Trump Changes Subject After Meeting With Vladmir Putin

Page 1 of 5 [ 65 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Nov 2017, 11:08 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
There's actually considerably more empirical evidence regarding Clinton than Trump. One can conclude that it didn't amount to anything or that she got away with whatever. It's obvious from her emails that she is no saint. Not that Trump is either. But again when it comes to Clinton there's reams of tangible hard evidence that anyone can examine. When it comes to Trump there's mainly alleged evidence, circumstantial evidence and consensus rather than hard evidence. That's why so many people think it's bogus. Also it doesn't look like Clinton is entirely off the hook yet either.


If Clinton is so guilty of anything, why hasn't been brought up on charges? She had been cleared every time she had been investigated, but you wouldn't know that from how the right wing media reports on it, or how right wing Americans just don't want to know the truth about the findings of those investigations.


Just because Hillary hasn't been charged with anything, doesn't eliminate the mountain of hard evidence that's she has been guilty of a lot of wrong doing. That's what the findings are; a lot of wrong doing but nothing she can be prosecuted for, so far. And let's not forget all the stuff Donna Brazile recently laid out regarding Hillary.

Whereas when it comes to Trump being in treasonous collusion with Putin, there's no hard evidence, as so many keep pointing out. There just isn't and that's a fact so far, regardless of being pro or anti Trump. People can keep saying there's no evidence, because there is none and Putin can keep saying he didn't do it and Trump can keep saying the whole thing is false, because there's nothing solid to prove otherwise. At least not yet.


From what Brazile wrote, Clinton is guilty of some pretty underhanded and unethical stuff, but nothing really illegal.
We know Donny Jr had met with the Russians to get the dirt on Clinton, which is in itself proof. There is more than enough proof that Russian trolls in Putin's pay have been manipulating American public opinion. We know that various Trumpites had made visits to Russia at this time, meeting with Russian intelligence leaders. I could go on and on. Ignoring this only shows that one is wearing political blinders.


I agree that Trump jr's meeting with those Russians is very factual. There's very solid evidence of it having occurred. But that's about the only thing there's who what where when why and how evedence of. Virtually nothing else comes close to that. The rest is based on conclusion, conjecture, do the math, connect the dots. But none of it amounts to solid evidence of much or anything at all. I mean if there was any actual proof to back up the accusations I would acknowledge it. The way my mind works I wouldn't have any other choice. But likewise I can't accept accusations as fact without proper evidence.


Even if Donny Jr's Russian misadventures were the only solid piece of evidence, it alone still gives credibility to the rest of the accusations.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

15 Nov 2017, 12:07 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
There's actually considerably more empirical evidence regarding Clinton than Trump. One can conclude that it didn't amount to anything or that she got away with whatever. It's obvious from her emails that she is no saint. Not that Trump is either. But again when it comes to Clinton there's reams of tangible hard evidence that anyone can examine. When it comes to Trump there's mainly alleged evidence, circumstantial evidence and consensus rather than hard evidence. That's why so many people think it's bogus. Also it doesn't look like Clinton is entirely off the hook yet either.


If Clinton is so guilty of anything, why hasn't been brought up on charges? She had been cleared every time she had been investigated, but you wouldn't know that from how the right wing media reports on it, or how right wing Americans just don't want to know the truth about the findings of those investigations.


Just because Hillary hasn't been charged with anything, doesn't eliminate the mountain of hard evidence that's she has been guilty of a lot of wrong doing. That's what the findings are; a lot of wrong doing but nothing she can be prosecuted for, so far. And let's not forget all the stuff Donna Brazile recently laid out regarding Hillary.

Whereas when it comes to Trump being in treasonous collusion with Putin, there's no hard evidence, as so many keep pointing out. There just isn't and that's a fact so far, regardless of being pro or anti Trump. People can keep saying there's no evidence, because there is none and Putin can keep saying he didn't do it and Trump can keep saying the whole thing is false, because there's nothing solid to prove otherwise. At least not yet.


