Place your bets

[miketx]

Thank you Eddie for finally showing some proof.

 

[eddiew]

Thank you Eddie for finally showing some proof.

As an ex republican I really don't find lots of fault in what trump has said he wanted but there is some My main fault I find in him is he's a vile human being who has been getting away with crap his whole life I can't stand seeing him as leader of the free world

 

[miketx]

Thank you Eddie for finally showing some proof.

As an ex republican I really don't find lots of fault in what trump has said he wanted but there is some My main fault I find in him is he's a vile human being who has been getting away with crap his whole life I can't stand seeing him as leader of the free world

If only you had known him his entire life. That way you would have a basis for insinuating to have known him his whole life instead of derangement.

 

[eddiew]

Thank you Eddie for finally showing some proof.

As an ex republican I really don't find lots of fault in what trump has said he wanted but there is some My main fault I find in him is he's a vile human being who has been getting away with crap his whole life I can't stand seeing him as leader of the free world

If only you had known him his entire life. That way you would have a basis for insinuating to have known him his whole life instead of derangement.

His goings on have been reported in NY papers for many years I live in NY

 

[Indeependent]

Thank you Eddie for finally showing some proof.

As an ex republican I really don't find lots of fault in what trump has said he wanted but there is some My main fault I find in him is he's a vile human being who has been getting away with crap his whole life I can't stand seeing him as leader of the free world

If only you had known him his entire life. That way you would have a basis for insinuating to have known him his whole life instead of derangement.

His goings on have been reported in NY papers for many years I live in NY

Me too; and being politically incorrect I love Trump.

 

[blackhawk]

My guess is when nothing comes from any of this the left will grab their coloring books and Play Doh and run to their safe space.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'll go on record as predicting Trump will has a second term. However, if I'm wrong about that.... Pence will be just fine by me too.

 

[eddiew]

Thank you Eddie for finally showing some proof.

As an ex republican I really don't find lots of fault in what trump has said he wanted but there is some My main fault I find in him is he's a vile human being who has been getting away with crap his whole life I can't stand seeing him as leader of the free world

If only you had known him his entire life. That way you would have a basis for insinuating to have known him his whole life instead of derangement.

His goings on have been reported in NY papers for many years I live in NY

Me too; and being politically incorrect I love Trump.

tell that to a young son or try to explain to a young daughter how you love the pussy grabbing lying con man

 

[eddiew]

But I don't want Trump to go! Politics stays so spicy and interesting when he's around.

be careful what you wish for ,,it might come true ,,,these slime bags can't even answer the question of whether the pos son in law still has security clearance

 

[miketx]

Thank you Eddie for finally showing some proof.

As an ex republican I really don't find lots of fault in what trump has said he wanted but there is some My main fault I find in him is he's a vile human being who has been getting away with crap his whole life I can't stand seeing him as leader of the free world

If only you had known him his entire life. That way you would have a basis for insinuating to have known him his whole life instead of derangement.

His goings on have been reported in NY papers for many years I live in NY

Me too; and being politically incorrect I love Trump.

tell that to a young son or try to explain to a young daughter how you love the pussy grabbing lying con man

But I don't want Trump to go! Politics stays so spicy and interesting when he's around.

be careful what you wish for ,,it might come true ,,,these slime bags can't even answer the question of whether the pos son in law still has security clearance

You seem obsessed about Trump and upset by the fact that Trump prefers females partners over male partners. And, what business is it of yours if his sil has security clearance? Surely you cannot do anything to assist the government one way or another. Perhaps a mental health professional may be able to help you.

 

[eddiew]

As an ex republican I really don't find lots of fault in what trump has said he wanted but there is some My main fault I find in him is he's a vile human being who has been getting away with crap his whole life I can't stand seeing him as leader of the free world

If only you had known him his entire life. That way you would have a basis for insinuating to have known him his whole life instead of derangement.

His goings on have been reported in NY papers for many years I live in NY

Me too; and being politically incorrect I love Trump.

tell that to a young son or try to explain to a young daughter how you love the pussy grabbing lying con man

But I don't want Trump to go! Politics stays so spicy and interesting when he's around.

be careful what you wish for ,,it might come true ,,,these slime bags can't even answer the question of whether the pos son in law still has security clearance

You seem obsessed about Trump and upset by the fact that Trump prefers females partners over male partners. And, what business is it of yours if his sil has security clearance? Surely you cannot do anything to assist the government one way or another. Perhaps a mental health professional may be able to help you.

if trump was a horse I could see him with many female partners they'd even have to pay for his services Alas and alack Trump isn't a race horse Just a beat up pos pulling an old clothes wagon

 

[miketx]

If only you had known him his entire life. That way you would have a basis for insinuating to have known him his whole life instead of derangement.

