Open season on our elections

[Wry Catcher]

The Lunatic Fringe is out and about this morning.

 

[danielpalos]

I Don't Know What More ANYONE Needs To Hear


About this website

ABCNEWS.GO.COM

EXCLUSIVE: Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents
In an ABC News exclusive, President Donald Trump said he may not alert the FBI to overtures from foreign governments during the 2020 race.

the point is, we should be voting for the better plan regardless of the dirt.


the right wing allege to be Capitalists, but Government solves all problems for them.

 

[The Original Tree]

Voter ID

END THREAD

 

[Rawley]

Where is the evidence that HRC "colluded"?

Million dollars, Steele dossier. ANy of this ringing any bells?

 

[Rawley]

Where is the evidence that HRC "colluded"?

Seriously? She paid a fucking spy to invent a story about Trump. This has been documented, you moron.

You’re the fucking moron! She paid a law firm to obtain opposition research. She didn’t pay anyone other than the law firm.
As for the Dossier - everything in it was true and verified except the pee tape.

Is crack your drug of choice?

 

[bripat9643]

What crime is it to listen?

To listen is to accept information given to a campaign by a foreign entity. Information is valuable, knowledge is power.

It's not illegal. It's protected by the First Amendment. Only a Stalinist douche would claim you aren't allowed to listen to certain people talk.

"Loose lips sink ships" This is your goal, isn't it?

What do foreign countries giving information to American politicians have to do with your lame WW II mantra?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What crime is it to listen?

To listen is to accept information given to a campaign by a foreign entity. Information is valuable, knowledge is power.

It's not illegal. It's protected by the First Amendment. Only a Stalinist douche would claim you aren't allowed to listen to certain people talk.

"Loose lips sink ships" This is your goal, isn't it?

What do foreign countries giving information to American politicians have to do with your lame WW II mantra?

I really do pity you, concrete thinking limits your ability to reason. Have someone explain to you what an abstraction is, and how it is an effective tool in making a point.

 

[bripat9643]

What crime is it to listen?

To listen is to accept information given to a campaign by a foreign entity. Information is valuable, knowledge is power.

It's not illegal. It's protected by the First Amendment. Only a Stalinist douche would claim you aren't allowed to listen to certain people talk.

"Loose lips sink ships" This is your goal, isn't it?

What do foreign countries giving information to American politicians have to do with your lame WW II mantra?

I really do pity you, concrete thinking limits your ability to reason. Have someone explain to you what an abstraction is, and how it is an effective tool in making a point.

You are too stupid to understand that your analogy doesn't fit. Hillary is the one who gave away government secrets, not Trump, you dumb asshole.

 

[forkup]

I left another one out actually. Even if those points wouldn't be all true. The argument is in itself a fallacy. More specifically an appeal to hypocrisy. The action is right because the other side doesn't act correct themselves. I for one believe that not having a president willing to compromise himself to a foreign nation transcends party lines. Sadly enough, Trump has changed all that.

Its OK if we do it but oh no... you better not.... Fucking hypocrites..

Did I ever say it's okay? What I said. Specifically said, is that you don't accept information from foreign nations if they offer it to your campaign. If you do you, running for office. You expose yourself to blackmail. You will find only ONE example of an incumbent doing otherwise. Trump. No Obama didn't and no Clinton didn't. What at worst they did was hire firms who do opposition research. Those firms create isolation for the incumbents so they can NOT be blackmailed. It's both unethical but only one compromises you.
What I also said is that it's a logical fallacy. Like this one is. This one is the strawman argument. You misrepresent my position because you have no actual retort to my real one.

Who exposes them to black mail? Go ahead and tell the public I did massive amounts of cocaine, see if I care..



This reminds me of a book I just read..

She laid it all out



View attachment 265257

I'm guessing you would care if I can prove you did and threaten to expose the fact to your boss or the police. You would care as a politician to, if like in the example the taliban gave you information and you accepted it to get elected.

So your telling us democrats have something illegal to hide, what else is new?

And the funny thing is when the left finds out something they go on a smear campaign and overblow the truth


Also again if someone is a criminal running for public office what difference does it make who spills the beans? Are you really telling us Hoover didn't black ball anyone?

.

Round and round we go.
First "dirt" doesn't have to be something illegal. "Dirt" can be a blowjob in the oval office. A pee-pee tape or tax returns to name a few.
Secondly, why does it matter? Again, because it compromises the person getting the information if the beans are spilled by people who have interests that run against the country. So stop being obtuse please, it makes you look dumb.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Its OK if we do it but oh no... you better not.... Fucking hypocrites..