From what Brazile wrote, Clinton is guilty of some pretty underhanded and unethical stuff, but nothing really illegal.
We know Donny Jr had met with the Russians to get the dirt on Clinton, which is in itself proof. There is more than enough proof that Russian trolls in Putin's pay have been manipulating American public opinion. We know that various Trumpites had made visits to Russia at this time, meeting with Russian intelligence leaders. I could go on and on. Ignoring this only shows that one is wearing political blinders.


I agree that Trump jr's meeting with those Russians is very factual. There's very solid evidence of it having occurred. But that's about the only thing there's who what where when why and how evedence of. Virtually nothing else comes close to that. The rest is based on conclusion, conjecture, do the math, connect the dots. But none of it amounts to solid evidence of much or anything at all. I mean if there was any actual proof to back up the accusations I would acknowledge it. The way my mind works I wouldn't have any other choice. But likewise I can't accept accusations as fact without proper evidence.


Even if Donny Jr's Russian misadventures were the only solid piece of evidence, it alone still gives credibility to the rest of the accusations.


What I mean is the event has solid evidence that it took place. Or put another way all the details are clearly spelled out. It's not something he can deny happened. Presidents Trump and Putin however are still able to fully deny there's been any collusion between them. I'm not pointing this out to claim innocence on their part, I'm just stating what I believe to be a fact. And far as I know what Jr did wasn't illegal.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

15 Nov 2017, 1:32 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
There's actually considerably more empirical evidence regarding Clinton than Trump. One can conclude that it didn't amount to anything or that she got away with whatever. It's obvious from her emails that she is no saint. Not that Trump is either. But again when it comes to Clinton there's reams of tangible hard evidence that anyone can examine. When it comes to Trump there's mainly alleged evidence, circumstantial evidence and consensus rather than hard evidence. That's why so many people think it's bogus. Also it doesn't look like Clinton is entirely off the hook yet either.


If Clinton is so guilty of anything, why hasn't been brought up on charges? She had been cleared every time she had been investigated, but you wouldn't know that from how the right wing media reports on it, or how right wing Americans just don't want to know the truth about the findings of those investigations.


Is that a serious question? I worry very much if you believe there are people in the positions who could do such a thing, would do such a thing because they just care about justice. A lot of Clinton's crimes were carried out while her husband was President, and lots of people connected to the Clintons were given a pardon in the last hours of his Presidency. She's been sued all over the place. She's literally gotten away with murder, mass murder. While children were starving to death in Iraq, she stopped US charities from giving them aid. I guess that along with the millions of people she's helped kill is what you'd call "unethical". To think it's just the "right wing" that are against Clinton, is ludicrous.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

15 Nov 2017, 1:34 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
There's actually considerably more empirical evidence regarding Clinton than Trump. One can conclude that it didn't amount to anything or that she got away with whatever. It's obvious from her emails that she is no saint. Not that Trump is either. But again when it comes to Clinton there's reams of tangible hard evidence that anyone can examine. When it comes to Trump there's mainly alleged evidence, circumstantial evidence and consensus rather than hard evidence. That's why so many people think it's bogus. Also it doesn't look like Clinton is entirely off the hook yet either.


If Clinton is so guilty of anything, why hasn't been brought up on charges? She had been cleared every time she had been investigated, but you wouldn't know that from how the right wing media reports on it, or how right wing Americans just don't want to know the truth about the findings of those investigations.


Just because Hillary hasn't been charged with anything, doesn't eliminate the mountain of hard evidence that's she has been guilty of a lot of wrong doing. That's what the findings are; a lot of wrong doing but nothing she can be prosecuted for, so far. And let's not forget all the stuff Donna Brazile recently laid out regarding Hillary.

Whereas when it comes to Trump being in treasonous collusion with Putin, there's no hard evidence, as so many keep pointing out. There just isn't and that's a fact so far, regardless of being pro or anti Trump. People can keep saying there's no evidence, because there is none and Putin can keep saying he didn't do it and Trump can keep saying the whole thing is false, because there's nothing solid to prove otherwise. At least not yet.


