UJ's Hamster Died. We're All That's Left...
https://www.ujrefugees.net/
Is Trump speak not simple enough for you to understand? VERY legal, and VERY cool.Gunzen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:34 pmPlease cite the law he broke, I’ll wait.Geist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:27 pmYou're right, very legal and very cool.
Ok, let's see. We had GRU agents trying to interfere how? Sopplying false informationBlast wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:27 pmTo be honest, if we wanted British input in our political process the late 1700's would have been a much duller time period.analhamster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:13 pmYeah all they've found is those GRU agents interfering with your election and half the trump team participating in a coverup. It's a witch hunt I tells ya.Blast wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:07 pm My question is are we ready to have nonstop ongoing investigations into every president from now on, that's what the result is going to be from this. A political hit job every 4 to 8 years on the winning canidate from the other side. Targeting anyone and everyone until they get enough dirt on the sitting president to impeach or break everyone around them so they no longer have people willing to work with them out of fear of prosecution for anything the opposition
can find or financial ruin?
If there is something lay the cards on the table now, but the amount of partisan attacks is simply making this whole thing reek of a partisan hit job and attempted soft coup.
My 2 cents. If you don't like it then go suck Hillary's dick.
Ok, let's see. We had GRU agents trying to interfere how? Sopplying false information? When I voted I didn't have an agent there with a gun to my head.
Poll manipulation? Who the fuck even pays attention to those, if they were accurate at all Hillary would be president. There is evidence of over sampling in the polls leading up.
How about the fake golden dossier about Trump? Where did that come from? Should we have an investigation into that?
Why is the media 90% negative on the current administration? That'd be more influential on public opinion than some bullshit facebook posts. Maybe we should be looking into that, except they have the right to do that as a free enterprise.
So what could the GRU agents do to help sabotage Hillary that she didn't do herself because of sheer arrogance?
I don’t even know what you are saying.Geist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:36 pmIs Trump speak not simple enough for you to understand? VERY legal, and VERY cool.Gunzen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:34 pmPlease cite the law he broke, I’ll wait.Geist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:27 pmYou're right, very legal and very cool.
Geist is using The Presidents own word you fucking retardGunzen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:41 pmI don’t even know what you are saying.Geist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:36 pmIs Trump speak not simple enough for you to understand? VERY legal, and VERY cool.Gunzen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:34 pmPlease cite the law he broke, I’ll wait.Geist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:27 pmYou're right, very legal and very cool.
Geist is using The Presidents own word you fucking retardGunzen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:41 pmI don’t even know what you are saying.Geist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:36 pmIs Trump speak not simple enough for you to understand? VERY legal, and VERY cool.Gunzen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:34 pmPlease cite the law he broke, I’ll wait.Geist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:27 pmYou're right, very legal and very cool.
I'm saying the evidence presented totally clears the president.Gunzen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:41 pmI don’t even know what you are saying.Geist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:36 pmIs Trump speak not simple enough for you to understand? VERY legal, and VERY cool.Gunzen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:34 pmPlease cite the law he broke, I’ll wait.Geist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:27 pmYou're right, very legal and very cool.
I’ll ask again. Clears him of what?Geist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:48 pmI'm saying the evidence presented totally clears the president.Gunzen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:41 pmI don’t even know what you are saying.
Gotta disagree with b you on all counts Anal. Sorry. The dossier was rumored before the election and released in full afterwards.analhamster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:36 pmThey hacked the DNC then coordinated damaging releases with the trump campaign through wikileaks, while also running a social media campaign. It's voter manipulation, not poll manipulation, which while off were in fact within the margin of error. You didn't have a GRU agent with a gun to your head, the problem is the limited intelligence of that head, it renders you susceptible to propaganda. Why not just come out and say you have no problem with russians interfering in your elections so long as they back your side? That is what you are saying here.Blast wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:27 pmTo be honest, if we wanted British input in our political process the late 1700's would have been a much duller time period.analhamster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:13 pmYeah all they've found is those GRU agents interfering with your election and half the trump team participating in a coverup. It's a witch hunt I tells ya.Blast wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:07 pm My question is are we ready to have nonstop ongoing investigations into every president from now on, that's what the result is going to be from this. A political hit job every 4 to 8 years on the winning canidate from the other side. Targeting anyone and everyone until they get enough dirt on the sitting president to impeach or break everyone around them so they no longer have people willing to work with them out of fear of prosecution for anything the opposition
can find or financial ruin?
