Interesting , in a "we all told you so " kind of way , to have watched the Democratic , DNC , scam process sift itself out in this last election cycle ............boom boom boom boooooom , .......And Now Folks , who really colluded ?
Hilary "Uranium One " Clinton ?
I'll ask you the same question I've queried other Trumpsters. Why do you care if we made a deal with Russia on the uranium ore? Do you believe either the US or Russia need more nuclear weapons?
And we only have 80% left we still cannot use all of, so set me straight on why you care.
Why do I care ? How about this ,this is why you should care ? Because the Clinton mafia machine sold out America for $ profit alone and more than once too . I understand why so many of you suffered "Trump Derangement " but aside from ones political ideology ; How about simple patriotism ?
Also the donations from Russia and from political Russian interests ; Went to the Clinton Foundation Initiative .
Now , Let's talk about the Clinton / Chinese weapons tech. deals .
So we shouldn't do any kinds of deals with Russia, is that it? No wheat or grain sales, Nothing? How is that being patriotic? And you're happy with Trump making money when he charges Secret Service agents tourist rates when they have to guard him at Trump properties. Now that's patriotic~
Piecing away America's national defense resources for personal gain is exactly the issue , ALL during the Obama , Clinton , Holder , Lynch administration While alleging "Russian - Trump Collusion " all through the , nomination ,election and Trump presidential cycle , including NOW the Obama , Clinton D.O.J. dossier ?
Is that all perhaps just the Clinton way of doing business?
We will make money off the Russians on American uranium until we don't want them to have access to it anymore. That's capitalism.
I must admit. Liberals make me laugh. Such hypocrisy. Donald Trumps son simply met with someone from Russia and the left went crazy with cries of "collusion." We find out Hillary's campaign paid millions to a foreign government for a discredited dossier and all you hear are crickets. Where are the cries of collusion? Now, Hillary sold our uranium reserves to Russia for personal gain. Significant funds went to the Clinton foundation See, Hillary used her position as Secretary of State to get rich from foreign governments. I know liberals may not understand this but that is a big no no. Guess what? This has been covered by the mainstream media as well as "right wing" media. I really believe this is a bit more complicated than a liberal can understand. Dealing with reality and honesty is always such a struggle for them.
I'm finding this new development disgusting, but I should have known she was involved in that dossier. I couldn't understand her constant 'Russia' wolf crying. It seemed so pointless. But, if she'd paid for a dossier of dirt from the Russians I suppose she just couldn't grasp the fact that she wasn't getting her money's worth out of it.
We will, of course, get signature Hillary excuses on this one.
But you apparently don't find the dossier on Trump "disgusting." Or the fact the dossier was started by a Republican.
And once again, no one seems to want to address my question re the uranium sales. Why not?
Roger Stone said yesterday that the Republican is Paul Singer, a wealth lobbyist. Stone seemed pretty confident. He has very good sources!
Another never Trumper, RINO.
I am not certain how you came to the conclusion that I wasn't disgusted. Are you funding a dossier on me?
As to the Uranium. I don't know that I have ever weighed in on that issue so you'll have to continue trading barbs with someone who give a s##t.
No dossier on you, I already know you're on DT's side.
Don't know why I keep repeating myself, here. Since the left leaners don't appear to want to bother to read what anyone without pompoms in their hands type. I was anti Hillary. I am pro let's stop fighting about the past. Don't really understand what is so difficult to understand about that. Maybe, someday, someone on the left can enlighten us.
Despite your lack of pompoms, I do read your posts, LTL.
Well, I think my primary crime is expecting no more, no less, from the guy with the orange hair. He just isn't as adept at hiding his sleaziness as the other politicians. I am hoping the American public can open it's eyes to the corruption of our government and stop whining about each other so we can begin to band together.
Hi there Randy, I will offer an answer to your questions.
