WSJ: GOP Activist Who Sought Clinton Emails Cited Trump Campaign Officials

[cwolff]

For the love of-

CNN Reporting (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/18/politics/trump-putin-g20/index.html) tonight that apparently Trump and Putin had an hour or so long, undisclosed, meeting during the G20 Summit



Not a single American was there for the meeting- just Putin, his translator, and Trump. Apparently the conversation was very friendly and animated, and for some reason it was never thought to mention it.

It raised quite a few eyebrows during the event, according to the person who broke the story (he was on Maddow this evening), and it greatly unnerved US allies that they seemed to be getting along so well, off the record. Interestingly enough, Maddow asked the guy who broke the story how common it was for US Presidents to hold these kinds of off-the-record meetings with Heads of State, and the last time this was a common occurrence was...Nixon- because he didn't trust the State Department (who provides staff for these events) and wanted to keep things secret.

He showed himself to be the bitch in this little relationship. Diplomatically speaking he did it loud and proud. He came out to the G20 leaders.

[Tgo01]

For the love of-

CNN Reporting (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/18/politics/trump-putin-g20/index.html) tonight that apparently Trump and Putin had an hour or so long, undisclosed, meeting during the G20 Summit



Not a single American was there for the meeting- just Putin, his translator, and Trump. Apparently the conversation was very friendly and animated, and for some reason it was never thought to mention it.

It raised quite a few eyebrows during the event, according to the person who broke the story (he was on Maddow this evening), and it greatly unnerved US allies that they seemed to be getting along so well, off the record. Interestingly enough, Maddow asked the guy who broke the story how common it was for US Presidents to hold these kinds of off-the-record meetings with Heads of State, and the last time this was a common occurrence was...Nixon- because he didn't trust the State Department (who provides staff for these events) and wanted to keep things secret.

The left never fails to amuse me.

"OMG! Look at Trump, sitting there all alone in this one photo instead of chatting with other leaders!"

"OMG! Look at Trump, sitting there with a world leader. COLLUSION!


Or, you know, let's talk about the US President

We can do both. This is why humans have evolved as well as they have.

[cwolff]

The left never fails to amuse me.

"OMG! Look at Trump, sitting there all alone in this one photo instead of chatting with other leaders!"

"OMG! Look at Trump, sitting there with a world leader. COLLUSION!



We can do both. This is why humans have evolved as well as they have.

Your boy's a bitch TG. To put it in "Scared Straight" terms, this little meetup is putin making trump put his hand in putins back pocket while out in the yard to show that putin owns him. Putin made trump toss his salad. He's just a sub bottom to vlad the man.

[Tgo01]

Your boy's a bitch TG. To put it in "Scared Straight" terms, this little meetup is putin making trump put his hand in putins back pocket while out in the yard to show that putin owns him. Putin made trump toss his salad. He's just a sub bottom to vlad the man.

You're beginning to sound like blackmail news, bringing in "handshake experts" to analyze Trump's and Putin's handshake.

[cwolff]

You're beginning to sound like blackmail news, bringing in "handshake experts" to analyze Trump's and Putin's handshake.

You're backing a man with a big slobbery Russian dong in his mouth. If trump could roll on his back and dribble urine on his belly he would.

[time4fun]

The left never fails to amuse me.

"OMG! Look at Trump, sitting there all alone in this one photo instead of chatting with other leaders!"

"OMG! Look at Trump, sitting there with a world leader. COLLUSION!



We can do both. This is why humans have evolved as well as they have.

Okay Einstein.

Riddle me this- if there's absolutely nothing going on...why did Trump repeatedly tell the country that there were NO contacts between his campaign and Russian government officials (and those connected to them)? Hopefully at this point, you can at least acknowledge that there have been dozens of meetings. Why did he say there were none?

And why didn't anyone in his campaign bother disclosing any meetings with Russia on their disclosure forms?

And why did Donald Trump Jr lie about the meeting that we recently discovered? He lied about it several times- changing his story repeatedly (and always inaccurately).

And finally, if they had a meeting with representatives of the Russian government after being told explicitly that the Russian government had an official program to support Trump's candidacy...why did Trump and his campaign repeatedly deny that such a thing existed?

[cwolff]

Okay Einstein.

Riddle me this- if there's absolutely nothing going on...why did Trump repeatedly tell the country that there were NO contacts between his campaign and Russian government officials (and those connected to them)? Hopefully at this point, you can at least acknowledge that there have been dozens of meetings. Why did he say there were none?

And why didn't anyone in his campaign bother disclosing any meetings with Russia on their disclosure forms?

And why did Donald Trump Jr lie about the meeting that we recently discovered? He lied about it several times- changing his story repeatedly (and always inaccurately).

And finally, if they had a meeting with representatives of the Russian government after being told explicitly that the Russian government had an official program to support Trump's candidacy...why did Trump and his campaign repeatedly deny that such a thing existed?

Tg, where's the list? Did you post it in the Articles section? I don't seem to have access to that. Anyway, I wanted to check and make sure you got the new names added.

[Tgo01]

You're backing a man with a big slobbery Russian dong in his mouth.

What's with the homosexual metaphor? You a homophobe?


Okay Einstein.

Riddle me this- if there's absolutely nothing going on...why did Trump repeatedly tell the country that there were NO contacts between his campaign and Russian government officials (and those connected to them)? Hopefully at this point, you can at least acknowledge that there have been dozens of meetings. Why did he say there were none?

And why didn't anyone in his campaign bother disclosing any meetings with Russia on their disclosure forms?

And why did Donald Trump Jr lie about the meeting that we recently discovered? He lied about it several times- changing his story repeatedly (and always inaccurately).

And finally, if they had a meeting with representatives of the Russian government after being told explicitly that the Russian government had an official program to support Trump's candidacy...why did Trump and his campaign repeatedly deny that such a thing existed?[/QUOTE]

Holy reaching, Batman!

You jump from "OMG! LOOK AT TRUMP...TALKING...WITH PUTIN! COLLUSION!" to "OMG! LOOK AT ALL OF THESE MEETINGS! AND THE EMAILS! AND THE DENIALS! IT'S ALL CONNECTED! EVEN A MEETING WITH PUTIN AT THE G20 WHERE LEADERS ARE SUPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, TALK."

This is why most people don't think Democrats have any real platform at the moment, all they have is "We hate Trump."

Which is funny because I noticed this years ago. Not the Trump part, but that Democrats aren't a real party, they are just the anti-Republican party.

Even on shit Democrats SHOULD be for, they are against if Republicans are for.

Securing our border? Nope, can't approve of that because Republicans like it.

Defending the second amendment? Nope, Republicans like that amendment, so we must hate it.

Calling out the racist and bigoted pieces of shit within our own party? Nope, Republicans don't like those people so we are defending those people.

Supporting the police who protect us and keep us safe? Nope, Republicans like cops, so we must always take the criminal's side.

[time4fun]

Funny how you didn't at all answer the questions.

I wonder- is this a reflection of your cognitive dissonance? You can't answer the questions because if you did, you'd have to admit that they happened?

Or is it that you already know you have no good answer for the questions, and so you're desperate to draw attention away from that fact?

[Tgo01]

Funny how you didn't at all answer the questions.

Because you're just engaging in more distraction bullshit.

I'm laughing at your absurd notion that Trump speaking with another world leader AT THE FUCKING G20 somehow ties into this whole pathetic collusion story. If you want to just admit you are being hysterical about this because your Democrat overlords have told you to be hysterical about this then fine, do that and I'll address your questions. Until then you'll just have to settle for me mocking you for being so fucking stupid.

I also love how you say someone "broke the story." Yes, "broke the story" of two world leaders talking!

And it "unnerved" our allies? Fuck. Germany and France actually want to work more with Russia since Russia provides so much energy to Europe and they aren't interested in this Trump/Russia collusion bullshit story at all. Did you know Merkel herself is against US imposing more sanctions on Russia? GASP! Germany/Russian collusion!

The world does not give a flying fuck about this supposed Russian/Trump collusion. Most Americans don't give a flying fuck about it. Just the media, "celebrities", and the fringe left lunatics.

[Fortybox]

Because you're just engaging in more distraction bullshit.

I'm laughing at your absurd notion that Trump speaking with another world leader AT THE FUCKING G20 somehow ties into this whole pathetic collusion story. If you want to just admit you are being hysterical about this because your Democrat overlords have told you to be hysterical about this then fine, do that and I'll address your questions. Until then you'll just have to settle for me mocking you for being so fucking stupid.

I also love how you say someone "broke the story." Yes, "broke the story" of two world leaders talking!

And it "unnerved" our allies? Fuck. Germany and France actually want to work more with Russia since Russia provides so much energy to Europe and they aren't interested in this Trump/Russia collusion bullshit story at all. Did you know Merkel herself is against US imposing more sanctions on Russia? GASP! Germany/Russian collusion!

The world does not give a flying fuck about this supposed Russian/Trump collusion. Most Americans don't give a flying fuck about it. Just the media, "celebrities", and the fringe left lunatics.


https://youtu.be/R7f-pw2SXUU

[cwolff]

Watching MSNBC right now and their talking heads were speculating on WTF trump and putin had to talk about for an hour alone with no aides and no other American prescence.

A few interesting tidbits; was trump recorded? does trump have the depth of knowledge to negotiate with putin without helpers and if trump just blurted out Israeli intelligence to Kisliyak in the Oval Office, what the hell might he have blurted to vlad.

