lawmakers' failure to appreciate Me

[wdmso]

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-...nd-un-american

His followers see him as he sees himself. as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in a physical form,, move over Uncle Sam (your Fired )

[Jim in CT]

WDMSO, a compelling case can be made that the Democrats (in the Obama administration, at the Justice Dept, and in the Clinton campaign) conspired to use the FBI in an attempt to help ensure a Hilary victory.

Trey Gowdy said exactly that, and you were the one who brought him up and suggested that his opinions on the dossier were valid.

So if there's evidence of that kind of collusion, how do you expect Trump to react, exactly? If it's true, it's a big deal.

We know that Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a jet while his wife was under investigation.

We know that shortly after that meeting, Hilary was exonerated.

We know that immediately after that exoneration, Hilary said that if she won, she might keep Lynch on as AG. if that's not quid pro quo, nothing is.

We know that the FBI deemed the Steele dossier to be salacious and unverified, yet they used it as support for the FISA warrant.

We know that Trey Gowdy says that the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier. And since Gowdy also conceded that the Mueller investigation would have proceeded without the dossier, it's not like Gowdy will say anything to get Trump off the hook.

We know that the deputy attorney general has a wife that works at Fusion, the company hired by team Clinton to prepare the dossier. He never disclosed this and did not recuse himself.

We know that the deputy director of the FBI (McCabe) had a wife who ran for the senate and took a ton of money from Clinton pals. He did not disclose this and he did not recuse himself.

We know there were 2 FBI agents involved in the Clinton email investigation who were desperate for Clinton to win. They did not disclose this and they did not recuse themselves.

We also have the DNC conspiring to rig the primary for Clinton, and CNN giving her debate questions ahead of time.

Is any of that not true? Is there one syllable I typed that's not true?

During the campaign, Trump alleged that his team was being wiretapped, and everyone said he was insane and everyone mocked him. Turns out he was right.

I'm not sure I'd say they are treasonous. But they certainly aren't huge fans of democracy, which is precisely why your side engages in mob violence every single time they don't get their way, and conservatives never do that.

Your side may re-take the house in November. Or they may pay dearly for their shenanigans. I'm not sure how much lower they can sink than where they are at this moment (losers who lost despite the fact that they didn't play by the rules). We'll see.

In any event, Trump, for all his many faults, certainly has a legitimate gripe here. I cannot believe anyone is so unwilling to criticize their own side, that they would refuse to concede that there were some shady dealings. You and Spence and Paul S, you have no problem with any of this? Seriously?

As I said, the democrats actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim. Well done, kudos to them.

[spence]

Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.

I heard for weeks that the Refs were in the Patriots pocket....but yet...........................

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.

I'm sorry, where does it say that cheating has a 100% success rate?

That's the best you got? She didn't win, therefore you conclude that there could not possibly have been cheating?

Do you hear yourself?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's the best you got? She didn't win, therefore you conclude that there could not possibly have been cheating?

If they were trying to help Clinton why would they reopen the investigation 11 days before the election? They could have easily buried this for weeks.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I heard for weeks that the Refs were in the Patriots pocket....but yet...........................

So you're a hater on the FBI as well?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If they were trying to help Clinton why would they reopen the investigation 11 days before the election? They could have easily buried this for weeks.

That's a good question, worth asking (see? it is actually possible to admit the other side has a point.) It doesn't negate all the irrefutable facts I listed. You just ignore them because you have no justifiable response. Amazing. The magnitude of indoctrination is amazing.

If the public is convinced that there was collusion, that, combined with larger paychecks and larger IRA balances, isn't going to help your side in November. How much more marginalized does the DNC want to be? How many more seats are they trying to lose?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So you're a hater on the FBI as well?

Not on "the FBI". On a very small number of people, who apparently have much to answer for.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.

The DNC’s shenanigans sure didn’t help. In fact I firmly place the blame of trump winning on them. Bernie would have won if given a fair deal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WDMSO, a compelling case can be made that the Democrats (in the Obama administration, at the Justice Dept, and in the Clinton campaign) conspired to use the FBI in an attempt to help ensure a Hilary victory.

Trey Gowdy said exactly that, and you were the one who brought him up and suggested that his opinions on the dossier were valid.

