(12-12-2017 01:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:34 PM)Kronke Wrote:  First, the Russians "hacked" the election. (debunked as fake news)

Then, President Trump "colluded with the Russians". (debunked as fake news)

Now, Russia "interfered" by buying $100k in nonsense cuckbook ads that no one saw. Go ahead, hang your hat there if it makes you feel better.

#fitfail

Wait a minute. You still don't think the Russians had anything to do with the election?

Why then do you think so many members of the Trump administration met with the Russians?

They met with "the Russians" just like they met with the Chinese, the British, the whoevers -- within the purview of their job and on the up and up.

See the retracted fake news story on Jeff Sessions for reference. Or the retracted fake news story on General Flynn. Or the retracted fake news story on Don Jr. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The difference between those countries and Russia is that those countries aren't being accused of attempting to influence our election.

Do you understand why their meetings with Russia would draw more attention?

Do you really believe that an incoming President and administration wouldn't meet with the Russians?? Really?

Don't you think any administration that didn't meet with them would be accused of being derelict in their duties and rightly so????

The only difference in this case is that those losing the election - namely Hillary and her minions, couldn't accept the outcome so they cast the blame in that direction.....

(12-12-2017 02:10 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:34 PM)Kronke Wrote:  First, the Russians "hacked" the election. (debunked as fake news)

Then, President Trump "colluded with the Russians". (debunked as fake news)

Now, Russia "interfered" by buying $100k in nonsense cuckbook ads that no one saw. Go ahead, hang your hat there if it makes you feel better.

#fitfail

Wait a minute. You still don't think the Russians had anything to do with the election?

Why then do you think so many members of the Trump administration met with the Russians?

They met with "the Russians" just like they met with the Chinese, the British, the whoevers -- within the purview of their job and on the up and up.

See the retracted fake news story on Jeff Sessions for reference. Or the retracted fake news story on General Flynn. Or the retracted fake news story on Don Jr. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The difference between those countries and Russia is that those countries aren't being accused of attempting to influence our election.

Do you understand why their meetings with Russia would draw more attention?

Just because you want to cast your faux-outrage on the meetings doesn't mean there is merit to your outrage. It has been proven that nothing nefarious was going on, and you come off as unhinged when you continue to rehash stories that have debunked or retracted.

I'm not outraged. I'm just asking your opinion. Don't get all bent out of shape.

"It has been proven that nothing nefarious was going on"? By whom?

(12-12-2017 02:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 02:10 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Wait a minute. You still don't think the Russians had anything to do with the election?

Why then do you think so many members of the Trump administration met with the Russians?

They met with "the Russians" just like they met with the Chinese, the British, the whoevers -- within the purview of their job and on the up and up.

See the retracted fake news story on Jeff Sessions for reference. Or the retracted fake news story on General Flynn. Or the retracted fake news story on Don Jr. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The difference between those countries and Russia is that those countries aren't being accused of attempting to influence our election.

Do you understand why their meetings with Russia would draw more attention?

Just because you want to cast your faux-outrage on the meetings doesn't mean there is merit to your outrage. It has been proven that nothing nefarious was going on, and you come off as unhinged when you continue to rehash stories that have debunked or retracted.

I'm not outraged. I'm just asking your opinion. Don't get all bent out of shape.

"It has been proven that nothing nefarious was going on"? By whom?

The FBI.

And ABC fake News..

And fake news cnn..

Quote:Do you really believe that an incoming President and administration wouldn't meet with the Russians?? Really?

When did I ever say that?

Quote:Don't you think any administration that didn't meet with them would be accused of being derelict in their duties and rightly so????

Of course I do. That isn't the issue here. The issue here is that the Trump administration knew that the Russians were trying to influence the election and instead of coming forward and explaining to the FBI that they were in fact talking to the Russians, they lied about it. That's what started this whole thing.

Quote:The only difference in this case is that those losing the election - namely Hillary and her minions, couldn't accept the outcome so they cast the blame in that direction.....

But this whole thing started before the election was even won. An election that no one thought Trump would win. How do you explain that?

fit, you may not have heard but your party is off this "Russia stuff" and back to President Trump's fake accusers. Keep up!

