If you followed Republican logic, would sex predators who never did the deed go free?

[rightwinger]

What crime were they going to commit? I heard collusion, but what? Is it illegal to get dirt on your opponent now? The "thing of value" is rich. What doesn't have value? A photo op with a foreign leader could have value.

Obama takes campaign trail overseas - CNN.com

Obama's trip, which includes visits to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, is intended to bolster his foreign policy credentials before U.S. voters.

"This is the campaign trail via satellite -- pictures for the rhetoric back home," CNN's Candy Crowley said, adding that the trip was intended to demonstrate that Obama was up to the job of taking a lead role on the international stage.

So Candidate Obama flew around the world meeting with foreign leaders, as a Senator, not even President Elect, to bolster his foreign policy credentials. Wouldn't that be a thing of value? Meeting and being taken seriously by foreign leaders all to improve your foreign policy cred?

That is the problem when you start down this path. What is a thing of value? Well. Anything could be. That's why there has never been any prosecution of that thing of value before. Because every single candidate gets a thing of value running around the world pumping hands and promising to be great friends with our allies when elected.

There must be some sense there. But since I don't know what it is, I guess there isn't.

Then let me elucidate it a tad more simply.

Is the time of foreign leaders valuable? The President's schedule is often made weeks or months in advance. It is very difficult for someone to get on that schedule. The time of the President is very limited, and he only has so many hours in a day right?

Then it is logical that the foreign leaders time is also limited, and there is only so many people or things that they can do in a day. Yet, they found some time, valuable time, to meet with Candidate Obama. They gave him valuable time, so he could increase his foreign policy cred.

Look at the date on the link. 2008. Before he was President or President elect. Are you saying that then Candidate Obama accepted a thing of value from these foreign leaders? Their time is valuable, people who were waiting months to see those leaders got bumped for Obama's photo op.

Candidate Obama got something of value from them, their time. He got assistance from their police and security people, another thing of value. Did Obama commit the same crime? He not only accepted a thing of value from several foreign leaders, but he requested it.

That would be an excellent post

If those foreign leaders were giving Obama sensitive information about McCain to help him win an election

 

[SavannahMann]

What crime were they going to commit? I heard collusion, but what? Is it illegal to get dirt on your opponent now? The "thing of value" is rich. What doesn't have value? A photo op with a foreign leader could have value.

Obama takes campaign trail overseas - CNN.com

Obama's trip, which includes visits to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, is intended to bolster his foreign policy credentials before U.S. voters.

"This is the campaign trail via satellite -- pictures for the rhetoric back home," CNN's Candy Crowley said, adding that the trip was intended to demonstrate that Obama was up to the job of taking a lead role on the international stage.

So Candidate Obama flew around the world meeting with foreign leaders, as a Senator, not even President Elect, to bolster his foreign policy credentials. Wouldn't that be a thing of value? Meeting and being taken seriously by foreign leaders all to improve your foreign policy cred?

That is the problem when you start down this path. What is a thing of value? Well. Anything could be. That's why there has never been any prosecution of that thing of value before. Because every single candidate gets a thing of value running around the world pumping hands and promising to be great friends with our allies when elected.

There must be some sense there. But since I don't know what it is, I guess there isn't.

Then let me elucidate it a tad more simply.

Is the time of foreign leaders valuable? The President's schedule is often made weeks or months in advance. It is very difficult for someone to get on that schedule. The time of the President is very limited, and he only has so many hours in a day right?

Then it is logical that the foreign leaders time is also limited, and there is only so many people or things that they can do in a day. Yet, they found some time, valuable time, to meet with Candidate Obama. They gave him valuable time, so he could increase his foreign policy cred.

Look at the date on the link. 2008. Before he was President or President elect. Are you saying that then Candidate Obama accepted a thing of value from these foreign leaders? Their time is valuable, people who were waiting months to see those leaders got bumped for Obama's photo op.

Candidate Obama got something of value from them, their time. He got assistance from their police and security people, another thing of value. Did Obama commit the same crime? He not only accepted a thing of value from several foreign leaders, but he requested it.

That would be an excellent post

If those foreign leaders were giving Obama sensitive information about McCain to help him win an election

So the criminal act that describes "any thing of value" really means information but not time. It doesn't really mean any thing of value. Does that summarize your argument?