From what Brazile wrote, Clinton is guilty of some pretty underhanded and unethical stuff, but nothing really illegal.
We know Donny Jr had met with the Russians to get the dirt on Clinton, which is in itself proof. There is more than enough proof that Russian trolls in Putin's pay have been manipulating American public opinion. We know that various Trumpites had made visits to Russia at this time, meeting with Russian intelligence leaders. I could go on and on. Ignoring this only shows that one is wearing political blinders.


I agree that Trump jr's meeting with those Russians is very factual. There's very solid evidence of it having occurred. But that's about the only thing there's who what where when why and how evedence of. Virtually nothing else comes close to that. The rest is based on conclusion, conjecture, do the math, connect the dots. But none of it amounts to solid evidence of much or anything at all. I mean if there was any actual proof to back up the accusations I would acknowledge it. The way my mind works I wouldn't have any other choice. But likewise I can't accept accusations as fact without proper evidence.


Even if Donny Jr's Russian misadventures were the only solid piece of evidence, it alone still gives credibility to the rest of the accusations.


No it does not. You can't just make up your own rules. If Russia hacked the election for Trump, he'd have been impeached already. The establishment is against Trump, because he beat their girl.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Nov 2017, 6:48 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
There's actually considerably more empirical evidence regarding Clinton than Trump. One can conclude that it didn't amount to anything or that she got away with whatever. It's obvious from her emails that she is no saint. Not that Trump is either. But again when it comes to Clinton there's reams of tangible hard evidence that anyone can examine. When it comes to Trump there's mainly alleged evidence, circumstantial evidence and consensus rather than hard evidence. That's why so many people think it's bogus. Also it doesn't look like Clinton is entirely off the hook yet either.


If Clinton is so guilty of anything, why hasn't been brought up on charges? She had been cleared every time she had been investigated, but you wouldn't know that from how the right wing media reports on it, or how right wing Americans just don't want to know the truth about the findings of those investigations.


Is that a serious question? I worry very much if you believe there are people in the positions who could do such a thing, would do such a thing because they just care about justice. A lot of Clinton's crimes were carried out while her husband was President, and lots of people connected to the Clintons were given a pardon in the last hours of his Presidency. She's been sued all over the place. She's literally gotten away with murder, mass murder. While children were starving to death in Iraq, she stopped US charities from giving them aid. I guess that along with the millions of people she's helped kill is what you'd call "unethical". To think it's just the "right wing" that are against Clinton, is ludicrous.


I don't defend her helping to starve Iraqi children, but I hardly think anyone in power, regardless of who they are, would be prosecuted for that, considering how Saddam Hussein has been turned into such a monster in the public eye.
As for all those alleged crimes she committed during her husband's administration - - everything I know about that is pretty much BS, particularly about assassinations, prostitution rings, and drug dealing on her orders, created by right wing political hacks.
As far as her getting sued countless times - -well, so did Trump.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Nov 2017, 6:50 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
There's actually considerably more empirical evidence regarding Clinton than Trump. One can conclude that it didn't amount to anything or that she got away with whatever. It's obvious from her emails that she is no saint. Not that Trump is either. But again when it comes to Clinton there's reams of tangible hard evidence that anyone can examine. When it comes to Trump there's mainly alleged evidence, circumstantial evidence and consensus rather than hard evidence. That's why so many people think it's bogus. Also it doesn't look like Clinton is entirely off the hook yet either.


If Clinton is so guilty of anything, why hasn't been brought up on charges? She had been cleared every time she had been investigated, but you wouldn't know that from how the right wing media reports on it, or how right wing Americans just don't want to know the truth about the findings of those investigations.


Just because Hillary hasn't been charged with anything, doesn't eliminate the mountain of hard evidence that's she has been guilty of a lot of wrong doing. That's what the findings are; a lot of wrong doing but nothing she can be prosecuted for, so far. And let's not forget all the stuff Donna Brazile recently laid out regarding Hillary.