I was skeptical of the "dossier" from the start. And I also found it disgusting from the start - but not because I think it was true, (as it seems you do). I do recall some association of McCain's name with it in the beginning, but I don't recall any of the details - so I can't address that part.
Regarding the uranium deal... I do think it is a big deal, but only due to the details of the possible involvement of Hillary, (and Bill?), and her foundation, and, the FBI. I don't think Russia's ownership of that 20%, (and here I am once again not really familiar with the details), is a catastrophe, and since I understand that there were approximately eight other departments involved in the approval, I am not sure how to consider the implications of Hillary's State Dept. approval.
Is that all you have GA? (Once again, to use your words.) Just a blanket acceptance by the right-wing media that the dossier isn't factual?
If you are a capitalist as you claim on other posts, what is wrong with a Canadian company that owns American property selling its shares to a Russian company?
If State was one of nine voting members on the deal, and Clinto wasn't even involved in the vote, why was her involvement a "big deal"?
Hmm.. I am beginning to notice a pattern here promisem. I say one thing and you read it to mean whatever it needs to mean to meet your perspective of a conservative opinion.
I said I was skeptical of the dossier. Your comment appears to say that because I didn't automatically accept it as true I had "Just a blanket acceptance by the right-wing media that the dossier isn't factual?"
I don't see how being skeptical indicates a blanket acceptance. Now that it appears that it was a Democrat financed piece of opposition research, perhaps a bit of skepticism was warranted. Or not. Maybe you can tell me why you automatically accepted it as true. or at least how my skepticism equates to blanket belief that it was false?
Your comment challenging my statement on the uranium deal - with me being a capitalist and all, is even more confusing. What I said; "I don't think Russia's ownership of that 20%, (and here I am once again not really familiar with the details), is a catastrophe..." doesn't seem to say I do have a problem with it. How do you read it otherwise?
Your last question, though, is one that indicates your perspective best. If it turns out that there was bribery, influence seeking charity donations, FBI investigations, and covert pay-offs, (Bill's speech payment), connected to Hillary and her State Dept., don't you think that would be a big deal?
Surely you don't have a blanket acceptance of stuff like that as just business as usual in the Clinton's political world?
Well GA, you apparently aren't aware that much of the dossier has been proven correct by alternate sources. Not all as of yet, but I think it's only a matter of time...
You are right Randy, I am not very aware of the details of the dossier - the truths or the falsehoods, or more recent news about what truths have been proven or falsehoods exposed.
When it first hit the news I did take a brief look, but as I recall, when I got to the part that spoke of "Golden Showers" I became skeptical enough to not care to dig deeper.
I think I recall that it was given to the FBI. What resulted from that? What details have been proven true? Or false? Tell me more... Tell what you know to be proven true?
*Are you and Kelly Ann sharing "Alternate" sources now?
I'm going by what the members of the investigating have reported, GA. Sorry I don't have a link as I thought this was well known, except by Fox watchers of course.
Good point , It is after all Fox , that brings most of today's truth's to ALL our doors .
"Sorry I don't have a link"...you crack me up Randy. This is good but even better "this was well known, except by Fox watchers of course." Yeah, things in Trumps dossier are proven true...and only Fox doesn't cover it and no news organization reporting this have no links to the story. Beautiful! I'm sure Benghazi was also the result of a YouTube video...Hillary had no idea about her server being cleaned "you mean with a cloth?" Randy, this stuff my be believable with liberals..the rest of us are not taken in by it.
That's pity Mike, you sorta prove my point because you haven't heard of things already proven by separate intelligence agencies. As I said earlier, if you watch Fox you miss a lot of REAL news.
Randy, I make my living doing research. If anything you said had a molecule of truth, I would know. You can't provide links because they're aren't any. You can't produce anything proven by separate intelligence agencies because there isn't any. Provide proof or admit I'm right. Such games. Geeeze.
