Spectre

Trump - Russia Thread

1,081 posts in this topic

If you don't like the topic, leave. Do not spam this thread with images because the subject triggers you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

I thought you were leaving.

Already addressed that weeks ago.  Nice deflection though.  :golfclap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Worzone said:

Lol ill post what i want as long as it relates to the topic.  

And none of your images have anything to do with Russia or Trump. 

big_dog likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spectre said:

And none of your images have anything to do with Russia or Trump. 

It has to do with those yelling the loudest bringing these accusations.  The democratic leadership has done nothing to show it should be taken seriously or trusted in anything. These folks have no moral compass and a president who did perjure himself and embarrass himself amd his family is celebrated among the democratic party.  So forgive me while i think you are tin foil hatters who would believe Trump blew up the Pentagon if the Dnc told you he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Worzone said:

It has to do with those yelling the loudest bringing these accusations.  The democratic leadership has done nothing to show it should be taken seriously or trusted in anything. These folks have no moral compass and a president who did perjure himself and embarrass himself amd his family is celebrated among the democratic party.  So forgive me while i think you are tin foil hatters who would believe Trump blew up the Pentagon if the Dnc told you he did.

Well you know the lemmings are gonna believe what the fake/scm tells them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DewTheMathis said:

President Trump should tweet something out in Russia, just to mess with the Democrats.. lol

Pretty sure you're the guy that's triggered by triangles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's absolutely amazing to watch these Republican nutters fall in love with a dictator that has dissenting voices in his own country murdered and assassinated on a whim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The madder they are, the more times they post in a row and the more pictures they use. 

3 consecutive posts, 3 pictures, that has to be at least a seven out of ten. 

Feel free to delete this post mods. This dude has a serious problem. Spam spam spam. 

Edited by Spectre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, capologist said:

You say they are accurate, I'm not seeing this "accuracy".  This is along the lines of saying Obama was shady for leaning over and telling Putin to talk to him after the election and he could do more about it.  Was that really shady?  I don't think so.  

I just think you are reading way more into this stuff than what is actually there and actually proven at this point...

At this point, I'm not clear what your denials are based on.

Are you saying the intelligence community is wrong about Russia's involvement with the hacking?  That same intelligence has said for months that Trump campaign people routinely met with Russian officials.  The White House has now acknowledged that those conversations took place.  So you can't say "well it's all speculation' now that the White House has admitted the meetings and conversations took place.

Are you saying all of these conversations and discussions were perfectly innocent?  That might be, but the evidence could also point to Trump camapign collusion with Russia regarding foreign policy.  We already know that Flynn helped coordinate Russia's response to Obama's sanctions.  We also know that the Russian ambassador met Trump campaign people at the convention at the same time that Trump was pushing for a pro-Russia change in the RNC platform, the ONLY change they pushed to make.  Why would Trump push this one change, that Russia wanted, at the convention?  It seems simplistic to say, "well I don't know why they pushed this change but there's nothing suspicious about this change that I can't explain".  

So what exactly are you denying in terms of the Russia-Trump connections?  What do you think was going on with all of these meetings that were occurring at the same time that Russia was releasing hacked emails to influence the outcome of the election?

I'd LOVE to hear a credible explanation about why all of this is innocuous and innocent.  Haven't heard one yet.

MAD597 and big_dog like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

At this point, I'm not clear what your denials are based on.

Are you saying the intelligence community is wrong about Russia's involvement with the hacking?  That same intelligence has said for months that Trump campaign people routinely met with Russian officials.  The White House has now acknowledged that those conversations took place.  So you can't say "well it's all speculation' now that the White House has admitted the meetings and conversations took place.

Are you saying all of these conversations and discussions were perfectly innocent?  That might be, but the evidence could also point to Trump camapign collusion with Russia regarding foreign policy.  We already know that Flynn helped coordinate Russia's response to Obama's sanctions.  We also know that the Russian ambassador met Trump campaign people at the convention at the same time that Trump was pushing for a pro-Russia change in the RNC platform, the ONLY change they pushed to make.  Why would Trump push this one change, that Russia wanted, at the convention?  It seems simplistic to say, "well I don't know why they pushed this change but there's nothing suspicious about this change that I can't explain".  

So what exactly are you denying in terms of the Russia-Trump connections?  What do you think was going on with all of these meetings that were occurring at the same time that Russia was releasing hacked emails to influence the outcome of the election?

I'd LOVE to hear a credible explanation about why all of this is innocuous and innocent.  Haven't heard one yet.