Whereas when it comes to Trump being in treasonous collusion with Putin, there's no hard evidence, as so many keep pointing out. There just isn't and that's a fact so far, regardless of being pro or anti Trump. People can keep saying there's no evidence, because there is none and Putin can keep saying he didn't do it and Trump can keep saying the whole thing is false, because there's nothing solid to prove otherwise. At least not yet.


From what Brazile wrote, Clinton is guilty of some pretty underhanded and unethical stuff, but nothing really illegal.
We know Donny Jr had met with the Russians to get the dirt on Clinton, which is in itself proof. There is more than enough proof that Russian trolls in Putin's pay have been manipulating American public opinion. We know that various Trumpites had made visits to Russia at this time, meeting with Russian intelligence leaders. I could go on and on. Ignoring this only shows that one is wearing political blinders.


I agree that Trump jr's meeting with those Russians is very factual. There's very solid evidence of it having occurred. But that's about the only thing there's who what where when why and how evedence of. Virtually nothing else comes close to that. The rest is based on conclusion, conjecture, do the math, connect the dots. But none of it amounts to solid evidence of much or anything at all. I mean if there was any actual proof to back up the accusations I would acknowledge it. The way my mind works I wouldn't have any other choice. But likewise I can't accept accusations as fact without proper evidence.


Even if Donny Jr's Russian misadventures were the only solid piece of evidence, it alone still gives credibility to the rest of the accusations.


What I mean is the event has solid evidence that it took place. Or put another way all the details are clearly spelled out. It's not something he can deny happened. Presidents Trump and Putin however are still able to fully deny there's been any collusion between them. I'm not pointing this out to claim innocence on their part, I'm just stating what I believe to be a fact. And far as I know what Jr did wasn't illegal.


It aint over till the fat lady sings... or till the Mueller investigation finishes up.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Nov 2017, 6:52 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
There's actually considerably more empirical evidence regarding Clinton than Trump. One can conclude that it didn't amount to anything or that she got away with whatever. It's obvious from her emails that she is no saint. Not that Trump is either. But again when it comes to Clinton there's reams of tangible hard evidence that anyone can examine. When it comes to Trump there's mainly alleged evidence, circumstantial evidence and consensus rather than hard evidence. That's why so many people think it's bogus. Also it doesn't look like Clinton is entirely off the hook yet either.


If Clinton is so guilty of anything, why hasn't been brought up on charges? She had been cleared every time she had been investigated, but you wouldn't know that from how the right wing media reports on it, or how right wing Americans just don't want to know the truth about the findings of those investigations.


Just because Hillary hasn't been charged with anything, doesn't eliminate the mountain of hard evidence that's she has been guilty of a lot of wrong doing. That's what the findings are; a lot of wrong doing but nothing she can be prosecuted for, so far. And let's not forget all the stuff Donna Brazile recently laid out regarding Hillary.

Whereas when it comes to Trump being in treasonous collusion with Putin, there's no hard evidence, as so many keep pointing out. There just isn't and that's a fact so far, regardless of being pro or anti Trump. People can keep saying there's no evidence, because there is none and Putin can keep saying he didn't do it and Trump can keep saying the whole thing is false, because there's nothing solid to prove otherwise. At least not yet.


From what Brazile wrote, Clinton is guilty of some pretty underhanded and unethical stuff, but nothing really illegal.
We know Donny Jr had met with the Russians to get the dirt on Clinton, which is in itself proof. There is more than enough proof that Russian trolls in Putin's pay have been manipulating American public opinion. We know that various Trumpites had made visits to Russia at this time, meeting with Russian intelligence leaders. I could go on and on. Ignoring this only shows that one is wearing political blinders.


I agree that Trump jr's meeting with those Russians is very factual. There's very solid evidence of it having occurred. But that's about the only thing there's who what where when why and how evedence of. Virtually nothing else comes close to that. The rest is based on conclusion, conjecture, do the math, connect the dots. But none of it amounts to solid evidence of much or anything at all. I mean if there was any actual proof to back up the accusations I would acknowledge it. The way my mind works I wouldn't have any other choice. But likewise I can't accept accusations as fact without proper evidence.


