Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Read this article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.8f3e088cb8cd




So what's going on?



I thought Trump was corrupt, colluding with the Russians, that Trump bought the election, etc. etc. etc. Bla bla bla


Anyway, can we all agree that both Democrats and Republicans are pieces of shit and stop shit slinging across the aisle all the time? Any of you diehard democrats, just stop. Any of you diehard republicans, just stop. Divorce your party and find local, state, and national representation that does not have an R or a D in front of the name. Time to actually drain the swamp.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.8f3e088cb8cd

Nope because the argument is who sucks more instead of how to fix things

I just read some independent party beliefs and they seem pretty closed off and wild as well.

Also, isn't this what each side does to each other all the time? Dig up dirt. Is it only bad because they paid for it?

I don't really understand your point.

But my point is they were both colluding with Russians and we should really stop with these two parties and bring something else in.

Firstly, it seemed like you posting a "not just Trump, but Hillary too" type of situation. To my knowledge, that is the way the game is played.

Secondly, you say why can't we ditch the systems to which I say they are too busy playing they "one sucks more game". Basically a never ending spam of posts like the one this thread started with. Your intentions were different, but this is what both parties do.

What party/group would you propose?

Originally posted by socool8520
Firstly, it seemed like you posting a "not just Trump, but Hillary too" type of situation. To my knowledge, that is the way the game is played.

No, it was "it's both" and I was quite sure that was obvious especially since I say to ditch both. "Hillary too" is not the same as "...both Democrats and Republicans are pieces of shit..."

Edit - Wait a minute. Just what a damn minute, here...what's going on? What are you trying to do, here? I reread and I think you're intentions are not okay. I think maybe you're trying to stir up some shit.

So it's okay because both do it, huh? That's your point? "Both do it. This is how the game is played." But the game has been for quite a long time, "Trump colluded." Months, now, this has been what is being said by quite a few, not just Dems. It's not okay. It's definitely not okay for either side. But now that something much more solid is showing up which definitely shits on the anti-Trump parade, why are you posting "both sides do it" stuff?

Originally posted by socool8520
Secondly, you say why can't we ditch the systems to which I say they are too busy playing they "one sucks more game". Basically a never ending spam of posts like the one this thread started with. Your intentions were different, but this is what both parties do.

I don't think you're actually making a point, here. What exactly is your point?

Edit - I think I understand, more, now. But it does not make sense to even associate me with the shit-slinging that goes on. I'm shitting on both sides of the aisle, not one or the other. You are still on about "this is what both parties do", to which I say, "IDGAF, tell hell with both."

Originally posted by socool8520
What party/group would you propose?

I propose "not Democrats or Republicans", as was in my opening post.

It's those types of posts that can in the back in forth arguments is what I'm saying. I said that wasn't your intent.

That's why we aren't ditching the parties is my point. They're too busy posting "you're party sucks more" articles to realize that both parties have goods ideas and bad ones.

Okay, ditch both parties, but then what?

Originally posted by socool8520
It's those types of posts that can in the back in forth arguments is what I'm saying. I said that wasn't your intent.

That's why we aren't ditching the parties is my point. They're too busy posting "you're party sucks more" articles to realize that both parties have goods ideas and bad ones.

Okay, ditch both parties, but then what?


Edit your post, go back and read my edits.

Originally posted by socool8520
Okay, ditch both parties, but then what?

Your question implies that you have no clue at all about anything outside of people who are Ds or Rs, right?

You have no idea and want someone to tell you about anyone outside of Ds and Rs, right?


Please be honest. Because you obviously just want to shit on anyone I present to play "gotcha."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your question implies that you have no clue at all about anything outside of people who are Ds or Rs, right?

You have no idea and want someone to tell you about anyone outside of Ds and Rs, right?


Please be honest. Because you obviously just want to shit on anyone I present to play "gotcha."

Not at all. calm down. What I want is for you to explain what kind of party system or way of running the country that is better than our two party system. I honestly just want to know your opinion. Not bashing you at all.

Originally posted by socool8520
Not at all. calm down.

Please don't do that.

Telling me to calm down, saying I'm upset, etc.

I'm clearly not upset and I don't think you are, either. You only do this when I call you out on your bullshit, though, which is telling of why you're doing it.




Originally posted by socool8520
What I want is for you to explain what kind of party system or way of running the country that is better than our two party system.

This is not what I talked about. This is not what I suggested. This is not what I wish to talk about, either. But I think you knew that. You're wanting to make my point something it wasn't to make your own point. You're moving the goalposts, sort of? Red herrings? Strawman?

So make your point. Or if you just made an honest mistake, no worries.


Originally posted by socool8520
I honestly just want to know your opinion. Not bashing you at all.


And I have provided it. You're asking me to address a point I never made so you can play gotcha and I'm just not interested in doing it.

And I never said you were bashing me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please don't do that.

Telling me to calm down, saying I'm upset, etc.