Fair questions, we may never know unless the Russians release the tapes.

[Tgo01]

if trump just blurted out Israeli intelligence to Kisliyak in the Oval Office, what the hell might he have blurted to vlad.

That has been proven to be fake news spread in part by blackmail news.

[cwolff]

That has been proven to be fake news spread in part by blackmail news.

Vlad: My intelligence people, zey are the best Donald.
Don: I've got the best intelligence, just the best, let me tell you, we have a guy in Odessa; great guy by the way, who works for the mayor and this guy knows everything.

[time4fun]

That has been proven to be fake news spread in part by blackmail news.

You know what helps when you're claiming something has been "proven"? Citations.

One day Helen.

One day.

[time4fun]

Because you're just engaging in more distraction bullshit.

I'm laughing at your absurd notion that Trump speaking with another world leader AT THE FUCKING G20 somehow ties into this whole pathetic collusion story. If you want to just admit you are being hysterical about this because your Democrat overlords have told you to be hysterical about this then fine, do that and I'll address your questions. Until then you'll just have to settle for me mocking you for being so fucking stupid.

I also love how you say someone "broke the story." Yes, "broke the story" of two world leaders talking!

And it "unnerved" our allies? Fuck. Germany and France actually want to work more with Russia since Russia provides so much energy to Europe and they aren't interested in this Trump/Russia collusion bullshit story at all. Did you know Merkel herself is against US imposing more sanctions on Russia? GASP! Germany/Russian collusion!

The world does not give a flying fuck about this supposed Russian/Trump collusion. Most Americans don't give a flying fuck about it. Just the media, "celebrities", and the fringe left lunatics.

If this is a big "Nothing Burger"- then you should have no problem answering those questions.

So please, you keep saying that there's nothing there- so let's hear it. They're not trick questions or distractions- they're extremely relevant and warrant explanations. You say it's not because there was improper contact between Trump and Russia, so what is the alternative explanation?

I eagerly await your answers. You're well-informed and have spent an extensive amount of time discussing these issues. This shouldn't be a challenge nor should it be upsetting to you.

[Tgo01]

If this is a big "Nothing Burger"- then you should have no problem answering those questions.

Because it's pointless to try to have a discussion with someone who thinks something nefarious is happening because our president spoke with another world leader.

[Fortybox]

Because it's pointless to try to have a discussion with someone who thinks something nefarious is happening because our president spoke with another world leader.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/lm9NQW1WmKIus/giphy.gif

[Tgo01]

https://media0.giphy.com/media/lm9NQW1WmKIus/giphy.gif

MUH RUSSIA!

[Fortybox]

MUH RUSSIA!

https://media0.giphy.com/media/JetHJfNuDwI7K/giphy.gif

[Androidpk]

Gaslighter gonna gaslight.

[Wrathbringer]

Because you're just engaging in more distraction bullshit.

I'm laughing at your absurd notion that Trump speaking with another world leader AT THE FUCKING G20 somehow ties into this whole pathetic collusion story. If you want to just admit you are being hysterical about this because your Democrat overlords have told you to be hysterical about this then fine, do that and I'll address your questions. Until then you'll just have to settle for me mocking you for being so fucking stupid.

I also love how you say someone "broke the story." Yes, "broke the story" of two world leaders talking!

And it "unnerved" our allies? Fuck. Germany and France actually want to work more with Russia since Russia provides so much energy to Europe and they aren't interested in this Trump/Russia collusion bullshit story at all. Did you know Merkel herself is against US imposing more sanctions on Russia? GASP! Germany/Russian collusion!

The world does not give a flying fuck about this supposed Russian/Trump collusion. Most Americans don't give a flying fuck about it. Just the media, "celebrities", and the fringe left lunatics.

This is correct.

[time4fun]

Because it's pointless to try to have a discussion with someone who thinks something nefarious is happening because our president spoke with another world leader.


It's incredibly disingenuous of you to continually insist that the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia (and the constant, shifting lies about those contacts) aren't a big deal when you haven't actually taken the time to come up with an alternative explanation for their behavior aside from "They did bad things and are trying to hide them".

This isn't about whether or not it's "worth your time" to argue with someone else about the circumstances. If you have such deeply-held beliefs about the fact that this whole thing is a witch hunt, then you should already have figured out to explain the actual things Trump and his campaign have said and done in regards to Russia.

So I will ask you again:

If there's absolutely nothing going on...why did Trump repeatedly tell the country that there were NO contacts between his campaign and Russian government officials (and those connected to them)? Hopefully at this point, you can at least acknowledge that there have been dozens of meetings. Why did he say there were none?

And why didn't anyone in his campaign initially disclose any meetings with Russia on their disclosure forms or in sworn testimony?

And why did Donald Trump Jr lie about the meeting that we recently discovered? He lied about it several times- changing his story repeatedly (and always inaccurately).

And finally, if they had a meeting with representatives of the Russian government after being told explicitly that the Russian government had an official program to support Trump's candidacy...why did Trump and his campaign repeatedly deny that such a thing existed?

[Wrathbringer]

It's incredibly disingenuous of you to continually insist that the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia (and the constant, shifting lies about those contacts) aren't a big deal when you haven't actually taken the time to come up with an alternative explanation for their behavior aside from "They did bad things and are trying to hide them".

This isn't about whether or not it's "worth your time" to argue with someone else about the circumstances. If you have such deeply-held beliefs about the fact that this whole thing is a witch hunt, then you should already have figured out to explain the actual things Trump and his campaign have said and done in regards to Russia.

So I will ask you again:

If there's absolutely nothing going on...why did Trump repeatedly tell the country that there were NO contacts between his campaign and Russian government officials (and those connected to them)? Hopefully at this point, you can at least acknowledge that there have been dozens of meetings. Why did he say there were none?

And why didn't anyone in his campaign initially disclose any meetings with Russia on their disclosure forms or in sworn testimony?

And why did Donald Trump Jr lie about the meeting that we recently discovered? He lied about it several times- changing his story repeatedly (and always inaccurately).

And finally, if they had a meeting with representatives of the Russian government after being told explicitly that the Russian government had an official program to support Trump's candidacy...why did Trump and his campaign repeatedly deny that such a thing existed?

You seem to be missing the point. NO ONE CARES except for you and your ilk.

[Tenlaar]

It's incredibly disingenuous of you to continually insist that the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia (and the constant, shifting lies about those contacts) aren't a big deal when you haven't actually taken the time to come up with an alternative explanation for their behavior aside from "They did bad things and are trying to hide them".


Tgo has already admitted that he thinks no campaign should do what Trump's did, yet for some reason he is still taking the "nothing happened, doesn't matter" stance. It's kind of baffling. Party of personal responsibility, I suppose.

[time4fun]

Tgo has already admitted that he thinks no campaign should do what Trump's did, yet for some reason he is still taking the "nothing happened, doesn't matter" stance. It's kind of baffling. Party of personal responsibility, I suppose.

The thing that's so scary about this is just how incredibly effective Putin was. Not only did he manage to get someone he already had extensive ties to into the White House, but there's virtually nothing going on to protect us from his next round of attacks. The GOP is actually trying to gut the Federal Election Assistance Commission (https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-seeks-to-close-federal-election-agency-1500325218)- the only agency that works to secure our election system from attacks- in their new budget proposal. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has decided that NOW is a great time to gather all of our election data in one convenient location, knowing full well that the decentralization of our system is its most important security feature.

Not only are we not doing anything to make ourselves safer- we're actually working to make ourselves LESS safe.

And all because we're so mired in party politics right now that we're no longer able to agree on certain basic rules to keep our country independent and safe. 20 years ago, if a foreign nation had attacked our election system, we'd have all been able to get on board and agree it's a bad thing. Now, half of the country is willing to sell out our next 200 years because they don't want their party to look bad.

If the average American citizen had any idea what Putin did to Poland a few years ago, they'd wake up and realize that we're just as vulnerable.

[Wrathbringer]

The thing that's so scary about this is just how incredibly effective Putin was. Not only did he manage to get someone he already had extensive ties to into the White House, but there's virtually nothing going on to protect us from his next round of attacks. The GOP is actually trying to gut the Federal Election Assistance Commission (https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-seeks-to-close-federal-election-agency-1500325218)- the only agency that works to secure our election system from attacks- in their new budget proposal. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has decided that NOW is a great time to gather all of our election data in one convenient location, knowing full well that the decentralization of our system is its most important security feature.

Not only are we not doing anything to make ourselves safer- we're actually working to make ourselves LESS safe.

And all because we're so mired in party politics right now that we're no longer able to agree on certain basic rules to keep our country independent and safe. 20 years ago, if a foreign nation had attacked our election system, we'd have all been able to get on board and agree it's a bad thing. Now, half of the country is willing to sell out our next 200 years because they don't want their party to look bad.

If the average American citizen had any idea what Putin did to Poland a few years ago, they'd wake up and realize that we're just as vulnerable.

Guess who's retarded? You.

[time4fun]

Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/was-trump-jr-russia-meeting-an-intelligence-operation-spies-2017-7) did a fantastic piece today, gathering thoughts from former spies and intelligence experts:


Former spies say Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer and a Russian-American lobbyist at Trump Tower last June looks like a textbook intelligence operation aimed at gauging the Trump campaign's interest in colluding with Moscow to undermine Hillary Clinton.