You keep repeating yourself as if that's supposed to make it more true.  Your paragraph had no link, no actual source. Flynn did nothing illicit. The fact that you cite an act in 1799 that's never been used is one of the reasons I find the whole thing preposterous at this point.  Key words:  at this point.  You see, you are basing an opinion simply on "smoke".  Nevermind whether or not the smoke is organic or manufactured.  The difference is I'm not saying whether it's innocent or not, I'm simply saying that so far, I haven't seen anything that draws concern, other than a lot of apparent pettiness such as Pelosi and Schumer calling for Sessions to resign...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, capologist said:

You keep repeating yourself as if that's supposed to make it more true.  Your paragraph had no link, no actual source. Flynn did nothing illicit. The fact that you cite an act in 1799 that's never been used is one of the reasons I find the whole thing preposterous at this point.  Key words:  at this point.  You see, you are basing an opinion simply on "smoke".  Nevermind whether or not the smoke is organic or manufactured.  The difference is I'm not saying whether it's innocent or not, I'm simply saying that so far, I haven't seen anything that draws concern, other than a lot of apparent pettiness such as Pelosi and Schumer calling for Sessions to resign...

I've documented every single thing that I claimed in that post...multiple times.  If you doubt any of it then you are welcome to point out which things you don't think are true.  

At this point, you're just engaging in wholesale denialism.  

Which is ironic, considering that you continue to make completely baseless accusations about Clinton and the Clinton Foundation regarding Uranium One.  Your standard for judging Clinton wrong doing is based on factless speculation.  But when documented evidence about Trump campaign people's contacts with top Russian officials - including the White House ADMITTING these contacts occurred - you're all like, "nope, nothing to see, I don't see any evidence, I see nothing here, no illicit wrongdoing."

Sorry, I like you, but you're being ridiculous.  

big_dog likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I've documented every single thing that I claimed in that post...multiple times.  If you doubt any of it then you are welcome to point out which things you don't think are true.  

At this point, you're just engaging in wholesale denialism.  

Which is ironic, considering that you continue to make completely baseless accusations about Clinton and the Clinton Foundation regarding Uranium One.  Your standard for judging Clinton wrong doing is based on factless speculation.  But when documented evidence about Trump campaign people's contacts with top Russian officials - including the White House ADMITTING these contacts occurred - you're all like, "nope, nothing to see, I don't see any evidence, I see nothing here, no illicit wrongdoing."

Sorry, I like you, but you're being ridiculous.  

LIke I said, there was no link in what I read and even after stating that, you didn't provide a link here.

You claimed that Clinton was cleared just like Flynn in regards to Uranium One but when challenged still haven't provided a link to anything backing your claim. Even in the deleted emails deal they said that yes, she was wrong but they didn't see intent.  That's far different than saying there's nothing illicit.

I like you too (no homo) but your evidence just isn't that damming (misspelled intentionally, no one go full a-hole on it) IMO...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, capologist said:

LIke I said, there was no link in what I read and even after stating that, you didn't provide a link here.

You claimed that Clinton was cleared just like Flynn in regards to Uranium One but when challenged still haven't provided a link to anything backing your claim. Even in the deleted emails deal they said that yes, she was wrong but they didn't see intent.  That's far different than saying there's nothing illicit.

I like you too (no homo) but your evidence just isn't that damming (misspelled intentionally, no one go full a-hole on it) IMO...

 

There have been dozens of links posted over the past month or so.  For the second time, point to any part of what I wrote that you think is wrong and I'll document it.  What I've done is brought together things that have been documented into a "big picture" post.  If I had the dozens of links in that post, somebody would have tl;dr me.  

At this point, "I haven't seen anything" is really you saying "I refuse to look".  It's there.  I'm happy to document anything you think is wrong, but until you point to something you think is wrong I can't document it for you.  That's the wholesale denialism that I mentioned.  Saying "your evidence just isn't that damming" is, again, saying "I'm not going to look at anything".

I said that the FBI cleared Clinton of any wrong doing.  No illicit wrongdoing, as you would say.  That was regarding the emails.

You keep mentioning Uranium One but refuse to say specifically what wrongdoing you are accusing Clinton of doing and what she did that Republicans should have "nailed her to the wall" for.  So you're throwing out baseless speculation as evidence of wrong doing and ignoring documented facts regarding Trump campaign's communications with Russian officials.  It's silly.

big_dog and BrockSamson like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DewTheMathis said:

Yawn, Trump didn't have to file Taxes at all..  becauses its unconstitutional.. but that's a whole another topic altogether..

 

 

Given your posting history, it should have been totally unexpected that you would be one of those, but man, it was a delightful surprise here. Kudos, crazy person. Kudos.

Leon Troutsky, mdrake34 and big_dog like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DewTheMathis said:

The sad thing is that if the Russians did have some secret plans to invade America and take control, many conservatives would probably prefer it over being ruled solely by the DNC..

its the lesser evil.

 

How seditious of you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

There have been dozens of links posted over the past month or so.  For the second time, point to any part of what I wrote that you think is wrong and I'll document it.  What I've done is brought together things that have been documented into a "big picture" post.  If I had the dozens of links in that post, somebody would have tl;dr me.  