I'm clearly not upset and I don't think you are, either. You only do this when I call you out on your bullshit, though, which is telling of why you're doing it.

Well then, take a less condescending tone in your debate style. You tend to start questioning people's intelligence and coming off as a bit of jerk. It doesn't really bother me but I try to make it a point to say that I am attacking no one. I haven't ever tried any "bullshit" (see what I mean?) but I don't enjoy being talked down to. If you can't see that that is what you are doing, then it is more telling of your character than mine. If it's not meant to be dickish, then I'll never bring it up again.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Anyway, can we all agree that both Democrats and Republicans are pieces of shit and stop shit slinging across the aisle all the time? Any of you diehard democrats, just stop. Any of you diehard republicans, just stop. Divorce your party and find local, state, and national representation that does not have an R or a D in front of the name. Time to actually drain the swamp.

What is this supposed to mean if not to get rid of them? I understand not voting for a Dem/Rep just because that's what they are, but are they not going to represent your interests if that is the party you favor?

Interesting poll suggesting that perhaps Americans are ready for an 8 party system, as they've created little sub-groups for people beyond just "republican" or "democrat" or "conservative" or "liberal".

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559774933/2-party-system-americans-might-be-ready-for-8

Interesting, I wonder how this would shake things up in the Political world if you had this many different groups.

I wonder if this would stall things even more though. It's already hard enough to get two parties to agree

Originally posted by BackFire
Interesting poll suggesting that perhaps Americans are ready for an 8 party system, as they've created little sub-groups for people beyond just "republican" or "democrat" or "conservative" or "liberal".

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559774933/2-party-system-americans-might-be-ready-for-8


Yeah because it is working So Well for places like the UK....

But I thought the MSM didn't give democrats negative coverage?

And when we say "MSM", we aren't including the most mainstream of all news outlets...
Fox News

Originally posted by dadudemon



Anyway, can we all agree that both Democrats and Republicans are pieces of shit and stop shit slinging across the aisle all the time?

It's all your country has left. So I doubt it.

Originally posted by socool8520
Well then, take a less condescending tone in your debate style.


1. Hell no.

2. When you start off with a condescending tone in a thread and make 3 posts in a row, you should definitely expect someone to be questioning your motives and not trust you as being honest.

Originally posted by socool8520
You tend to start questioning people's intelligence...

Quote it where I did this to you.

Originally posted by socool8520
and coming off as a bit of jerk.

See my point #2 for why I responded with a bit snark.

Originally posted by socool8520
It doesn't really bother me but I try to make it a point to say that I am attacking no one.

It bothers you a bit, actually. It's noticeable. You've spent quite a bit of time personally attacking me, at this point. So you're clearly bothered a bit by this.

Originally posted by socool8520
I haven't ever tried any "bullshit" (see what I mean?)

You clearly have. I think you were bored so you wanted to play gotcha for a bit. Similar to your "subjective" word game about UBI.

Originally posted by socool8520
but I don't enjoy being talked down to.

Great. Where did I do that to you, again?

Originally posted by socool8520
If you can't see that that is what you are doing, then it is more telling of your character than mine. If it's not meant to be dickish, then I'll never bring it up again.

Not dickish, at all. Just responded to your condescension and what appears to be trolling-boredemn.

Originally posted by socool8520
What is this supposed to mean if not to get rid of them? I understand not voting for a Dem/Rep just because that's what they are, but are they not going to represent your interests if that is the party you favor?

According to research, they are not representing my interests unless I am very rich or a lobbyist for someone very rich (or a company that has lots of money). This is part of why the anti-corruption movement is making waves.

Originally posted by jaden101
It's all your country has left. So I doubt it.

I've seen people who are traditionally Democrats and people who are traditionally Republicans agree with me, on multiple occasions, that the Dems and GOP are mostly garbage. I do see hope in changing the system and truly draining the swamp. The conversation and change starts there: getting both sides to agree that their respective parties are shit.

I've always said both sides are corrupt as shit. The way I see the election is both were corrupt but Trump was incompetent to boot and emotionally unstable as it gets.

New York Times reporter is being attacked over one tweet that angered Clinton defenders

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps her defenders are in a bit of a panic over stories like this?

Obama Administration Granted Visa To Russian Nuclear Official In Bribery Scheme Linked to Clinton's State Department

Originally posted by Surtur
Perhaps her defenders are in a bit of a panic over stories like this?

Obama Administration Granted Visa To Russian Nuclear Official In Bribery Scheme Linked to Clinton's State Department

Of course they are in a panic. You can't have the moral high ground with the anti-Trump hate if you're just going to look like a HUGE hypocrite.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course they are in a panic. You can't have the moral high ground with the anti-Trump hate if you're just going to look like a HUGE hypocrite.

The funny thing is the DNC came out and was all "this wasn't decided by the new people in charge!". Which would mean they are probably saying Debbie Wasserman Schultz was involved.

The elephant in the room is getting harder to ignore. They truly do have something to scream at the sky over lol.

FBI offered to pay for work on Trump dossier.

Originally posted by socool8520
Nope because the argument is who sucks more instead of how to fix things

I just read some independent party beliefs and they seem pretty closed off and wild as well.

Also, isn't this what each side does to each other all the time? Dig up dirt. Is it only bad because they paid for it?



Not condescending and directed at your arguments, not you

Originally posted by dadudemon

You have no idea and want someone to tell you about anyone outside of Ds and Rs, right?


Please be honest. Because you obviously just want to shit on anyone I present to play "gotcha."
Pointless tangent attacking socool personally and talking down to him.

Can you spot the difference?

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Hell no.

2. When you start off with a condescending tone in a thread and make 3 posts in a row, you should definitely expect someone to be questioning your motives and not trust you as being honest.

Quote it where I did this to you.

See my point #2 for why I responded with a bit snark.

Cool we have established this is your go to style. You will no longer get a calm down type comment from me again.


"You have no idea and want someone to tell you about anyone outside of Ds and Rs, right?" You said that. You say things like that all the time. To everyone you debate with.


Originally posted by dadudemon
It bothers you a bit, actually. It's noticeable. You've spent quite a bit of time personally attacking me, at this point. So you're clearly bothered a bit by this.

I'm pretty confident I have never questioned nor attacked your intelligence ever. The article spamming wasn't even about you. lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
You clearly have. I think you were bored so you wanted to play gotcha for a bit. Similar to your "subjective" word game about UBI.

No, I was explaining to you that what you were doing (posting look what they did articles) is exactly why they can't see both parties suck equally. I even pointed out that wasn't your intent. I was calling out the reason why they won't stop bickering. You took it as a personal attack for some strange reason.

I stand by the civil thing. We obviously have different interpretations of what civility is, but I will not concede that just because I don't want money taken from me, I'm not civilized. If someone disagreeing with you is considered trolling, then I really don't know what to tell you dude.



Originally posted by dadudemon
According to research, they are not representing my interests unless I am very rich or a lobbyist for someone very rich (or a company that has lots of money). This is part of why the anti-corruption movement is making waves.

Fair enough. These were points that I do not remember you bringing up in your OP or any other post in this thread up until now.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Not condescending and directed at your arguments, not you


Pointless tangent attacking socool personally and talking down to him.

Can you spot the difference?

I'm glad somebody saw that I wasn't attacking him, but this is being carried forward from another discussion we had. I missed his last post though. I have nothing against anyone on these boards personally.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I've always said both sides are corrupt as shit. The way I see the election is both were corrupt but Trump was incompetent to boot and emotionally unstable as it gets.

I still can't believe you aren't a Trump supporter. I was sure of it!

Don't ask why.

Originally posted by socool8520


What party/group would you propose?

Something that reflects the complexities and naunces of the American people.

Instead, the news ignores pro life Democrats, or same sex marriage supporting, moderate gun regulating Republicans.. Not to mention outright ignoring third rails..

Basically, our politics are broken because our way of getting information is compromised, imo...

Originally posted by socool8520
"You have no idea and want someone to tell you about anyone outside of Ds and Rs, right?" You said that. You say things like that all the time. To everyone you debate with.

I asked you to provide a quote where I was questioning your intelligence because you said I questioned your intelligence. You did not provide that at all. You didn't even provide something remotely close to that. Did you really intend for that to be your point? Do you not see why it is ridiculous to say someone is questioning your intelligence because they are trying to clarify your question?

Originally posted by socool8520
I'm pretty confident I have never questioned nor attacked your intelligence ever. The article spamming wasn't even about you. lol

I think you're confused because your reply does not really match up with what you quoted/responded to.


Originally posted by socool8520
I was calling out the reason why they won't stop bickering. You took it as a personal attack for some strange reason.

This is clearly a strawman on your part. It's a rather absurd one, too. I most certainly did not take that as a personal attack. I did not mention "personal attack" in reference to what you are talking about, here, and in temporal context (because we talked about 'stuff' later). You're mixing up things. I do not think you're following along in this conversation at all. And, no, I am not questioning your intelligence: you being unable to properly follow along in a forum discussion that spans many hours, while jumbling up tags and threads, while also probably doing normal human things throughout your day, is understandable. It is unnatural and awkward to try and have a conversation on the internet. So do not try to twist my words, here, into me questioning your intelligence.

Originally posted by socool8520
...but I will not concede that just because I don't want money taken from me, I'm not civilized.

This is also a strawman. You did not even come close to representing my perspective. You don't need to reply to me with "so then tell me what your actual point is so I can represent it properly" because that would be dumb when you can just go back and read my words and quote them, verbatim, to represent my point.

If you would like to debate this point on what it means to be in a civil and social group among other humans in a nation-state, I would be more than happy to discuss this with you, further, on a phone call. I will PM you my phone #.

Originally posted by socool8520
If someone disagreeing with you is considered trolling, then I really don't know what to tell you dude.