Mike, just minutes ago on Erin Burnette a congressman named Nadler--I think I spelled his name correctly--reiterated my earlier claim of some of the dossier being proven through other intel agencies. He also said none of it has been debunked yet. As I said, you'll have to get off Fox to learn something, Mike.
I have no need to make up stuff when it's on the real news.
Not being debunked means...well, it means it is nothing but allegation, without a hint of known truth. And allegations are a dime a dozen, with hundreds of new ones each week. Right?
Randy, if, as that New York Times articles states; Trump's passport shows he was not in Prague meeting with a Russian official when the dossier said he was, isn't that enough to debunk that particular claim?
And if that claim is debunked, then isn't that Congressman's claim also debunked? Do you think the NYT would ignore those other intelligence agencies, that the Congressman claims supported some of the dossier's claims, when they wrote that no claims have been publicly substantiated - yet?
I feel like I am out on a limb here, putting so much faith in one New York Times article, but they aren't known to have a conservative bias, so here I am, hanging onto one source for support. However, since you seem to put so much faith in one network, (CNN), then maybe I am not alone on the limb.
I wish you guys would watch CNN for a few minutes. Once again, there are people in the know who say some of the dossier has been corroborated and the rest not debunked as of tonight. Are they just making this outrageous claim up? If so why?
The Trump dossier , sold to or bought to you all by the Clinton's Presidential Campaign Staff under the careful and watchful oversight of the entire Obama administration . including but not limited to implicating Hilary , Obama himself , certainly Loretta Lynch , Debbie-Wassserman -Shultz ...........lets see , who else ?
The tides have turned on the whole Russian Collusion thing , and so too will debate of those who branded Trump treasonous and won't blame Hilary one iota .
The dossier was started by the Washington Beacon, Mike. It's a conservative org who hired Richard Steele--the ex British agent--to gather info on Trump. After the WB grew disinterested in the research, it was offered to an attorney representing the HRC campaign. The info was never used but it would have been completely legal if it had been. There's no law against gathering material against an opposition candidate. But you'd already know this if you watched several news sources.
I have watched CNN Randy, and my opinion is that they are as Left-biased as Fox is Right-biased. I can bounce between the two and find either, two completely different stories being presented as Big Breaking News, or when they are in sync for the breaking news of the day - two different interpretations of the same set of facts. I may have an impression similar to yours of Fox News, but I also don't hold CNN near any level of esteem that you seem to.
Another issue here, for me, is the New York Times article. My past impression of the NYT is that they are CNN's version of print news. Observably Left-leaning, and certainly no friend of Conservative issue positions.
So, if a Left-supporting source as reputable, (at least in circulation and longevity), as the NYT admits that none of the claims have been substantiated, and at least one of the claims seems to be debunked - then I think there might be some truth there, because I would certainly expect them to trumpet any dossier claims they could validate.
I would guess that the comments from those "people in the know" are really nothing more than partisan comments that are speculation or extrapolation at best, or purposeful fact-ignoring spin at worst.
I think that if you have heard these declarations of guilt from people that claim to know, then you would have heard them from public sources, like, CNN, WaPo, or the NYT. So where are the confirmations from the other news sources that would surely follow that breaking news with reports of their own?
Your mentioned Congressman from Erin Burnet's show might be just such an example. Who are we to believe; a Left-leaning cable broadcast that reports no dossier claims have been debunked, or a Left-leaning print giant that reports at least one claim has been rebutted, and none have been substantiated?
Are you saying the only network reporting on the dossier is CNN, GA? DT said earlier it was common agreement the Russian collusion investigation is a fraud. The Trump lie of the day, unless of course, you actually believe the buffoon. But we'll see eventually.....
And for some reason I like to listen to actual journalists and investigative reporters rather than simply opinion people like Hannity and most of Fox News actors.
Maybe I should shorten my replies to one or two-sentence partisan shots Randy. That seems to be the extent of our progress in this discussion.