(12-12-2017 03:04 PM)Kronke Wrote:  fit, you may not have heard but your party is off this "Russia stuff" and back to President Trump's fake accusers. Keep up!

Kronke

You may not have heard but I do not belong to any political party and frankly, I haven't voted since 2008.

How you have answered however thus far speaks volumes.

(12-12-2017 12:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 12:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  gruber your own much????

if private, then how is it pub(l)ic....

for you, it's a simple 'elimination of parenthesis)....

They mean he didn't say it officially in front of the press or anything like that but privately meaning behind closed doors.

Kind of like you guys on this forum. You all know Trump got help from the Russians but you won't admit it here.

Almost everything you post is fake news.

Everyone knows the Russians and other foreign governments try to influence our elections through the media, just like we have tried to influence Russian, Israeli and many other elections around the world.

There is a MASSIVE difference between that and actual collusion between Russia and Trump.

Trump denies collusion, not that Russia wanted to have influence on some level. And after a full year of obsessive whaling, accusing and investigating there is zero evidence at all of collusion.

Where was your outrage when Obama was clearly interfering in Netanyahu's last election? There was OBVIOUS collusion between Netanyahu's opponent and Obama, but it failed miserably. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Russia did interfere with the election, that's well proven with things like there bot accounts and fake news on Facebook.

That is not anywhere near the same thing as colluding with Trump to steal the election, though. As a matter of fact, it was shown that they were more about stirring the pot, posting pro and con pieces on both candidates. They want civil unrest and, unfortunately, the libs are more than happy to fall for their game and oblige.

(12-12-2017 03:45 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 12:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 12:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  gruber your own much????

if private, then how is it pub(l)ic....

for you, it's a simple 'elimination of parenthesis)....

They mean he didn't say it officially in front of the press or anything like that but privately meaning behind closed doors.

Kind of like you guys on this forum. You all know Trump got help from the Russians but you won't admit it here.

Almost everything you post is fake news.

Everyone knows the Russians and other foreign governments try to influence our elections through the media, just like we have tried to influence Russian, Israeli and many other elections around the world.

There is a MASSIVE difference between that and actual collusion between Russia and Trump.

Trump denies collusion, not that Russia wanted to have influence on some level. And after a full year of obsessive whaling, accusing and investigating there is zero evidence at all of collusion.

Where was your outrage when Obama was clearly interfering in Netanyahu's last election? There was OBVIOUS collusion between Netanyahu's opponent and Obama, but it failed miserably. The hypocrisy is astounding.

What in your mind constitutes collusion?

I'm just amazed at the simpletons who think that Russia interfering with our election is A. something new and B. something shocking.

https://www.investors.com/politics/comme...ical-help/

Quote:To be fair, we really don't what happened 33 long years ago when Sen. John Tunney, a California Senator and a Sen. Ted Kennedy intimate, passed a message to KGB head Viktor Chebrikov. All we have is the memo from the latter to Communist Party General Secretary Yuri Andropov, the former KGB head. Still, there really is no innocent explanation.

Back when the Evil Empire finally collapsed, the Soviet archives were opened for a time. Tim Sebastian, a reporter with the British Times, found the Chebrikov memo and wrote about it. Grove City College's Paul Kengor included the document in his book "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism." Since then a few conservatives have written about the event.

It's a story worth repeating. According to Chebrikov, "(Ted) Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney" was visiting Moscow and had a message for Andropov. "Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations." The situation could become more dangerous, mainly due to "Reagan's belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy" midrange nuclear weapons to Europe.

Unfortunately, from Kennedy's point of view, the economy was improving. There was still hope for "a new economic crisis," but, noted Chebrikov, "there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop." Thus, a better strategy to defeat Reagan in 1984 might be the peace issue. Yet, "according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak."

So Kennedy offered several "steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people."

First, Andropov should invite the esteemed senator to Moscow so the latter could "arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearance in the USA."

Moreover, reported Chebrikov, "to influence Americans" Andropov should appear in televised interviews in America. If Moscow approved, "Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview."