Intelligence experts and former spies have said the episode bears all the hallmarks of a top-down influence operation that used cutouts and a cover story to make initial contact with a target — in this case, the Trump campaign — while maintaining plausible deniability.

And ultimately, experts say, the campaign gave Russia a green light to move forward.


The initial emails hinted at potential dirt on Clinton. But according to Trump Jr., Veselnitskaya, and Akhmetshin, the only thing discussed during the meeting was Russia's adoption policy, which was altered to bar American families from adopting Russian children in retaliation for the signing of the Magnitsky Act in 2012.

That is plausible, given Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin's history of lobbying to repeal the US law, which sanctioned high-level Kremlin officials suspected of human-rights abuses and corruption. But it was also a way for Moscow to approach the campaign "in a way that can be masked," CIA veteran Glenn Carle told Vox.


"If you're an intelligence agency or officer, you never walk up to somebody that you want to recruit or influence and tell them directly that you want to recruit or influence them," Carle said.


But analysts say it is plausible that high-level Russians — like Chaika, perhaps — used Veselnitskaya as a "deniable intermediary," or a cutout. Browder told Business Insider last week that Veselnitskaya had "been in touch with Chaika daily" coordinating attacks against him for lobbying to expand the Magnitsky Act.


Trump Jr.'s response to Goldstone's overture — "I love it" — and that he did not flag the offer to the FBI would have given the Russians a green light to move forward with a longer-term operation, the ex-spies say.

"If the target did not report what was clearly something that had been developed for the target as an intelligence approach, that would have signaled to the Russians the possibility of a future relationship that they could pursue in further depth," Mowatt-Larssen told CNN on Monday night.


So yes, this was standard operating procedure for a Russian intelligence operation, and, yes, the Trump campaign absolutely signaled to the Russians that they were ready to play ball. Otherwise, they would have reported this to the FBI ASAP. It's not like Paul Manafort- whose previous claim to fame was helping Putin install his chosen candidate in Ukraine- doesn't understand how this works.

The fact that there was no shock expressed at the statement in the emails about the Russian-sponsored program to help the Trump campaign also indicates that this wasn't the first time they had been in touch.

[Wrathbringer]

Stfu, no one cares.

[Savageheart]

Karl Rove cries foul, when Shep Smith cries foul, when the White House becomes combative with Fox News... People, seem to be caring.

[time4fun]

Karl Rove cries foul, when Shep Smith cries foul, when the White House becomes combative with Fox News... People, seem to be caring.

Two interesting data points came out on this the last week or so.

I think it was the Wash Post/ABC poll (Correction, it was Monmouth (https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_NJ_071717/)) that showed 41% of respondents wanted Trump impeached. What's interesting about that is that in the early Watergate days, only about half as many people said the same of Nixon. So this is already being taken much more seriously than big scandals have in the past.

Nate Silver also tweeted a great article (https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_NJ_071717/)today that points out how misleading the GOP support for Trump numbers may be. Right now they tend to hover in the low to mid 80s. [Side Note- general beltway wisdom is that below 80 is dangerous and 75 is deadly, politically speaking]. But Gallup has noted a 4% drop in GOP voter identification since November. It looks like Republicans who don't approve of Trump are actually just leaving the party- which is inflating his GOP support number.

So people do care, and they're caring more than we generally think.

Though there is also some evidence that, while dwindling in numbers, the Russia coverage is ramping up voter enthusiasm among Trump supporters.

[Wrathbringer]

Two interesting data points came out on this the last week or so.

I think it was the Wash Post/ABC poll that showed 41% of respondents wanted Trump impeached. What's interesting about that is that in the early Watergate days, only about half as many people said the same of Nixon. So this is already being taken much more seriously than big scandals have in the past.

Nate Silver also tweeted a great article today (I'll dig up the URL for both this and the poll later) that points out how misleading the GOP support for Trump numbers may be. Right now they tend to hover in the low to mid 80s. [Side Note- general beltway wisdom is that below 80 is dangerous and 75 is deadly, politically speaking]. But Gallup has noted a 4% drop in GOP voter identification since November. It looks like Republicans who don't approve of Trump are actually just leaving the party- which is inflating his GOP support number.

So people do care, and they're caring more than we generally think.

What you don't understand is that nothing is going to happen. Trump will serve a full 8 years, no matter how many times you post the word "impeach". No one that voted for him cares about the whole fake news russia collusion crap.

[Seizer]

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has decided that NOW is a great time to gather all of our election data in one convenient location, knowing full well that the decentralization of our system is its most important security feature.

Wait I thought it was President Obama's administration who did this.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/06/statement-secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical
https://apnews.com/8afaab16347a4f88b4c8b4a1759de60e/us-faulted-over-designating-election-systems-infrastructure
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-election-infrastructure-homeland-security_us_58927a40e4b0af07cb6b7cfa

[time4fun]

Wait I thought it was President Obama's administration who did this.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/06/statement-secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical
https://apnews.com/8afaab16347a4f88b4c8b4a1759de60e/us-faulted-over-designating-election-systems-infrastructure
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-election-infrastructure-homeland-security_us_58927a40e4b0af07cb6b7cfa

Erm, did you read the announcement?


It is important to stress what this designation does and does not mean. This designation does not mean a federal takeover, regulation, oversight or intrusion concerning elections in this country. This designation does nothing to change the role state and local governments have in administering and running elections.

The designation of election infrastructure as critical infrastructure subsector does mean that election infrastructure becomes a priority within the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. It also enables this Department to prioritize our cybersecurity assistance to state and local election officials, but only for those who request it. Further, the designation makes clear both domestically and internationally that election infrastructure enjoys all the benefits and protections of critical infrastructure that the U.S. government has to offer. Finally, a designation makes it easier for the federal government to have full and frank discussions with key stakeholders regarding sensitive vulnerability information.

You're confusing a designation that allows the Federal Government to allocate funds to cyber security for localities who want it with a program that forces states to hand over critical data to a centralized location. It doesn't compel any local government entity to participate in any particular program. This was done to help protect us after it was discovered that Russia had been hacking into our voter registration files because many states haven't upgraded their security infrastructure in a long time (largely due to lack of funds).

Trump's new commission was originally trying to compel every single state to hand over every byte of data about voters so they can sit in a centralized location under the purview of Pence's staffers. They've claimed they're making some changes to how this data will be stored now, but I haven't seen anything concrete yet.

But for you to pretend that these are analogous is dishonest at best.

[Seizer]

Erm, did you read the announcement?
Yes I read it.

Were you referring to the request by the Trump administration for publicly available data? This is his centralization of our voting system? I am so confused. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson designates election infrastructure as critical infrastructure, bringing it under the umbrella of the federal government. However, it was really president Trump who did this. Is that how gas lighting works?

[time4fun]

Yes I read it.

Were you referring to the request by the Trump administration for publicly available data? This is his centralization of our voting system? I am so confused. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson designates election infrastructure as critical infrastructure, bringing it under the umbrella of the federal government. However, it was really president Trump who did this. Is that how gas lighting works?

SO first, you're using the singular phrase "bringing it under the umbrella of the federal government" to mask a blatant scope shift. And you know better- which means you're intentionally making a dishonest argument.

Compelling states to provide all of their publicly available voter data (including party affiliation, voting history, part of their social security numbers, names, etc) to be housed centrally under the control of the Vice President's staffers (you know, the Vice President who is part of an administration and campaign currently under investigation for colluding with a hostile foreign power to interfere with our election via numerous types of cyber attacks?) is absolutely distinct from adjusting the regulatory framework to allow states who request cyber security support to receive that support from existing Federal government resources.

I would frankly applaud Donald Trump if he did literally anything to help make our country safer against Russian intrusion into our elections in 2018- which will absolutely happen.

Instead, Donald Trump is busy denying the existence of the Russian meddling (which his own administration and Congressional party say absolutely happened) and hampering efforts to protect us against that threat (presumably because it worked out super well for him last time, so why get in the way now?) and is instead employing garbage racist rhetoric while trying to convince people that the REAL threat is that we have millions of cases of voter fraud from those evil illegals- a statement which flies in the face of all evidence (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims-revisited/). (That would be gas lighting, by the way)

Seriously- there's no point in making up fake arguments here. If the only way you can get started is with a dishonest comparison, you shouldn't be making the argument at all.

[RichardCranium]

I would frankly applaud Donald Trump if he did literally anything to help make our country safer against Russian intrusion into our elections in 2018- which will absolutely happen.

Seriously- there's no point in making up fake arguments here. If the only way you can get started is with a dishonest comparison, you shouldn't be making the argument at all.

In the same post no less.

[Savageheart]

In the same post no less.

This is the politics folder we deserve

[time4fun]

In the same post no less.

Please explain to me what about this voter committee is about making us safer against Russian intrusion in 2018. Be specific.

Be sure to include a discussion of Trump's repeated attacks on anyone who dares suggest that the Russian government meddled in our elections.

[cwolff]

More ROI for Putin. He's really getting a bang for his bucks with this guy. So much for having a "great negotiator" businessman in the WH.

Question, why has Russia become so important to us? They are a rather small economy and petro-state. Trump makes them appear like our equals on the global stage.


President Trump has decided to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials.
The program was a central plank of a policy begun by the Obama administration in 2013 to put pressure on Assad to step aside, but even its backers have questioned its efficacy since Russia deployed forces in Syria two years later.