Even if Donny Jr's Russian misadventures were the only solid piece of evidence, it alone still gives credibility to the rest of the accusations.


No it does not. You can't just make up your own rules. If Russia hacked the election for Trump, he'd have been impeached already. The establishment is against Trump, because he beat their girl.


No, Trump wouldn't be impeached already. That'll happen when the Mueller investigation is complete.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,252
Location: Long Island, New York

15 Nov 2017, 8:57 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

No, Trump wouldn't be impeached already. That'll happen when the Mueller investigation is complete.


Impeachment will happen if the Democrats win the House no matter what. Any Democrat that does not support impeaching Trump will be primaried out of office. Problem is they need 69 votes in the Senate to convict and actually remove him from office otherwise it is a waste of time and money. Getting those 69 votes is not going to happen even if a tape is released showing Trump saying to Putin in return for those golden shower girls you can have the middle east. In 2018 25 Democratic seats are up for reelection compared to 8 Republicans so even if a Democrat landslide indicated by this years state and local elections happens the Democrats probably would not win a majority never mind 69 votes.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Nov 2017, 9:54 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

No, Trump wouldn't be impeached already. That'll happen when the Mueller investigation is complete.


Impeachment will happen if the Democrats win the House no matter what. Any Democrat that does not support impeaching Trump will be primaried out of office. Problem is they need 69 votes in the Senate to convict and actually remove him from office otherwise it is a waste of time and money. Getting those 69 votes is not going to happen even if a tape is released showing Trump saying to Putin in return for those golden shower girls you can have the middle east. In 2018 25 Democratic seats are up for reelection compared to 8 Republicans so even if a Democrat landslide indicated by this years state and local elections happens the Democrats probably would not win a majority never mind 69 votes.


Granted, but there are many Republicans who would be more than happy to see Trump go bye bye. Might just get the magic 69 that way.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

15 Nov 2017, 11:44 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
There's actually considerably more empirical evidence regarding Clinton than Trump. One can conclude that it didn't amount to anything or that she got away with whatever. It's obvious from her emails that she is no saint. Not that Trump is either. But again when it comes to Clinton there's reams of tangible hard evidence that anyone can examine. When it comes to Trump there's mainly alleged evidence, circumstantial evidence and consensus rather than hard evidence. That's why so many people think it's bogus. Also it doesn't look like Clinton is entirely off the hook yet either.


If Clinton is so guilty of anything, why hasn't been brought up on charges? She had been cleared every time she had been investigated, but you wouldn't know that from how the right wing media reports on it, or how right wing Americans just don't want to know the truth about the findings of those investigations.


Just because Hillary hasn't been charged with anything, doesn't eliminate the mountain of hard evidence that's she has been guilty of a lot of wrong doing. That's what the findings are; a lot of wrong doing but nothing she can be prosecuted for, so far. And let's not forget all the stuff Donna Brazile recently laid out regarding Hillary.

Whereas when it comes to Trump being in treasonous collusion with Putin, there's no hard evidence, as so many keep pointing out. There just isn't and that's a fact so far, regardless of being pro or anti Trump. People can keep saying there's no evidence, because there is none and Putin can keep saying he didn't do it and Trump can keep saying the whole thing is false, because there's nothing solid to prove otherwise. At least not yet.


From what Brazile wrote, Clinton is guilty of some pretty underhanded and unethical stuff, but nothing really illegal.
We know Donny Jr had met with the Russians to get the dirt on Clinton, which is in itself proof. There is more than enough proof that Russian trolls in Putin's pay have been manipulating American public opinion. We know that various Trumpites had made visits to Russia at this time, meeting with Russian intelligence leaders. I could go on and on. Ignoring this only shows that one is wearing political blinders.