Seriously, you use a strawman for most of your responses. Quite clearly, what I've pointed out is not that you disagree with me. Not once. But now you're trying to pretend that's what I'm doing. What's the matter, are you jealous of Robtard, Surtur, and co. so you want to try and bring someone down into a cesspool of shit, too? Are you bored? I seriously suspect you're bored.

To drive home this point that you're clearly using a strawman, do we even disagree on the point? Because I think we actually do agree on the foundation of the point. That point being that both parties are rife with corrupt practices and the system has to make a qualitative change to start better serving the people they represent.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Not condescending and directed at your arguments, not you

I disagree. The part where it goes south is the condescension in the next post which you artifully left off:

Originally posted by socool8520
Firstly, it seemed like you posting a "not just Trump, but Hillary too" type of situation. To my knowledge, that is the way the game is played.

Secondly, you say why can't we ditch the systems to which I say they are too busy playing they "one sucks more game". Basically a never ending spam of posts like the one this thread started with. Your intentions were different, but this is what both parties do.

What party/group would you propose?

And he used a strawman in his very first reply, regarding my question.


Originally posted by socool8520
Pointless tangent attacking socool personally and talking down to him.

Can you spot the difference?

It was neither pointless nor an attack. He was either not being an honest actor in the conversation or he truly wanted to know. If it as the first, ignored and moving on. If it was the second, I would have been more than happy to explain that. However, his second reply to the thread clearly indicated he was not an honest actor because he already shit on third parties with the following:

Originally posted by socool8520
I just read some independent party beliefs and they seem pretty closed off and wild as well.

So, no, he is not an honest actor and me wondering if he's trolling or if he really genuinely wants me to superficially educate him on American Third Parties is a legitimate concern on my part. It is perfectly okay to ask people for more information on the internet. It is actually a good thing. But he definitely did not seem genuine so I wanted him to clarify. And did he? Boy did he.

Let's draw your attention to his pretend "honest" reply to my question:

Originally posted by socool8520
Not at all. calm down. What I want is for you to explain what kind of party system or way of running the country that is better than our two party system. I honestly just want to know your opinion. Not bashing you at all.

Oh, yes, he's so honest in his intentions, right? Right? But wait...he just said he did some research and threw out the third parties, already. So is he really honest? Does he REALLY want to know my opinion?


So he just read some independent third party beliefs (he even called them "beliefs" and now he's an expert, right? And he seems to want to throw it all away, right? Is that the statement of someone being honest? No, definitely not. Is that the statement of a closed-minded fool who thinks he just gleaned enough about 3rd parties to be able to dismiss them all? Yes, most definitely. But is he a close-minded fool? No, he's not. So what is really going on? He's probably just trolling.


Obviously, most people could pick up on this. But you have an agenda because I called out your trolling very early on. So of course you'll pop in to cheer-lead.


But I think you just wanted a lengthy reply. You can clearly see that he's not been an honest actor in this conversation from the beginning. Pretending I hurt his poor feelings when he started the condescension "flavor" to the conversation is plainly laughable.

Originally posted by cdtm
Something that reflects the complexities and naunces of the American people.

Instead, the news ignores pro life Democrats, or same sex marriage supporting, moderate gun regulating Republicans.. Not to mention outright ignoring third rails..

Basically, our politics are broken because our way of getting information is compromised, imo...


Oh, yeah, that's right. The vast majority of Republicans I know are about sensible gun control laws, for gay marriage, drug legalization, and some are in support of a universal healthcare solution.

The ones that oppose those thing are Christian Evangelical Republicans. Which are much different than the average Republican. If you let the vocal minority dictate policy and even "the voice of our opinion", you'll get a very distorted perspective.


I say let's remove tax exemption from churches.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I asked you to provide a quote where I was questioning your intelligence because you said I questioned your intelligence. You did not provide that at all. You didn't even provide something remotely close to that. Did you really intend for that to be your point? Do you not see why it is ridiculous to say someone is questioning your intelligence because they are trying to clarify your question?



I think you're confused because your reply does not really match up with what you quoted/responded to.




This is clearly a strawman on your part. It's a rather absurd one, too. I most certainly did not take that as a personal attack. I did not mention "personal attack" in reference to what you are talking about, here, and in temporal context (because we talked about 'stuff' later). You're mixing up things. I do not think you're following along in this conversation at all. And, no, I am not questioning your intelligence: you being unable to properly follow along in a forum discussion that spans many hours, while jumbling up tags and threads, while also probably doing normal human things throughout your day, is understandable. It is unnatural and awkward to try and have a conversation on the internet. So do not try to twist my words, here, into me questioning your intelligence.



This is also a strawman. You did not even come close to representing my perspective. You don't need to reply to me with "so then tell me what your actual point is so I can represent it properly" because that would be dumb when you can just go back and read my words and quote them, verbatim, to represent my point.