 

[miketx]

Remember, there used to be a show where men would try to hook up with underage girls or boys and when the predator showed up, they would be arrested?

How is that different than setting up a meeting trying to commit conspiracy with the Russians to attack the foundation of our political system?

Obviously, it's not sex. But it is a conspiracy to do something illegal. Well, something Democrats feel is illegal.
It's not clear to me whether Republicans feel any of this is illegal.

Let me see if I can wrap my head around this... It's not a problem for Russians to give hillary a phony dossier about Trump, but giving Trump's campaign dirt on hillary is verboten? Is that about right?

Give me a link.

Why? haven't you denied enough?

Instead of your perpetual butthurt, why don't you prove your ridiculous claims for once?

 

[rightwinger]

What crime were they going to commit? I heard collusion, but what? Is it illegal to get dirt on your opponent now? The "thing of value" is rich. What doesn't have value? A photo op with a foreign leader could have value.

Obama takes campaign trail overseas - CNN.com

Obama's trip, which includes visits to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, is intended to bolster his foreign policy credentials before U.S. voters.

"This is the campaign trail via satellite -- pictures for the rhetoric back home," CNN's Candy Crowley said, adding that the trip was intended to demonstrate that Obama was up to the job of taking a lead role on the international stage.

So Candidate Obama flew around the world meeting with foreign leaders, as a Senator, not even President Elect, to bolster his foreign policy credentials. Wouldn't that be a thing of value? Meeting and being taken seriously by foreign leaders all to improve your foreign policy cred?

That is the problem when you start down this path. What is a thing of value? Well. Anything could be. That's why there has never been any prosecution of that thing of value before. Because every single candidate gets a thing of value running around the world pumping hands and promising to be great friends with our allies when elected.

There must be some sense there. But since I don't know what it is, I guess there isn't.

Then let me elucidate it a tad more simply.

Is the time of foreign leaders valuable? The President's schedule is often made weeks or months in advance. It is very difficult for someone to get on that schedule. The time of the President is very limited, and he only has so many hours in a day right?

Then it is logical that the foreign leaders time is also limited, and there is only so many people or things that they can do in a day. Yet, they found some time, valuable time, to meet with Candidate Obama. They gave him valuable time, so he could increase his foreign policy cred.

Look at the date on the link. 2008. Before he was President or President elect. Are you saying that then Candidate Obama accepted a thing of value from these foreign leaders? Their time is valuable, people who were waiting months to see those leaders got bumped for Obama's photo op.

Candidate Obama got something of value from them, their time. He got assistance from their police and security people, another thing of value. Did Obama commit the same crime? He not only accepted a thing of value from several foreign leaders, but he requested it.

That would be an excellent post

If those foreign leaders were giving Obama sensitive information about McCain to help him win an election

So the criminal act that describes "any thing of value" really means information but not time. It doesn't really mean any thing of value. Does that summarize your argument?

The criminal act is a hostile nation offering sensitive information in order to influence an election

Meeting with foreign nations is not criminal. Meeting with them when they offer secret information to help you win an election is the issue

 

[peach174]

Remember, there used to be a show where men would try to hook up with underage girls or boys and when the predator showed up, they would be arrested?

How is that different than setting up a meeting trying to commit conspiracy with the Russians to attack the foundation of our political system?

Obviously, it's not sex. But it is a conspiracy to do something illegal. Well, something Democrats feel is illegal.
It's not clear to me whether Republicans feel any of this is illegal.

Let me see if I can wrap my head around this... It's not a problem for Russians to give hillary a phony dossier about Trump, but giving Trump's campaign dirt on hillary is verboten? Is that about right?

And it's over a bill the Dems passed under Obama.

 

[deanrd]

At this point I don't care if Putin hacked the voting machines himself.

Hitlery lost, and bed wetters like deanturd are the same miserable, pathetic, petulant assholes they were when Bush beat manbearpig.

The country dodged a nuclear holocaust with hitlery's defeat. If Putin has anything to do with it, give him obozo's fucking Nobel Prize because Putin earned it.

So you are a Russian Stooge? Is that your point?

 

[deanrd]

Remember, there used to be a show where men would try to hook up with underage girls or boys and when the predator showed up, they would be arrested?

How is that different than setting up a meeting trying to commit conspiracy with the Russians to attack the foundation of our political system?