Of course, it would be tragic if this was seen as propaganda. Explained Chebrikov, "The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side."

Similarly, Kennedy urged TV interviews with other Soviet officials, "particularly from the military." The Soviet guests would "have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR."

Lest we think this approach had something to do with Kennedy's political ambitions — he was hoping to run in 1988 and thought the desperate Democratic Party might turn to him in 1984 — Kennedy explained that he wanted to "root out the threat of nuclear war." Toward that end, noted Chebrikov, "Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understandings between peoples."

Ted "Leave the Blonde in the Pond" Kennedy was the ultimate sleaze bag senator. The left's total unwillingness to call him out on any of his evils renders anything that they say about any republican to be blatant hypocrisy.

(12-12-2017 05:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'm just amazed at the simpletons who think that Russia interfering with our election is A. something new and B. something shocking.

https://www.investors.com/politics/comme...ical-help/

Quote:To be fair, we really don't what happened 33 long years ago when Sen. John Tunney, a California Senator and a Sen. Ted Kennedy intimate, passed a message to KGB head Viktor Chebrikov. All we have is the memo from the latter to Communist Party General Secretary Yuri Andropov, the former KGB head. Still, there really is no innocent explanation.

Back when the Evil Empire finally collapsed, the Soviet archives were opened for a time. Tim Sebastian, a reporter with the British Times, found the Chebrikov memo and wrote about it. Grove City College's Paul Kengor included the document in his book "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism." Since then a few conservatives have written about the event.

It's a story worth repeating. According to Chebrikov, "(Ted) Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney" was visiting Moscow and had a message for Andropov. "Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations." The situation could become more dangerous, mainly due to "Reagan's belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy" midrange nuclear weapons to Europe.

Unfortunately, from Kennedy's point of view, the economy was improving. There was still hope for "a new economic crisis," but, noted Chebrikov, "there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop." Thus, a better strategy to defeat Reagan in 1984 might be the peace issue. Yet, "according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak."

So Kennedy offered several "steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people."

First, Andropov should invite the esteemed senator to Moscow so the latter could "arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearance in the USA."

Moreover, reported Chebrikov, "to influence Americans" Andropov should appear in televised interviews in America. If Moscow approved, "Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview."

Of course, it would be tragic if this was seen as propaganda. Explained Chebrikov, "The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side."

Similarly, Kennedy urged TV interviews with other Soviet officials, "particularly from the military." The Soviet guests would "have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR."

Lest we think this approach had something to do with Kennedy's political ambitions — he was hoping to run in 1988 and thought the desperate Democratic Party might turn to him in 1984 — Kennedy explained that he wanted to "root out the threat of nuclear war." Toward that end, noted Chebrikov, "Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understandings between peoples."

They don’t actually think that, they just don’t have anything else to blame sick hillary’s epic failure of a campaign on. It’s all an act, and to cover for the dems who actually did what they are accusing President Trump of doing.

(12-12-2017 05:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:45 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 12:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 12:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  gruber your own much????

if private, then how is it pub(l)ic....

for you, it's a simple 'elimination of parenthesis)....

They mean he didn't say it officially in front of the press or anything like that but privately meaning behind closed doors.

Kind of like you guys on this forum. You all know Trump got help from the Russians but you won't admit it here.

Almost everything you post is fake news.

Everyone knows the Russians and other foreign governments try to influence our elections through the media, just like we have tried to influence Russian, Israeli and many other elections around the world.

There is a MASSIVE difference between that and actual collusion between Russia and Trump.

Trump denies collusion, not that Russia wanted to have influence on some level. And after a full year of obsessive whaling, accusing and investigating there is zero evidence at all of collusion.

Where was your outrage when Obama was clearly interfering in Netanyahu's last election? There was OBVIOUS collusion between Netanyahu's opponent and Obama, but it failed miserably. The hypocrisy is astounding.

What in your mind constitutes collusion?

Is there anybody out there?

(12-12-2017 05:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 03:45 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 12:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  They mean he didn't say it officially in front of the press or anything like that but privately meaning behind closed doors.
Kind of like you guys on this forum. You all know Trump got help from the Russians but you won't admit it here.