Did I ever say it's okay? What I said. Specifically said, is that you don't accept information from foreign nations if they offer it to your campaign. If you do you, running for office. You expose yourself to blackmail. You will find only ONE example of an incumbent doing otherwise. Trump. No Obama didn't and no Clinton didn't. What at worst they did was hire firms who do opposition research. Those firms create isolation for the incumbents so they can NOT be blackmailed. It's both unethical but only one compromises you.
What I also said is that it's a logical fallacy. Like this one is. This one is the strawman argument. You misrepresent my position because you have no actual retort to my real one.

Who exposes them to black mail? Go ahead and tell the public I did massive amounts of cocaine, see if I care..



This reminds me of a book I just read..

She laid it all out



View attachment 265257

I'm guessing you would care if I can prove you did and threaten to expose the fact to your boss or the police. You would care as a politician to, if like in the example the taliban gave you information and you accepted it to get elected.

So your telling us democrats have something illegal to hide, what else is new?

And the funny thing is when the left finds out something they go on a smear campaign and overblow the truth


Also again if someone is a criminal running for public office what difference does it make who spills the beans? Are you really telling us Hoover didn't black ball anyone?

.

Round and round we go.
First "dirt" doesn't have to be something illegal. "Dirt" can be a blowjob in the oval office. A pee-pee tape or tax returns to name a few.
Secondly, why does it matter? Again, because it compromises the person getting the information if the beans are spilled by people who have interests that run against the country. So stop being obtuse please, it makes you look dumb.

How am I being obtuse? Once again dirt could be they rigged the DNC nomination or killed someone by driving a car in the river and didn't report it till a day later.

 

[forkup]

Did I ever say it's okay? What I said. Specifically said, is that you don't accept information from foreign nations if they offer it to your campaign. If you do you, running for office. You expose yourself to blackmail. You will find only ONE example of an incumbent doing otherwise. Trump. No Obama didn't and no Clinton didn't. What at worst they did was hire firms who do opposition research. Those firms create isolation for the incumbents so they can NOT be blackmailed. It's both unethical but only one compromises you.
What I also said is that it's a logical fallacy. Like this one is. This one is the strawman argument. You misrepresent my position because you have no actual retort to my real one.

Who exposes them to black mail? Go ahead and tell the public I did massive amounts of cocaine, see if I care..



This reminds me of a book I just read..

She laid it all out



View attachment 265257

I'm guessing you would care if I can prove you did and threaten to expose the fact to your boss or the police. You would care as a politician to, if like in the example the taliban gave you information and you accepted it to get elected.

So your telling us democrats have something illegal to hide, what else is new?

And the funny thing is when the left finds out something they go on a smear campaign and overblow the truth


Also again if someone is a criminal running for public office what difference does it make who spills the beans? Are you really telling us Hoover didn't black ball anyone?

.

Round and round we go.
First "dirt" doesn't have to be something illegal. "Dirt" can be a blowjob in the oval office. A pee-pee tape or tax returns to name a few.
Secondly, why does it matter? Again, because it compromises the person getting the information if the beans are spilled by people who have interests that run against the country. So stop being obtuse please, it makes you look dumb.

How am I being obtuse? Once again dirt could be they rigged the DNC nomination or killed someone by driving a car in the river and didn't report it till a day later.

-You're being obtuse because I have answered the question of why it matters at least five times in the course of this OP. Two of those times in answer to you asking that question. If someone answers a question 5 times just to have the other person posing the same question I conclude you are obtuse. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't simply have reading comprehension problems.
-Yes, it could be all those things. It doesn't explain why you jump to wanting to make the point that because of Democrats having problems with Trump saying he would accept "dirt" from foreign governments means the Democrats have done something illegal. Just to go to logical fallacies again, it's called Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Making causal jumps without proper justification.

 

[Rawley]

-You're being obtuse because I have answered the question of why it matters at least five times in the course of this OP. Two of those times in answer to you asking that question. If someone answers a question 5 times just to have the other person posing the same question I conclude you are obtuse. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't simply have reading comprehension problems.
-Yes, it could be all those things. It doesn't explain why you jump to wanting to make the point that because of Democrats having problems with Trump saying he would accept "dirt" from foreign governments means the Democrats have done something illegal. Just to go to logical fallacies again, it's called Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Making causal jumps without proper justification.