If there is something lay the cards on the table now, but the amount of partisan attacks is simply making this whole thing reek of a partisan hit job and attempted soft coup.
My 2 cents. If you don't like it then go suck Hillary's dick.
Ok, let's see. We had GRU agents trying to interfere how? Sopplying false information? When I voted I didn't have an agent there with a gun to my head.
Poll manipulation? Who the fuck even pays attention to those, if they were accurate at all Hillary would be president. There is evidence of over sampling in the polls leading up.
How about the fake golden dossier about Trump? Where did that come from? Should we have an investigation into that?
Why is the media 90% negative on the current administration? That'd be more influential on public opinion than some bullshit facebook posts. Maybe we should be looking into that, except they have the right to do that as a free enterprise.
So what could the GRU agents help do to help sabotage Hillary that she didn't do herself because of sheer arrogance?
The dossier was started by the RNC doing oppo research into trump. It was taken over by the DNC for the same reason. It was not released before the election, did not spark the investigation, and while only parts of it are proven, none of it is disproven.
The media is negative because the administration is grossly incompetent and keeps appointing incompetent and corrupt people. Did you notice the 35 day fail that just happened?
I’ll ask again. Clears him of what?Geist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:48 pmI'm saying the evidence presented totally clears the president.Gunzen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:41 pmI don’t even know what you are saying.
Being a witch I think. I'm not sure either.
See what I mean about your susceptibility to propaganda? There was no uranium scandal, and unlike the trump foundation which got shut down with the principles banned from running one for 7 years, the clinton foundation withstood scrutiny. The emails were extensively investigated finding bupkiss, benghazi was the most investigated thing ever, you just get duped a lot. These things are intended to dupe you, then you go with conspiracy theories rather than reality when nothing is found, over and over.Blast wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:51 pmGotta disagree with b you on all counts Anal. Sorry. The dossier was rumored before the election and released in full afterwards.analhamster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:36 pmThey hacked the DNC then coordinated damaging releases with the trump campaign through wikileaks, while also running a social media campaign. It's voter manipulation, not poll manipulation, which while off were in fact within the margin of error. You didn't have a GRU agent with a gun to your head, the problem is the limited intelligence of that head, it renders you susceptible to propaganda. Why not just come out and say you have no problem with russians interfering in your elections so long as they back your side? That is what you are saying here.Blast wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:27 pmTo be honest, if we wanted British input in our political process the late 1700's would have been a much duller time period.analhamster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:13 pmYeah all they've found is those GRU agents interfering with your election and half the trump team participating in a coverup. It's a witch hunt I tells ya.Blast wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:07 pm My question is are we ready to have nonstop ongoing investigations into every president from now on, that's what the result is going to be from this. A political hit job every 4 to 8 years on the winning canidate from the other side. Targeting anyone and everyone until they get enough dirt on the sitting president to impeach or break everyone around them so they no longer have people willing to work with them out of fear of prosecution for anything the opposition
can find or financial ruin?
If there is something lay the cards on the table now, but the amount of partisan attacks is simply making this whole thing reek of a partisan hit job and attempted soft coup.
My 2 cents. If you don't like it then go suck Hillary's dick.
Ok, let's see. We had GRU agents trying to interfere how? Sopplying false information? When I voted I didn't have an agent there with a gun to my head.
Poll manipulation? Who the fuck even pays attention to those, if they were accurate at all Hillary would be president. There is evidence of over sampling in the polls leading up.
How about the fake golden dossier about Trump? Where did that come from? Should we have an investigation into that?