Almost everything you post is fake news.
Everyone knows the Russians and other foreign governments try to influence our elections through the media, just like we have tried to influence Russian, Israeli and many other elections around the world.
There is a MASSIVE difference between that and actual collusion between Russia and Trump.
Trump denies collusion, not that Russia wanted to have influence on some level. And after a full year of obsessive whaling, accusing and investigating there is zero evidence at all of collusion.
Where was your outrage when Obama was clearly interfering in Netanyahu's last election? There was OBVIOUS collusion between Netanyahu's opponent and Obama, but it failed miserably. The hypocrisy is astounding.

What in your mind constitutes collusion?

There are three levels here:

1) Russia attempted to interfere. This is a given. They do all the time. We do the same to them. Same with China and every other aspirant to be a major power. That is why Hillary's server was a problem.

2) Russia succeeded in interfering. This has been denied by everyone who has taken a look.

3) Russia and Trump colluded to interfere. No proof so far, no real evidence so far. Having a meeting with someone is not collusion. Having a meeting with someone after an election is not collusion to steal that election. Collusion must by definition occur before the act which is the subject of the collusion.

Quote:2) Russia succeeded in interfering. This has been denied by everyone who has taken a look.

What do you mean succeeded? They either did or they didn't no?

Quote:3) Russia and Trump colluded to interfere. No proof so far, no real evidence so far. Having a meeting with someone is not collusion. Having a meeting with someone after an election is not collusion to steal that election. Collusion must by definition occur before the act which is the subject of the collusion.

I agree with you on this one. We know however that the Trump campaign was willing to listen to the Russians when they said they had dirt on Hillary.

If this isn't collusion, then what do you call it? Cooperation?

(12-13-2017 12:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

Quote:2) Russia succeeded in interfering. This has been denied by everyone who has taken a look.

What do you mean succeeded? They either did or they didn't no?

Quote:3) Russia and Trump colluded to interfere. No proof so far, no real evidence so far. Having a meeting with someone is not collusion. Having a meeting with someone after an election is not collusion to steal that election. Collusion must by definition occur before the act which is the subject of the collusion.

I agree with you on this one. We know however that the Trump campaign was willing to listen to the Russians when they said they had dirt on Hillary.

If this isn't collusion, then what do you call it? Cooperation?

Willing to listen is not collusion.

As for succeeding, that would be having a material effect. It is the general consensus that they did not.

(12-12-2017 03:45 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 12:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 12:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  gruber your own much????

if private, then how is it pub(l)ic....

for you, it's a simple 'elimination of parenthesis)....

They mean he didn't say it officially in front of the press or anything like that but privately meaning behind closed doors.

Kind of like you guys on this forum. You all know Trump got help from the Russians but you won't admit it here.

Almost everything you post is fake news.

Everyone knows the Russians and other foreign governments try to influence our elections through the media, just like we have tried to influence Russian, Israeli and many other elections around the world.

There is a MASSIVE difference between that and actual collusion between Russia and Trump.

Trump denies collusion, not that Russia wanted to have influence on some level. And after a full year of obsessive whaling, accusing and investigating there is zero evidence at all of collusion.

Where was your outrage when Obama was clearly interfering in Netanyahu's last election? There was OBVIOUS collusion between Netanyahu's opponent and Obama, but it failed miserably. The hypocrisy is astounding.

They didn't even try to maintain a low profile on that one.

(12-13-2017 01:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 12:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

Quote:2) Russia succeeded in interfering. This has been denied by everyone who has taken a look.

What do you mean succeeded? They either did or they didn't no?

Quote:3) Russia and Trump colluded to interfere. No proof so far, no real evidence so far. Having a meeting with someone is not collusion. Having a meeting with someone after an election is not collusion to steal that election. Collusion must by definition occur before the act which is the subject of the collusion.

I agree with you on this one. We know however that the Trump campaign was willing to listen to the Russians when they said they had dirt on Hillary.

If this isn't collusion, then what do you call it? Cooperation?

Willing to listen is not collusion.

As for succeeding, that would be having a material effect. It is the general consensus that they did not.

That's what I said. If it isn't collusion then what is it?