Obviously, it's not sex. But it is a conspiracy to do something illegal. Well, something Democrats feel is illegal.
It's not clear to me whether Republicans feel any of this is illegal.

Let me see if I can wrap my head around this... It's not a problem for Russians to give hillary a phony dossier about Trump, but giving Trump's campaign dirt on hillary is verboten? Is that about right?

Give me a link.

Don't you keep up, dweeb? What I said is common knowledge to anyone capable of reading a newspaper of comprehending a news program.

In other words, no link. Got it.

 

[deanrd]

Remember, there used to be a show where men would try to hook up with underage girls or boys and when the predator showed up, they would be arrested?

How is that different than setting up a meeting trying to commit conspiracy with the Russians to attack the foundation of our political system?

Obviously, it's not sex. But it is a conspiracy to do something illegal. Well, something Democrats feel is illegal.
It's not clear to me whether Republicans feel any of this is illegal.

Let me see if I can wrap my head around this... It's not a problem for Russians to give hillary a phony dossier about Trump, but giving Trump's campaign dirt on hillary is verboten? Is that about right?

And it's over a bill the Dems passed under Obama.

What bill is that?

 

[deanrd]

What crime were they going to commit? I heard collusion, but what? Is it illegal to get dirt on your opponent now? The "thing of value" is rich. What doesn't have value? A photo op with a foreign leader could have value.

Obama takes campaign trail overseas - CNN.com

Obama's trip, which includes visits to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, is intended to bolster his foreign policy credentials before U.S. voters.

"This is the campaign trail via satellite -- pictures for the rhetoric back home," CNN's Candy Crowley said, adding that the trip was intended to demonstrate that Obama was up to the job of taking a lead role on the international stage.

So Candidate Obama flew around the world meeting with foreign leaders, as a Senator, not even President Elect, to bolster his foreign policy credentials. Wouldn't that be a thing of value? Meeting and being taken seriously by foreign leaders all to improve your foreign policy cred?

That is the problem when you start down this path. What is a thing of value? Well. Anything could be. That's why there has never been any prosecution of that thing of value before. Because every single candidate gets a thing of value running around the world pumping hands and promising to be great friends with our allies when elected.

There must be some sense there. But since I don't know what it is, I guess there isn't.

Then let me elucidate it a tad more simply.

Is the time of foreign leaders valuable? The President's schedule is often made weeks or months in advance. It is very difficult for someone to get on that schedule. The time of the President is very limited, and he only has so many hours in a day right?

Then it is logical that the foreign leaders time is also limited, and there is only so many people or things that they can do in a day. Yet, they found some time, valuable time, to meet with Candidate Obama. They gave him valuable time, so he could increase his foreign policy cred.

Look at the date on the link. 2008. Before he was President or President elect. Are you saying that then Candidate Obama accepted a thing of value from these foreign leaders? Their time is valuable, people who were waiting months to see those leaders got bumped for Obama's photo op.

Candidate Obama got something of value from them, their time. He got assistance from their police and security people, another thing of value. Did Obama commit the same crime? He not only accepted a thing of value from several foreign leaders, but he requested it.

That would be an excellent post

If those foreign leaders were giving Obama sensitive information about McCain to help him win an election

So the criminal act that describes "any thing of value" really means information but not time. It doesn't really mean any thing of value. Does that summarize your argument?

If stolen information can be weaponized, it can be very valuable. We saw that in the last election.

Did that have to be explained? Seriously, did it have to be explained?

 

[rightwinger]

Benedict Arnold never sold West Point to the British

He only tried

Just like Lil' Donnie

 

[SavannahMann]

What crime were they going to commit? I heard collusion, but what? Is it illegal to get dirt on your opponent now? The "thing of value" is rich. What doesn't have value? A photo op with a foreign leader could have value.

Obama takes campaign trail overseas - CNN.com

So Candidate Obama flew around the world meeting with foreign leaders, as a Senator, not even President Elect, to bolster his foreign policy credentials. Wouldn't that be a thing of value? Meeting and being taken seriously by foreign leaders all to improve your foreign policy cred?

That is the problem when you start down this path. What is a thing of value? Well. Anything could be. That's why there has never been any prosecution of that thing of value before. Because every single candidate gets a thing of value running around the world pumping hands and promising to be great friends with our allies when elected.

There must be some sense there. But since I don't know what it is, I guess there isn't.

Then let me elucidate it a tad more simply.