Why is the media 90% negative on the current administration? That'd be more influential on public opinion than some bullshit facebook posts. Maybe we should be looking into that, except they have the right to do that as a free enterprise.
So what could the GRU agents help do to help sabotage Hillary that she didn't do herself because of sheer arrogance?
The dossier was started by the RNC doing oppo research into trump. It was taken over by the DNC for the same reason. It was not released before the election, did not spark the investigation, and while only parts of it are proven, none of it is disproven.
The media is negative because the administration is grossly incompetent and keeps appointing incompetent and corrupt people. Did you notice the 35 day fail that just happened?
Once again I do need to cite Hillary herself in the loss. Her arrogance, inaction on certain occurrences, ties to the sale of uranium and the questionable donation timing to the Clinton Foundation by Russian firms, the emails she deleted from a personal server of questionable legality, and poor political tacticle decisions where very much at the heart of the issue of why she lost. Not to mention that the media was trying to ramrod her our throats. That did not help her with those who have a bit of a contradictory streak in them.
The Russians where trying to hack both political parties till really mess with us, though the attacks on the GOP emails were unsuccessful. Imagine the havoc that could have come from emails from both sides that were not meant for public consumption?
The media is negative because he does not agree with their combined beleifs and in keeping with human nature, admitting we do not agree with most be destroyed.
I would believe that before collusion.
But you're forgetting that the left-winger Dems at the FBI deliberately covered up for Hillary while our sitting president is being witch hunted by lifelong Democrat sleeper cell Bob Mueller.analhamster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:02 pmSee what I mean about your susceptibility to propaganda? There was no uranium scandal, and unlike the trump foundation which got shut down with the principles banned from running one for 7 years, the clinton foundation withstood scrutiny. The emails were extensively investigated finding bupkiss, benghazi was the most investigated thing ever, you just get duped a lot. These things are intended to dupe you, then you go with conspiracy theories rather than reality when nothing is found, over and over.Blast wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:51 pmGotta disagree with b you on all counts Anal. Sorry. The dossier was rumored before the election and released in full afterwards.analhamster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:36 pmThey hacked the DNC then coordinated damaging releases with the trump campaign through wikileaks, while also running a social media campaign. It's voter manipulation, not poll manipulation, which while off were in fact within the margin of error. You didn't have a GRU agent with a gun to your head, the problem is the limited intelligence of that head, it renders you susceptible to propaganda. Why not just come out and say you have no problem with russians interfering in your elections so long as they back your side? That is what you are saying here.Blast wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:27 pmTo be honest, if we wanted British input in our political process the late 1700's would have been a much duller time period.analhamster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:13 pmYeah all they've found is those GRU agents interfering with your election and half the trump team participating in a coverup. It's a witch hunt I tells ya.Blast wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:07 pm My question is are we ready to have nonstop ongoing investigations into every president from now on, that's what the result is going to be from this. A political hit job every 4 to 8 years on the winning canidate from the other side. Targeting anyone and everyone until they get enough dirt on the sitting president to impeach or break everyone around them so they no longer have people willing to work with them out of fear of prosecution for anything the opposition
can find or financial ruin?
If there is something lay the cards on the table now, but the amount of partisan attacks is simply making this whole thing reek of a partisan hit job and attempted soft coup.
My 2 cents. If you don't like it then go suck Hillary's dick.
Ok, let's see. We had GRU agents trying to interfere how? Sopplying false information? When I voted I didn't have an agent there with a gun to my head.
Poll manipulation? Who the fuck even pays attention to those, if they were accurate at all Hillary would be president. There is evidence of over sampling in the polls leading up.
How about the fake golden dossier about Trump? Where did that come from? Should we have an investigation into that?
Why is the media 90% negative on the current administration? That'd be more influential on public opinion than some bullshit facebook posts. Maybe we should be looking into that, except they have the right to do that as a free enterprise.
So what could the GRU agents help do to help sabotage Hillary that she didn't do herself because of sheer arrogance?