If you would like to debate this point on what it means to be in a civil and social group among other humans in a nation-state, I would be more than happy to discuss this with you, further, on a phone call. I will PM you my phone #.



Seriously, you use a strawman for most of your responses. Quite clearly, what I've pointed out is not that you disagree with me. Not once. But now you're trying to pretend that's what I'm doing. What's the matter, are you jealous of Robtard, Surtur, and co. so you want to try and bring someone down into a cesspool of shit, too? Are you bored? I seriously suspect you're bored.

To drive home this point that you're clearly using a strawman, do we even disagree on the point? Because I think we actually do agree on the foundation of the point. That point being that both parties are rife with corrupt practices and the system has to make a qualitative change to start better serving the people they represent.

Look dude, we leave it at you're clearly not going to see things from my perspective (as you think I'm trolling you for some odd reason) and leave it at that. It's obvious we see things quite differently and this back and forth will do nothing but derail the thread. Sound good?

Originally posted by cdtm
Something that reflects the complexities and naunces of the American people.

Instead, the news ignores pro life Democrats, or same sex marriage supporting, moderate gun regulating Republicans.. Not to mention outright ignoring third rails..

Basically, our politics are broken because our way of getting information is compromised, imo...

I would agree the media picks and chooses the wrong viewpoints or blows certain political view points out of proportion for hits so to speak. The only way i would see to fix that though is some kind of boycott of news media or something of that nature.

It would be nice if every time you turn on the news they actually reported about the policies pros/cons rather Hillary's e-mails or Trump's stupid comments.

Originally posted by socool8520
Look dude, we leave it at you're clearly not going to see things from my perspective (as you think I'm trolling you for some odd reason) and leave it at that. It's obvious we see things quite differently and this back and forth will do nothing but derail the thread. Sound good?

Okay, I concede. But I don't know what I'm conceding. But you're right about what we are arguing about and I was wrong. What do you want me to do, now? Meaning, what would you like to see happen from me regarding this situation or topic? I will execute if it is reasonable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, I concede. But I don't know what I'm conceding. But you're right about what we are arguing about and I was wrong. What do you want me to do, now?

No concession to be had. i wasn't looking to win anything outside of letting you know that I wasn't attacking you and that i honestly wanted to know your thoughts on how we fix this political garbage we have going on right now. I just don't want to go back and forth on misinterpretations we both seemed to have had.

Originally posted by socool8520
No concession to be had. i wasn't looking to win anything outside of letting you know that I wasn't attacking you and that i honestly wanted to know your thoughts on how we fix this political garbage we have going on right now. I just don't want to go back and forth on misinterpretations we both seemed to have had.

Okay, then my opinion is that the answer is with a combination of 2 or 3 third parties where we take the best of ideas and combine them into one "good idea" party.


Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Independent Party.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, then my opinion is that the answer is with a combination of 2 or 3 third parties where we take the best of ideas and combine them into one "good idea" party.


Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Independent Party.

Not mad at that. I would love to just see the bills/policies for what they are before the opposing parties destroy with add-ons that kill it. Let the American people decide if the bill is good and not just trash it because your party didn't come up with it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. The part where it goes south is the condescension in the next post which you artifully left off:
That's not condescension at all. Not once did he personally attack or belittle you. He specifically attacked arguments. Whether or not you consider them strawmen is totally irrelevant to the point.

Don't project your own tendencies onto others

BREAKING NEWS THAT IS SHOCKING TO EVERYONE WHO DOESN’T READ THE NEWSPAPER!

You know the Steele Dossier, compiled by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who was contracted by Fusion GPS to compile opposition research way back during the campaign? That thing that alleges that Donald Trump's campaign was engaged in a massive cover-up with Russia to influence/steal the 2016 election? Yes, that one! If you'll remember, we learned recently that, though investigators haven't verified every single thing in it, they haven't debunked one single little thing about it!

During the Republican primary, Fusion GPS's opposition research was funded by "a Republican" (Jeb! probably, unless it was the Mercers back when they were Ted Cruz backers), but once Trump won the nomination, "some Democrats" took over the funding. Steele was hired soon after. We learned this information from THE VERY FIRST NEWS STORY about the dossier, when it was broken by David Corn at Mother Jones on October 31, 2016.

The fact his work was funded by Clinton people doesn't mean piddly shit, since anybody who's ever covered politics before (journalism fact coming, you'll want to take notes) knows that candidates aren't funding opposition research to find FAKE NEWS on their opponents, they're funding it to find REAL DIRT.

And Christopher Steele found it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
BREAKING NEWS THAT IS SHOCKING TO EVERYONE WHO DOESN’T READ THE NEWSPAPER!

You know the Steele Dossier, compiled by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who was contracted by Fusion GPS to compile opposition research way back during the campaign? That thing that alleges that Donald Trump's campaign was engaged in a massive cover-up with Russia to influence/steal the 2016 election? Yes, that one! If you'll remember, we learned recently that, though investigators haven't verified every single thing in it, they haven't debunked one single little thing about it!

