(07-18-2018 09:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:46 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:27 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Very dangerous mindset my friend. Something tells me you would think differently if Trump had a D next to his name.

Doubtful, I generally vote for people with an (L) next to their name. I didnt vote for Trump and I disliked both Bush and Obama. Hell, I think Bill Clinton was probably our best president since Reagan. I don't trust the government period. I trust evidence. And so far all I see is a witch hunt with no substance behind. Being a prosecutor (and formerly a defense attorney) this really hits home for me. There's a legal phrase "they don't railroad you because they think you're innocent, they railroad you because they think you are guilty." I see that happening to trump. At this point I will likely vote for him due to the misconduct I see against him. Somewhat a protest vote against the media and establishment.

What evidence would you expect to have, specifically?

Evidence can take a lot of forms, but here's an example: the evidence that the DNC was a leak is based upon computer forensic analysis of file transfer speeds which suggests that a flash drive was used and that the files could not have been transferred over the Internet at that speed. Additionally, the only eyewitnesses (wikileaks) and a former ambassador say the person who provided the DNC documents to wikileaks was a leaker and no a hacker.

As far as Russia interference, I don't know what evidence the government has, but I do know they haven't presented any so far. They keep relying on Intel assessments or educated guesses. And the special counsel has filed allegations which he will never have to prove in court. Mueller did admit that there was no collusion with Americans in his latest indictment however.

Honestly, I don't think it is possible to prove who did hacking if it was done. State Intel actors have the ability to fake their trail to such a degree that its could be anyone. The Chinese or Americans could make it look like the Russians and vice versa.

Moreover the whole collusion narrative doesn't make any logical sense. Putin would have to be psychic. He picked the jerkiest most unpolished candidate years ago to secretly have him run with virtually no chance of winning? And then when that candidate wins, he takes a bunch of anti-Russia actions.

There is far more to the assessment of the hack than you seem to think, and your understanding of Putin’s motives and how they intersect with the the claim of collusion seems to be missing the root goal. Simply put, by having western nations attack their allies, sowing discord internally, pushing nationalist movements, throwing gas on racial or social issues, etc/etc it weakens the West. This allows Russia more ability to throw its comparatively small and unproductive weight around, and for Putin personally, to more easily launder the gains he’s made. It’s not about Trump winning, or about Trump, it’s about doing everything they can to get the West to isolate ourselves and weaken, as it makes Russia stronger. Or as the Foundations of Geopolitics, a book written in 1987 says, “In the United States: Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]"

The book also mentions isolating Britain from Europe and invading Ukraine, among other things.

I think we agree to a certain extent. It seems you're acknowledging no collusion. You're pointing out that Russia promoted divisive issues and stirred unrest which I refer to as "Facebook trolling" perhaps a bit dismissively but I'm not convinced it had a substantive effect on the election.

I also agree that Russian wants to see NATO/EU weakened because they represent an existential threat to it. Where I differ from others is that they tend to see Russia as evil etc whereas I see their actions as logical, self-protecting, and amoral.

NATO has relentlessly expanded toward Russia's borders. When the US/EU supported the coup in Ukraine, Russia responded asymmetrically by covertly annexing Crimea and supporting rebels in the east. Basically, Russia destabilized Ukraine to keep it from falling into NATO's orbit.

I also agree that Russian wants nationalism over globalism, but I don't have a problem with this as I'm anti-globalist. I see it more as an area where our national interests align.

(07-18-2018 09:46 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  35% our going to vote R no matter what. 40% D no matter what. It’s that 15% that I speak of and they don’t pay attention. They don’t.

Well,

We can’t ALL be as woked as you I guess.

I’ll strive to do better.

After my 15 hour day.

/sadface\

(07-18-2018 10:00 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 09:46 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  35% our going to vote R no matter what. 40% D no matter what. It’s that 15% that I speak of and they don’t pay attention. They don’t.

Well,

We can’t ALL be as woked as you I guess.

I’ll strive to do better.

After my 15 hour day.

/sadface\

What about the other 10%?