The dossier was started by the RNC doing oppo research into trump. It was taken over by the DNC for the same reason. It was not released before the election, did not spark the investigation, and while only parts of it are proven, none of it is disproven.
The media is negative because the administration is grossly incompetent and keeps appointing incompetent and corrupt people. Did you notice the 35 day fail that just happened?
Once again I do need to cite Hillary herself in the loss. Her arrogance, inaction on certain occurrences, ties to the sale of uranium and the questionable donation timing to the Clinton Foundation by Russian firms, the emails she deleted from a personal server of questionable legality, and poor political tacticle decisions where very much at the heart of the issue of why she lost. Not to mention that the media was trying to ramrod her our throats. That did not help her with those who have a bit of a contradictory streak in them.
The Russians where trying to hack both political parties till really mess with us, though the attacks on the GOP emails were unsuccessful. Imagine the havoc that could have come from emails from both sides that were not meant for public consumption?
The media is negative because he does not agree with their combined beleifs and in keeping with human nature, admitting we do not agree with most be destroyed.
You're part right on one thing, the Russians did try to hack both political parties, but successfully. But they only released damaging information on one of them, because they were trying to get trump elected. Not sure what you're getting at with the dossier being 'rumored'. That it existed? It did. Obama chose to keep it and suspicions of russian interference under wraps for fear of influencing the election.
Do you think shutting down the government for 35 days then folding with nothing showed competence? The trump administration is objectively incompetent, that's just the latest major example. The media is negative because he's incompetent, his appointees are the worst of the swamp and he constantly tells and repeats blatant lies.
Mueller has already charged 26 Russian Nationals and three Russian organizationsFlumper wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:38 pm Here's a thought. Why not start an investigation into the russians tampering with our election process. Leave Trump and any other americans names out of the investigation.
THEN............. if you can find the russians guilty of election charges, THEN you find something linking Trump (or his staff) as being willing partners or connected to the "already proven allegations".
Wouldn't that seem like a more non partisan approach? Prove the crime and then determine the participants?
How would investigators go about referring to participants in criminal activity if they can only be referred to after a crime has been proven? Perhaps numerically? Calling someone "Individual 1" sounds preposterous and surely no one would do that.Flumper wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:38 pm Here's a thought. Why not start an investigation into the russians tampering with our election process. Leave Trump and any other americans names out of the investigation.
THEN............. if you can find the russians guilty of election charges, THEN you find something linking Trump (or his staff) as being willing partners or connected to the "already proven allegations".
Wouldn't that seem like a more non partisan approach? Prove the crime and then determine the participants?
Has it ever occurred to you that you might be better informed if you read some of the readily available information on this? Carter Page, richard gates and paul manafort were all under investigation for links to russia before trump hired them, before the campaign had even begun. Wiretaps on Russians talking about and to trump associates got them swept up in the investigation, then their lying about it got them fucked. Counterintelligence operations don't only get launched after criminal investigations conclude, they generally come first, or just run all the time. Trump hired a bunch of people already under investigation for russia links, benefited from a russian intelligence campaign aimed at getting him elected that his campaign actively colluded with, and tried to obstruct the investigation. Open your eyes.Flumper wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:38 pm Here's a thought. Why not start an investigation into the russians tampering with our election process. Leave Trump and any other americans names out of the investigation.
THEN............. if you can find the russians guilty of election charges, THEN you find something linking Trump (or his staff) as being willing partners or connected to the "already proven allegations".
Wouldn't that seem like a more non partisan approach? Prove the crime and then determine the participants?
There is nothing new about messing with elections. Barack Obama went to rhe UK and spoke against Brexit. Thank God he is a loser and everyone he backs loses. But do you see the Irony?Flumper wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:38 pm Here's a thought. Why not start an investigation into the russians tampering with our election process. Leave Trump and any other americans names out of the investigation.
THEN............. if you can find the russians guilty of election charges, THEN you find something linking Trump (or his staff) as being willing partners or connected to the "already proven allegations".
Wouldn't that seem like a more non partisan approach? Prove the crime and then determine the participants?