wing approach giving taxpayer money to unworthy corporations bit is the understatement of the week.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the Democrats in Congress who like the approach will be showered with legalized kickbacks for their largesse with our money.

Less clear is why a pundit would like the approach.

A

The *ONLY* reason it's serious NOW is because Trump one..

Wrong. The investigation into Russia interfering in the US 2016 election began in mid 2016 before the election took place, and regardless of the winner of the election, it would still be a big deal today. If HRC had won, do you seriously think she would ignore it and not take every step that she could in order to keep Russia from meddling into the presidential election of 2020? Duh.

Ask yourselves one question..

Would there be this level of hysteria if NOT-45 had won???

The majority of "hysteria" regarding the issue is coming from Trump's twitter feed and the perpetually grieving right-wing whiners, while the investigation that began in 2016 continues. If anyone actually thinks that HRC winning the election would have changed the investigation by the IC into Russia and the Trump campaign, they're delusional and/or have no critical thinking skills. Hell would hath no fury like a woman attempted to be scorned by Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin... believe me.

Additionally, the talking point that Russia has interfered in the same way in all our elections including 2012, 2008, etc. is simply right-wing utter nonsense attempting to normalize the 2016 election. You do recognize that the right wing promotes the idea that Russia has interfered the same way in all our elections so it's normal while also promoting the idea that it's all fake news and there's no proof Russia interfered? So which is it? If you find yourself arguing both of these things, then perhaps you've swallowed too much of the Kool-Aid; too much of that orange goop will make you sound ridiculous arguing out of both sides of your "wherever" that Russia always does this but where's your proof they did anything and it's all fake and made up after HRC lost.

If ya'all are honest, ya'all would concede that we wouldn't be hearing a PEEP about Russian interference..

We KNOW this to be true because Odumbo SAID as much...

Cite?

He had known about Russian interference long before the general public did but he didn't care and chose not to do anything about it BECAUSE HE ASSUMED THAT NOT-45 WOULD WIN..

Chose not to do anything about it? Wrong. As you already know, the FBI and other intelligence agencies have been investigating the issue since mid 2016. Lawmakers knew months before the election what Russia was doing. You should educate yourself about this issue and how Obama wanted a bipartisan effort to inform the public yet Mitch McConnell insisted that any effort by the Obama administration to inform the public regarding Russia attempting to influence the election would be perceived as partisan and against Trump. It's all over the Internet.

The *ONLY* reason we are hearing about Russian interference is because President Trump won..

No other conclusion fits all the facts..

If you don't think the minute the election was over that President Obama and President-elect Clinton wouldn't be informing the public regarding this issue... just as Obama had dispatched Comey, Monaco, and Johnson to discuss with Congressional leaders to inform the public before the election, then you need to educate yourself. If you think a President Clinton wouldn't be tearing Putin a new one over this and putting sanctions on Russia as Congress rightly has done, then you need to hone your critical thinking skills and step away from the orange goop. :)

..."publishing a Guest Column on One Demand"...

If you can't book business class why not just suck it up a fly economy.

Write a column, serialize it into chunks, and publish it right here in the comments section. Post it early in the AM so all the chunks come out together for the sake of continuity. Interested readers could easily reconstitute the chunks into a single document by cutting and pasting into a Word document. Problem solved, no permission necessary.
Just avoid known filter traps.

Or, you could just provide a link to your website. That seems easier.

http://digitalspyuk.cdnds.net/17/20/768x502/gallery-1495126592-supernatural-scooby-doo-crossover.jpg

:D

So ya'all can start attacking AG Sessions... :D

So you've got a political establishment, mostly Democratic, but there are some Republicans, who would like to see him taken out of office. That would be a catastrophic mistake. It would cause a rupture in the country, where people would say: 'When we people, the ones who have been 'abandoned' elect sombody we like, our guy gets taken out. What happened, I thought we had a stable democracy?'
-Charles Krauthammer

Like I said...

If the Anti-Trumpers are successful in removing Trump, it's NOT going to be pretty....

Yep, yep, yep...

I mean, imagine the locker-room talk between yer boy Bubba Clinton and serial pedophile Jeffery Epstein..

Their bragging consists of who has had sex with the youngest girl..

Face reality, sunshine..

You don't CARE about that kind of locker room talk..

You just care because it came from Trump...

Exactly...

The point SHOULD be Russian interference. Period..

But, as you point out, the Anti-Trumpers are TOTALLY concentrating on Trump's alleged involvement to the exclusion of all else....

If NOT-45 had won the election, there wouldn't be a peep from Congress over Russian efforts to interfere in the election..

That is EXACTLY my point..

Do you want to talk about THAT collusion with Russia??

Of course you don't... Because it's Odumbo...

So, please.. Spare me yer hysterical rantings about Russia and collusion and interference..

The facts clearly show you only care about it because President Trump won...

Sure... Let's talk about that..

Do you have ANY facts that it actually happened??

No, you don't..