During the Republican primary, Fusion GPS's opposition research was funded by "a Republican" (Jeb! probably, unless it was the Mercers back when they were Ted Cruz backers), but once Trump won the nomination, "some Democrats" took over the funding. Steele was hired soon after. We learned this information from THE VERY FIRST NEWS STORY about the dossier, when it was broken by David Corn at Mother Jones on October 31, 2016.

The fact his work was funded by Clinton people doesn't mean piddly shit, since anybody who's ever covered politics before (journalism fact coming, you'll want to take notes) knows that candidates aren't funding opposition research to find FAKE NEWS on their opponents, they're funding it to find REAL DIRT.

And Christopher Steele found it.

Old news Adam, the Republican left before any of the information about Russians, etc in the dossier even came about. So all that information gathered in the dossier by the British spy was the Dems. Top Notch

I realize you must be desperate to shift this narrative though, good on you for trying.

Journalists Keep Incorrectly Claiming GOP Financed Russian Dossier, They Did Not

DOJ gives FBI informant green light to testify on Russian uranium efforts

I thought she said she was unaware of any Russian attempt to infiltrate her close knit political group.

This just makes it look like she is unaware of anything.

Originally posted by socool8520
I thought she said she was unaware of any Russian attempt to infiltrate her close knit political group.

This just makes it look like she is unaware of anything.

This comes up with multiple political controversies. "I didn't know!"

It then becomes a conversation of, "You are a poor leader because you cannot even handle your own people and are oblivious of what is going on."


or...


"You're a damn liar."



Using the excuse, "I had no idea my people were doing this bad thing!" leads to the above 2 options. I may be committing the false dichotomy fallacy but usually, in these cases, it's not.

Both are valid options when it becomes a trend, because at some point it becomes "What the hell do you know?"

Why would anyone even believe she was unaware? This is the same campaign that swore up and down they didn't pay for it, lol. Silly bint.

Still loving how utterly betrayed some Clinton supporters acted that someone at the NYT even dared to point out these sanctimonious little shits lied and lied.

And I do love the "The Republicans first began the dossier!". Whenever you see a leftist spew that you know they are desperate. It's lovely.

Could we finally see these people put in their place? That informant is now going to be allowed to talk to congress, etc.

Time to scream up to the sky, leftists. Give us a wail.

wDYNVH0U3cs

Almost reminds you of...

WWaLxFIVX1s

LOL!

Clinton Press Sec: "Would Have Been Campaign Malpractice" If We Didn't Purchase Trump Dossier

I'd say "somebody take the shovel away from the DNC" but I don't want it to be taken away.

Originally posted by 2142
The "republicans" meaning John McCain.

So in other words "John McCain broke the law first, and we just followed his suit."

Trump did say he'd reveal who did it, but who knows if he will. What is important is all the shit in the dossier about Russians and pee pee and all this was from once the Dems took over.

If McCain didn't start it I think he did give it to Comey. It'd be funny if he did start it though, he couldn't "maverick" his way out of that revelation.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
BREAKING NEWS THAT IS SHOCKING TO EVERYONE WHO DOESN’T READ THE NEWSPAPER!

You know the Steele Dossier, compiled by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who was contracted by Fusion GPS to compile opposition research way back during the campaign? That thing that alleges that Donald Trump's campaign was engaged in a massive cover-up with Russia to influence/steal the 2016 election? Yes, that one! If you'll remember, we learned recently that, though investigators haven't verified every single thing in it, they haven't debunked one single little thing about it!

During the Republican primary, Fusion GPS's opposition research was funded by "a Republican" (Jeb! probably, unless it was the Mercers back when they were Ted Cruz backers), but once Trump won the nomination, "some Democrats" took over the funding. Steele was hired soon after. We learned this information from THE VERY FIRST NEWS STORY about the dossier, when it was broken by David Corn at Mother Jones on October 31, 2016.

The fact his work was funded by Clinton people doesn't mean piddly shit, since anybody who's ever covered politics before (journalism fact coming, you'll want to take notes) knows that candidates aren't funding opposition research to find FAKE NEWS on their opponents, they're funding it to find REAL DIRT.

And Christopher Steele found it.


I find much amusement in Trumpers once again uncontrollably pissing themselves over the possibility; even if slim, that #Peepeegate is true and it comes out that Trump likes paying Russian prostitutes to piss on beds and possibly on himself. LoLz, they'll never live that down.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That's not condescension at all. Not once did he personally attack or belittle you. He specifically attacked arguments. Whether or not you consider them strawmen is totally irrelevant to the point.

Don't project your own tendencies onto others

Trollolololooollooolol!

Originally posted by Robtard
I find much amusement in Trumpers once again uncontrollably pissing themselves over the possibility; even if slim, that #Peepeegate is true and it comes out that Trump likes paying Russian prostitutes to piss on beds and possibly on himself. LoLz, they'll never live that down.

A yet to be identified Republican, likely Jeb, hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump during the Republican primary.

Once the primary was over, he no longer had use for the research, and a yet to be identified Democrat, likely a lawyer at the law firm hired to do opposition research on Trump for the Clinton campaign, picked up the Fusion GPS contract.

There is nothing illegal or nefarious about any of this, let alone anything to suggest that any of the information in the dossier is false. The entire point of opposition research is to uncover real information about the opposition candidate that is not public knowledge.

Conservative media is trying to discredit the dossier, and create a false equivalency between hiring what amounts to a private investigator and working with an agent of a foreign government.

Just look at all of the ridiculous flips above for examples.

This is really what I was talking about in the beginning of this thread

Originally posted by socool8520
This is really what I was talking about in the beginning of this thread

I'm just beginning to notice some of the leftists here seem to be starting to sweat.

*gets out popcorn*

Originally posted by dadudemon
Trollolololooollooolol!

He is like some sort of self appointed forum defender, isn't he? lol

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A yet to be identified Republican, likely Jeb, hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump during the Republican primary.

Once the primary was over, he no longer had use for the research, and a yet to be identified Democrat, likely a lawyer at the law firm hired to do opposition research on Trump for the Clinton campaign, picked up the Fusion GPS contract.

There is nothing illegal or nefarious about any of this, let alone anything to suggest that any of the information in the dossier is false. The entire point of opposition research is to uncover real information about the opposition candidate that is not public knowledge.

Conservative media is trying to discredit the dossier, and create a false equivalency between hiring what amounts to a private investigator and working with an agent of a foreign government.

Just look at all of the ridiculous flips above for examples.

Seems they're defo scared of what might come leaking out...

Of course of course, Nothing to see here.

Yeah, no "leftists" are sweating this. Conservative media is sweating, which is why they've concocted this non-story from information that has been public knowledge since October of last year. We're just laughing at the total gullibility of conservatives who never cease to fall for this crap every single time.

Okay man yeah, totally.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yeah, no "leftists" are sweating this. Conservative media is sweating, which is why they've concocted this non-story from information that has been public knowledge since October of last year. We're just laughing at the total gullibility of conservatives who never cease to fall for this crap every single time.

Bingo

They know the potential splash this could make, so they're playing damage control by dusting off old and irrelevant news

Originally posted by Robtard
Lock her and Trump up then


Fair.


Originally posted by Robtard
Bingo

They know the potential splash this could make, so they're playing damage control by dusting off old and irrelevant news

Noticed the urine colored touch. Your craftsmanship does not go unnoticed.


Edit - This is was not a story that the conservatards concocted. This was a story busted out by the liberal NYT.

And before anyone tries to contradict, the Washington Posts lists NYT as liberal, even more liberal than Huffington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/?utm_term=.1930466577d2

vy0Ki47k4C4

yep.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Noticed the urine colored touch. Your craftsmanship does not go unnoticed.


Thanks; means a lot

Money doesn't have to be exchanged for soliciting goods/services from foreigners to be a crime. The soliciting alone is a crime itself.

And are we really going to pretend that the Junior meeting wasn't a cascading series of lies that had to be pulled tooth by tooth to finally uncover some of the truth? Of course we are, because different rules for Trump.

Say it with me: LOCK THEM ALL UP. Clinton, Trump, Kushner, Podesta, Junior, Manafort and anyone else involved.

Nope.jpeg

There are different rules for Clinton, ones that Trump magically gets a free pass on cos NEVER TRUMP

Seriously? We just did this right on the page: The same crime you're levying at the Clinton campaign would also apply to the Trump campaign.

I'm cool with it, lock em all up.

Repeat: The. Intent. To. Commit. A. Crime. Is. Still. A. Crime.

So the Clinton campaign committed the crime and the Trump campaign intended too, but it fell through. Lock em all up, be fair and impartial.

I'm sorry, but intention to commit a crime is still a crime. This is a fact.

See: To Catch a Predator, those pedos would use the "but I never actually ****ed a kid" excuse like you're applying to the Trump campaign, but they still went to jail cos crime.

Well then I guess it's good Robert Swan Mueller is on the case

I literally just did prove it with a well known example. If you don't believe me, solicit oral sex from a police officer and then after you're arrested say "but I never sucked his dick or paid him!" to the judge.

OH, I read it, son. And what did Junior believe he would be receiving when he met with people he thought were part of the Russian government? Could it have been what he thought was something of value like information? Yes. Yes, was it was.

God these people are dipshits.

2ofeUHydHAs

When did I dispute that? It seems you realize you were wrong with your "it's okay if it's free" angle and are just lashing out.

2142, who are you? I know you're a sock but you're not a sock troll.

Did 2142's posts get deleted? It makes Rob look like a psycho. lol

This isn't a Left thing, it isn't a Right thing: it's a Human thing when lotsa power is at stake. But some peeps are worse than others. The Clintons are no innocents, but then, they don't lie as readily as they breathe nor imply they're the only ones to be trusted nor attack war heroes and Gold Star families nor foam-at-the-mouth to conceal their tax returns. In this game of Who's Worse, there is only one temperamental, politically incompetent, demagogic windbag who conned his way into office by playing on the fears and prejudices of white people.