And from my perspective, it has been a discussion. I haven't challenged you as a partisan hack, I haven't presented Right-biased sources or facts to refute your statements. And even beyond admitting I wasn't very up-to-date on the issue, I used information, (that I also sourced for your consideration), from a source that is known to be Democrat-friendly, to discuss the topic of the dossier.
In return, I get a testament to the integrity of CNN, an allusion to "members of the investigation," "people in the know," and one of those "everybody knew" validations. I also get advice to listen to CNN instead of Fox News, and now a declaration of who you like to listen to. Geesh.
How about discussing some of the points made. Don't you consider the New York Times reporters at least as credible as cable broadcast pundits - which is in fact what those news segment hosts, (like Erin Burnet), you cite, really are. They may have network research resources, but I don't think that is the same as a NYT investigation journalist/reporter's effort.
And now I get a final 'change the direction' dodge. We weren't talking about whether CNN was the only network reporting on the dossier, or anything that Trump had to say about the Russia investigation, or about Pres. Trump's lie of the day, or whether I believe Pres. Trump is a buffoon.
How about just one point Randy: you present that CNN brings on a Congressman, (a Democrat Congressman?) that says none of the dossier's claims have been debunked. I note that The New York Times reports that at least one claim - that Trump went to Prague for secret meetings, appears to have been refuted, and, none of the claims have been publicly substantiated.
Which one do you believe is right?
The New York Times has no credibility, thanks to Project Veritas, James O'Keefe, under cover investigative reporting. Visual and audio.
ADDED: CNN lost it a long time ago, they thought they could pull this coupe against the elected President off. They failed.
(I am venting, and it feels so good! ~~~ )
No disrespect to you at all, GA. I actually love your intelligence.
I've already told you GA, I watch many news sources and didn't say CNN was my favorite. I simply stated what several attested to on CNN. If you think those people are lying then you're entitled to listen to other "alternative facts" sources.
By the way, the first charges have just been filed in the Mueller investigation. But then, that's according to CNN so it's obviously false.
Geez Louise Randy. What about that New York Times story, did you check it out?
Yes I did, GA. It's 3 days old and they didn't know it was a Republican group who hired the dossier created in the first place. Geez, you need to get up to date, GA!
Like you GA, I watch and listen to many different news sources to see who gets it right the majority of the time. It ain't Fox News!
Randy, A Democrat political hack like Jerrold Nadler being interviewed by Erin Burnette on CNN? They have about as much proof of things and you do. This sad. You have nothing, they have nothing, because there is nothing. Geeze.
Well Randy, I suppose that Fox News barb might have been directed at me, and although I do occasionally tune-in to catch their slant on breaking issues, (as I do with CNN also), I wouldn't call myself a Fox watcher.
Anyway ... Knowing that Google is my friend, I looked for news, old and new, about that dossier, and so far about the most helpful I found was an Oct 25th article from the New York Times.
I don't want to form an opinion from just one article, but it was a general overview that at least helps me understand your claims.
I know I may not have looked deep enough to find those validations you mentioned from members of the investigation(s), but the NYT article did include this:
"How much of the dossier has been substantiated?"
"There has been no public corroboration of the salacious allegations against Mr. Trump, nor of the specific claims about coordination between his associates and the Russians. In fact, some of those claims have been challenged with supporting evidence. For instance, Mr. Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, produced his passport to rebut the dossier’s claim that he had secret meetings in Prague with a Russian official last year."
Since it also confirmed that McCain gave a copy to the FBI, and, you say these issues are supposedly well-known by most informed folks, I would be glad to dig a little deeper, (to ensure an informed opinion), if you could point me in the direction of those validations you say you read about.
Randy, we can finally agree on something!
There are many Reps that never wanted Trump (nor any other Outsider) in D.C., no doubt about it!
How long does it take to drain a very large swamp?
Spot on Mike.
