(10-25-2017 03:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 02:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 02:28 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  There is some speculation that the MSM & certain DC Dems realize the Clintons are washed up and are willing to sacrifice them in the attempt to appear objective.

That appearance would allow them to continue to hammer Trump by being considered "credible" news rather than "fake" news.



Regardless of the motive... good riddance.

It will be interesting to see which if any Dems come out blasting the Clintons and or DNC.

BTW that GIF in your sig... who is she?

Winnifer Fernandez. She is on the Dominican Republic national volleyball team.

(10-25-2017 03:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 03:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 02:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 02:28 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  There is some speculation that the MSM & certain DC Dems realize the Clintons are washed up and are willing to sacrifice them in the attempt to appear objective.

That appearance would allow them to continue to hammer Trump by being considered "credible" news rather than "fake" news.

Regardless of the motive... good riddance.

It will be interesting to see which if any Dems come out blasting the Clintons and or DNC.

BTW that GIF in your sig... who is she?

Winnifer Fernandez. She is on the Dominican Republic national volleyball team.

(10-25-2017 03:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 03:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 02:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 02:28 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  There is some speculation that the MSM & certain DC Dems realize the Clintons are washed up and are willing to sacrifice them in the attempt to appear objective.

That appearance would allow them to continue to hammer Trump by being considered "credible" news rather than "fake" news.



Regardless of the motive... good riddance.

It will be interesting to see which if any Dems come out blasting the Clintons and or DNC.

BTW that GIF in your sig... who is she?

Winnifer Fernandez. She is on the Dominican Republic national volleyball team.

So what? Trump paid for dirt on HRC. We have the emails and video.

(10-26-2017 05:59 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  So what? Trump paid for dirt on HRC. We have the emails and video.

Did he give a fake dossier to the FBI, sitting President, and MSM to discredit his opponent?

(10-26-2017 05:59 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  So what? Trump paid for dirt on HRC. We have the emails and video.

1. Trump campaign attempted to get opposition research from an entity, but then decided said entity was full of crap and that was it.

2. Hillary campaign paid millions for opposition research in which they received bogus intelligence reports from the Kremlin. They then took said opposition research and pawned it off as actual intelligence. Then they politically weaponized the FBI, DOJ, and intelligence departments with the fake intelligence, who then placed the fake information in front of a judge to get them to sign off on a tappity tap tap surveillance order on a political opponent of theirs.

So now, even if there was something they could hang on Manafort from a decade ago, its now going to get completely tossed due to this. Even Muehller colluding with the NY prosecutor will die on the vine.


Well played, libturds. Well played.

Apparently since it’s now acceptable to use the might of government to help the party in power and punish its opponents, the next election should be a lot easier for Republicans to win.

Man, the Democrats are going to hate these new rules.

Again, how has the dossier been discredited

(10-26-2017 08:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again, how has the dossier been discredited

Again, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

(10-26-2017 05:59 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  So what? Trump paid for dirt on HRC. We have the emails and video.

Did he use that to weaponize the FBI against an opponent during an election? We're talking about some next-level Nixon stuff here. Oddly enough, 'ol Hilldawg was VERY familiar with Watergate.

(10-26-2017 08:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again, how has the dossier been discredited

These posts are continual trolling attempts with zero attempt at actual conversation that need to be dealt with...

(10-26-2017 08:47 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 08:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again, how has the dossier been discredited

Again, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

The commissars believe that proving a negative is an affirmative duty, comrade.

It’s called phrasing. Quit saying it’s been discredited when you show absolutely zero evidence of it being discredited. It hasn’t been.

And what’s worse I have given you articles that say parts have been verified. On the scale of verified bs. Discredited. You have zero, nada, zilch on the discredited side and on the other side of verified. We have things that have been verified. The scale is tipped heavily in my favor. One side nothing. Other side weight.

(10-26-2017 09:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It’s called phrasing. Quit saying it’s been discredited when you show absolutely zero evidence of it being discredited. It hasn’t been.

We can go about this all day. Innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of Western law.

The dossier has no credit until there is evidence provided of the dossier being credible.

(10-26-2017 09:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  And what’s worse I have given you articles that say parts have been verified. On the scale of verified bs. Discredited. You have zero, nada, zilch on the discredited side and on the other side of verified. We have things that have been verified. The scale is tipped heavily in my favor. One side nothing. Other side weight.

I warned you it was going to be a rough couple of weeks. We are only about 3 days in so far.

Just wait until the FBI guy testifies that there was an ongoing bribery investigation going on when Clinton, Obama, & Holder approved that Uranium 1 deal. The shitz is gonna start getting realz then.

And there has been that you choose to ignore that very simple fact is not a burden upon me.

This thread...

(10-25-2017 01:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What you are saying is not true UofM. I know shocking.

Prove it.

(10-26-2017 08:47 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 08:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again, how has the dossier been discredited

Again, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

I think it's clear by this thread and the other thread which is now locked. Mach is never going to accept that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

He clearly has shown by his continued comments that he believes that if someone does not disprove or discredit 'claims' that they are true.

You, and the rest of us, repeating ourselves is not going to make him change his mind. He's not going to be able to understand that he's wrong, until he's the one being forced to disprove something that isn't true.

Experience is the best teacher.