At this point, "I haven't seen anything" is really you saying "I refuse to look".  It's there.  I'm happy to document anything you think is wrong, but until you point to something you think is wrong I can't document it for you.  That's the wholesale denialism that I mentioned.  Saying "your evidence just isn't that damming" is, again, saying "I'm not going to look at anything".

I said that the FBI cleared Clinton of any wrong doing.  No illicit wrongdoing, as you would say.  That was regarding the emails.

You keep mentioning Uranium One but refuse to say specifically what wrongdoing you are accusing Clinton of doing and what she did that Republicans should have "nailed her to the wall" for.  So you're throwing out baseless speculation as evidence of wrong doing and ignoring documented facts regarding Trump campaign's communications with Russian officials.  It's silly.

I specifically referenced the paragraph that started as "WHOA...", there was no link provided for that, would like to see the original source.

No, I'm looking, I just don't see anything there at this point.  You disagree, that's fine.

Yeah, there's a big difference from the FBI saying: We've reviewed the calls and there was nothing illicit  and in the case of Hillary:  Yeah, what she did was wrong but we don't see intentional actions.  HUGE difference.

New York Times did a piece on Uranium One, as did many other agencies.  Just google Clinton and Uranium One, you'll get all kinds of info.  Sure, some better than others and some taking both sides.  The problem I have with it is that it's still unclear whether or not it's even being investigated or will be.  There's also allegations of Clinton ties to China but I haven't done enough homework on that to really have an informed opinion on it yet.  The reason I'm harping on Uranium One is there's a money trail in her Foundation with Russia and it's documented.  Whether it's coincidental timing or not, that's a different story but the fact it exists and hasn't been investigated is what I find alarming.  As I said elsewhere, i have no problem with an investigation of Trump's alleged ties to Russia.  I'm all for transparency.  I'm just not seeing the nefarious activity that you are at this point...

James Bond 007 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, capologist said:

I specifically referenced the paragraph that started as "WHOA...", there was no link provided for that, would like to see the original source.

No, I'm looking, I just don't see anything there at this point.  You disagree, that's fine.

Yeah, there's a big difference from the FBI saying: We've reviewed the calls and there was nothing illicit  and in the case of Hillary:  Yeah, what she did was wrong but we don't see intentional actions.  HUGE difference.

New York Times did a piece on Uranium One, as did many other agencies.  Just google Clinton and Uranium One, you'll get all kinds of info.  Sure, some better than others and some taking both sides.  The problem I have with it is that it's still unclear whether or not it's even being investigated or will be.  There's also allegations of Clinton ties to China but I haven't done enough homework on that to really have an informed opinion on it yet.  The reason I'm harping on Uranium One is there's a money trail in her Foundation with Russia and it's documented.  Whether it's coincidental timing or not, that's a different story but the fact it exists and hasn't been investigated is what I find alarming.  As I said elsewhere, i have no problem with an investigation of Trump's alleged ties to Russia.  I'm all for transparency.  I'm just not seeing the nefarious activity that you are at this point...

Illicit means illegal or against the law.  The FBI said Clinton didn't violate the law.  Thus, according to your standard, there was no illicit wrongdoing with Clinton.

You keep pointing to that post without the links but won't say specifically what you think is wrong or is questionable.  Here's a link to the NYTimes story about Flynn's conversation with the ambassador where he recommended Russia not retaliate against the sanctions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

Now that I provided a link with documentation, maybe you can do the same regarding your claims regarding Uranium One.  "Google it" wouldn't be persuasive to you, so please don't take a different standard regarding your accusations.  You say "there's a money trail".  You said Republicans should have "nailed her to the wall" over it.  Okay, what SPECIFICALLY did Clinton do that involved wrong doing?  

This is the changing standards that I'm talking about...with Clinton, it's "Google it" and "nail her to the wall" even though you admit it could be "coincidental timing" but also claim "there is a money trail".  You make an affirmative allegation that Clinton did something wrong in this case and that Republicans should "nail her to the wall".  But you won't back it up with anything.  

In other words, with Clinton you accept wrong doing but won't provide any evidenc other than vague "money trail" statements and "Google it".  

But with Trump and Russia, even though there have been dozens of links to document the meetings and contact, you're all "I've seen nothing damming" and "I don't see anything" and "no illicit wrongdoing".  

It's a double standard...you hold yourself to a much lower standard of proof when it comes to claims about Clinton and hold others to a ridiculously high standard when it comes to claims about Trump.  Just be consistent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also...

Clinton emails - the FBI said that cases like hers are never prosecuted even though there could be technical violations of the law. WRONG DOING!!

Flynn conversations - violated the Logan Act, but it's never prosecuted even though there was probably a technical violation of that law.  NO ILLICIT WRONG DOING!!

Do you really not see the different standard?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now