(Since Trump), if there's even a hint that Trump, or any person associated with him, has been within a mile of a Russian, it has been breaking News...call out the Investigative teams, hold the presses!
Now, with all that's coming out, what can the Dems say?
Well, a Republican may have initiated the dossier.
Well, something in those documents, may be true.
The facts: Hillary was supposed to win and we were to never know of any Clinton shenanigans.
Trump came to town, rocked the boat and then it became all hands on deck to coverup their 'actions', destroying Trump in the process.
If only as much effort went into taking care of the people's business, as does into furthering careers and lining pockets.
"Crooked Hillary".....he had that right!
Simple truth is this ; Hilary's voters wore blinders all through that campaign and election . Her and Bills Russian collusion's WERE covered by the larger and smaller outlets of mostly conservative news outlets all during the campaign !
All of you Fox News- haters , should have at least listened then . Perhaps now you wouldn't be suffering the Trump Derangement , that of losing an election that became so personal for you .
Something politics shouldn't ever be .
You gotta remember that people who watch liberal media are told what to think, they are programmed to think their fake news is a big deal and then the real news is a nothingburger. I hate seeing the brainwashing that happens with my own brother who mostly watches MSNBC which is just nonsense, and he believes their nonsense and therefore talks political nonsense that becomes core beliefs. Otherwise, he is a great person.
...and then there's talk radio! Many moons ago I'd share my opinion on something (I've apparently always been opinionated and I'd hear about a guy on the radio. Started listening and was sucked in. So many personalities and opinions and citizens from all around the Nation calling in with their opinions. Been hooked on talk radio for a long time! Love it!
And back to the original topic, are any of you Trumpsters aware the uranium stays in the country even though the Russians own the company? I'd wager not as Fox News only tells you what riles you guys up, not the whole truth about the deal. Gee whiz guys, check the facts!!
As I sit back and wait for the official findings of the Mueller investigation, I am amazed at the lengths some will go to claim they already know the innocence or guilt of Trump and Co, and now Clinton and Co.
Charges are now being filed. We don't yet know who or what, but this is serious business. It will be fascinating to see how much defending of the home team will continue as the evidence of wrongdoing grows or withers, as the case may be.
Good attitude, Vanessa. I think many of us will be educated as to what heights some will go to reach the pinnacle of power in the US. Not to mention the division created in our country for the sake of a buffoons ego. Thank goodness the end may be in sight.
I think it's been five months since Mueller began the investigation? That's actually not too bad for a first indictment.
I wonder when the tweets will come.
I suppose my antagonists have crashed by the lack of response to my posts. Ah well, tomorrow is another day....
You finally got something right Randy; Tomorrow is another day... and here it is, but your thought that your "antagonists have crashed" is a stretch that I doubt any objective observer would agree with.
My better judgement told me to just move on because you refused to support any of your claims, or even discuss points that conflicted with your perceived truth - and then comes this "crashed" thought. What kind of friend would I be if I just let you roll on believing that?
Since I have to consider that I might be included in that "antagonists" group, I have to offer you an 'alternate' explanation; at least this antagonist has recognized the futility of getting anything more than anti-Trump perspectives from you. This antagonist has realized that you won't even consider any information that conflicts with your anti-Trump claims.
Randy, I don't think your antagonists have crashed, they are just taking a break to pick the brick fragments from their foreheads.
GA, I thought you knew that "crashed" meant gone to bed. Not anything to do with your comments.
Thanks Randy. Once more we see the value of context.
Well, you apparently weren't a flower child GA, or you'd recognize the lingo.
He's just a youngster, Randy - too young to have been part of it then.
You're right Randy, I wasn't a flower child. I am not quite a youngster as Wilderness quipped, but I did miss Woodstock by a couple years. I recognized your use of "crash" after you clued me in, but it didn't come to me the first time around.
They do say memory is the first thing to go, but I can't remember what the second thing was. ;-)
*The thread isn't cancelled as far as I can tell.
We may get the opportunity to see a POTUS pardon his son and his son-in-law before it's all over. And his fans will simply love it! Sometimes I detest my fellow man...
The biggest lesson in all of these investigations IS that those on the left believed everything that Obama / Hilary Clinton did was ordained by the gods of politics and officiated by the emotional mindset of National Enquirer like media .
The ones who needed investigating the most ARE the investigators !
-Mueller.........all of these are as guilty as sin for creating this dossier.
At least those on the right are attempting the draining ALL of the culprits down the tubes while the left dallies in political emotions led by face-book fore-mat .
Sad but gospel .
Trump. He committed treason, not opposition research. Not that I expect most of the readers of this discussion to recognize the difference.
"Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information."
What has Trump done that fits the definition of Treason? As far as I know, Trump has not waged war with America or given arms, troops etc. to it's enemies.
And yet , you still can't see Hilary's entire treasonous history ?
Please give a link to HRC's charges and convictions. Or least a list of them if you dare.
Randy ;No one here has to provide for your learning experiences , suffice to say you can do your own clerk work . For your information however , all one needs is a decent source of mainstreaming media and common sense . Perhaps a little life provided wisdom ; boom ......there, now you have a start .
This entire thread is based on false claims by Fox News and other right wingnut media sources to draw attention away from the Trump/Russia collusion investigation. Now that the first charges and indictments will be served on one or more Trump minions early next week by Mueller we'll see who's in deep doo doo.
I suspect those targeted with the first charges will really consider if they want to take the fall for their superiors. Even if Trump Pardons them they cannot escape state charges of wrongdoing. The $hit may hit the fan shortly.
Wow , you really still suffer Trump Derrangment ? Seriously ? I thought that that had pretty much passed through the digestive systems of most of the pundits here.
Here is a prefect example of CNN propaganda.
* http://www.shtfplan.com/conspiracy-fact … s_10272017
You know , the entire country of Russia as a nation could come forth and say " We created the entire "Russian /Trump Connection " scenario to totally F.U. the entire election process in America"...........................
And Democrats would say ........."..It's just a Trump conspiracy" .
Apparently you know nothing about the dossier or the uranium deal, Horsey. This is old news in both cases and no reason to charge anyone with anything. Perhaps you can enlighten me on what HRC did illegally re the uranium deal? You do realize the Russians simply bought a company and cannot export any ore outside of the country? Or do you?
How nice it was for the owners of the Uranium one to donate millions to the Clinton foundation .........and timely too. and all just when the Clinton's were about to pay for Chelsea's wedding for one .
Now lets talk about the Chinese acquiring U.S. missile defense technology from Bill ?
If Hillary was in the pocket of the Russians, why wouldn't Putin favor her for President? His greatest asset would be POTUS.
What steps did Putin take to support the election of Hillary?
So, you agree that it doesn't make sense.
Then what are you saying? The cartoon says Hilary was bribed. If the Russians already had a convenient stooge in Hillary, why would they favor a Trump presidency? I'm trying to figure out your logic
What makes you think the Russians preferred Trump to Clinton? Because liberals plastered it all over social media for months?
All I can say to this is, "oh, brother." I think you are seeing what you want to see and nothing else. I suspect that you will continue to see with your own filter all the way to the end of this investigation, regardless of the outcome.
Fair enough. I'll continue to question, you can continue to make assumptions you can't back up. As in "Russia wanted Trump to win".
(Everything I've seen so far on what actions Russia took indicate, in the words of the FBI, that the goal was to disrupt American society, not to get a particular candidate elected. The assumption that they worked towards Trumps election is quite unfounded, then.)
I provided this link to you on another thread. Apparently, you believe CIA findings are "unfounded."
'The CIA had top-level intelligence last August that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an operation to help Donald Trump win the US presidential race, the Washington Post reported Friday."
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-06-23/ … ermeasures
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/143 … ost2920755
I fail miserably to see how the left cannot , will not see that the Russians have always played the sabotage game with the west ? Politically speaking Russia has always been paranoid of the west and particularly of the USA and played the espionage game time after time after time . That is a historical fact .
Trump / Russian collusion , .........a joke.
To today's left , t's like Russian political sabotage is a new game .....and it isn't .
Suppose, hypothetically and only for purposes of answering this question, that it turned out that, he and his top advisers had contacts with the Russian government to help defeat Clinton. Suppose, hypothetically, that the Russian government disseminated information to help him to win.
If that happened, and if it came to light, should he resign or be impeached?
1) there were no illegal actions by Trump OR the Russian government, then no, there is nothing to impeach on. Gaining information from Russia (or any other source) is not an impeachable offense.
2) There were illegal actions by Russia, but Trump did not know of them. Still no impeachable offense.
3) There were illegal actions by Russia, or Trump, and he did know of them - possibility of impeachment, depending on severity of the crime.
4) Top advisers carried out illegal actions, unknown to Trump. No impeachment.
5) Top advisers carried out illegal actions, with Trump's knowledge and approval. Possible impeachment, again depending on the severity of the crime.
First , The Russian disseminate - That IS Russia , always has been Russia , always will be , that's what Russia does for a living ,deny that !
Did Hilary have contact with the Russians to defeat Trump , even through the Brits , yes ? ; Trump dossier , still deny Deny that ?
In 1983 , Ted Kennedy had contact with the Russians to defeat Reagan , Was That Treasonous ?
Can you spell hypocrite ?
You thrashed and flailed about without answering the Question:
If True then resign / impeach = yes/no ?
Yes or no will do without the theatrics please.
Trump didn't collude , and you can't prove what didn't happen . And yes , even with all of the biased outlets of THNM Trump Hate News Media , are admitting it .
Every liberal media rep now knows and has had to admit that with Hilary 's dossier , the DNC and the mainstream news media colluded .
I suggest you begin your prosecution there .
They cheated and lied and still you voted for her ?
Why don't you explain it to me like I'm an 8-year-old?
Because an eight year old would get it the first time.
Right. And you're so clever you rely on cartoons to explain yourself. Why are you here, again? Just another preacher not willing to productively engage. I'm seeing a pattern here on this forum and it isn't flattering to the participants who seem to support Trump.
We all have points of view. Fair enough. But who has gotten arrested and who hasn't?
Much of this discussion took place before last Monday. What do folks have to say now?
That is satire I'm sure but none the less...
Pray for Donna...who helped rig the election for you know who.
Silence ... total silence ...
Let me answer that for you H:
Trump Voters Won’t Support Impeachment Even If Collusion Is Proven (says poll)
why? Trumpeteers are no different than you or I.
"Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper."- https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10 … re-effect/
I can't relate to hard-headed, stubborn thinking like that. I think for that reason Trumpeteers are not like me at all.
by Susie Lehto2 months ago
"The tables have turned and what was once the media’s favorite message — President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election — has now grown silent.Apparently, it’s Bill and Hillary Clinton...
by My Esoteric11 months ago
Donald Trump, as late as January 1, 2017, has refused to acknowledge what most everybody, Democrats and Republicans (less Trump supporters) alike know to be true ... Vladimir Putin is behind the arguably successful...
by Jack Lee7 days ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
by ahorseback3 weeks ago
Interesting enough , Jill Stein is being investigated by the Mueller team now for her Russian Collusion and apparently because she admits she went to Russia to acquire cooperation from business and government...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter2 weeks ago
Mike Flynn is pleading guilty to lying. Manafort & Gates have been indicted. Popadopoulas (sic) is cooperating.
by ahorseback9 months ago
So now -- Democrats are in attack mode because of alleged Russian ties to the White House ? And yet totally ignored the John Podesta financial ties to the Kremlin ? Podesta was Obamas and Clintons...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.