His goings on have been reported in NY papers for many years I live in NY

Me too; and being politically incorrect I love Trump.

tell that to a young son or try to explain to a young daughter how you love the pussy grabbing lying con man

But I don't want Trump to go! Politics stays so spicy and interesting when he's around.

be careful what you wish for ,,it might come true ,,,these slime bags can't even answer the question of whether the pos son in law still has security clearance

You seem obsessed about Trump and upset by the fact that Trump prefers females partners over male partners. And, what business is it of yours if his sil has security clearance? Surely you cannot do anything to assist the government one way or another. Perhaps a mental health professional may be able to help you.

if trump was a horse I could see him with many female partners they'd even have to pay for his services Alas and alack Trump isn't a race horse Just a beat up pos pulling an old clothes wagon

Now the patient refers to the President a beast of burden. Sad.

 

[eddiew]

His goings on have been reported in NY papers for many years I live in NY

Me too; and being politically incorrect I love Trump.

tell that to a young son or try to explain to a young daughter how you love the pussy grabbing lying con man

But I don't want Trump to go! Politics stays so spicy and interesting when he's around.

be careful what you wish for ,,it might come true ,,,these slime bags can't even answer the question of whether the pos son in law still has security clearance

You seem obsessed about Trump and upset by the fact that Trump prefers females partners over male partners. And, what business is it of yours if his sil has security clearance? Surely you cannot do anything to assist the government one way or another. Perhaps a mental health professional may be able to help you.

if trump was a horse I could see him with many female partners they'd even have to pay for his services Alas and alack Trump isn't a race horse Just a beat up pos pulling an old clothes wagon

Now the patient refers to the President a beast of burden. Sad.

I don't care if you're a repub a dem or indy ,,,if you can't see what an ah trump is along with his son inlaw and son I can't say anything to you because you're just not looking at our problems the right way a constructive way

 

[OldLady]

Trump Impeachment Is More Likely Than Ever, According to Gambling Sites
Rob Wile
May 17, 2017
Ladbrokes, one of the largest betting sites in the world, announced today that it has tweaked the odds that Trump leaves office early via impeachment or resignation to 4/5, or 55 percent. That means that if you were to bet $100, you would get just an $80 profit.Previously, the odds were 11/10, meaning that a $100 bet would yield $110 if it paid off.


“Political punters are wondering how many more scandals can Trump overcome," Jessica Bridge of Ladbrokes said in a statement released on Wednesday, as controversy has reached a fevered pitch for the Trump administration. “And despite the short price on offer, money has poured in for the President to be impeached, leaving us with little option but to cut the odds.”

Ladbrokes says it's now even money that Trump serves his full first term, and the payout is even worse for odds that Trump is not reelected, at 2/7. (Overseas gambling sites like Ladbrokes are off-limits to Americans; sports books and gambling sites in the U.S. do not accept bets on political matters.)

On the odds-making site PredictIt.com, the chances of Trump still being president at the end of the year have fallen from 87 percent to 69 percent just in the past week.

Lewis Davey, a spokesman for the Ireland-based gambling site Paddy Power, described the early days of the Trump administration as a "roller coaster," and told Politico last week that interest in betting on Trump's demise has surged recently: “Paddy Power customers have been lumping on Trump to come undone, with thousands staked on him not completing his first term in office and to be impeached.”

Across most betting sites, a Democratic candidate now has the upper hand for the 2020 election. Gambling Bovada puts the odds at 61 percent that a Democrat will be in the White House after the next presidential election, while the odds are 54 percent at PredictIt at and 60 percent on Ladbrokes.

Yeah, well the odds on Hillary winning were pretty high right up 'til November 9. These guys don't actually know any more than we do.

 

[eddiew]

Trump Impeachment Is More Likely Than Ever, According to Gambling Sites
Rob Wile
May 17, 2017
Ladbrokes, one of the largest betting sites in the world, announced today that it has tweaked the odds that Trump leaves office early via impeachment or resignation to 4/5, or 55 percent. That means that if you were to bet $100, you would get just an $80 profit.Previously, the odds were 11/10, meaning that a $100 bet would yield $110 if it paid off.


“Political punters are wondering how many more scandals can Trump overcome," Jessica Bridge of Ladbrokes said in a statement released on Wednesday, as controversy has reached a fevered pitch for the Trump administration. “And despite the short price on offer, money has poured in for the President to be impeached, leaving us with little option but to cut the odds.”

