(09-16-2018 10:16 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(09-15-2018 04:48 PM)450bench Wrote:  Democrats will never win another election of meaning...which is a blessing for this country

This is the same thing that Democrats said about Republicans when Obama got elected. That type of thinking is a slippery slope.

Democrats will win at some point. The scary part is that ALL their leaders are acting flat out nuts. Even Ginsburg and MSNBC are criticizing them now.

(09-15-2018 06:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ohhhhh god. You wouldn’t have won the last one without Putin’s help. My Gosh.

This being the modern day equivalent of Godwin's Law or the Race Card I'm going to start referring to it as the Putin Principle. It's that point in a conversation when you know the other party has lost their way and can't keep up...

(09-16-2018 10:42 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-15-2018 06:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ohhhhh god. You wouldn’t have won the last one without Putin’s help. My Gosh.

This being the modern day equivalent of Godwin's Law or the Race Card I'm going to start referring to it as the Putin Principle. It's that point in a conversation when you know the other party has lost their way and can't keep up...

dem purr kitties....

#мурлыканье

(09-16-2018 10:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2018 10:16 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(09-15-2018 04:48 PM)450bench Wrote:  Democrats will never win another election of meaning...which is a blessing for this country

This is the same thing that Democrats said about Republicans when Obama got elected. That type of thinking is a slippery slope.

Democrats will win at some point. The scary part is that ALL their leaders are acting flat out nuts. Even Ginsburg and MSNBC are criticizing them now.

yup....

it's amazing what happens to folk when they forget protecting the USD is numero uno....

You like freedom of speech. You have to like it from both sides. I only quoted the film because of that. Celebrate that in your classrooms then talk to me about freedoms.

(09-15-2018 06:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ohhhhh god. You wouldn’t have won the last one without Putin’s help. My Gosh.

Any facts to support that?

When any factual evidence is produced, let me know. Until then, I will leave you to your fantasies.

Just to clarify. I'm not denying that it happened or that there might be evidence that it happened. I'm merely pointing out that so far there is zero evidence, and in that event treating it as a done deal is getting a bit too far out over your skis.

The Trump Tower meeting was to get dirt on Clinton. It happened Owl.

(09-17-2018 03:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The Trump Tower meeting was to get dirt on Clinton. It happened Owl.

Was there any discussion of dirt on Clinton? No.

Did Hillary get fictional dirt on Trump from the Russians. Yes. Steele dossiere story was bought from the Russians.

So answer-do you support prosecuting Hillary for her campaign's actual collusion with Russians? And Steele for his collusion?

Please cite a non biased source that details what you claim bullet.

Link please.

No Russian propoganda please.

(09-17-2018 03:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The Trump Tower meeting was to get dirt on Clinton. It happened Owl.

Even if true, that doesnt assure a Clinton victory if it doesnt happen.

Beyond the white house, dems have been pathetic in congressional and local elections. I lean left on most issues, but the party is nuts and theyre going to get slaughtered again this fall.

(09-17-2018 03:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The Trump Tower meeting was to get dirt on Clinton. It happened Owl.

But that doesn't prove the assertion that you made, specifically, "Ohhhhh god. You wouldn’t have won the last one without Putin’s help. My Gosh."

I'm not even sure it's credible, admissible evidence of anything.

And by the way, what actually happened? According to what I have read, they met, reached no agreement, and left. If true, that is a major nothing burger.

That’s coming from the side that says it was about adoptions to............

(09-18-2018 07:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That’s coming from the side that says it was about adoptions to............

So?

Has anyone produced any evidence to the contrary? If there is evidence, let's see it. If there is no evidence to the contrary, then even a self-serving statement by an unreliable party carries the day.

(09-17-2018 03:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Please cite a non biased source that details what you claim bullet.

Link please.

No Russian propoganda please.

NPR good enough?

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/25/586040491...he-dossier

"...During the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, the leaders of the conservative news outlet Washington Free Beacon hired a private intelligence company, Fusion GPS, to conduct research into the candidates, including Trump. Early in the year, the Free Beacon's interest in the work lapsed. So by "early March," Fusion GPS approached the law firm Perkins Coie, which represents the Democratic National Committee, offering to continue its investigations into Trump. In April, the law firm agreed, and it began to underwrite the investigation.

Why is this important? After Fusion GPS was initially hired by conservatives, Democrats paid for the phase of the work that included the compilation of the dossier...."

And NBC?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-court...le-n897506

"...The FBI has released 71 pages of what it describes as correspondence between the bureau and Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored a dossier alleging collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

The heavily redacted records show FBI payments to Steele as a Confidential Human Source (CHS) over an unknown period. They also show that Steele told the FBI he had informed a third party he was acting as a CHS for the bureau, and that the FBI determined Steele had been a source for an online article.

On Nov. 1, 2016, according to the documents, the FBI told Steele it was unlikely to continue working with him, and he should not "obtain any intelligence whatsoever on behalf of the FBI....""

(09-18-2018 12:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 07:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That’s coming from the side that says it was about adoptions to............

So?

Has anyone produced any evidence to the contrary? If there is evidence, let's see it. If there is no evidence to the contrary, then even a self-serving statement by an unreliable party carries the day.

And of course, the Russian wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act which they responded to by cutting off adoptions. Saying it was about adoptions was 100% accurate even if that isn't a complete description.

(09-17-2018 03:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Please cite a non biased source that details what you claim bullet.
Link please.
No Russian propoganda please.

The problem, Mach, is that what you mean by "non-biased" is "biased in favor of the left."

There is no such thing as a non-biased source. Every source has its biases. What looks "non-biased" to you is a source whose biases match yours.

I'm impressed that Bullet found NPR and NBC. Neither of those is unbiased. Both have a heavily leftward bias. Meaning that to you those should both look "unbiased."