I agree that Trump jr's meeting with those Russians is very factual. There's very solid evidence of it having occurred. But that's about the only thing there's who what where when why and how evedence of. Virtually nothing else comes close to that. The rest is based on conclusion, conjecture, do the math, connect the dots. But none of it amounts to solid evidence of much or anything at all. I mean if there was any actual proof to back up the accusations I would acknowledge it. The way my mind works I wouldn't have any other choice. But likewise I can't accept accusations as fact without proper evidence.


Even if Donny Jr's Russian misadventures were the only solid piece of evidence, it alone still gives credibility to the rest of the accusations.


No it does not. You can't just make up your own rules. If Russia hacked the election for Trump, he'd have been impeached already. The establishment is against Trump, because he beat their girl.


And he's an outsider.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

15 Nov 2017, 11:53 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
It aint over till the fat lady sings... or till the Mueller investigation finishes up.


I won't be over then if the investigation doesn't produce what you and others are hoping for. Or even if Trump got booted then all the negativity would just shift over to Pence who's also viewed as a villain. All the fussing won't be over with until a democrat is president again.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Nov 2017, 12:38 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It aint over till the fat lady sings... or till the Mueller investigation finishes up.


I won't be over then if the investigation doesn't produce what you and others are hoping for. Or even if Trump got booted then all the negativity would just shift over to Pence who's also viewed as a villain. All the fussing won't be over with until a democrat is president again.


Sort of like how the Republicans were with Obama?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

16 Nov 2017, 2:42 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It aint over till the fat lady sings... or till the Mueller investigation finishes up.


I won't be over then if the investigation doesn't produce what you and others are hoping for. Or even if Trump got booted then all the negativity would just shift over to Pence who's also viewed as a villain. All the fussing won't be over with until a democrat is president again.


Sort of like how the Republicans were with Obama?


The republicans have been way out done when it comes to mass hysteria and outright temper tantrums. Really a dem president will probably be voted in just to shut them the f**k up.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Nov 2017, 3:02 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It aint over till the fat lady sings... or till the Mueller investigation finishes up.


I won't be over then if the investigation doesn't produce what you and others are hoping for. Or even if Trump got booted then all the negativity would just shift over to Pence who's also viewed as a villain. All the fussing won't be over with until a democrat is president again.


Sort of like how the Republicans were with Obama?


The republicans have been way out done when it comes to mass hysteria and outright temper tantrums. Really a dem president will probably be voted in just to shut them the f**k up.


Mass hysteria implies something isn't true. Like the right's birther idiocy.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

16 Nov 2017, 5:26 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It aint over till the fat lady sings... or till the Mueller investigation finishes up.


I won't be over then if the investigation doesn't produce what you and others are hoping for. Or even if Trump got booted then all the negativity would just shift over to Pence who's also viewed as a villain. All the fussing won't be over with until a democrat is president again.


Sort of like how the Republicans were with Obama?


The republicans have been way out done when it comes to mass hysteria and outright temper tantrums. Really a dem president will probably be voted in just to shut them the f**k up.


Mass hysteria implies something isn't true. Like the right's birther idiocy.


Mass hysteria refers to real or imagined. Or a combination of the two. Over exaggeration. Mass hysteria like in the movie Chicken Little involves large crowds going berserk. Running around screaming smahing things and setting things on fire etc.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Nov 2017, 6:41 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It aint over till the fat lady sings... or till the Mueller investigation finishes up.


I won't be over then if the investigation doesn't produce what you and others are hoping for. Or even if Trump got booted then all the negativity would just shift over to Pence who's also viewed as a villain. All the fussing won't be over with until a democrat is president again.


Sort of like how the Republicans were with Obama?


The republicans have been way out done when it comes to mass hysteria and outright temper tantrums. Really a dem president will probably be voted in just to shut them the f**k up.


Mass hysteria implies something isn't true. Like the right's birther idiocy.


Mass hysteria refers to real or imagined. Or a combination of the two. Over exaggeration. Mass hysteria like in the movie Chicken Little involves large crowds going berserk. Running around screaming smahing things and setting things on fire etc.


If the sitting President of the United States has possibly compromised himself after receiving help from an adversary to get to the White House, then I'd say that's more than enough justification to get hysterical.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer