Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WTF?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by ShaneFalco View Post
    Hey is Bernie going to keep Maduro in power? so he can fully implement the right type of socialism?
    I beg your pardon. It's up to the people in Venezuela who will lead them and what kind of government they will have. It's not up to us -- nor is it up to Bernie -- nor Trump.

    Chavez and Maduro were fairly elected. Accept it as a starting point.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Agamemnon View Post

      If you are suggesting that taking intelligence from a paid firm that sub-contracted with a foreign national to directly taking a gift of free intelligence from a foreign national are the same thing, you are missing why the law exists in the first place. The issue is that of taking illegal contributions from a foreign government or foreign national, due to concern over any undo influence they might have over our government should the candidate they contributed to win. There are no indications that Steele's report was a contribution to Hillary's campaign. What's funny, is that I actually agree with your basic notion that we don't want campaigns buying intel from foreign sources either, but, as far as I'm aware, purchasing a service from a foreign national is not considered in any way the same as accepting a gift from a foreign national.

      All that said, I stand on the side that wants all of this stuff regulated much more stringently and that wants the undo influence of money and/or help from corporations and foreign powers massively curtailed. I'd 100% support all contributions be severely limited, and for any acceptance by a candidate of any contribution of "intelligence" be deemed illegal. Basically I want comprehensive corruption laws for both foreign and domestic bad actors who are seeking to undermine our democratic process, and for any politicians who choose to trade favors with them.
      Lolz. The campaign finance angle is hilarious. How much do you figure Trump should've paid to make any alleged Hillaryesque foreign collaboration "legal" or ethical in your mind.

      Give us a dollar figure.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

        Lolz. The campaign finance angle is hilarious. How much do you figure Trump should've paid to make any alleged Hillaryesque foreign collaboration "legal" or ethical in your mind.

        Give us a dollar figure.
        Given that the aid Trump received was from a foreign government, I don’t think he ever had such an option. It’s always illegal to accept aid from a foreign government in an election.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

          Stop hopscotching the hypothetical fence.

          Was Hillary paying for and dumping (likely Russian) disinformation on the electorate a crime or wasn't it?

          Seems clear you'd have to admit so before going so far as to accuse the mere musing over similar as being one.
          For the sake of moving this discussion along (something you clearly don't want) let's say yes, Hillary is guilty of a crime. Now, does that guilt somehow make your boy innocent? Or are you going to come up with another obfuscation/distraction scheme when it comes to talking about this far more important matter?

          Comment


          • #65
            Two things I’ve learned from reading this thread:

            1. Beavis will keep bringing up Hillary and Obama, no matter the topic, even long after they’re dead. They trigger him just like (or even more than?) dead John McCain still triggers Trump.

            2. There’s a foreign country called “Christopher Steele”. Wow. I didn’t realize that.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by TonyR View Post

              For the sake of moving this discussion along (something you clearly don't want) let's say yes, Hillary is guilty of a crime. Now, does that guilt somehow make your boy innocent? Or are you going to come up with another obfuscation/distraction scheme when it comes to talking about this far more important matter?
              I'll answer for Beev.

              Yes and yes.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by TonyR View Post
                Speaking of wtf...

                And there you have it, straight from the horses ass......er mouth. He's willing to collude in the next election. He's willing to break the law and collude with foreign governments, he just said so himself. I can't wait to see the lawless Trumpkins defend this.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by TonyR View Post

                  For the sake of moving this discussion along (something you clearly don't want) let's say yes, Hillary is guilty of a crime. Now, does that guilt somehow make your boy innocent? Or are you going to come up with another obfuscation/distraction scheme when it comes to talking about this far more important matter?
                  Then you would have to move on to everyone who was involved in potentially leaking said information to the election season press through either independent or government leaks, correct?

                  They would also be potentially guilty of crimes of foreign agent collusion as well no?

                  Yet your present stand is that none of this should even be INVESTIGATED. Which, for the same reason you can't bear to hold your vote to the same standard you hold to others' establishes, as always, it's really all about the (D).

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by ZONA View Post

                    And there you have it, straight from the horses ass......er mouth. He's willing to collude in the next election. He's willing to break the law and collude with foreign governments, he just said so himself. I can't wait to see the lawless Trumpkins defend this.
                    I don't think you know what's against the law and what isnt all you know is who trump is which clouds all rational thought.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Bronx33 View Post

                      I don't think you know what's against the law and what isnt all you know is who trump is which clouds all rational thought.
                      the FEC has sent a letter out saying what Trump proposed was again the law, so maybe once again you are wrong.

                      Comment


                      • #71

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by elsid13 View Post

                          the FEC has sent a letter out saying what Trump proposed was again the law, so maybe once again you are wrong.
                          That's not "the FEC" It's one Obama-appointed member. As to where her letter was concerning foreign national Steele, must've gotten lost in the mail.

                          Comment


                          • #73

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Only the best people.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                No defense secretary, and we're trying to start a war with Iran. Lovely.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X