Ladbrokes says it's now even money that Trump serves his full first term, and the payout is even worse for odds that Trump is not reelected, at 2/7. (Overseas gambling sites like Ladbrokes are off-limits to Americans; sports books and gambling sites in the U.S. do not accept bets on political matters.)

On the odds-making site PredictIt.com, the chances of Trump still being president at the end of the year have fallen from 87 percent to 69 percent just in the past week.

Lewis Davey, a spokesman for the Ireland-based gambling site Paddy Power, described the early days of the Trump administration as a "roller coaster," and told Politico last week that interest in betting on Trump's demise has surged recently: “Paddy Power customers have been lumping on Trump to come undone, with thousands staked on him not completing his first term in office and to be impeached.”

Across most betting sites, a Democratic candidate now has the upper hand for the 2020 election. Gambling Bovada puts the odds at 61 percent that a Democrat will be in the White House after the next presidential election, while the odds are 54 percent at PredictIt at and 60 percent on Ladbrokes.

Yeah, well the odds on Hillary winning were pretty high right up 'til November 9. These guys don't actually know any more than we do.

Very true BTW see how trump defends son from that meeting with russian lawyer ? See no evil hear no evil ??

 

[FJO]

How many times did investigative bodies investigate Hillary over 6,7 years?? Nine?? 10?? What did they get her on???? NOTHING ..Now it's dumps turn in the barrel

and in a year of RUSSIA - how much has been found to be true vs. made up hysterics from the left?

the point is all this bashing needs to stop but we seem to have smelled blood in the water and can't live or move on with our lives w/o some jacked up form of payback.

do we know 5 or 6 trump people conveniently forgot they spoke with Russians ??If you can't smell the smoke get a check up These scum in our WH don't even trust themselves

People in Washington routinely talk to Russians. Fail.

And then forget it??

ICEBERG BAD NEWS
Iceberg the size of Delaware, among biggest ever recorded, snaps off Antarctica
Published: July 12, 2017 2:14 p.m. ET



The 2,200 square-mile, trillion metric-ton section of the Larsen C ice shelf ‘calved’ away early this week, NASA imaging shows

Reuters
An aerial view from NASA of the rift in the Larsen C on the Antarctica Peninsula in November 2016.

By

RACHELKONING BEALS
NEWS EDITOR
A giant iceberg about the size of Delaware that had been under scientists’ watch has broken off from an ice shelf on the Antarctica Peninsula and is now adrift in the Weddell Sea.

The 2,200 square-mile, trillion metric-ton section of the Larsen C ice shelf “calved” off sometime between Monday and Wednesday, a team of researchers at Swansea University’s Project MIDAS has reported, citing imaging from NASA’s Aqua MODIS satellite instrument.

SO WHAT??

Things like that have been happening for millions of years.

Besides, what the hell has it got to do with Trump, senior, junior or otherwise?

 

[iceberg]

It's the same tired tactics over and and over. Demand a link or an explanation and when provided, spin and lie like crazy! It never differs.

Oh, no, you don't. I asked for the link and he didn't know enough about it to even give me bare bones facts without looking it up. He says he's busy. I'll wait.
But I didn't spin or lie about anything because he didn't give me one.
This guy tries to act all reasonable and puts on the poor little me act, but he's not being as honest as he pretends.

really?

what did i just say in the post above this? did i or did i NOT say this was on me for not following through? seemed pretty honest to me, even in understanding your jumping my ass with the "unmitigated gall" crap. i have never lied to you nor dogged on you and up until this point had a lot of respect for you.

guess i can stop doing that now. at this point i'm done. have a great day.

Go suck an egg, little Matilda. Don't give me all that self righteous indignation when you play harder than that and just don't want anyone talking back.
If you ask me, this is a very convenient way to weasel out of your "word" to give me information on the Hillary / dossier connection. Actually, I looked it up and the dossier was compiled for one of the Republicans running against Trump, who dropped out. The company then offered it for sale to Hillary's campaign. But it seems they never got it--they never used it anyway. It ended up in the hands of the FBI and then got leaked to several major news outlets, who sat on it because they couldn't confirm anything. At least as far as I can make out, she neither hired nor paid for the dossier. But tomorrow if you can clarify that, fine.
Like I said, it's still not about Trump's culpability/ethical standing. But I guess we should know by now what Trump's ethical standing is like.

you can call it what you want, and i'm sure you will. i told you and took ownership of yes, i didn't follow through as i should have and said so the very next response.

why ignore that one? Hmmmm???