All you have is normal locker-room talk amongst elitist alpha-males...

Of course, we ALSO have yer guy, Bill Clinton actually raping and sexual assaulting scores of women..

Do you want to talk about THAT!??

No, of course not..

Because it lays bare yer blatant hypocrisy...

So a lot of water has passed under that bridge, time to put that saw to rest.

That's a very good point, Balthasar.. You are absolutely correct..

Russia DID do a lot of bad things after Odumbo promised Putin to be "flexible" if Putin gave Odumbo "space" to win the election..

You are dead on ballz accurate...

BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

When so-called "scientists" stop tweaking and adjusting temps the temps plunge...

Who could have possibly thunked it!!!??

:D

Totally unsubstantiated and the word of a single anonymous source..

You only believe this bullshit because you WANT to believe it...

There is not a SINGLE fact to support the claim...

Complete, total and unequivocal bigotry...

Typical....

Exactly...

The *ONLY* reason it's serious NOW is because Trump one..

Ask yourselves one question..

Would there be this level of hysteria if NOT-45 had won???

If ya'all are honest, ya'all would concede that we wouldn't be hearing a PEEP about Russian interference..

We KNOW this to be true because Odumbo SAID as much...

He had known about Russian interference long before the general public did but he didn't care and chose not to do anything about it BECAUSE HE ASSUMED THAT NOT-45 WOULD WIN..

The *ONLY* reason we are hearing about Russian interference is because President Trump won..

No other conclusion fits all the facts..

the issue is that neither the press nor the administration seems able to acknowledge that the russia issue is serious

Why wasn't it serious all the other times Russia tried to interfere in our elections??

Because THIS time, President Trump won....

Yes, it is a very serious issue.

Unless you think Putin's Russian system of government is better or even as good as the American or European version of democracy.

Is it serious? The CIA and other forces of our government have attempted to influence so many elections of so many countries since 1946 that I find this a "I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!" moment of, possibly deserved, comeuppance. I also think the future threat of similar interference from Russia is overstated and dwarfed by this form of interference just becoming part of the human democracy experience regardless of country or rivalry of countries...

And they only care because they lost....

respectfully, i completely disagree. obviously congress cares, because they approved sanctions against russia 517-5. the issue is that neither the press nor the administration seems able to acknowledge that the russia issue is serious, because they're so stuck on whether or not the trump campaign was involved. which to be honest is totally beside the point.

JL

No wonder FOX News supports Blotus -- all the men there are sexual predators/deviants.

CNN has learned that investigators became more suspicious when they turned up intercepted communications that U.S. intelligence agencies collected among suspected Russian operatives discussing their efforts to work with Manafort, who served as campaign chairman for three months, to coordinate information that could damage Hillary Clinton's election prospects, the US officials say. The suspected operatives relayed what they claimed were conversations with Manafort, encouraging help from the Russians.

Drip, drip, drip.

I dunno. I know that Republicans tried that and failed miserably in the '90's.

Here's one: How would Democrats feel if they thought that the Republican Candidate had conspired to receive billions of dollars worth of assistance from the Russians? Not rally bucks, but sophisticated cyberwarfare and psy-ops operations that operate on the same playing field as the NSA.

How would the GOP had felt if Obama had been accused of doing that, then began lying about, firing or badmouthing everyone who wanted to look into it. Their heads would explode. Alex Jones would go into full on cardiac attack.

So spare me the mock indignation.

You just don't understand a thing about global geopolitics, do you? In 2012, Obama had not yet signed the Magnitsky Act, Russia had not yet invaded Ukraine, seized Crimea, or intervened in the Syrian war. Putin and Obama had not yet had that stare-down. Most importantly, Russia had not yet picked sides in the 2016 election, save that Putin very publicly blamed Hillary for inciting protests following his last election (absurd as that sounds, it's one of the reasons given for Putin's later behavior in the Dossier).

So a lot of water has passed under that bridge, time to put that saw to rest. Do you also want to discuss some of the things that Trump said back then? How about further back, when he was 'grabby'?

Sure Romney said Russia was scary. He also said that our military should counteract that with more swords and horses.

It's a question of nullifying a free, fair and legal election..

Put another way..

How would the hysterical Left Wing feel if NOT-45 won the election and then was forced out because of something from WhiteWater..

Ya'all would lose yer frakin' minds...

And, Hodgkinson proved that Democrats WILL react violently and try to kill people they politically disagree with..

So, please... Don't play the holier-than-thou card... You have no foundation...

"General, I've seen your own file... Please..."
-Dr Elizabeth Weir, STARGATE ATLANTIS

:D

Blue on Blue Civil War :D

Just 4 short years BEFORE the election, Putin and Russia were ya'all's bestest buds....

Ya'all actually RIDICULED Romney because he called the geopolitical situation dead on ballz accurate...

Like I said..

The *ONLY* reason ya'all are so hysterical about Putin and Russia is because ya'all LOST..

No other conclusion fits all the facts...