[Gelston]

This is the politics folder we deserve

but it is not the one we need right now.

[RichardCranium]

Please explain to me what about this voter committee is about making us safer against Russian intrusion in 2018. Be specific.

Be sure to include a discussion of Trump's repeated attacks on anyone who dares suggest that the Russian government meddled in our elections.

There's no proof that they meddled in the presidential election. I'm sorry if my wait and see approach offends your sensibilities.

Be sure to include more hyperbole in all future posts.

[Tgo01]

Tgo has already admitted that he thinks no campaign should do what Trump's did, yet for some reason he is still taking the "nothing happened, doesn't matter" stance. It's kind of baffling. Party of personal responsibility, I suppose.

You turning into WB Jr now or what?

I used very simple words that even a third grader could understand when I made that argument.

I said I can understand if people think our politicians shouldn't engage in this sort of "dirty politics", that is digging up dirt on your opponent in an effort so smear them. I just asked for people to be consistent. Pretending your precious Hillary didn't engage in this kind of stuff is bullshit but then to lose your mind when Trump (supposedly) does it is hypocritical.

I also said (again in very plain English that even someone with English as their 110th language could understand) that I personally don't give a shit about this particular type of "dirty politics."

But hey! Why worry about silly things like facts when you can just WB your way through this argument, right you rapist?

[time4fun]

There's no proof that they meddled in the presidential election. I'm sorry if my wait and see approach offends your sensibilities.

Be sure to include more hyperbole in all future posts.

You could not be more wrong.

You are so incredibly wrong.

You're mental illness-level wrong.



1) US Intelligence Agencies have already made it INCREDIBLY clear (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf) that Russia meddled in our elections.

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression
of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these
activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence in these judgments.

 We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him.


2) Donald Trump Junior JUST released an email (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html)from someone representing a high level Russian official that explicitly stated:

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

3) Congressionall REPUBLICANS have already said that Russia meddled in our elections.

Mark Rubio- during a Congressional investigatory session- publically stated (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/senate-intelligence-committee-hearing-russia/index.html) that HE was a target of Russian hacking and meddling:

Rubio -- a former primary opponent of President Donald Trump -- announced at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Russian meddling that during last year's election his former campaign staff was targeted by hackers twice.
Rubio said the attacks came from computers using IP addresses located in Russia -- once in July of last year, after he announced he would run again for the Senate and again, Wednesday morning. IP addresses do not necessarily confirm who conducted hacking, as it is relatively easy for hackers to mask their location.

4) Russia hacked into (https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/) the voting systems of several US states.

RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.

The top-secret National Security Agency document, which was provided anonymously to The Intercept and independently authenticated, analyzes intelligence very recently acquired by the agency about a months-long Russian intelligence cyber effort against elements of the U.S. election and voting infrastructure. The report, dated May 5, 2017, is the most detailed U.S. government account of Russian interference in the election that has yet come to light.

At this point in time, if you're actually think there's no proof Russia meddled in our elections- you are a fucking idiot with absolutely no grasp of what's going on. And you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Tgo01]

but even its backers have questioned its efficacy since Russia deployed forces in Syria two years later.

I mean...it says right there...

There's no way we can train a bunch of Syrian rebels to not only take down the government of Syria, but also the government of Russia. Unless we personally get involved too. Is that what you want? IS IT? RUSSIA!!!

[RichardCranium]

Everything you bolded is circumstantial.

God help the defendant if you ever wind up on a jury.

[Wrathbringer]

You could not be more wrong.

You are so incredibly wrong.

You're mental illness-level wrong.



1) US Intelligence Agencies have already made it INCREDIBLY clear (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf) that Russia meddled in our elections.



2) Donald Trump Junior JUST released an email (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html)from someone representing a high level Russian official that explicitly stated:


3) Congressionall REPUBLICANS have already said that Russia meddled in our elections.

Mark Rubio- during a Congressional investigatory session- publically stated (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/senate-intelligence-committee-hearing-russia/index.html) that HE was a target of Russian hacking and meddling:


4) Russia hacked into (https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/) the voting systems of several US states.


At this point in time, if you're actually think there's no proof Russia meddled in our elections- you are a fucking idiot with absolutely no grasp of what's going on. And you should be ashamed of yourself.

Lol triggered you lost get over it

[time4fun]

Everything you bolded is circumstantial.

God help the defendant if you ever wind up on a jury.

No...it's actually not.

None of that is circumstancial. Read the US Intelligence Interagency Report.

What evidence do you have that the Congressional Republicans, US Intelligence Agencies, Representatives of the Russian government, and the NSA's own internal documentation are all incorrect and you're right?

[Wrathbringer]

No...it's actually not.

None of that is circumstancial. Read the US Intelligence Interagency Report.

What evidence do you have that the Congressional Republicans, US Intelligence Agencies, Representatives of the Russian government, and the NSA's own internal documentation are all incorrect and you're right?

You're getting owned and you can't stand it. lol

[time4fun]

In reference to Russian collusion, none of that is direct evidence of it.

The point was Russian meddling, not collusion.

RichardCranium:

There's no proof that they meddled in the presidential election.

[drauz]

Has anyone come up with a plan to halt the meddling in our elections? On either side.

[time4fun]

Has anyone come up with a plan to halt the meddling in our elections? On either side.

Well, Congress has several invesatigations into the issue going on right now. And, of course, the GOP is trying to gut the one agency in charge of securing our elections in their next budget.

Meanwhile, the Executive branch- which is the one that should be worrying about US elections and cyber security- is headed by a man who is too busy denying that the meddling ever happened. But, of course, there's plenty of time and resources to chase down imaginary voter fraud.

If the Trump campaign received an email from representatives of the Russian government explicitly telling them that Russia had a state-sponsored program to support Trump's candidacy- why are they spending all of their time trying to convince everyone the meddling never happened and avoiding having to take any action?

[~Rocktar~]

There is more solid evidence of voter fraud than of Russian collusion.

[drauz]

Well, Congress has several invesatigations into the issue going on right now. And, of course, the GOP is trying to gut the one agency in charge of securing our elections in their next budget.

Meanwhile, the Executive branch- which is the one that should be worrying about US elections and cyber security- is headed by a man who is too busy denying that the meddling ever happened. But, of course, there's plenty of time and resources to chase down imaginary voter fraud.

If the Trump campaign received an email from representatives of the Russian government explicitly telling them that Russia had a state-sponsored program to support Trump's candidacy- why are they spending all of their time trying to convince everyone the meddling never happened and avoiding having to take any action?

And the other side? What ideas do they have?

[Tenlaar]

You turning into WB Jr now or what?

I used very simple words that even a third grader could understand when I made that argument.


Now, I know that his actions are indefensible, we all know that. I think we just want to be reassured that even the trump fans see that this was bad.


Bad in the sense that no political campaign should do this? Sure. Yeah.

You're right, you did use very simple words. You agreed that the actions of Trump and his campaign are bad, in the sense that no political campaign should do this. You being okay with people doing things you agree are wrong is certainly your choice, but it doesn't change you agreeing that it's bad. But why worry about silly things like facts?

[Tgo01]

Well, Congress has several invesatigations into the issue going on right now. And, of course, the GOP is trying to gut the one agency in charge of securing our elections in their next budget.

Meanwhile, the Executive branch- which is the one that should be worrying about US elections and cyber security- is headed by a man who is too busy denying that the meddling ever happened. But, of course, there's plenty of time and resources to chase down imaginary voter fraud.

Since you care so much about the integrity of our elections shouldn't you want the federal government to look into possible voter fraud?

What's really funny is you want our government to somehow control the actions of another government, but you are totally against our government investigating possible crimes within our own country.

If time4fun were in charge of the US (nightmare fuel for the next 10 weeks) what exactly would you do about Russia, or any country for that matter, "meddling" in our elections? Keep in mind "meddling" in our elections in this context is spreading "fake news." LOL!

[Tgo01]

You're right, you did use very simple words. You agreed that the actions of Trump and his campaign are bad, in the sense that no political campaign should do this. You being okay with people doing things you agree are wrong is certainly your choice, but it doesn't change you agreeing that it's bad. But why worry about silly things like facts?

Wow you really are a piece of shit.

I mean, why quote my entire post there, right? Which was:


Bad in the sense that no political campaign should do this? Sure. Yeah.

Bad in the sense that the Trump campaign did something unique and we should all act aghast that a politician would even think of doing something like this? No. Stop. You're being played.

Or why quote the part where you asked a follow up question to my post and I explained my position further?


Now that you've admitted that a campaign should not do what Trump's did...do you think that there should be any consequences for it, or that we should all just accept it and be okay with it?


If you all want to be honest with yourselves and want actual reform here and not just a "OMG! IT'S TRUMP AND RUSSIA!" Then sure, yeah, "do something" about it.

If you're just using this to push your anti-Trump hysteria then just fuck off.

Personally I don't think it's that big of a deal no matter which candidate does shit like this. But if you all want "clean" elections then go ahead and try to get something changed. Nothing will change though, especially if you're motivated by your hatred for Trump as opposed to wanting actual election reform, and especially if you tackle this issue from the angle that what Trump's campaign did is already illegal, as opposed to wanting this type of shit to be illegal from now on. Again, no matter who does it, not just the candidate you hate.