Place your bets

you bypass that and accuse me of all kinds of shit. if you read back up you will plainly see me DEFEND YOU in your response to me and take ownership of my bad communication simply cause i'm slammed at work and didn't have a lot of time to dive into it. MY BAD - I SAID IT ALREADY yet you dogpile on.

in a world where 1/2 of what you read is speculation i was wanting to dive in and understand more to give you a better response as well as educate myself more on this. that's it. you want to call it weaseling out so fine.

now you want to stand there and call me names and get all insulting and fine. have a day.

my apathy has kicked in.

bye.

Golly, you're sensitive. I think it's fair, since I'm not psychic, to respond to your totally silly reply that you don't trust anything you read, etc. etc. and go on about it for a whole post instead of just saying, I'm busy I'll get back to you on that. Once you did, I said I'd be interested, and I still would, because the article I read was pretty foggy on who got the dossier where. McCain gave it to Comey, but the article I read said McCain got it from "other sources." And there were obviously multiple copies floating around out there. I'd still like to know if Hillary's campaign EVER had it. Lots of interesting stuff there. I wouldn't put much past Hillary--she was a lizard.
However, like you I'm not anxious to read through a bunch of Breitbart and MSNBC hype to try and find the basic facts.
I STILL don't think you have any right to claim moral superiority when you're willing to use accusations like that without knowing what the facts are.
Make accusations, claim conservative theories as fact, but don't make claims of being all morally superior on top of it.

now - first of all oldlady, i've never claimed a thing. i have simply asked for an even playing field of judgement or baseline of right and wrong to compare to all. that is so very hard to come by because when you do you typically get things like:

1) moral equiv. yes i hate that phrase. to me it means "i know it's the same but shut up and focus on YOUR sides problems, not ours that is in effect the same thing. in all fairness, you used it against me and yes, i will throw it right back on someone and did to the point YOU were sick of hearing about it. great. maybe you won't bring it up again and we can both walk away happy on that phrase.
2) deflect. this isn't about person xyz, it's about trump! trump jr! and the like. a desire to stick to 1 person is nice and all, but hardly realistic any longer. both sides are knee deep in at the very minimum accusations, if not guilt. how can we talk about 1 person guilt the a baseline of right and wrong has yet to be established?

now - the issue at hand is trump jr getting a phone call from a russian lawyer saying they have dirt on hillary and your supposition is that this shows the tone of trumps camp willing to work with the russians.

the problems i have with this are pretty simple. she was NOT with the gov, just had dirt on clinton. in the end, it was nothing and they talked over adoption policies instead. if i misunderstand this let me know. each article i read seems to slant this a new way to the point i'm just tired of giving a damn about it. but i did want to at least try and look and wait for the emo to die down and more of the story itself to be clear and not a smoking gun the left has been looking for all these months.

if we have not much other "russian proof" then this call to me is business as usual.

i'm sure both hillary and trump camps would welcome dirt on the other. how did "grab them by the p**** come to be? whizzing on russian prostitutes? someone offer up some dirt? well who would do that? looking for dirt on your opponent started about the time we had opponents. so the mere act of trolling for dirt on your opposition i *hope* isn't your stance here of why trump jr was so evil.

now - i don't believe this was done in a russian collusion, they just have contacts from their pre-political lives in several levels. so showing me pics of them together years ago to support such a claim is meaningless when i can do the same for *everyone* on the left pretty much if i dig hard enough.

so what is left out of all this is the act itself was wrong - to you - as it spoke of RUSSIA in clear uncertain terms.

i disagree. given we've seen nothing else to link the 2 other than throwing past meetings into question w/o proof or evidence of wrongdoing, just *ass*umptions and desire to make them that way is all i see. if you have evidence or proof they have colluded please show me and i'll be glad to read through it with an open mind. promise.

now if you are going that the act itself of getting help from a foreign country is bad, then i will simply ask why things like

now - after waiting on more details cause as you guessed - i do NOT trust the media for shit - more is coming out now isn't it?

Did Donald Trump Jr. know the Hilary Clinton dirt was part of a Russian plot to aid the Trump candidacy?
"The Times story does not quote the email but says its contents were conveyed to them by three anonymous sources. At least one of those sources, the Times said, portrayed the note as Goldstone simply passing along information others had given him. The email does not mention Russian hacking."

i hope newsweek is ok. consider the times didn't quote the mail but just said what they heard YET AGAIN from anonymous sources, was blah blah blah.

anonymous doesn't mean a thing to me anymore. far too abused on either side and not verifiable now is it? hell even goldstone is relaying what he heard if this is correct.

so - when i bring up hillary, obama and others who are actively engaged in digging up dirt on the other side, you want to call that a foul and i must prove it. great. i will ask for a common standard to use on both sides and ask we both do that. you seem to have an issue there. i stop caring at this point when we can't use 1 set of standards for both cause that's how we got into this pile of crap we are all now in.