Is the time of foreign leaders valuable? The President's schedule is often made weeks or months in advance. It is very difficult for someone to get on that schedule. The time of the President is very limited, and he only has so many hours in a day right?

Then it is logical that the foreign leaders time is also limited, and there is only so many people or things that they can do in a day. Yet, they found some time, valuable time, to meet with Candidate Obama. They gave him valuable time, so he could increase his foreign policy cred.

Look at the date on the link. 2008. Before he was President or President elect. Are you saying that then Candidate Obama accepted a thing of value from these foreign leaders? Their time is valuable, people who were waiting months to see those leaders got bumped for Obama's photo op.

Candidate Obama got something of value from them, their time. He got assistance from their police and security people, another thing of value. Did Obama commit the same crime? He not only accepted a thing of value from several foreign leaders, but he requested it.

That would be an excellent post

If those foreign leaders were giving Obama sensitive information about McCain to help him win an election

So the criminal act that describes "any thing of value" really means information but not time. It doesn't really mean any thing of value. Does that summarize your argument?

If stolen information can be weaponized, it can be very valuable. We saw that in the last election.

Did that have to be explained? Seriously, did it have to be explained?

Yet, the opinion of Comey was that the information did not have an effect on the election. In fact, the polls moved in Hillary's favor after the information was released.

The biggest harm to her campaign came from her own actions. The private server in her bathroom. Hillary Clinton Survived Her Email Scandal, But Not Unscathed, New Poll Shows

The image of Hillary as a criminal was already in people's minds long before the hacked emails were released. Hillary's "Wiped? What with a cloth?" Press conference didn't help at all.

Comey testified that they could find no evidence that the hacked emails affected the election at all. Polls showed a solid Hillary win. My old icon on here was The NY Times estimates for winning, it crossed, one over the other as Trump's chances increased, and Hillary's fell.

Now, what is hilarious to me in all of this is one little thing that seems to have been forgotten. The Trump Dossier put together by a former British Spy who supposedly used Russian assets to get the whole Trump urinating on hookers in the Moscow hotel thing. Talk about foreign influence. Why hasn't this passion for law and order demanded that the DNC who ran with this be locked up? Donald Trump–Russia dossier - Wikipedia

That's the real problem. That's the real thing going on here. You don't care what it takes to get Trump out of the Oval. Churchill famously said that if Hitler attacked Hell that Churchill would make a favorable mention of the Devil in the House of Commons. You are obsessed. You aren't alone, and it certainly isn't the first time in history.

The DNC knows they violated a ton of laws, and that's why they haven't turned over the Server months later to be inspected. DNC email server most wanted evidence for Russia investigations

It is like a street basketball game. Both sides were cheating, and all the cheating didn't mean a damn thing in the end. So the losing team which cheated, is screaming that the winners cheated. It just isn't fair that the cheating the losers did wasn't enough to bring victory.

As for me, I honestly think this is all the funniest thing I've seen in a very long time. Nothing is getting done in Washington, which is both good, and bad. Good because the idiots in both parties are usually quick to screw it up. Bad because there is always a chance that they'll do something smart for a change. It wouldn't be the first time, but it is very rare.

In many ways, to return to the Second World War example above, it is like the Eastern Front. Stalin and Hitler. Two of the most brutal dictators in history. Only one is a good guy, supposedly, because he is on our side. The other is a bad guy, because he is not on our side. We loved Uncle Joe. Churchill who had funded and endorsed efforts to defeat the Communists during the Russian Civil war, was suddenly a full throated supporter of Stalin once Barbarossa kicked off.

The truth is that there were no good guys on the Eastern Front. One army commanded by a brutal dictatorial thug was going to be victorious over the other army commanded by a brutal dictatorial thug. Each side committed atrocities wholesale. Each side committed crimes against humanity hourly. Each side raped, murdered, and pillaged their way across Eastern Europe.

The Republicans aren't the good guys, or the bad guys. The Democrats are not the good guys, or bad guys either. They are both political factions that seek out one goal, to gain power. Look at any issue you want. The evil Koch brothers wanted to build a pipeline to carry oil. That is awful, and criminal and just terrible. It's way better for Warren Buffett to carry that oil in tank cars on railroad tracks to the same refineries.

The left wants to protect Buffett, and the Right wants to help the Koch brothers. The same oil moves either way, it's just who makes the profit from the transportation.