And it's "are" not "our". Ones verb the other a possessive pronoun.

I shouldn't have to educate the teacher on this board.

(07-18-2018 09:46 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  35% our going to vote R no matter what. 40% D no matter what. It’s that 15% that I speak of and they don’t pay attention. They don’t.

Hmmm
35
+40
____
75

100
-75
____
???

(07-18-2018 09:25 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:24 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Where was all this faux outrage about bowing for foreigners during the past admins world apology tour???

Whatabout!!!!

Also, minor difference when the person you’re cowtowing to actively initiated the largest attack on our election and voting infrastructure, and you’re dismissing literally all western intelligence sources to do so.

Lol.

So bowing to Saud made sense then.

You know, the “attacks” and all...


Too effing funny.

Sad. But funny.

They conveniently, but purposely, choose to ignore all that. I guess it's convenient for them but fools no one but those already blind.

(07-18-2018 09:57 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 09:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:46 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:27 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Doubtful, I generally vote for people with an (L) next to their name. I didnt vote for Trump and I disliked both Bush and Obama. Hell, I think Bill Clinton was probably our best president since Reagan. I don't trust the government period. I trust evidence. And so far all I see is a witch hunt with no substance behind. Being a prosecutor (and formerly a defense attorney) this really hits home for me. There's a legal phrase "they don't railroad you because they think you're innocent, they railroad you because they think you are guilty." I see that happening to trump. At this point I will likely vote for him due to the misconduct I see against him. Somewhat a protest vote against the media and establishment.

What evidence would you expect to have, specifically?

Evidence can take a lot of forms, but here's an example: the evidence that the DNC was a leak is based upon computer forensic analysis of file transfer speeds which suggests that a flash drive was used and that the files could not have been transferred over the Internet at that speed. Additionally, the only eyewitnesses (wikileaks) and a former ambassador say the person who provided the DNC documents to wikileaks was a leaker and no a hacker.

As far as Russia interference, I don't know what evidence the government has, but I do know they haven't presented any so far. They keep relying on Intel assessments or educated guesses. And the special counsel has filed allegations which he will never have to prove in court. Mueller did admit that there was no collusion with Americans in his latest indictment however.

Honestly, I don't think it is possible to prove who did hacking if it was done. State Intel actors have the ability to fake their trail to such a degree that its could be anyone. The Chinese or Americans could make it look like the Russians and vice versa.

Moreover the whole collusion narrative doesn't make any logical sense. Putin would have to be psychic. He picked the jerkiest most unpolished candidate years ago to secretly have him run with virtually no chance of winning? And then when that candidate wins, he takes a bunch of anti-Russia actions.

There is far more to the assessment of the hack than you seem to think, and your understanding of Putin’s motives and how they intersect with the the claim of collusion seems to be missing the root goal. Simply put, by having western nations attack their allies, sowing discord internally, pushing nationalist movements, throwing gas on racial or social issues, etc/etc it weakens the West. This allows Russia more ability to throw its comparatively small and unproductive weight around, and for Putin personally, to more easily launder the gains he’s made. It’s not about Trump winning, or about Trump, it’s about doing everything they can to get the West to isolate ourselves and weaken, as it makes Russia stronger. Or as the Foundations of Geopolitics, a book written in 1987 says, “In the United States: Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]"

The book also mentions isolating Britain from Europe and invading Ukraine, among other things.

I think we agree to a certain extent. It seems you're acknowledging no collusion. You're pointing out that Russia promoted divisive issues and stirred unrest which I refer to as "Facebook trolling" perhaps a bit dismissively but I'm not convinced it had a substantive effect on the election.

I also agree that Russian wants to see NATO/EU weakened because they represent an existential threat to it. Where I differ from others is that they tend to see Russia as evil etc whereas I see their actions as logical, self-protecting, and amoral.

NATO has relentlessly expanded toward Russia's borders. When the US/EU supported the coup in Ukraine, Russia responded asymmetrically by covertly annexing Crimea and supporting rebels in the east. Basically, Russia destabilized Ukraine to keep it from falling into NATO's orbit.

I also agree that Russian wants nationalism over globalism, but I don't have a problem with this as I'm anti-globalist. I see it more as an area where our national interests align.

No, I am not dismissing claims of collusion, because we already know factually his campaign did collude. Whether or not that collusion rose to the level of a prosecutable crime is a different matter, but the Trump Tower meeting absolutely happened. We know they discussed the current sanctions. We know they discussed harmful info on Clinton: We know they lied about it, repeatedly. That is collusion. Maybe it was just Trumps son, his son in law, and his campaign head who colluded, but his campaign literally did collude.

I genuinely don’t get how people here don’t see how much of an issue this is. Unless you want to allow candidates to reach out and work with foreign intelligence agencies to get illegally obtained information on their American political opponents, this is a big f*cking deal. Yes, we know election influencing happens, but usually the candidates campaign members aren’t working with them.

(07-18-2018 10:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 09:25 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:24 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Where was all this faux outrage about bowing for foreigners during the past admins world apology tour???

Whatabout!!!!

Also, minor difference when the person you’re cowtowing to actively initiated the largest attack on our election and voting infrastructure, and you’re dismissing literally all western intelligence sources to do so.

Lol.

So bowing to Saud made sense then.

You know, the “attacks” and all...


Too effing funny.

Sad. But funny.

They conveniently, but purposely, choose to ignore all that. I guess it's convenient for them but fools no one but those already blind.

Saudis committed 9/11, and there are major issues with their state turning a blind eye to extremist terrorism. But the Saudi he bowed to didn’t order that attack, and Trump bowed to him too. Stop. With. The. Whataboutism. It’s sad.

I'm going to go over and kick rocks......................

Sad face.....................

Actually laughing out loud.....

that was a boot.....

I'll try and go look at the numbers somewhere. I know my first two are correct. I must have forgot about the hard leans. Take the other 10 percent from them......

Good day guys....... Heading out to a patio of pavers......

Carpe Diem

(07-18-2018 10:17 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 10:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 09:25 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:24 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Where was all this faux outrage about bowing for foreigners during the past admins world apology tour???

Whatabout!!!!

Also, minor difference when the person you’re cowtowing to actively initiated the largest attack on our election and voting infrastructure, and you’re dismissing literally all western intelligence sources to do so.

Lol.

So bowing to Saud made sense then.

You know, the “attacks” and all...


Too effing funny.

Sad. But funny.

They conveniently, but purposely, choose to ignore all that. I guess it's convenient for them but fools no one but those already blind.

Saudis committed 9/11, and there are major issues with their state turning a blind eye to extremist terrorism. But the Saudi he bowed to didn’t order that attack, and Trump bowed to him too. Stop. With. The. Whataboutism. It’s sad.

I wasn't referring to the physical act of bowing......

(07-18-2018 09:52 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 09:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 07:34 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 07:32 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 06:41 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Trump is a coward just like most of his supporters. He talks big, but his words usually don't mean ****. Nobody is tougher on Russia than me... hold on.. I'm standing next to Putin. I can't say anything negative or he'll get mad at me. He is a great, powerful leader. His words are the strongest words I've ever heard.

Putin's little *****.

You democrats certainly change over the years. Weren't you the same bunch that criticized Reagan when he went on the military build up that put the Soviet Union out of business? The same bunch that were sure he was going to initiate the 3rd World War? The same bunch that felt if we would just reduce our strategic arms the Soviets would follow suit?
Trump does things that make me cringe and unlike democrats republicans tend to voice concerns when he does those type things. Having said that it is laughable for any democrat to criticize him for not being tough enough on Russia. If democrats had their way back in the 80's we would still be dealing with the Soviet Union or living under Soviet rule.

it's truly amazing how branding has changed......

I'm still laughing at the one's that thought DJT would run (D)....

and if he had, I still would've voted for him on principle......

(07-18-2018 09:29 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:30 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  No votes were changed and some state in structure hacking was attempted. We do need to harden our cybersecurity, but what the Russians (or whoever hacked) actually did was very minor.

Russia is not a threat to the US, starting a 2nd cold war with them is not in our national interest. It is in the interest of the military industrial complex though so there is a bogeyman who can help them sale arms.

1. That we know of right now, but they tried, and Trump has issued no orders to directly counteract Russian attempts.

2. No one is arguing for WWIII, so you can stop presenting that argument as if it’s a counterpoint.

450+ sanctions against ROOOSKIES!!!!, Russia, and Russian corporations.

What’s the magic number, then? 500? 550?

Or do we just go full fukkktard and declare war on Russia? Alll Frankenlurch Warner style?

Lots of whining and moaning, nothing about solutions

Color me shocked...

He didn't want any of those sanctions Stink and fought like hell to have them lowered.

Except for the fact that he put them in place.


So, yea. That...

there’s a ‘my pillow’ funny out there somewhere... i’m in the field.....

#helpwithmorelulz

(07-18-2018 09:57 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 09:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:46 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:27 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Doubtful, I generally vote for people with an (L) next to their name. I didnt vote for Trump and I disliked both Bush and Obama. Hell, I think Bill Clinton was probably our best president since Reagan. I don't trust the government period. I trust evidence. And so far all I see is a witch hunt with no substance behind. Being a prosecutor (and formerly a defense attorney) this really hits home for me. There's a legal phrase "they don't railroad you because they think you're innocent, they railroad you because they think you are guilty." I see that happening to trump. At this point I will likely vote for him due to the misconduct I see against him. Somewhat a protest vote against the media and establishment.

What evidence would you expect to have, specifically?

Evidence can take a lot of forms, but here's an example: the evidence that the DNC was a leak is based upon computer forensic analysis of file transfer speeds which suggests that a flash drive was used and that the files could not have been transferred over the Internet at that speed. Additionally, the only eyewitnesses (wikileaks) and a former ambassador say the person who provided the DNC documents to wikileaks was a leaker and no a hacker.

As far as Russia interference, I don't know what evidence the government has, but I do know they haven't presented any so far. They keep relying on Intel assessments or educated guesses. And the special counsel has filed allegations which he will never have to prove in court. Mueller did admit that there was no collusion with Americans in his latest indictment however.

Honestly, I don't think it is possible to prove who did hacking if it was done. State Intel actors have the ability to fake their trail to such a degree that its could be anyone. The Chinese or Americans could make it look like the Russians and vice versa.

Moreover the whole collusion narrative doesn't make any logical sense. Putin would have to be psychic. He picked the jerkiest most unpolished candidate years ago to secretly have him run with virtually no chance of winning? And then when that candidate wins, he takes a bunch of anti-Russia actions.

There is far more to the assessment of the hack than you seem to think, and your understanding of Putin’s motives and how they intersect with the the claim of collusion seems to be missing the root goal. Simply put, by having western nations attack their allies, sowing discord internally, pushing nationalist movements, throwing gas on racial or social issues, etc/etc it weakens the West. This allows Russia more ability to throw its comparatively small and unproductive weight around, and for Putin personally, to more easily launder the gains he’s made. It’s not about Trump winning, or about Trump, it’s about doing everything they can to get the West to isolate ourselves and weaken, as it makes Russia stronger. Or as the Foundations of Geopolitics, a book written in 1987 says, “In the United States: Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]"

The book also mentions isolating Britain from Europe and invading Ukraine, among other things.

So, stuff like funding and supporting groups like Black lives matter, or squelching speech on campuses.

Got it. Seems to be pretty effective thus far.

Yes, they absolutely supported the radicalization of both sides of the BLM movement because the radicalization of both sides and increasing the racial discord was the goal.

Btw, just in case you weren’t aware, I mean that literally. We have evidence Russian agents did just that.

(07-18-2018 06:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 01:08 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 10:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  For millions of Americans this isn’t “Trump the traitor,” it’s sore losers trying to dictate foreign policy.

No, it is Trump not acting like a leader, doing his homework and sticking up for his country. That was a pathetic performance.

They are talking like the Republicans will have a different candidate the next presidential election.

I think he went to far this time.

yeah, he peeled away sanctions, gave 'em a few billion dollar tip, and the key to city of DC,.....lmmfao

jfc......you whackjobs really don't pay att'n outside of liberally slanted social media/msm/google rag ramblings....

Did I say that. I do not even get on social media. Watch him on camera with Putin after the 2 hour talk. I know you have to be cordial and be uncontroversial to him, but that was bs. Putin is a problem that can't be handled that way and hopefully the next time will be better, if there is a next time.

(07-18-2018 10:45 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 09:57 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 09:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:46 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 08:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  What evidence would you expect to have, specifically?

Evidence can take a lot of forms, but here's an example: the evidence that the DNC was a leak is based upon computer forensic analysis of file transfer speeds which suggests that a flash drive was used and that the files could not have been transferred over the Internet at that speed. Additionally, the only eyewitnesses (wikileaks) and a former ambassador say the person who provided the DNC documents to wikileaks was a leaker and no a hacker.

As far as Russia interference, I don't know what evidence the government has, but I do know they haven't presented any so far. They keep relying on Intel assessments or educated guesses. And the special counsel has filed allegations which he will never have to prove in court. Mueller did admit that there was no collusion with Americans in his latest indictment however.

Honestly, I don't think it is possible to prove who did hacking if it was done. State Intel actors have the ability to fake their trail to such a degree that its could be anyone. The Chinese or Americans could make it look like the Russians and vice versa.

Moreover the whole collusion narrative doesn't make any logical sense. Putin would have to be psychic. He picked the jerkiest most unpolished candidate years ago to secretly have him run with virtually no chance of winning? And then when that candidate wins, he takes a bunch of anti-Russia actions.

There is far more to the assessment of the hack than you seem to think, and your understanding of Putin’s motives and how they intersect with the the claim of collusion seems to be missing the root goal. Simply put, by having western nations attack their allies, sowing discord internally, pushing nationalist movements, throwing gas on racial or social issues, etc/etc it weakens the West. This allows Russia more ability to throw its comparatively small and unproductive weight around, and for Putin personally, to more easily launder the gains he’s made. It’s not about Trump winning, or about Trump, it’s about doing everything they can to get the West to isolate ourselves and weaken, as it makes Russia stronger. Or as the Foundations of Geopolitics, a book written in 1987 says, “In the United States: Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]"

The book also mentions isolating Britain from Europe and invading Ukraine, among other things.

So, stuff like funding and supporting groups like Black lives matter, or squelching speech on campuses.

Got it. Seems to be pretty effective thus far.

Yes, they absolutely supported the radicalization of both sides of the BLM movement because the radicalization of both sides and increasing the racial discord was the goal.

Btw, just in case you weren’t aware, I mean that literally. We have evidence Russian agents did just that.

Well, then

Hallef%^&inglujah. The ROOOSKIES!!! meddled in our election. Just like we do in theirs. Does this surprise anyone?

So, what's all the pearl clutching, whining and moaning about? Communists are bad actors?

Really? No. really?!?

That's the beef?

Or is it Papa-Doc had a cocktail with a fbi/russian plant? Manafort had some tax issues two administrations ago?

Or, more to the point- Did the FBI, it's agents, the DOJ, perhaps (likely) higher ups conspire to "make sure" the candidate of one of our 2 major party's wasn't elected?

POTUS wants to know everything we're doing (sic).

Hunh. Now, who would that be, and to what are they referring?

Insurance plan?!? In case you die before you're 40? What's that referring too?

We'll stop "It".

Hunh, what's "It"?

The election itself? They didn't want the "event" to take place at all? Or, perhaps, was it the potential outcome?

Herrr-dee-derrr-dee-herrrr.

Just admit it. These folks were working hand in glove to make sure they got the election outcome THEY desired. Now? The jig is up.

They done screwed the pooch, time to pay for their crimes.

It's perp-walking time, babee!