That said: I have said from the beginning, I don't care what claim is made by which side of the isle: you better have evidence to back it up, otherwise it's just noise out of the pie hole. If Clinton is guilty, so be it. If Trump is innocent, so be it. Truth before party.

The anti-Trump (pro-Truth?) forces have been hard at work at this. The pro-Trump (the Trump Entranced?) better get their ass in gear as well. Let's hope, in investigating Clinton, they do better than with Benghazi. Regardless, and if it hasn't started already, there's gonna be a subtle shift of the Trump Entranced from explicitly defending Trump to implicitly defending their decision to vote for him. Saving face trumps all.

Originally posted by Mindship
This isn't a Left thing, it isn't a Right thing: it's a Human thing when lotsa power is at stake. But some peeps are worse than others. The Clintons are no innocents, but then, they don't lie as readily as they breathe nor imply they're the only ones to be trusted nor attack war heroes and Gold Star families nor foam-at-the-mouth to conceal their tax returns. In this game of Who's Worse, there is only one temperamental, politically incompetent, demagogic windbag who conned his way into office by playing on the fears and prejudices of white people.

That said: I have said from the beginning, I don't care what claim is made by which side of the isle: you better have evidence to back it up, otherwise it's just noise out of the pie hole. If Clinton is guilty, so be it. If Trump is innocent, so be it. Truth before party.

The anti-Trump (pro-Truth?) forces have been hard at work at this. The pro-Trump (the Trump Entranced?) better get their ass in gear as well. Let's hope, in investigating Clinton, they do better than with Benghazi. Regardless, and if it hasn't started already, there's gonna be a subtle shift of the Trump Entranced from explicitly defending Trump to implicitly defending their decision to vote for him. Saving face trumps all.

Originally posted by socool8520
Did 2142's posts get deleted? It makes Rob look like a psycho. lol

Surely not, they wouldn't leave Steve Zodiac not banned and ban him. That would take a monumental piece of shit to do so.

Well, that's who Rob was talking to and now even his quotes are gone. I don't think he even did anything other than disagreeing with people.

Originally posted by socool8520
Well, that's who Rob was talking to and now even his quotes are gone. I don't think he even did anything other than disagreeing with people.

Some socks get free reign and some don't. Fee fee's get hurt by differing opinions, etc. I get it.

Originally posted by Mindship
This isn't a Left thing, it isn't a Right thing: it's a Human thing when lotsa power is at stake. But some peeps are worse than others. The Clintons are no innocents, but then, they don't lie as readily as they breathe nor imply they're the only ones to be trusted nor attack war heroes and Gold Star families nor foam-at-the-mouth to conceal their tax returns. In this game of Who's Worse, there is only one temperamental, politically incompetent, demagogic windbag who conned his way into office by playing on the fears and prejudices of white people.

That said: I have said from the beginning, I don't care what claim is made by which side of the isle: you better have evidence to back it up, otherwise it's just noise out of the pie hole. If Clinton is guilty, so be it. If Trump is innocent, so be it. Truth before party.

The anti-Trump (pro-Truth?) forces have been hard at work at this. The pro-Trump (the Trump Entranced?) better get their ass in gear as well. Let's hope, in investigating Clinton, they do better than with Benghazi. Regardless, and if it hasn't started already, there's gonna be a subtle shift of the Trump Entranced from explicitly defending Trump to implicitly defending their decision to vote for him. Saving face trumps all.

One item I grow tired of and I contributed to with this thread is the..."Hillary" bullshit. She's not the president. Why do people still focus so much on what a piece of shit she is (we all know it...none of us deny it) when she's not president?

She is still an important figure in Democratic Politics and is still getting brought up in these scandals forcing her back into the limelight. I see your point though.

Weird if true:

Obama paid nearly $1 million to law firm that hired Fusion GPS to compile anti-Trump dossier

Originally posted by dadudemon
One item I grow tired of and I contributed to with this thread is the..."Hillary" bullshit. She's not the president. Why do people still focus so much on what a piece of shit she is (we all know it...none of us deny it) when she's not president? Straw man? Sorry. Straw woman? I don't trust politicians in general, John God-Bless-every-cell-of-that-man's-body McCain being an exception.

Originally posted by dadudemon
One item I grow tired of and I contributed to with this thread is the..."Hillary" bullshit. She's not the president. Why do people still focus so much on what a piece of shit she is (we all know it...none of us deny it) when she's not president?

IMO she's relevant as long as folk are going to continually whine over Russia, because what some believe is that Russia stole the election from poor Hilary. And as long as she continues to spew hot garbage from her mouth she will be relevant.

One example is with the Las Vegas shooting:

Hilary Clinton- we shouldn't politicize this....blame the NRA!