It's all bullshit. If the Justice Department was going after the DNC for getting "valuable" information from foreign sources then the media you quote would be up in arms screaming about how this is a political witch hunt. You would be here screaming that it is just abuse of power and Trump being all dictatorial. If Hillary had won, and the questions had been raised about the Trump Moscow dossier, you would be here defending Hillary saying it is all bullshit and there was no crime committed.

I'm going to say it now. It's all bullshit. For everyone. A thing of value my ass.

 

[Ernie S.]

Remember, there used to be a show where men would try to hook up with underage girls or boys and when the predator showed up, they would be arrested?

How is that different than setting up a meeting trying to commit conspiracy with the Russians to attack the foundation of our political system?

Obviously, it's not sex. But it is a conspiracy to do something illegal. Well, something Democrats feel is illegal.
It's not clear to me whether Republicans feel any of this is illegal.

Let me see if I can wrap my head around this... It's not a problem for Russians to give hillary a phony dossier about Trump, but giving Trump's campaign dirt on hillary is verboten? Is that about right?

Give me a link.

Don't you keep up, dweeb? What I said is common knowledge to anyone capable of reading a newspaper of comprehending a news program.

In other words, no link. Got it.

I suppose I could post a link, but I won't be able to make you sentient.

 

[Slyhunter]

Why is it ok for the Democrats to do it but not the Republicans?

 

[deanrd]

Remember, there used to be a show where men would try to hook up with underage girls or boys and when the predator showed up, they would be arrested?

How is that different than setting up a meeting trying to commit conspiracy with the Russians to attack the foundation of our political system?

Obviously, it's not sex. But it is a conspiracy to do something illegal. Well, something Democrats feel is illegal.
It's not clear to me whether Republicans feel any of this is illegal.

Let me see if I can wrap my head around this... It's not a problem for Russians to give hillary a phony dossier about Trump, but giving Trump's campaign dirt on hillary is verboten? Is that about right?

Give me a link.

Don't you keep up, dweeb? What I said is common knowledge to anyone capable of reading a newspaper of comprehending a news program.

In other words, no link. Got it.

I suppose I could post a link, but I won't be able to make you sentient.

Or more obvious. You don't have one.

 

[deanrd]

Why is it ok for the Democrats to do it but not the Republicans?

Do what? Cuz for the last 30 years, it's been the other way around.

 

[Ernie S.]

Let me see if I can wrap my head around this... It's not a problem for Russians to give hillary a phony dossier about Trump, but giving Trump's campaign dirt on hillary is verboten? Is that about right?

Give me a link.

Don't you keep up, dweeb? What I said is common knowledge to anyone capable of reading a newspaper of comprehending a news program.

In other words, no link. Got it.

I suppose I could post a link, but I won't be able to make you sentient.

Or more obvious. You don't have one.

What exactly, do you want me to link to, Dweeb? The fact that there is a dossier full of unsubstantiated bullshit is common knowledge.

 

[deanrd]

Give me a link.

Don't you keep up, dweeb? What I said is common knowledge to anyone capable of reading a newspaper of comprehending a news program.

In other words, no link. Got it.

I suppose I could post a link, but I won't be able to make you sentient.

Or more obvious. You don't have one.

What exactly, do you want me to link to, Dweeb? The fact that there is a dossier full of unsubstantiated bullshit is common knowledge.

Holy Tardation Batman. If it's so common, let's have a link.

 

[SavannahMann]

Don't you keep up, dweeb? What I said is common knowledge to anyone capable of reading a newspaper of comprehending a news program.

In other words, no link. Got it.

I suppose I could post a link, but I won't be able to make you sentient.

Or more obvious. You don't have one.

What exactly, do you want me to link to, Dweeb? The fact that there is a dossier full of unsubstantiated bullshit is common knowledge.

Holy Tardation Batman. If it's so common, let's have a link.

How about Wikipedia. Donald Trump–Russia dossier - Wikipedia

 

[hadit]

To the question posed in the thread's title, is someone who never sexually assaults anyone a sex predator? Think that one over a bit.

 

[Slyhunter]

To the question posed in the thread's title, is someone who never sexually assaults anyone a sex predator? Think that one over a bit.

Someone who fantasizes about having sex with minors but never makes the attempt because he controls his urges through fantasy and doesn't act on them.