So if there's evidence of that kind of collusion, how do you expect Trump to react, exactly? If it's true, it's a big deal.

We know that Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a jet while his wife was under investigation.

We know that shortly after that meeting, Hilary was exonerated.

We know that immediately after that exoneration, Hilary said that if she won, she might keep Lynch on as AG. if that's not quid pro quo, nothing is.

We know that the FBI deemed the Steele dossier to be salacious and unverified, yet they used it as support for the FISA warrant.

We know that Trey Gowdy says that the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier. And since Gowdy also conceded that the Mueller investigation would have proceeded without the dossier, it's not like Gowdy will say anything to get Trump off the hook.

We know that the deputy attorney general has a wife that works at Fusion, the company hired by team Clinton to prepare the dossier. He never disclosed this and did not recuse himself.

We know that the deputy director of the FBI (McCabe) had a wife who ran for the senate and took a ton of money from Clinton pals. He did not disclose this and he did not recuse himself.

We know there were 2 FBI agents involved in the Clinton email investigation who were desperate for Clinton to win. They did not disclose this and they did not recuse themselves.

We also have the DNC conspiring to rig the primary for Clinton, and CNN giving her debate questions ahead of time.

Is any of that not true? Is there one syllable I typed that's not true?

During the campaign, Trump alleged that his team was being wiretapped, and everyone said he was insane and everyone mocked him. Turns out he was right.

I'm not sure I'd say they are treasonous. But they certainly aren't huge fans of democracy, which is precisely why your side engages in mob violence every single time they don't get their way, and conservatives never do that.

Your side may re-take the house in November. Or they may pay dearly for their shenanigans. I'm not sure how much lower they can sink than where they are at this moment (losers who lost despite the fact that they didn't play by the rules). We'll see.

In any event, Trump, for all his many faults, certainly has a legitimate gripe here. I cannot believe anyone is so unwilling to criticize their own side, that they would refuse to concede that there were some shady dealings. You and Spence and Paul S, you have no problem with any of this? Seriously?

As I said, the democrats actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim. Well done, kudos to them.

I thought you would have said Obama was thinned skinned also ..
but you went old school you went Clinton .. and completely off topic

This fits what I have said for some time its all about him !!!! and when not properly stroked he Goes off ....

you want us to Admit shady dealings !!! 1st for things that are not under Investigation that are conjecture at best

and it the democrats fault that actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim..

If Trump would only say and do the things he has done while wearing an Obama Mask... I could only imagine how your Tune would change

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The DNC’s shenanigans sure didn’t help. In fact I firmly place the blame of trump winning on them. Bernie would have won if given a fair deal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree.. but I dont understand the Rights willingness to to do a 180 on anything to do with the word Russian or obstruction of justice .. as sour Grapes

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I thought you would have said Obama was thinned skinned also ..
but you went old school you went Clinton .. and completely off topic

This fits what I have said for some time its all about him !!!! and when not properly stroked he Goes off ....

you want us to Admit shady dealings !!! " that are conjecture at best

and it the democrats fault that actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim..

If Trump would only say and do the things he has done while wearing an Obama Mask... I could only imagine how your Tune would change

"you went old school you went Clinton .. and completely off topic "

Clinton paid for the dossier. So it's current and on topic.

"its all about him"

He was the one that was colluded against. So if the victim speaks out, you accuse them of being self-centered.

"you want us to Admit shady dealings "

If appropriate, yes
.
"1st for things that are not under Investigation"

Not yet.


"conjecture at best"

Funny, you were the one who brought up Trey Gowdy, who agrees with me.

"If Trump would only say and do the things he has done while wearing an Obama Mask... I could only imagine how your Tune would change"

I have said many, many times I don't like Trump. That doesn't mean he's not correct when he cries foul here.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Clinton paid for the dossier. So it's current and on topic.

Both Republicans and Democrats funded the Dossier. If it contains relevant information why does it even matter?

He was the one that was colluded against. So if the victim speaks out, you accuse them of being self-centered.

This just doesn't even make sense unless you're a Trump strategist trying to manipulate a news cycle.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Both Republicans and Democrats funded the Dossier. If it contains relevant information why does it even matter?