(07-17-2018 11:52 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  One does have to ask, why should Trump believe anything US intelligence agencies tell him? Pretty strong evidence the whole damned bunch of 'em tried to bend him over the table and go in dry.

I've been saying this all along. Trump, like me, is honest to a fault. I probably would have answered that our IC wasn't any more honest than the Rookies. And guess what, they still aren't. They're still evading and working as if they're Demoncraps. Poor Trump has the MSM against him and every FBI agent in Washington working against him. I don't fault him at all.

and by the way your poll sucks, to me it sounds like heads I win, tails you lose that's why I didn't even bother to vote on your stupid partisan poll.

(07-18-2018 07:34 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 07:32 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 06:41 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Trump is a coward just like most of his supporters. He talks big, but his words usually don't mean ****. Nobody is tougher on Russia than me... hold on.. I'm standing next to Putin. I can't say anything negative or he'll get mad at me. He is a great, powerful leader. His words are the strongest words I've ever heard.

Putin's little *****.

You democrats certainly change over the years. Weren't you the same bunch that criticized Reagan when he went on the military build up that put the Soviet Union out of business? The same bunch that were sure he was going to initiate the 3rd World War? The same bunch that felt if we would just reduce our strategic arms the Soviets would follow suit?
Trump does things that make me cringe and unlike democrats republicans tend to voice concerns when he does those type things. Having said that it is laughable for any democrat to criticize him for not being tough enough on Russia. If democrats had their way back in the 80's we would still be dealing with the Soviet Union or living under Soviet rule.

it's truly amazing how branding has changed......

I'm still laughing at the one's that thought DJT would run (D)....

and if he had, I still would've voted for him on principle......

Heck, if Trump had been a Demon I would have voted for him at the next go around. Honestly he has done everything that I was hoping for in our national and international issues. I've wanted the EU to respect us by living up to their promises as to Nato and the other nations to be fair on tariffs. I wanted especially conservative judges in the SC and tax cuts. Heck, what has he done that hasn't been to our countrys benefit? He deserves at this point his face on Mt. Rushmore.

(07-19-2018 09:44 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Trump, like me, is honest to a fault.

No words.

(07-19-2018 10:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 09:44 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Trump, like me, is honest to a fault.

No words.

LOL

On my cell phone I carry a meme that says: "I don't like to think before I speak. I like to be just as surprised as everyone else by what comes out of my mouth".

My wife agrees.

Hey...but at least I'm trying for improvement.

(07-19-2018 10:06 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 07:34 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 07:32 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 06:41 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Trump is a coward just like most of his supporters. He talks big, but his words usually don't mean ****. Nobody is tougher on Russia than me... hold on.. I'm standing next to Putin. I can't say anything negative or he'll get mad at me. He is a great, powerful leader. His words are the strongest words I've ever heard.

Putin's little *****.

You democrats certainly change over the years. Weren't you the same bunch that criticized Reagan when he went on the military build up that put the Soviet Union out of business? The same bunch that were sure he was going to initiate the 3rd World War? The same bunch that felt if we would just reduce our strategic arms the Soviets would follow suit?
Trump does things that make me cringe and unlike democrats republicans tend to voice concerns when he does those type things. Having said that it is laughable for any democrat to criticize him for not being tough enough on Russia. If democrats had their way back in the 80's we would still be dealing with the Soviet Union or living under Soviet rule.

it's truly amazing how branding has changed......

I'm still laughing at the one's that thought DJT would run (D)....

and if he had, I still would've voted for him on principle......

Heck, if Trump had been a Demon I would have voted for him at the next go around. Honestly he has done everything that I was hoping for in our national and international issues. I've wanted the EU to respect us by living up to their promises as to Nato and the other nations to be fair on tariffs. I wanted especially conservative judges in the SC and tax cuts. Heck, what has he done that hasn't been to our countrys benefit? He deserves at this point his face on Mt. Rushmore.

no doubt.....ol' boy picked a fight with both sides AND the msm......he had NO FRIENDS GOING IN!!!!

#MYMAN