Honestly no matter what Trump Jr did nothing wrong or shady. The only possible shady bit is someone from Trump's campaign was supposedly at the meeting, and even then it would greatly depend on what that person knew. If Trump Jr. just said "Hey I have a meeting I want you to be a part of" then again what is wrong legally or ethically with that?

Now the part you people are supposedly so concerned about because TRUMP is if someone from Trump's campaign knew what the meeting was about ahead of time, which is someone has some dirt on his political opponent. Exactly what do you guys think should be illegal about this?

Campaigns can't dig up dirt on other people at all? Just can't accept dirt from foreign nationals? Can't accept dirt from RUSSIA? Be specific because honestly all it looks like is anti Trump hysteria.

As far as your question of what the consequences should be? Like any other scandal, manufactured or real, don't vote for Trump next election if you feel it's that big of a deal. You honestly think, what, prison or impeachment is the answer here?

But why be honest when we can quote people out of context? You have studied well at the feet of your master WB. But you still have much learning to do. I suggest you go back and train more.

[tyrant-201]

You people love to argue way, way, way, way too much.

[Tgo01]

You people love to argue way, way, way, way too much.

Rapist says what?

[time4fun]

And the other side? What ideas do they have?

Do you not remember that the GOP initially didn't want to have any investigations into Russian meddling?

And then, even when they grudglingly accepted, they didn't want to look at any possible American collusion with the Russian government?

The only reason why Congress is looking into this stuff is Democrats threw a fit when they tried to avoid it.

Democrats are also the ones trying to pressure Paul Ryan to bring the new Sanctions Bill up for a vote.

And, the DCCC is currently trying to work with the NRCC to help avoid the 2016 fiasco in 2018: (https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/Letter_to_Chairman_Stivers_Cyber.pdf)


, ...the threat of cyber-attacks remains, and we must work together to take
bold steps to protect the American political system from future intrusions. This cannot be
a partisan issue.

First, I ask for your steadfast commitment that the NRCC will refrain from the use of any
stolen or altered documents or strategic information as part of any past or potential future
hack on our Committee or campaigns.

Second, we must work together this cycle as proud Americans – not as Democrats or
Republicans – to protect against future attacks. Specifically, I ask that we convene in the
near future to discuss how to best establish a united front against foreign governments
and collaborate with DHS, the FBI and other institutions to protect our elections. By the
year’s end, we should establish a joint plan to protect our committees and keep foreign
adversaries and criminal actors out of our elections.

[drauz]

Rapist says what?

Rapist says what?

[tyrant-201]

Rapist says what?

Who? Who's the rapist?

[drauz]

Do you not remember that the GOP initially didn't want to have any investigations into Russian meddling?

And then, even when they grudglingly accepted, they didn't want to look at any possible American collusion with the Russian government?

The only reason why Congress is looking into this stuff is Democrats threw a fit when they tried to avoid it.

Democrats are also the ones trying to pressure Paul Ryan to bring the new Sanctions Bill up for a vote.

And, the DCCC is currently trying to work with the NRCC to help avoid the 2016 fiasco in 2018: (https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/Letter_to_Chairman_Stivers_Cyber.pdf)

So neither side is really doing anything. Pointing at the problem but not doing anything to stop it is pointless.

[time4fun]

Tonight, the NYT has two interesting articles.

First, it's reporting that (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/business/big-german-bank-key-to-trumps-finances-faces-new-scrutiny.html)


After a string of bankruptcies in his casino and hotel businesses in the 1990s, Mr. Trump became somewhat of an outsider on Wall Street, leaving the giant German bank among the few major financial institutions willing to lend him money.

Now that two-decades-long relationship is coming under scrutiny.

Banking regulators are reviewing hundreds of millions of dollars in loans made to Mr. Trump’s businesses through Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management unit, which caters to an ultrarich clientele, according to three people briefed on the review who were not authorized to speak publicly. The regulators want to know if the loans might expose the bank to heightened risks.

Separately, Deutsche Bank has been in contact with federal investigators about the Trump accounts, according to two people briefed on the matter. And the bank is expecting to eventually have to provide information to Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the federal investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

Interestingly enough, Trump gave an interview to NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html) today and gave a not-so-veiled threat to fire Mueller if he started looking into Trump's finances:


Mr. Trump said Mr. Mueller was running an office rife with conflicts of interest and warned investigators against delving into matters too far afield from Russia. Mr. Trump never said he would order the Justice Department to fire Mr. Mueller, nor would he outline circumstances under which he might do so. But he left open the possibility as he expressed deep grievance over an investigation that has taken a political toll in the six months since he took office.

Asked if Mr. Mueller’s investigation would cross a red line if it expanded to look at his family’s finances beyond any relationship to Russia, Mr. Trump said, “I would say yes.” He would not say what he would do about it. “I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia.”

[time4fun]

So neither side is really doing anything. Pointing at the problem but not doing anything to stop it is pointless.

That was an incredibly inaccurate statement.

But I also need to remind you that the GOP controls Congress and the White House. What exactly are you expecting Democrats to do aside from what they've done already when they can't even bring legislation up for a vote nor make any regulatory decisions?

[drauz]

That was an incredibly inaccurate statement.

But I also need to remind you that the GOP controls Congress and the White House. What exactly are you expecting Democrats to do aside from what they've done already when they can't even bring legislation up for a vote nor make any regulatory decisions?

Their mouths still work, right?

[RichardCranium]

I knew you'd start arguing semantics with that direct quote.

[Tenlaar]

Wow you really are a piece of shit.

Classy. Look, you can follow up "Bad in the sense that no political campaign should do this? Sure. Yeah" with anything you want, but it's just you rationalizing reasons why you it's okay for certain people to do things that you've acknowledged as being wrong.

I think that both political parties should conduct themselves better. I don't think that it's okay for democrats to break the law, to take advantage of people, or to flat out lie to the american people. And I don't have to follow up "this is a bad thing that people shouldn't do" with paragraphs of reasons why it's actually okay to do the wrong thing.

[Tgo01]

Classy. Look, you can follow up "Bad in the sense that no political campaign should do this? Sure. Yeah" with anything you want, but it's just you rationalizing reasons why you it's okay for certain people to do things that you've acknowledged as being wrong.

No. If you're going to ignore it "when your side does it" and act like I should give a flying fuck "when my side does it" then you're just barking up the wrong tree. Especially when I say I acknowledge both sides do it and I don't give a flying fuck either way. Why would I care if a political candidate wants to dig up dirt on their opponent?

The only one looking like a hypocrite are the Democrats calling for Trump's head but just ignore it when their side does the exact same shit.

[Tenlaar]

No. If you're going to ignore it "when your side does it" and act like I should give a flying fuck "when my side does it" then you're just barking up the wrong tree.

This is where you seem to be getting lost. I don't think it's okay for "my side" to do things that I know to be wrong any more than I think it's okay for "your side" to do them. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a lesson that most people learn at a very young age. That is the fundamental difference here.

You constantly argue against a nameless, formless democrat in your head instead of the people you're actually talking to. I am not Time4fun or Back, and I don't brush off democrats doing bad things. I am not okay with democrats being shady pieces of shit, period, and I won't rationalize it away when they are.


Especially when I say I acknowledge both sides do it and I don't give a flying fuck either way.

Yeah, I know, you had to fall back on that because you accidentally admitted that you know Trump did something bad. You can't let that stand, it must immediately be followed with "but it's okay because libruls so it's not really bad to do this bad thing."

[Tgo01]

This is where you seem to be getting lost. I don't think it's okay for "my side" to do things that I know to be wrong any more than I think it's okay for "your side" to do them.

Yet you only give a shit when "my side" does it. Got it.

Also you're just engaging in distraction bullshit at this point.

I said plain as day I don't give a shit when either side does it, but now you're claiming I never said that and I'm just "rationalizing" when "my side" does it.

Fuck off with this bullshit. You're encroaching awfully close to rapist WB territory now.

[Back]

I am not Time4fun or Back, and I don't brush off democrats doing bad things.

Hey neither do I! God damn politics folder.

[Tgo01]

Yeah, I know, you had to fall back on that because you accidentally admitted that you know Trump did something bad. You can't let that stand, it must immediately be followed with "but it's okay because libruls so it's not really bad to do this bad thing."

"Fall back on that." It was in the same damn post that I said both sides do it and I said it was stupid to expect me or anyone else to get all upset just because Trump does it.

Again. Fuck off with your bullshit. If the only way you know how to argue your point is distraction, quoting someone out of context, and just flat out ignoring what the other person is saying then just go ahead and shove your head far up your ass and have a conversation with your colon.

[cwolff]

https://youtu.be/Lg-fAUzZmJk

[Latrinsorm]

This is why most people don't think Democrats have any real platform at the moment, all they have is "We hate Trump."Did you know that more people voted for Hilary Clinton than Donald Trump in the last election? Did you further know that a majority of voters voted for Democrat senators? Did you finally know that people support a generic Democrat Congressperson by ten points over one of the Republican persuasion? For not having any real platform, Democrats don't seem to have any trouble getting the support of "most people". If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
What you don't understand is that nothing is going to happen. Trump will serve a full 8 years, no matter how many times you post the word "impeach". No one that voted for him cares about the whole fake news russia collusion crap.Then again, almost no one who voted for him has a say in impeachment proceedings. Remember that the 1972 election was one of the great landslides of all time, with President Nixon winning 49 of 50 states.
And the other side? What ideas do they have? ... So neither side is really doing anything. Pointing at the problem but not doing anything to stop it is pointless.You asked for ideas from the Democrats. That is a fair question, and you received a fair answer. Asking that the Democrats do something when, as pointed out, they can't even bring a bill to a vote without Republican approval is absurd on top of moving the goalposts.