What we are struggling with is the Democrats' and media's "outrage" over the President's comments when Hillary solicited and accepted opposition research from foreign nationals, the DNC solicited and accepted opposition research from foreign nationals.

This exposes the outrage as politically motivated and completely disingenuous.

 

[danielpalos]

Where is the evidence that HRC "colluded"?

Seriously? She paid a fucking spy to invent a story about Trump. This has been documented, you moron.

You’re the fucking moron! She paid a law firm to obtain opposition research. She didn’t pay anyone other than the law firm.
As for the Dossier - everything in it was true and verified except the pee tape.

Is crack your drug of choice?

some women have no problem trying to addict us to their crack.

 

[forkup]

-You're being obtuse because I have answered the question of why it matters at least five times in the course of this OP. Two of those times in answer to you asking that question. If someone answers a question 5 times just to have the other person posing the same question I conclude you are obtuse. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't simply have reading comprehension problems.
-Yes, it could be all those things. It doesn't explain why you jump to wanting to make the point that because of Democrats having problems with Trump saying he would accept "dirt" from foreign governments means the Democrats have done something illegal. Just to go to logical fallacies again, it's called Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Making causal jumps without proper justification.

What we are struggling with is the Democrats' and media's "outrage" over the President's comments when Hillary solicited and accepted opposition research from foreign nationals, the DNC solicited and accepted opposition research from foreign nationals.

This exposes the outrage as politically motivated and completely disingenuous.

You struggle with something that is not comparable then. Both legally, from a national security standpoint and from a standpoint of severity. Hiring a law firm to do opposition research who then hires a British PRIVATE citizen is not even remotely the same as accepting help from the Russian government or the Chinese government as Trump said in the interview. If you can't see the difference between the 2 instances I can't help you.

 

[Rawley]

-You're being obtuse because I have answered the question of why it matters at least five times in the course of this OP. Two of those times in answer to you asking that question. If someone answers a question 5 times just to have the other person posing the same question I conclude you are obtuse. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't simply have reading comprehension problems.
-Yes, it could be all those things. It doesn't explain why you jump to wanting to make the point that because of Democrats having problems with Trump saying he would accept "dirt" from foreign governments means the Democrats have done something illegal. Just to go to logical fallacies again, it's called Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Making causal jumps without proper justification.

What we are struggling with is the Democrats' and media's "outrage" over the President's comments when Hillary solicited and accepted opposition research from foreign nationals, the DNC solicited and accepted opposition research from foreign nationals.

This exposes the outrage as politically motivated and completely disingenuous.

You struggle with something that is not comparable then. Both legally, from a national security standpoint and from a standpoint of severity. Hiring a law firm to do opposition research who then hires a British PRIVATE citizen is not even remotely the same as accepting help from the Russian government or the Chinese government as Trump said in the interview. If you can't see the difference between the 2 instances I can't help you.

The DNC went directly to the Ukraine government. You OK with that?

And think about your Hillary argument. Using a cutout, a lawfirm, to get the exact same information from the exact same people is legal and more secure? Why isn't the lawfirm breaking the law, or risking our national security.

 

[forkup]

-You're being obtuse because I have answered the question of why it matters at least five times in the course of this OP. Two of those times in answer to you asking that question. If someone answers a question 5 times just to have the other person posing the same question I conclude you are obtuse. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't simply have reading comprehension problems.
-Yes, it could be all those things. It doesn't explain why you jump to wanting to make the point that because of Democrats having problems with Trump saying he would accept "dirt" from foreign governments means the Democrats have done something illegal. Just to go to logical fallacies again, it's called Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Making causal jumps without proper justification.

What we are struggling with is the Democrats' and media's "outrage" over the President's comments when Hillary solicited and accepted opposition research from foreign nationals, the DNC solicited and accepted opposition research from foreign nationals.

This exposes the outrage as politically motivated and completely disingenuous.

You struggle with something that is not comparable then. Both legally, from a national security standpoint and from a standpoint of severity. Hiring a law firm to do opposition research who then hires a British PRIVATE citizen is not even remotely the same as accepting help from the Russian government or the Chinese government as Trump said in the interview. If you can't see the difference between the 2 instances I can't help you.

The DNC went directly to the Ukraine government. You OK with that?

And think about your Hillary argument. Using a cutout, a lawfirm, to get the exact same information from the exact same people is legal and more secure? Why isn't the lawfirm breaking the law, or risking our national security.