so, i must prove what i'm saying while you rely on the news of the minute that isn't even directly validated but does seem to make you feel more emotionally secure in your dislike of trump. and i'm the arrogant one?

in any event, i promised you a more thought out answer and despite you going into bitch mode - there it is. i don't believe this is an example of collusion with russia as we have nothing else but a phone call through a varied connection offering some dirt. put more "proof" around this more than you FEEL like it shows their mindset. and since this stems around how you THINK their minset is or was i leave you with your own quote from above:

"Golly, you're sensitive. I think it's fair, since I'm not psychic, to respond to your totally silly reply that you don't trust anything you read,"

but you know this shows their mindset.

yea, i'm the arrogant one. but at least i kept my word.

 

[OldLady]

Trump Impeachment Is More Likely Than Ever, According to Gambling Sites
Rob Wile
May 17, 2017
Ladbrokes, one of the largest betting sites in the world, announced today that it has tweaked the odds that Trump leaves office early via impeachment or resignation to 4/5, or 55 percent. That means that if you were to bet $100, you would get just an $80 profit.Previously, the odds were 11/10, meaning that a $100 bet would yield $110 if it paid off.


“Political punters are wondering how many more scandals can Trump overcome," Jessica Bridge of Ladbrokes said in a statement released on Wednesday, as controversy has reached a fevered pitch for the Trump administration. “And despite the short price on offer, money has poured in for the President to be impeached, leaving us with little option but to cut the odds.”

Ladbrokes says it's now even money that Trump serves his full first term, and the payout is even worse for odds that Trump is not reelected, at 2/7. (Overseas gambling sites like Ladbrokes are off-limits to Americans; sports books and gambling sites in the U.S. do not accept bets on political matters.)

On the odds-making site PredictIt.com, the chances of Trump still being president at the end of the year have fallen from 87 percent to 69 percent just in the past week.

Lewis Davey, a spokesman for the Ireland-based gambling site Paddy Power, described the early days of the Trump administration as a "roller coaster," and told Politico last week that interest in betting on Trump's demise has surged recently: “Paddy Power customers have been lumping on Trump to come undone, with thousands staked on him not completing his first term in office and to be impeached.”

Across most betting sites, a Democratic candidate now has the upper hand for the 2020 election. Gambling Bovada puts the odds at 61 percent that a Democrat will be in the White House after the next presidential election, while the odds are 54 percent at PredictIt at and 60 percent on Ladbrokes.

Yeah, well the odds on Hillary winning were pretty high right up 'til November 9. These guys don't actually know any more than we do.

Very true BTW see how trump defends son from that meeting with russian lawyer ? See no evil hear no evil ??

I believe that about as much as I do that his inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama's.
He better not try that when he's called to testify, or he's going to be in big poop. There is no way anyone could believe that he didn't know, because what son would not at least mention to his Dad that he just got an email saying the highest levels of Russian government are sending support for Dad's campaign and apparently sending "dirt" to help? Does anyone honestly think Jr. never mentioned that to his father?

 

[OldLady]

Oh, no, you don't. I asked for the link and he didn't know enough about it to even give me bare bones facts without looking it up. He says he's busy. I'll wait.
But I didn't spin or lie about anything because he didn't give me one.
This guy tries to act all reasonable and puts on the poor little me act, but he's not being as honest as he pretends.

really?

what did i just say in the post above this? did i or did i NOT say this was on me for not following through? seemed pretty honest to me, even in understanding your jumping my ass with the "unmitigated gall" crap. i have never lied to you nor dogged on you and up until this point had a lot of respect for you.

guess i can stop doing that now. at this point i'm done. have a great day.

Go suck an egg, little Matilda. Don't give me all that self righteous indignation when you play harder than that and just don't want anyone talking back.
If you ask me, this is a very convenient way to weasel out of your "word" to give me information on the Hillary / dossier connection. Actually, I looked it up and the dossier was compiled for one of the Republicans running against Trump, who dropped out. The company then offered it for sale to Hillary's campaign. But it seems they never got it--they never used it anyway. It ended up in the hands of the FBI and then got leaked to several major news outlets, who sat on it because they couldn't confirm anything. At least as far as I can make out, she neither hired nor paid for the dossier. But tomorrow if you can clarify that, fine.
Like I said, it's still not about Trump's culpability/ethical standing. But I guess we should know by now what Trump's ethical standing is like.

you can call it what you want, and i'm sure you will. i told you and took ownership of yes, i didn't follow through as i should have and said so the very next response.

why ignore that one? Hmmmm???

Place your bets

you bypass that and accuse me of all kinds of shit. if you read back up you will plainly see me DEFEND YOU in your response to me and take ownership of my bad communication simply cause i'm slammed at work and didn't have a lot of time to dive into it. MY BAD - I SAID IT ALREADY yet you dogpile on.

in a world where 1/2 of what you read is speculation i was wanting to dive in and understand more to give you a better response as well as educate myself more on this. that's it. you want to call it weaseling out so fine.

now you want to stand there and call me names and get all insulting and fine. have a day.

my apathy has kicked in.

bye.

Golly, you're sensitive. I think it's fair, since I'm not psychic, to respond to your totally silly reply that you don't trust anything you read, etc. etc. and go on about it for a whole post instead of just saying, I'm busy I'll get back to you on that. Once you did, I said I'd be interested, and I still would, because the article I read was pretty foggy on who got the dossier where. McCain gave it to Comey, but the article I read said McCain got it from "other sources." And there were obviously multiple copies floating around out there. I'd still like to know if Hillary's campaign EVER had it. Lots of interesting stuff there. I wouldn't put much past Hillary--she was a lizard.
However, like you I'm not anxious to read through a bunch of Breitbart and MSNBC hype to try and find the basic facts.
I STILL don't think you have any right to claim moral superiority when you're willing to use accusations like that without knowing what the facts are.
Make accusations, claim conservative theories as fact, but don't make claims of being all morally superior on top of it.

now - first of all oldlady, i've never claimed a thing. i have simply asked for an even playing field of judgement or baseline of right and wrong to compare to all. that is so very hard to come by because when you do you typically get things like:

1) moral equiv. yes i hate that phrase. to me it means "i know it's the same but shut up and focus on YOUR sides problems, not ours that is in effect the same thing. in all fairness, you used it against me and yes, i will throw it right back on someone and did to the point YOU were sick of hearing about it. great. maybe you won't bring it up again and we can both walk away happy on that phrase.
2) deflect. this isn't about person xyz, it's about trump! trump jr! and the like. a desire to stick to 1 person is nice and all, but hardly realistic any longer. both sides are knee deep in at the very minimum accusations, if not guilt. how can we talk about 1 person guilt the a baseline of right and wrong has yet to be established?

now - the issue at hand is trump jr getting a phone call from a russian lawyer saying they have dirt on hillary and your supposition is that this shows the tone of trumps camp willing to work with the russians.

the problems i have with this are pretty simple. she was NOT with the gov, just had dirt on clinton. in the end, it was nothing and they talked over adoption policies instead. if i misunderstand this let me know. each article i read seems to slant this a new way to the point i'm just tired of giving a damn about it. but i did want to at least try and look and wait for the emo to die down and more of the story itself to be clear and not a smoking gun the left has been looking for all these months.

if we have not much other "russian proof" then this call to me is business as usual.

i'm sure both hillary and trump camps would welcome dirt on the other. how did "grab them by the p**** come to be? whizzing on russian prostitutes? someone offer up some dirt? well who would do that? looking for dirt on your opponent started about the time we had opponents. so the mere act of trolling for dirt on your opposition i *hope* isn't your stance here of why trump jr was so evil.

now - i don't believe this was done in a russian collusion, they just have contacts from their pre-political lives in several levels. so showing me pics of them together years ago to support such a claim is meaningless when i can do the same for *everyone* on the left pretty much if i dig hard enough.

so what is left out of all this is the act itself was wrong - to you - as it spoke of RUSSIA in clear uncertain terms.

i disagree. given we've seen nothing else to link the 2 other than throwing past meetings into question w/o proof or evidence of wrongdoing, just *ass*umptions and desire to make them that way is all i see. if you have evidence or proof they have colluded please show me and i'll be glad to read through it with an open mind. promise.

now if you are going that the act itself of getting help from a foreign country is bad, then i will simply ask why things like

now - after waiting on more details cause as you guessed - i do NOT trust the media for shit - more is coming out now isn't it?

Did Donald Trump Jr. know the Hilary Clinton dirt was part of a Russian plot to aid the Trump candidacy?
"The Times story does not quote the email but says its contents were conveyed to them by three anonymous sources. At least one of those sources, the Times said, portrayed the note as Goldstone simply passing along information others had given him. The email does not mention Russian hacking."

i hope newsweek is ok. consider the times didn't quote the mail but just said what they heard YET AGAIN from anonymous sources, was blah blah blah.

anonymous doesn't mean a thing to me anymore. far too abused on either side and not verifiable now is it? hell even goldstone is relaying what he heard if this is correct.

so - when i bring up hillary, obama and others who are actively engaged in digging up dirt on the other side, you want to call that a foul and i must prove it. great. i will ask for a common standard to use on both sides and ask we both do that. you seem to have an issue there. i stop caring at this point when we can't use 1 set of standards for both cause that's how we got into this pile of crap we are all now in.

so, i must prove what i'm saying while you rely on the news of the minute that isn't even directly validated but does seem to make you feel more emotionally secure in your dislike of trump. and i'm the arrogant one?

in any event, i promised you a more thought out answer and despite you going into bitch mode - there it is. i don't believe this is an example of collusion with russia as we have nothing else but a phone call through a varied connection offering some dirt. put more "proof" around this more than you FEEL like it shows their mindset. and since this stems around how you THINK their minset is or was i leave you with your own quote from above:

"Golly, you're sensitive. I think it's fair, since I'm not psychic, to respond to your totally silly reply that you don't trust anything you read,"

but you know this shows their mindset.

yea, i'm the arrogant one. but at least i kept my word.

No, dear, you didn't keep your word. You were going to provide me with some facts to back up your assertion that Trump Jr.'s behavior was no worse than Hillary hiring the Brits to get dirt on Trump re the dossier.
I already know the oppo research that led to the dossier was actually requested by a Republican candidate who later dropped out. The company then offered it to the Clinton campaign. The British government was never involved; a former MI6 spy was hired by the oppo company to dig up dirt. He was a private citizen.
I had hoped you were going to flesh out some more details on this story for me. Particularly how it would back up your assertions that Hillary and her connection to the Russian dossier was just the same as Don Jr. saying he "loved it" that the Russian government was supporting his Dad's campaign and about to hand over damning information on his opponent.

I honestly wonder if you've read the emails. They are in this thread. Pour a stiff drink and read them. That is ALL I'm basing my opinion on. If you think it's perfectly alright to accept support from Russia for an American election, fine. I disagree.

 

[eddiew]

Oh, no, you don't. I asked for the link and he didn't know enough about it to even give me bare bones facts without looking it up. He says he's busy. I'll wait.
But I didn't spin or lie about anything because he didn't give me one.
This guy tries to act all reasonable and puts on the poor little me act, but he's not being as honest as he pretends.

really?

what did i just say in the post above this? did i or did i NOT say this was on me for not following through? seemed pretty honest to me, even in understanding your jumping my ass with the "unmitigated gall" crap. i have never lied to you nor dogged on you and up until this point had a lot of respect for you.

guess i can stop doing that now. at this point i'm done. have a great day.

Go suck an egg, little Matilda. Don't give me all that self righteous indignation when you play harder than that and just don't want anyone talking back.
If you ask me, this is a very convenient way to weasel out of your "word" to give me information on the Hillary / dossier connection. Actually, I looked it up and the dossier was compiled for one of the Republicans running against Trump, who dropped out. The company then offered it for sale to Hillary's campaign. But it seems they never got it--they never used it anyway. It ended up in the hands of the FBI and then got leaked to several major news outlets, who sat on it because they couldn't confirm anything. At least as far as I can make out, she neither hired nor paid for the dossier. But tomorrow if you can clarify that, fine.
Like I said, it's still not about Trump's culpability/ethical standing. But I guess we should know by now what Trump's ethical standing is like.

you can call it what you want, and i'm sure you will. i told you and took ownership of yes, i didn't follow through as i should have and said so the very next response.

why ignore that one? Hmmmm???

Place your bets

you bypass that and accuse me of all kinds of shit. if you read back up you will plainly see me DEFEND YOU in your response to me and take ownership of my bad communication simply cause i'm slammed at work and didn't have a lot of time to dive into it. MY BAD - I SAID IT ALREADY yet you dogpile on.

in a world where 1/2 of what you read is speculation i was wanting to dive in and understand more to give you a better response as well as educate myself more on this. that's it. you want to call it weaseling out so fine.

now you want to stand there and call me names and get all insulting and fine. have a day.

my apathy has kicked in.

bye.

Golly, you're sensitive. I think it's fair, since I'm not psychic, to respond to your totally silly reply that you don't trust anything you read, etc. etc. and go on about it for a whole post instead of just saying, I'm busy I'll get back to you on that. Once you did, I said I'd be interested, and I still would, because the article I read was pretty foggy on who got the dossier where. McCain gave it to Comey, but the article I read said McCain got it from "other sources." And there were obviously multiple copies floating around out there. I'd still like to know if Hillary's campaign EVER had it. Lots of interesting stuff there. I wouldn't put much past Hillary--she was a lizard.
However, like you I'm not anxious to read through a bunch of Breitbart and MSNBC hype to try and find the basic facts.
I STILL don't think you have any right to claim moral superiority when you're willing to use accusations like that without knowing what the facts are.
Make accusations, claim conservative theories as fact, but don't make claims of being all morally superior on top of it.

now - first of all oldlady, i've never claimed a thing. i have simply asked for an even playing field of judgement or baseline of right and wrong to compare to all. that is so very hard to come by because when you do you typically get things like:

1) moral equiv. yes i hate that phrase. to me it means "i know it's the same but shut up and focus on YOUR sides problems, not ours that is in effect the same thing. in all fairness, you used it against me and yes, i will throw it right back on someone and did to the point YOU were sick of hearing about it. great. maybe you won't bring it up again and we can both walk away happy on that phrase.
2) deflect. this isn't about person xyz, it's about trump! trump jr! and the like. a desire to stick to 1 person is nice and all, but hardly realistic any longer. both sides are knee deep in at the very minimum accusations, if not guilt. how can we talk about 1 person guilt the a baseline of right and wrong has yet to be established?

now - the issue at hand is trump jr getting a phone call from a russian lawyer saying they have dirt on hillary and your supposition is that this shows the tone of trumps camp willing to work with the russians.

the problems i have with this are pretty simple. she was NOT with the gov, just had dirt on clinton. in the end, it was nothing and they talked over adoption policies instead. if i misunderstand this let me know. each article i read seems to slant this a new way to the point i'm just tired of giving a damn about it. but i did want to at least try and look and wait for the emo to die down and more of the story itself to be clear and not a smoking gun the left has been looking for all these months.

if we have not much other "russian proof" then this call to me is business as usual.

i'm sure both hillary and trump camps would welcome dirt on the other. how did "grab them by the p**** come to be? whizzing on russian prostitutes? someone offer up some dirt? well who would do that? looking for dirt on your opponent started about the time we had opponents. so the mere act of trolling for dirt on your opposition i *hope* isn't your stance here of why trump jr was so evil.

now - i don't believe this was done in a russian collusion, they just have contacts from their pre-political lives in several levels. so showing me pics of them together years ago to support such a claim is meaningless when i can do the same for *everyone* on the left pretty much if i dig hard enough.

so what is left out of all this is the act itself was wrong - to you - as it spoke of RUSSIA in clear uncertain terms.

i disagree. given we've seen nothing else to link the 2 other than throwing past meetings into question w/o proof or evidence of wrongdoing, just *ass*umptions and desire to make them that way is all i see. if you have evidence or proof they have colluded please show me and i'll be glad to read through it with an open mind. promise.

now if you are going that the act itself of getting help from a foreign country is bad, then i will simply ask why things like

now - after waiting on more details cause as you guessed - i do NOT trust the media for shit - more is coming out now isn't it?

Did Donald Trump Jr. know the Hilary Clinton dirt was part of a Russian plot to aid the Trump candidacy?
"The Times story does not quote the email but says its contents were conveyed to them by three anonymous sources. At least one of those sources, the Times said, portrayed the note as Goldstone simply passing along information others had given him. The email does not mention Russian hacking."

i hope newsweek is ok. consider the times didn't quote the mail but just said what they heard YET AGAIN from anonymous sources, was blah blah blah.

anonymous doesn't mean a thing to me anymore. far too abused on either side and not verifiable now is it? hell even goldstone is relaying what he heard if this is correct.

so - when i bring up hillary, obama and others who are actively engaged in digging up dirt on the other side, you want to call that a foul and i must prove it. great. i will ask for a common standard to use on both sides and ask we both do that. you seem to have an issue there. i stop caring at this point when we can't use 1 set of standards for both cause that's how we got into this pile of crap we are all now in.

so, i must prove what i'm saying while you rely on the news of the minute that isn't even directly validated but does seem to make you feel more emotionally secure in your dislike of trump. and i'm the arrogant one?

in any event, i promised you a more thought out answer and despite you going into bitch mode - there it is. i don't believe this is an example of collusion with russia as we have nothing else but a phone call through a varied connection offering some dirt. put more "proof" around this more than you FEEL like it shows their mindset. and since this stems around how you THINK their minset is or was i leave you with your own quote from above:

"Golly, you're sensitive. I think it's fair, since I'm not psychic, to respond to your totally silly reply that you don't trust anything you read,"

but you know this shows their mindset.

yea, i'm the arrogant one. but at least i kept my word.

Did you know she is a lawyer for a very powerful Russian connected to Putin ?? Did you know Trumps building in Russia was cancelled by Obamas sanctions and JUST MIGHT be the reason trump wants to drop sanctions and treats the pos putin with kid gloves?