[drauz]

You asked for ideas from the Democrats. That is a fair question, and you received a fair answer. Asking that the Democrats do something when, as pointed out, they can't even bring a bill to a vote without Republican approval is absurd on top of moving the goalposts.

Stating a problem isn't a plan.

[Latrinsorm]

Stating a problem isn't a plan.time4fun's post listed two specific and concrete plans put forth by Democrats:
1) pressuring Paul Ryan to bring the new Sanctions Bill up for a vote.
2) working with the NRCC to help avoid the 2016 fiasco in 2018:
That is: punish the people who meddled in this election (reactive) and work to prevent such meddling from occurring in the future (proactive). That's all the actives there are, drauz.

That's all the actives there are.

[Tgo01]

Did you know that more people voted for Hilary Clinton than Donald Trump in the last election? Did you further know that a majority of voters voted for Democrat senators?

You're on the wrong account, time4fun.

[drauz]

time4fun's post listed two specific and concrete plans put forth by Democrats:
1) pressuring Paul Ryan to bring the new Sanctions Bill up for a vote.
2) working with the NRCC to help avoid the 2016 fiasco in 2018:
That is: punish the people who meddled in this election (reactive) and work to prevent such meddling from occurring in the future (proactive). That's all the actives there are, drauz.

That's all the actives there are.

I am going to become a movie actor. To do this I will:

1. Move to CA
2. Become an actor

[Latrinsorm]

I am going to become a movie actor. To do this I will:

1. Move to CA
2. Become an actorOr...

To provide for congressional oversight of actions to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 8 (legislative day, February 6), 2017
Mr. Graham (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. McCain, Mr. Brown, Mr. Rubio, and Mrs. McCaskill) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL
To provide for congressional oversight of actions to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Russia Sanctions Review Act of 2017”.

SEC. 2. CODIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13694.

Executive Order 13694 (80 Fed. Reg. 18077; relating to blocking the property of certain persons engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities), as in effect on January 1, 2017, and any sanctions imposed pursuant to that Executive order, shall remain in effect.

SEC. 3. CODIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS IMPOSING SANCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE SITUATION IN UKRAINE.

(a) In General.—The Executive orders specified in subsection (b), and sanctions imposed pursuant to such Executive orders, shall remain in effect.

(b) Executive Orders Specified.—The Executive orders specified in this subsection are the following:

(1) Executive Order 13660 (79 Fed. Reg. 13493; relating to blocking property of certain persons contributing to the situation in Ukraine) (as in effect on January 1, 2017).

(2) Executive Order 13661 (79 Fed. Reg. 15535; relating to blocking property of additional persons contributing to the situation in Ukraine) (as in effect on January 1, 2017).

(3) Executive Order 13662 (79 Fed. Reg. 16169; relating to blocking property of additional persons contributing to the situation in Ukraine) (as in effect on January 1, 2017).

(4) Executive Order 13685 (79 Fed. Reg. 77357; relating to blocking property of certain persons and prohibiting certain transactions with respect to the Crimea region of Ukraine) (as in effect on January 1, 2017).

SEC. 4. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF SANCTIONS IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

(a) Submission To Congress Of Policy Changes To Sanctions On The RussiaN Federation.—Before taking any action to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership a report that—

(1) describes the proposed action; and

(2) certifies that the Government of the Russian Federation has ceased—

(A) ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, supporting, or financing, significant acts intended to undermine the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine, including through an agreement between the appropriate parties; and

(B) cyberattacks against the United States Government and United States persons.

(b) Period For Review By Congress.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—During the 120-calendar day period following submission by the President of a report under subsection (a), the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives shall, as appropriate, hold hearings and briefings and otherwise obtain information in order to fully review the report and the certification required by subsection (a)(2).

(2) LIMITATION ON ACTIONS DURING INITIAL CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW PERIOD.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the period for congressional review provided for under paragraph (1), the President may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation.

(3) LIMITATION ON ACTIONS DURING PRESIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION OF A JOINT RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a joint resolution of disapproval passes both Houses of Congress in accordance with subsection (c), the President may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation, for a period of 12 calendar days following the date of passage of the joint resolution of disapproval.

(4) LIMITATION ON ACTIONS DURING CONGRESSIONAL RECONSIDERATION OF A JOINT RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a joint resolution of disapproval passes both Houses of Congress in accordance with subsection (c), and the President vetoes the joint resolution, the President may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation, for a period of 10 calendar days following the date of the President’s veto.

(c) Joint Resolution Of Disapproval.—

(1) JOINT RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term “joint resolution of disapproval” means a joint resolution of either House of Congress the sole matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: “That Congress disapproves of the action proposed by the President in the report submitted to Congress under section 4(a) of the Russia Sanctions Review Act of 2017 on ____.”, with the blank space being filled with the appropriate date.

(2) EFFECT OF ENACTMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may not take any action to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation, if a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted in accordance with this subsection.

(3) INTRODUCTION.—During the 120-calendar day period provided for under subsection (b)(1), a joint resolution of disapproval may be introduced—

(A) in the House of Representatives, by the majority leader or the minority leader; and

(B) in the Senate, by the majority leader (or the majority leader's designee) or the minority leader (or the minority leader's designee).

(4) FLOOR CONSIDERATION IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—

(A) REPORTING AND DISCHARGE.—If a committee of the House of Representatives to which a joint resolution of disapproval has been referred has not reported the resolution within 10 legislative days after the date of referral, that committee shall be discharged from further consideration thereof.

(B) PROCEEDING TO CONSIDERATION.—Beginning on the third legislative day after each committee to which a joint resolution of disapproval has been referred reports it to the House or has been discharged from further consideration thereof, it shall be in order to move to proceed to consider the resolution in the House. All points of order against the motion are waived. Such a motion shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a motion to proceed on the resolution. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. The motion shall not be debatable. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of shall not be in order.

(C) CONSIDERATION.—The joint resolution of disapproval shall be considered as read. All points of order against the resolution and against its consideration are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final passage without intervening motion except two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the sponsor of the resolution (or a designee) and an opponent. A motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the resolution shall not be in order.

(5) CONSIDERATION IN THE SENATE.—

(A) COMMITTEE REFERRAL.—A joint resolution of disapproval introduced in the Senate shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

(B) REPORTING AND DISCHARGE.—If the Committee on Foreign Relations has not reported a joint resolution of disapproval within 10 session days after the date of referral of the resolution, that committee shall be discharged from further consideration of the resolution and the resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.

(C) PROCEEDING TO CONSIDERATION.—Notwithstanding Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, it is in order at any time after the Committee on Foreign Relations reports the joint resolution of disapproval to the Senate or has been discharged from its consideration (even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution, and all points of order against the resolution (and against consideration of the resolution) are waived. The motion to proceed is not debatable. The motion is not subject to a motion to postpone. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration of the resolution is agreed to, the resolution shall remain the unfinished business until disposed of.

(D) DEBATE.—Debate on the joint resolution of disapproval, and on all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally between the majority and minority leaders or their designees. A motion to further limit debate is in order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the resolution is not in order.

(E) VOTE ON PASSAGE.—The vote on passage shall occur immediately following the conclusion of the debate on the joint resolution of disapproval and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate, if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate.

(F) RULINGS OF THE CHAIR ON PROCEDURE.—Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure relating to the joint resolution of disapproval shall be decided without debate.

(G) CONSIDERATION OF VETO MESSAGES.—Debate in the Senate of any veto message with respect to the joint resolution of disapproval, including all debatable motions and appeals in connection with the resolution, shall be limited to 10 hours, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees.

(6) RULES RELATING TO SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—

(A) COORDINATION WITH ACTION BY OTHER HOUSE.—If, before the passage by one House of a joint resolution of disapproval of that House, that House receives a joint resolution of disapproval from the other House, the following procedures shall apply:

(i) The joint resolution of disapproval of the other House shall not be referred to a committee.

(ii) With respect to the joint resolution of disapproval of the House receiving the joint resolution of disapproval from the other House—

(I) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no joint resolution of disapproval had been received from the other House; but

(II) the vote on passage shall be on the joint resolution of disapproval of the other House.

(B) TREATMENT OF A RESOLUTION OF OTHER HOUSE.—If one House fails to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval, the joint resolution of disapproval of the other House shall be entitled to expedited floor procedures under this subsection.

(C) TREATMENT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION IN SENATE.—If, following passage of the joint resolution of disapproval in the Senate, the Senate then receives a joint resolution of disapproval from the House of Representatives, the joint resolution of disapproval of the House shall not be debatable.

(D) APPLICATION TO REVENUE MEASURES.—The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in the House of Representatives to a joint resolution of disapproval that is a revenue measure.

(7) RULES OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATE.—This subsection is enacted by Congress—

(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of a joint resolution of disapproval, and supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and

(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

(d) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND LEADERSHIP.—The term “appropriate congressional committees and leadership” means—

(A) the Committee on Finance, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Financial Services, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Speaker, the majority leader, and the minority leader of the House of Representatives.

