(03-08-2017 07:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No they haven't. Those will be coming in the next couple of months.

And why not before now?

It just makes zero sense.

(03-08-2017 05:17 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Read after that JMU

Actually I had, I was just being kind and giving a heads-up to anyone else wandering onto this and saving them the time.


First off, there is nothing, nothing, new in there. All of it has been publicly reported, tweeted, discussed on shows, bandied about on radio and whatever else.

Is there LOTS of stuff there? Well, yea. Most of it manufactured to take up space. So it does that pretty well, I guess. Is there any there, there?

No.

You'll disagree, and that's fine. Please point out the more relevant parts you are concerned with.

*EDIT*

So I did go back and read your post with your "concerns". You repeatedly call opinions LIES! How can that be?

Again, there's lots of "stuffs" there, that's about it. Let me know when Kevin Bacon makes his appearance.

(03-08-2017 06:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  He has said multiple times he doesn't do business with Russians. He doesn't know anybody from Russia. Russia is a ruse....

These are bold face lies. Now you have to investigate them to find theaout what you CAN PROVE! I'm certain we will have these investigations now but for anyone to say we don't have motive. Oh yes we do. Easing of sanctions being numero uno. We have evidence of quid pro quo on the hackings. All you have to do is investigate it.

Bald face lies...

That aside, how do you figure? I know someone from Russia, but I certainly wouldn't say "I know Russians". The Russia is a ruse statement is an opinion. As in "In my opinion the Russia thing is a ruse." Guess what? To a large extent I think a lot of it is a ruse as well.

Is there any proof it was the Rooskies that did the phishing job on the DNC idiots? Where? IS it possible they did it? Sure. Passed it along to Assange and Wikileaks? Sure.

Was any of it refuted? Nope. Not a one.

Does that somehow prove that Trump was complicit with any of that?

Well of course not. Not even remotely close.

(03-08-2017 07:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 07:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No they haven't. Those will be coming in the next couple of months.

And why not before now?

It just makes zero sense.

Exactly. They would have had something before Nov 8th. Their conspiracy theories defy logic.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

No one thought he would win.

(03-08-2017 06:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  He has said multiple times he doesn't do business with Russians. He doesn't know anybody from Russia. Russia is a ruse....
These are bold face lies. Now you have to investigate them to find theaout what you CAN PROVE! I'm certain we will have these investigations now but for anyone to say we don't have motive. Oh yes we do. Easing of sanctions being numero uno. We have evidence of quid pro quo on the hackings. All you have to do is investigate it.

I think the record will reflect, and correcting my earlier comment, that he has been chasing business in Russia for 2-3 decades but hasn't actually had a deal come together.

I wouldn't say he doesn't know anybody from Russia. I think he has made it clear that he has met Putin, and the two apparently got on well enough.

But none of that proves any kind of conspiracy. To prove a conspiracy, you sort of have to prove, like, you know, a conspiracy. Nothing here proves that.

You're talking about a timeline of what could easily be independent and unrelated events, and trying to force then to fit some conspiracy theory. And the narrative you referenced consists of some facts, some conjecture, and some frankly wild-ass guesses.

You want an investigation. Of what? How would you tie an investigation of any event in your timeline with any other event?

(03-08-2017 08:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No one thought he would win.

Then why not do it before the electoral college voted? They were making an effort to stop people from voting for him to the extent of death threats.

(03-08-2017 08:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No one thought he would win.

Just goes to show how stupid the left's leadership really is. I thought it was a 50/50 shot the whole way. People who thought he had no chance we completely out of touch with hiw pissed off the common man was.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-08-2017 08:54 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 08:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No one thought he would win.

Just goes to show how stupid the left's leadership really is. I thought it was a 50/50 shot the whole way. People who thought he had no chance we completely out of touch with hiw pissed off the common man was.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Even the Fox network people though he had no chance. So it wasn't just the left. It was the people in the coastal bubbles.

People outside those bubbles figured it would be very close.

(03-08-2017 09:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 08:54 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 08:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No one thought he would win.

Just goes to show how stupid the left's leadership really is. I thought it was a 50/50 shot the whole way. People who thought he had no chance we completely out of touch with hiw pissed off the common man was.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Even the Fox network people though he had no chance. So it wasn't just the left. It was the people in the coastal bubbles.

People outside those bubbles figured it would be very close.

what about the people who aren't in those bubbles that still believe what they say? sad.

Fwiw, I've stopped watching Fox News for that reason. They're almost as out of touch with the truth.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Mach you pulling information off Wikipedia again?

(03-08-2017 08:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No one thought he would win.

Right.

You mistakenly swerved on to the truth.

So, let's take that for granted- Why on earth would the rooskies put their efforts behind a campaign that will lose?

They may be commies, but they ain' dumb.



This whole thing is over anyway, a wisp of smoke, no fire, no there, there.

Watch this all fall apart in short order.

Muh Putin!!! Buh-Bye.

Trump is President. Live with it board leftists. All of your ranting, whining and crying is not going to change that fact. Sucks for you doesn't it.

(03-08-2017 09:03 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 09:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 08:54 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 08:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No one thought he would win.

Just goes to show how stupid the left's leadership really is. I thought it was a 50/50 shot the whole way. People who thought he had no chance we completely out of touch with hiw pissed off the common man was.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Even the Fox network people though he had no chance. So it wasn't just the left. It was the people in the coastal bubbles.

People outside those bubbles figured it would be very close.

what about the people who aren't in those bubbles that still believe what they say? sad.

Fwiw, I've stopped watching Fox News for that reason. They're almost as out of touch with the truth.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Well Brit Hume was willing to acknowledge the Trump people told them what would happen and they ignored it. They listened to the Clinton people talking about early voting in North Carolina and newly registered Hispanics in Florida and believed their narrative (despite articles from before the early voting came out saying those results were meaningless to the final vote). The Trump people were asking them, "Why are you still talking about North Carolina? We've got that one."

(03-08-2017 12:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Did you read the timeline. No one can say there is no there there after reading that. You didn't read it. I know this because you wouldn't type such nonsense if you did.

Spoken like a true partisan.

No spoken like someone whose head is not in the sand. There's plenty of enough correlations to have a gill scale investigation into the election hampering. We just need honest people and honest assessments.

(03-09-2017 08:54 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No spoken like someone whose head is not in the sand. There's plenty of enough correlations to have a gill scale investigation into the election hampering. We just need honest people and honest assessments.

Too bad this administration is not as honest and transparent as the last one huh comrad?

(03-09-2017 09:01 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 08:54 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No spoken like someone whose head is not in the sand. There's plenty of enough correlations to have a gill scale investigation into the election hampering. We just need honest people and honest assessments.

Too bad this administration is not as honest and transparent as the last one huh comrad?

Yeah, it's all partisan. Heck I didn't vote for Trump and it's easy to see.

In honor of this thread






NSFW

(03-09-2017 08:54 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No spoken like someone whose head is not in the sand. There's plenty of enough correlations to have a gill scale investigation into the election hampering. We just need honest people and honest assessments.

Mach, there's nothing there. A bunch of events on a timeline, but no showing of anything nefarious.

So you seem to think there's an indication of some wrongdoing? Fine. What? I mean, very seriously, what do the events on that time line point to that would be problematic? I understand that you desperately want there to be something terrible there, but there just isn't.

Let's try it this way. Assume I'm a judge, you want me to issue a search warrant or do something else that requires a showing of probable cause on your part. Probable cause of what? And what evidence are you going to put on to show probable cause?

You kinda sorta have to establish some probable cause that there's some kind of a problem before you can go on the kind of witch hunt you want to set up. Where are you going to get that from?