Steele was the author of the memos(17) June - December 2016 that resulted in the dossier and we know how and when the Clinton Campaign and DNC funded him...we even know how much....when and how exactly was Steel paid by which "republicans"?...and how much did they pay him?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Both Republicans and Democrats funded the Dossier. If it contains relevant information why does it even matter?


This just doesn't even make sense unless you're a Trump strategist trying to manipulate a news cycle.

I'm not sure I need a lecture about what "makes sense", from a guy who believes that since Hilary lost, that's proof that nothing underhanded was done in her favor during the election.

How about this Spence. When you can explain why it makes any sense at all, to believe that failure to win necessarily means one played by the rules, I will listen to what you have to say. You are humiliating yourself.

The Japanese lost WWII, correct? Using your logic, does that mean they committed no war crimes? After all, they lost! If they were cheating, according to you, they would have been victorious!

[wdmso]

US President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to organise a large military parade in the nation's capital.

Nationalism being masked in patriotism

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by wdmso

US President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to organise a large military parade in the nation's capital.

Nationalism being masked in patriotism

Well North Korea, China and Russia do seem to have nicer military parades than us. It prob. should be a requirement that everyone claps straight through the parade.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not sure I need a lecture about what "makes sense", from a guy who believes that since Hilary lost, that's proof that nothing underhanded was done in her favor during the election.

Clinton lost by a razor thin margin and likely would have won if the investigation had been put to bed. You're just swimming in conspiracy theories now which is exactly what Trump wants.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton lost by a razor thin margin and likely would have won if the investigation had been put to bed. You're just swimming in conspiracy theories now which is exactly what Trump wants.

What, are you shaving with a bowling ball?

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

What, are you shaving with a bowling ball?

Clinton crushed Trump in the popular vote and narrowly missed three critical swing states by just 80,000 votes. The election was very close.

The map is pretty though.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

US President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to organise a large military parade in the nation's capital.

Nationalism being masked in patriotism

military parades are bad? Is the Memorial Day parade in my town, now just a dog whistle for totalitarianism?

You people have come completely, and I mean completely, unglued.

We have people in harm's way. Honoring them with a parade, is an ominous sign of nationalism? I have a better idea, let's have another liberal march on The Mall where bitter losers scream the f word into megaphones and then leave the place littered with trash and cigarette butts. That's what we really need, not a parade.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton lost by a razor thin margin and likely would have won if the investigation had been put to bed. You're just swimming in conspiracy theories now which is exactly what Trump wants.

The only thing I'm swimming in, is the absurdity of someone who thinks that having lost a contest, is irrefutable evidence that said loser played by the rules.

Conspiracy theories? I listed the facts. I asked you if any of them was wrong, and you didn't claim a single one was wrong. Hmm, I wonder why?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

What, are you shaving with a bowling ball?

I demand a re-count.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton crushed Trump in the popular vote .

And if the popular vote mattered worth a frog's fat ass, Trump (like your wet dream Hilary) would have skipped flyover country and campaigned harder on the coasts. He chose to speak to people in Wisconsin and Ohio. She chose not to. Oh well.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton crushed Trump in the popular vote and narrowly missed three critical swing states by just 80,000 votes. The election was very close.

The map is pretty though.

Without California's popular vote totals, Trump popular vote crushes Clinton in the rest of the country.

[PaulS]

Thank God for those highly educated folks in Calif. who help fund all those red areas.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Without California's popular vote totals, Trump popular vote crushes Clinton in the rest of the country.

You could say that about several states, or the reverse for Trump's electoral votes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

military parades are bad? Is the Memorial Day parade in my town, now just a dog whistle for totalitarianism?

You people have come completely, and I mean completely, unglued.

We have people in harm's way. Honoring them with a parade, is an ominous sign of nationalism? I have a better idea, let's have another liberal march on The Mall where bitter losers scream the f word into megaphones and then leave the place littered with trash and cigarette butts. That's what we really need, not a parade.

How about we celebrate the military by funding veterans benefits.

It's a fantastic waste of money.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

How about we celebrate the military by funding veterans benefits.

It's a fantastic waste of money.

"How about we celebrate the military by funding veterans benefits."

A rare point of agreement.

"It's a fantastic waste of money"

A parade? You're a deficit hawk now? Or only when a Republican is spending money?