(2) UNITED STATES PERSON.—The term “United States person” means—

(A) a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the United States; or

(B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of any jurisdiction within the United States, including a foreign branch of such an entity.

[drauz]

stuff

ok..

[cwolff]

Trumps feeling the heat.


Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons, according to people familiar with the effort.

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.

Article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.c5c901cf3bfd)

[tyrant-201]

This.

I just call 'em dipshits right back.

[tyrant-201]

"Fall back on that." It was in the same damn post that I said both sides do it and I said it was stupid to expect me or anyone else to get all upset just because Trump does it.

Again. Fuck off with your bullshit. If the only way you know how to argue your point is distraction, quoting someone out of context, and just flat out ignoring what the other person is saying then just go ahead and shove your head far up your ass and have a conversation with your colon.

No, fuck YOU!



















































#rapist

[Tisket]

I just call 'em dipshits right back.

That's always an acceptable response.

[Tgo01]

Illegal crossings are down 70% and arrests made inside the country are up 40% since Trump took office. AND the director of ICE said he's going to hire 10k new agents and unleash them on sanctuary cities.

All thanks to MY president!

[Parkbandit]

Thanks for the Red Rep Tisket I know I'm far more prettier then you and younger too. Why don't you take a look at that sagging butt in the mirror cunt. Don't cry now!

Wait, wait, wait.. Tisket has a mirror she specifically looks at her cunt with?

[Wrathbringer]

Illegal crossings are down 70% and arrests made inside the country are up 40% since Trump took office. AND the director of ICE said he's going to hire 10k new agents and unleash them on sanctuary cities.

All thanks to MY president!

Get the brown people out and keep them out. #americafirst

[SHAFT]

Illegal crossings are down 70% and arrests made inside the country are up 40% since Trump took office. AND the director of ICE said he's going to hire 10k new agents and unleash them on sanctuary cities.

All thanks to MY president!

Just a friendly reminder, GOP controls Congress and none of this is done:

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/1C7D6D0E-08F5-4A89-881F-7DDF8C87F66B.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/1C7D6D0E-08F5-4A89-881F-7DDF8C87F66B.jpg.html)

These were promised in the first 100 days.

[SHAFT]

MAGA? Manipulate All Gullible Americans

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/8D64B9F9-67A4-4B36-A8A2-94C5631D87E3.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/8D64B9F9-67A4-4B36-A8A2-94C5631D87E3.jpg.html)

[Wrathbringer]

MAGA? Manipulate All Gullible Americans

WaAAAAaAaaahhhhh you lost get over it.

[time4fun]

MAGA? Manipulate All Gullible Americans

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/8D64B9F9-67A4-4B36-A8A2-94C5631D87E3.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/8D64B9F9-67A4-4B36-A8A2-94C5631D87E3.jpg.html)

It's not just him. It's the right wing media operation behind him.

They're a cancer on our political system. They figured out the best way to cook the ratings was to convince people the only fair and objective coverage is the coverage from obvious right wing bias. "You can't trust anyone but me!"

Said every Cult leader ever.

Also Fox News.

[Wrathbringer]

It's not just him. It's the right wing media operation behind him.

They're a cancer on our political system. They figured out the best way to cook the ratings was to convince people the only fair and objective coverage is the coverage from obvious right wing bias. "You can't trust anyone but me!"

Said every Cult leader ever.

Also Fox News.

You're way retarded.

[cwolff]

It's not just him. It's the right wing media operation behind him.

They're a cancer on our political system. They figured out the best way to cook the ratings was to convince people the only fair and objective coverage is the coverage from obvious right wing bias. "You can't trust anyone but me!"

Said every Cult leader ever.

Also Fox News.

Absolutely. And amazingly enough, their people voluntarily brainwash themselves. We may have to hit rock bottom before they snap out of it, but then it's too late.

[Androidpk]

"You can't trust anyone but me!"

Said every Cult leader ever.

Also Fox News.

And yet this is your modus operandi. Your sources don't count only mine do! Your party is evil and anti-american but I'm not! You're not patriotic but I am!

You are a fucking joke here and even Macgyver has more credibility than you at this point.

[cwolff]

She's just russian lawyer eh?


MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Russian lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr. after his father won the Republican nomination for the 2016 U.S. presidential election counted Russia's FSB security service among her clients for years, Russian court documents seen by Reuters show.
The documents show that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, successfully represented the FSB's interests in a legal wrangle over ownership of an upscale property in northwest Moscow between 2005 and 2013.
The FSB, successor to the Soviet-era KGB service, was headed by Vladimir Putin before he became Russian president.

[Tgo01]

Just a friendly reminder, GOP controls Congress and none of this is done:

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/1C7D6D0E-08F5-4A89-881F-7DDF8C87F66B.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/1C7D6D0E-08F5-4A89-881F-7DDF8C87F66B.jpg.html)

These were promised in the first 100 days.

A president not getting everything they promised done within the first 100 days?!

Well this certainly does prove Trump is the worst president ever! Thank you for opening my eyes!

Wasn't Obama going to close Gitmo on day 1? Isn't Gitmo still open?

[Tgo01]

She's just russian lawyer eh?

I mean...that's literally what you quoted says.

[cwolff]

I mean...that's literally what you quoted says.

She's a lawyer for the FSB? Remember when you were saying she's just a russian lawyer, but not related to the government of Russia?

[Tgo01]

She's a lawyer for the FSB?

How did you get that from what you quoted? If anything this story floating around now goes AGAINST the entire narrative that she was a Russian government lawyer, which time4fun was sure to laugh at me for when I suggested she wasn't a Russian government lawyer.

[SHAFT]

A president not getting everything they promised done within the first 100 days?!

Well this certainly does prove Trump is the worst president ever! Thank you for opening my eyes!

Wasn't Obama going to close Gitmo on day 1? Isn't Gitmo still open?

We're past 180 days and he's focused on Mueller, pardons, and CNN. As a Trump supporter, when are you expecting major legislation? GOP does control Congress. Shouldn't be hard.

I mean, he knows the ins and the outs of health care.

Also, Tgo, focus! We're on the subject of Trump here. Obama is old news. FOCUS MAN!

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/F964A35A-E9FB-4028-AB89-A00443D34A56.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/F964A35A-E9FB-4028-AB89-A00443D34A56.jpg.html)

[Tgo01]

We're past 180 days and he's focused on Mueller, pardons, and CNN. As a Trump supporter, when are you expecting major legislation? GOP does control Congress. Shouldn't be hard.

I'm not really a Trump supporter, I'm just an anti-Hillary-above-all-else, but I do find the vast amounts of butthurt over literally nothing to be highly amusing.

Didn't it take Obama 2 years to get Obamacare signed into law? Did he do anything major before then? Or really after that?

Let's get real here.

Trump managed to get some funding for his wall into the house budget bill.

I think it's time the Republicans either shit or get off the pot about this whole healthcare bill bullshit, then they can move on to the next bill, hopefully tax reform.

[cwolff]

I'm not really a Trump supporter, I'm just an anti-Hillary-above-all-else, but I do find the vast amounts of butthurt over literally nothing to be highly amusing.

Didn't it take Obama 2 years to get Obamacare signed into law? Did he do anything major before then? Or really after that?

Let's get real here.

Trump managed to get some funding for his wall into the house budget bill.

I think it's time the Republicans either shit or get off the pot about this whole healthcare bill bullshit, then they can move on to the next bill, hopefully tax reform.

Don't be a fucking weasel. You support trump aggressively. This is what I called you out on before when I said you're just like trump.

[Tgo01]

Don't be a fucking weasel. You support trump aggressively. This is what I called you out on before when I said you're just like trump.

Like I said, I find the butthurt over literally nothing highly amusing, yes.

You guys have been harping over the dumbest shit for months now.

Just the other day time4fun posted the "bombshell" that Trump, GASP! SPOKE WITH PUTIN IN SECRET AT A DINNER!

Then it turns out it was at a dinner with 20 world leaders and their spouses.

And the press already knew about it.

And it wasn't secret at all.

But RUSSIA!

Wasn't it you who posted that gif the other day of Trump supposedly waving at Putin and making a big deal about it?

Oh man, and the shit just keeps going from there, although to be fair the Never Trumpers of the PC haven't posted about all of the bullshit, like analyzing Trump's handshake with Putin. Or politicizing the facial tics of an 87 year old Buzz Aldrin. Or actually spending even just one second of airtime about the "ice cream scoop scandal" that Trump gets TWO scoops of ice cream and his guests "only" got one, and yet blackmail news devoted at least two separate segments to it. Or that one time CNN made a fuss because Trump looks down while he's going up or down stairs.

I MEAN HOLY FUCKING SHIT. This is all just well beyond fucking pathetic at this point.

Every day it's something new and nothing even remotely interesting.

You all putting the birthers to shame with this constant barrage of bullshit.

[SHAFT]

From "CNN is fake news" to "can I pardon myself" in one week. lol

[Wrathbringer]

Like I said, I find the butthurt over literally nothing highly amusing, yes.

You guys have been harping over the dumbest shit for months now.

Just the other day time4fun posted the "bombshell" that Trump, GASP! SPOKE WITH PUTIN IN SECRET AT A DINNER!

Then it turns out it was at a dinner with 20 world leaders and their spouses.

And the press already knew about it.

And it wasn't secret at all.