Because the law firm is NOT the incumbent. As to legality. If the law firm breaks the law people go to jail. You hire a law firm in the understanding that they know the law. As to me being ok with the DNC operative doing the same, no I'm not. As I said before I consider this kind of oppo research unethical. But, as been my point all along. Here again, the actual incumbent is separated from the seeking of information. Neither in your example has it been established that the research was actually ordered by the campaign. Ukrainian Embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Absolves her of what? The Clinton campaign and the DNC were paying for opposition research.
When Steele realized he had found far more than that, he contacted the FBI.
Do you know if either the Clinton campaign or the DNC ever acually received a completed copy of the dossier? Did they use it in any way?

I think it would have been helpful if Mueller looked into that during his investigation of Russian interference in the election. Perhaps AG Barr's new investigation will have some answers. Rumor has it that they are talking to Steele soon.

Mueller was not tasked to look at that. Why would he? A former British intel officer sharing intel with the US is neither uncommon nor suspicious.

I encourage you to gain a perspective other than the trumpian narratives.
Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier

His partner was a Russian named Skirpal, and was a Russian Spy, so Clinton and Obama were dealing directly with Russians.

Obama had nothing to do with it and the Clinton campaign hired a law firm to do the research, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Mueller was not tasked to look at that. Why would he? A former British intel officer sharing intel with the US is neither uncommon nor suspicious

??? Investigating Russian interference in the election was his primary task. Why do you think he indicted all those Russians.

Even the NYTimes now reluctantly admits that the Steele dossier was Russian disinformation

I encourage you to gain a perspective other than the trumpian narratives.
Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier

If it hasn't yet become clear to you, Mr. Steele had an agenda.

And he certainly wasn't the hero that the NYorker tried to portray him as.

Another Media-Fueled Collusion Narrative Falls Apart

You suggested Mueller should have looked at Steele, dope.

I knew you wouldn't read my link.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Thats a good lemming. Keep denying reality.

Honest question. How do you reconcile that law and Hillary paying for the Steele dossier?

Well unless you are arguing that Hilary is a foreign national I think the difference speaks for itself.

?? She paid a foreign national (Steele) for information (disinformation?) from foreign nationals (Russians)

She paid an American law firm, dope.
They hired Fusion GPS who in turn hired Orbis, Steele's firm.

That's what you call a "straw buyer" situation. And that's exactly what Mr. Durham is busting wide open in his investigation.

President Trump was speaking last week with the British monarch, and she is making Mr. Steele, her subject, available for questioning by American officials. He is willing to spill the beans and make a deal. Further, Mr. Durham's office has been questioning CIA agents, who will have an opportunity to avoid prison and disgrace by spilling the beans as well.

If I were Mr. Comey or Mr. Clapper I'd reach out now to my President and see what kinds of deals are available.

That's not a "straw buyer", dope. There was nothing illegal in the hiring of a firm that specializes in collecting information.

 

[The Original Tree]

Absolves her of what? The Clinton campaign and the DNC were paying for opposition research.
When Steele realized he had found far more than that, he contacted the FBI.
Do you know if either the Clinton campaign or the DNC ever acually received a completed copy of the dossier? Did they use it in any way?

I think it would have been helpful if Mueller looked into that during his investigation of Russian interference in the election. Perhaps AG Barr's new investigation will have some answers. Rumor has it that they are talking to Steele soon.

Mueller was not tasked to look at that. Why would he? A former British intel officer sharing intel with the US is neither uncommon nor suspicious.

I encourage you to gain a perspective other than the trumpian narratives.
Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier

His partner was a Russian named Skirpal, and was a Russian Spy, so Clinton and Obama were dealing directly with Russians.

Obama had nothing to do with it and the Clinton campaign hired a law firm to do the research, dope.

Sorry, but Obama paid $1 Million of his own money towards The Russian Collusion Scam, and not only that he was ALL IN on the Unmasking, The Spying, and The COUP, as he was kept informed at every juncture.

What the Obamas’ $65 million book advance actually means

He probably paid The $1 Million out of the $64 Million he got from a Russian backed Publisher for the book advance for a book he NEVER WROTE.

Team Obama Paid Nearly $1M to Law Firm That Paid Fusion
https://www.realclearinvestigations...y_1m_to_law_firm_that_paid_fusion_118404.html

FEC: Obama Paid $1 Million To Fusion GPS To Fund 'Piss-Gate' Dossier

Slimy George Soros also pitched in.

George Soros gave $1M to group that paid for Fusion GPS research


Obama may be the first president in US History to actually end up in jail after leaving office, and Hillary Clinton may be the first presidential candidate to do the same.