Danger for democrats (take 2)

[Born Free]

Thanks, I have my answer:

If you want to talk facts, fine, but you throwing out hypothetical Bull**** I'm not interested. You libs love hypotheticals as you think they are true. You post up, If, Maybe, Could be, I think, It feels correct to me, BuzzFeed always tell the truth, I bet he did it, I'm certain he did it, how could he not have done it etc etc etc.

 

[Lursa]

If you want to talk facts, fine, but you throwing out hypothetical Bull**** I'm not interested. You libs love hypotheticals as you think they are true. You post up, If, Maybe, Could be, I think, It feels correct to me, BuzzFeed always tell the truth, I bet he did it, I'm certain he did it, how could he not have done it etc etc etc.

It's a yes or no question. You wont answer it...that in and of itself is the answer.

Dont bother making more excuses to add a subterfuge that leads you to an 'out'.

If The Donald colluded with Russians in person or by intentional proxy to gain advantage in the election, will you accept it and condemn him?

Born Free: 'No I will not accept it or condemn him.'

 

[johndylan1]

I'm sure you could look this up...but personally I would say if the campaign were in any way aware that Russia was seeking to interfere, and did not immediately and publicly call this out. I suspect he knew about Russian hacking, about release of emails, about his campaign manager's relationships with Russian operatives, about his son's meeting in Trump tower, about Flynn's and Session's meeting with Russians, about Papadoupolos, Gates, and Roger Stone. Also about Cambridge Analytica, and on and on, even maybe a yellow shower or two. If he didn't know any of this, one would have to think him incredibly STUPID. So which would you rather?

I can't look up your understanding of collusion, and that is what I wanted. So... if a candidate paid a foreign operative to collect dirt on an opposition candidate using Russian contacts in order to sway the election, or discredit the outcome that would be collusion? and illegal?

 

[Lursa]

It's a yes or no question. You wont answer it...that in and of itself is the answer.

If you want to talk facts, fine, but you throwing out hypothetical Bull**** I'm not interested. You libs love hypotheticals as you think they are true. You post up, If, Maybe, Could be, I think, It feels correct to me, BuzzFeed always tell the truth, I bet he did it, I'm certain he did it, how could he not have done it etc etc etc.

Dont bother making more excuses to add a subterfuge that leads you to an 'out'.

The question, very straightforward, again:

If proven The Donald colluded with Russians in person or by intentional proxy to gain advantage in the election, will you accept it and condemn him?

It seems the answer is obvious in your avoidance.

 

[JMR]

I can't look up your understanding of collusion, and that is what I wanted. So... if a candidate paid a foreign operative to collect dirt on an opposition candidate using Russian contacts in order to sway the election, or discredit the outcome that would be collusion? and illegal?

No, that would be hiring an Englishman to do opposition research. Collusion would be working in conjunction with a foreign government to fix an election.

 

[plutonium]

What is more dangerous for the democrats:

Actually what most dangerous for American citizens!!!!

 

[johndylan1]

No, that would be hiring an Englishman to do opposition research. Collusion would be working in conjunction with a foreign government to fix an election.

1. How do you suppose an Englishman would get supposed surveillance out of a Russian hotel or get his hands on Russian intel?
2. What do you mean by "fix" and election?
3. You don't believe anyone associated with Russia cast illegal ballots, right?
4. I'm trying to figure out, all buzz words aside, what is the accusation exactly. What associations, what Russian official, in what way was the election affected, and how is that different than any number of examples that are common? For example, NGO's working with the Mexican government to bring caravans of immigrants and unaccompanied minors to the border just prior to the election in order to draw cameras and news coverage claiming an anti- immigrant narrative against Trump. Would that mean immigrant advocates are colluding with a foreign government to fix the election?

 

[JMR]

1. How do you suppose an Englishman would get supposed surveillance out of a Russian hotel or get his hands on Russian intel?
2. What do you mean by "fix" and election?
3. You don't believe anyone associated with Russia cast illegal ballots, right?
4. I'm trying to figure out, all buzz words aside, what is the accusation exactly. What associations, what Russian official, in what way was the election affected, and how is that different than any number of examples that are common? For example, NGO's working with the Mexican government to bring caravans of immigrants and unaccompanied minors to the border just prior to the election in order to draw cameras and news coverage claiming an anti- immigrant narrative against Trump. Would that mean immigrant advocates are colluding with a foreign government to fix the election?

Maybe we can go backwards here: No 4.) I am quite sure Mr Mueller will be answering most of your questions soon. You must have forgotten Trump sending our armed forces to the border to draw attention to his immigration narrative prior to the election. That might have explained all the cameras.
No. 3) Right. No. 2) By fix an election, I mean influence the result. No 1) It doesn't matter how the Englishman got his information. He was hired to do opposition research. Are you suggesting that the Russian government concocted a scheme to get a conservative newspaper to pay for research that could be transferred to the Clinton campaign to hurt Trump? Really? Even if you could buy that, since Putin has stated that he wanted Trump to win, that would not seem to make any sense whatsoever.

 

[johndylan1]

Maybe we can go backwards here: No 4.) I am quite sure Mr Mueller will be answering most of your questions soon. You must have forgotten Trump sending our armed forces to the border to draw attention to his immigration narrative prior to the election. That might have explained all the cameras.
No. 3) Right. No. 2) By fix an election, I mean influence the result. No 1) It doesn't matter how the Englishman got his information. He was hired to do opposition research. Are you suggesting that the Russian government concocted a scheme to get a conservative newspaper to pay for research that could be transferred to the Clinton campaign to hurt Trump? Really? Even if you could buy that, since Putin has stated that he wanted Trump to win, that would not seem to make any sense whatsoever.

I suspect Mr. Mueller will find nothing of substance.
I'm not sure you're informed on how the so called dossier was paid for, as the misinformation in your post indicates.
Putin's goal wasn't to favor one candidate over the other, his goal was to sew discord and create division in the US. He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, I'm sure he would have never imagine he'd have a special prosecutor on a fishing expedition against the duly elected president.

 

[Rosie1]

First of all it is the "Democratic" party not Democrat. The later is a term intended to demean by being incorrect. Second, I would think, if Trump did "collude" or is working with the Russians everyone (regardless of party) would be very concerned for America!

 

[d0gbreath]

Either way Trump isn't dangerous to the Democratic Party. In fact, he may wind up being the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party.

 

[JMR]

I suspect Mr. Mueller will find nothing of substance.
I'm not sure you're informed on how the so called dossier was paid for, as the misinformation in your post indicates.
Putin's goal wasn't to favor one candidate over the other, his goal was to sew discord and create division in the US. He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, I'm sure he would have never imagine he'd have a special prosecutor on a fishing expedition against the duly elected president.

Do you ever get dizzy from the spinning?

I believe the entire universe knows that the dossier was originally ordered by a conservative news organization to stop Trump. When he became the nominee, the democratic campaign organization took it on. It was opposition research against Trump, first by his republican opposition, and then by his democratic opposition.

Putin has stated publicly that he had hoped Trump would win. He has been trying to sow discord for years, this time he had some help from the inside.

Time will tell what the special prosecutor comes up with. He sure has landed quite of few fish on this expedition, getting closer and closer to the inner circle. "Duly elected" is very questionable as of the present moment. And had Trump not bragged to Russian agents that he fired Comey to ease the pressure on Russia, there would be no special prosecutor.

 

[Masterhawk]

If the former, Trump can be impeached, if the latter, it makes the democrats look desperate.