But RUSSIA!

Wasn't it you who posted that gif the other day of Trump supposedly waving at Putin and making a big deal about it?

Oh man, and the shit just keeps going from there, although to be fair the Never Trumpers of the PC haven't posted about all of the bullshit, like analyzing Trump's handshake with Putin. Or politicizing the facial tics of an 87 year old Buzz Aldrin. Or actually spending even just one second of airtime about the "ice cream scoop scandal" that Trump gets TWO scoops of ice cream and his guests "only" got one, and yet blackmail news devoted at least two separate segments to it. Or that one time CNN made a fuss because Trump looks down while he's going up or down stairs.

I MEAN HOLY FUCKING SHIT. This is all just well beyond fucking pathetic at this point.

Every day it's something new and nothing even remotely interesting.

You all putting the birthers to shame with this constant barrage of bullshit.

This is correct.

[cwolff]

From "CNN is fake news" to "can I pardon myself" in one week. lol

A real nothing burger.

[Tgo01]

From "CNN is fake news" to "can I pardon myself" in one week. lol

According to Trump's aides he was asking what the scope of his pardon covered, as in he was just curious.

But that's not as juicy as the story that Trump is ready to pardon literally his entire family and his entire administration because some anonymous source said that's what Trump is planning to do.

Keep in mind these are the same sources who insisted Comey was going to own Trump at his hearing and yet exonerated him.

[Tgo01]

Like I said, I find the butthurt over literally nothing highly amusing, yes.

You guys have been harping over the dumbest shit for months now.

Just the other day time4fun posted the "bombshell" that Trump, GASP! SPOKE WITH PUTIN IN SECRET AT A DINNER!

Then it turns out it was at a dinner with 20 world leaders and their spouses.

And the press already knew about it.

And it wasn't secret at all.

But RUSSIA!

Wasn't it you who posted that gif the other day of Trump supposedly waving at Putin and making a big deal about it?

Oh man, and the shit just keeps going from there, although to be fair the Never Trumpers of the PC haven't posted about all of the bullshit, like analyzing Trump's handshake with Putin. Or politicizing the facial tics of an 87 year old Buzz Aldrin. Or actually spending even just one second of airtime about the "ice cream scoop scandal" that Trump gets TWO scoops of ice cream and his guests "only" got one, and yet blackmail news devoted at least two separate segments to it. Or that one time CNN made a fuss because Trump looks down while he's going up or down stairs.

I MEAN HOLY FUCKING SHIT. This is all just well beyond fucking pathetic at this point.

Every day it's something new and nothing even remotely interesting.

You all putting the birthers to shame with this constant barrage of bullshit.

When I gave Obama shit I gave him shit over silly things like Obamacare causing people's premiums to go up by thousands of dollars and people losing their doctor and workplace healthcare, you know, stupid shit that actually hurts American citizens.

Now we are so desperate for something to complain about with Trump we are attacking the man for having two scoops of ice cream for his dinner. Oh and let's not forget blackmail new's other hard hitting journalism mocking Trump for eating KFC with a knife and fork.

[cwolff]

You're typing out your asshole now. Desperate to mount some defense because that's what you do. Comparing this Russia thing to KFC and consistently referring to CNN as blackmail news. Come on man. You're not fooling anyone except maybe yourself.

[hello]

According to Trump's aides he was asking what the scope of his pardon covered, as in he was just curious.

But that's not as juicy as the story that Trump is ready to pardon literally his entire family and his entire administration because some anonymous source said that's what Trump is planning to do.

Keep in mind these are the same sources who insisted Comey was going to own Trump at his hearing and yet exonerated him.

Somewhere in Moscow in 2014...

Trump (in his signature voice): So, what happens if I win but they find out?!

Agent (in thick Russian accent): Doo nyet warry Donuld, zee Presidente haz pardone yurz families iz safe. Nyet worry. Youz want billionz dullar ferz ze soho manhattenz velopmentz yez?

Trump: Oh yeah, definitely. OK, let's do this! It's gonna be yuge!

[Tgo01]

You're typing out your asshole now. Desperate to mount some defense because that's what you do. Comparing this Russia thing to KFC

Well that's exactly what it is. What have we got so far? Where is the real evidence of wrongdoing? You guys have been hammering this narrative for months, before Trump was even sworn in, and what do we have? A meeting between Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who represented the FSB in court over some property Moscow?


and consistently referring to CNN as blackmail news. Come on man. You're not fooling anyone except maybe yourself.

For over 8 years now I've had to hear people tell me I watch too much "Faux News", even though I never watch it, and you're going to give me shit for referring to a network as blackmail news because they literally blackmailed a private citizen? You'll have to forgive me if I don't shed any tears for the assholes who work for blackmail news.

[Methais]

Did you know that more people voted for Hilary Clinton than Donald Trump in the last election? Did you further know that a majority of voters voted for Democrat senators? Did you finally know that people support a generic Democrat Congressperson by ten points over one of the Republican persuasion? For not having any real platform, Democrats don't seem to have any trouble getting the support of "most people". If it ain't broke, don't fix it!Then again, almost no one who voted for him has a say in impeachment proceedings. Remember that the 1972 election was one of the great landslides of all time, with President Nixon winning 49 of 50 states.You asked for ideas from the Democrats. That is a fair question, and you received a fair answer. Asking that the Democrats do something when, as pointed out, they can't even bring a bill to a vote without Republican approval is absurd on top of moving the goalposts.

Did you know that Trump still won and so did Senate republicans?

What is the democrat platform right now anyway?

[Methais]

It's not just him. It's the right wing media operation behind him.

They're a cancer on our political system. They figured out the best way to cook the ratings was to convince people the only fair and objective coverage is the coverage from obvious right wing bias. "You can't trust anyone but me!"

Said every Cult leader ever.

Also Fox News.

You are literally everything you accuse the other side of being. Maybe one day you'll stop sniffing your own farts long enough to realize it.

[cwolff]

https://scontent.fapa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20228307_10213779396306015_4397878884868399247_n.j pg?oh=f2f611a53b8cf130062ecd4a809587f7&oe=59F57F56

:lol:

[Latrinsorm]

ok..You asked for a plan.
You got a plan.
You dismissed it as not being detailed enough.
You got the details.
You dismissed that too.

Seems like you're not acting in good faith here, drauz.
Just a friendly reminder, GOP controls Congress and none of this is done: These were promised in the first 100 days.Typical liberal leaving out the facts. What about the bill to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa, the Faleomavaega Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin VA Clinic, huh???
Didn't it take Obama 2 years to get Obamacare signed into law? Did he do anything major before then? Or really after that?-personally pulled the country out of the largest recession since the Great Depression
-appointed two Supreme Court Justices
-signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
-repealed DADT
-killed Osama bin Laden with his bare hands

But tell us more about how President Trump managed to get a whole 4% of his wall funded. Not even built! He's gonna be able to build 4% of his wall someday, probably. That's what you're hanging your hat on. Not a good look, Terry.

[drauz]

You asked for a plan.
You got a plan.
You dismissed it as not being detailed enough.
You got the details.
You dismissed that too.

Seems like you're not acting in good faith here, drauz..

Asked for a plan and I got an idea.

[SHAFT]

Well that's exactly what it is. What have we got so far? Where is the real evidence of wrongdoing? You guys have been hammering this narrative for months, before Trump was even sworn in, and what do we have? A meeting between Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who represented the FSB in court over some property Moscow?



For over 8 years now I've had to hear people tell me I watch too much "Faux News", even though I never watch it, and you're going to give me shit for referring to a network as blackmail news because they literally blackmailed a private citizen? You'll have to forgive me if I don't shed any tears for the assholes who work for blackmail news.

The Reddit guy with the CNN gif had it coming. Fuck him.

[Tgo01]

The Reddit guy with the CNN gif had it coming. Fuck him.

So blackmail is okay as long as it's someone you don't like? Sounds legit.

[SHAFT]

So blackmail is okay as long as it's someone you don't like? Sounds legit.

Yes. That's how blackmail works. It's written in the Geneva convention. Look it up!

[Tenlaar]

"Fall back on that." It was in the same damn post that I said both sides do it and I said it was stupid to expect me or anyone else to get all upset just because Trump does it.

Again. Fuck off with your bullshit. If the only way you know how to argue your point is distraction, quoting someone out of context, and just flat out ignoring what the other person is saying then just go ahead and shove your head far up your ass and have a conversation with your colon.

My god man, do you even realize the way that you talk to people and what kind of person it makes you? I genuinely think you have a problem.

But regardless, I don't care how insulting you are. If you are following "this is a bad thing that nobody should do" with "but other people do it so it's okay" then you are a person of low moral character. I understand why you don't want to admit that, but you have no evidence or reasoning to be claiming that I only give a shit when one political party does something bad. Wanting it to be true so that you can attack me for it doesn't make it so.

[Tgo01]

My god man, do you even realize the way that you talk to people and what kind of person it makes you? I genuinely think you have a problem.

You're gaslighting like a good little time4fun jr.

[Tenlaar]

You're gaslighting like a good little time4fun jr.

Nothing to say about how you're okay with doing the wrong thing as long as other people are doing the wrong thing too? Okay then.

[time4fun]

You're gaslighting like a good little time4fun jr.

Because he's running rhetorical circles around you?

[Tgo01]

Because he's running rhetorical circles around you?

Did you mean metaphorical circles?