They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[RPM]

Congratulations President Trump on the Elimination of The Leader of isis, al baghdadi. About time.
CNN is actually doing a much better job of reporting this as it unfolds. Even though they are saying it is in spite
President Trump.

[The_Noble_Cause]

This has nothing to do with you childishly continuing arguments that are months, or eve years, old.

Evidence of the dossier's veracity was never presented. Since that claim was first made on here, it's credibility has further diminished. It's now largely agreed upon that it is not credible. Even journalist Michael Isikoff, who first reported on it, acknowledges that much of it is false. So yes, I will continue to ask for proof. Just like I continued to ask for proof of your lies (ex. "Hillary had permission to use a private server!"). That's what this really all about. You want to hijack this thread to lie your Asperger-addled ass off.

Absolutely...from your bizarre and childish obsession to old arguments to things that are relevant today.

Three days ago, the NYTimes reported that the justice department has opened a criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation. Since the dossier formed some of the basis for the entire investigation, the topic couldn't possibly be more current or relevant.

Of course you do...despite all evidence showing that after weeks into it that it hasn't hurt Democrats at all.

You are engaging in confirmation bias.
I couldn't give less of a shit about polls, which are subject to sample error and all sorts of other factors. To quote a former Obama pollster, "polls don't matter."

Yeah, issues you care about like Tulsi and Hillary in a cat fight. Yeah, the vast majority of Americans care about that..

Where did I say the vast majority of Americans care about Tulsi's comments? If I said that, please quote me. I simply praised Tulsi for defending herself from Hillary's sleazeball McCarthyite attacks.

There is absolutely no evidence that the impeachment proceedings has hurt the Democrats. Post it.

I said "impeachment would likely give Trump a landslide." I stand by that prediction. It's not an assertion of fact (example - "Hillary had permission to use a private server", "collusion is not synonymous with conspiracy!"). It's a prediction. Want evidence/proof? You'll simply have to wait for the election.

You should care, or you don't care about Trump being forced out of office.

Makes no difference to me.

Of course. You are proven wrong so you go on and disparage the other person and distract from the fact that you are wrong.

Someone can't be proven wrong on an election prediction until the election happens. And even if Trump loses, I will just do what you did, and blame Russian FB memes. LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJBZ1_NcrDc

That's what it's like to talk to you.

Must be nice to get royalty checks in the mail from South Park using your likeness.

[Monker]

This has nothing to do with you childishly continuing arguments that are months, or eve years, old.

Evidence of the dossier's veracity was never presented. Since that claim was first made on here, it's credibility has further diminished. It's now largely agreed upon that it is not credible. Even journalist Michael Isikoff, who first reported on it, acknowledges that much of it is false. So yes, I will continue to ask for proof. Just like I continued to ask for proof of your lies (ex. "Hillary had permission to use a private server!"). That's what this really all about. You want to hijack this thread to lie your Asperger-addled ass off.

You're obsessed with bullshit. Obsessed with calling things "lies" that are not lies. Obsessed with trying to disparage anybody who disagrees with you. Obsessed with sex. Obsessed with mental illness. Obsessed insignificant nothingness.

Absolutely...from your bizarre and childish obsession to old arguments to things that are relevant today.

Three days ago, the NYTimes reported that the justice department has opened a criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation. Since the dossier formed some of the basis for the entire investigation, the topic couldn't possibly be more current or relevant.

First of all, that is not true. They took an existing investigation and reclassified it as a criminal investigation. And, you have no idea WHY they moved into a criminal instigation. You are simply making the connection to justify your strange obsessions.

Of course you do...despite all evidence showing that after weeks into it that it hasn't hurt Democrats at all.

You are engaging in confirmation bias.
I couldn't give less of a shit about polls, which are subject to sample error and all sorts of other factors. To quote a former Obama pollster, "polls don't matter."

Yeah, you don't care about polls but you go on week long rants trying to prove the polls are wrong. You care very much about polls. But, regardless, there is NO evidence that this has hurt the Democrats.

Yeah, issues you care about like Tulsi and Hillary in a cat fight. Yeah, the vast majority of Americans care about that..

Where did I say the vast majority of Americans care about Tulsi's comments? If I said that, please quote me. I simply praised Tulsi for defending herself from Hillary's sleazeball McCarthyite attacks.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to engage in what you believed was relevant conversation. But, it's just you trolling for arguments yet again.

There is absolutely no evidence that the impeachment proceedings has hurt the Democrats. Post it.

I said "impeachment would likely give Trump a landslide." I stand by that prediction. It's not an assertion of fact (example - "Hillary had permission to use a private server", "collusion is not synonymous with conspiracy!"). It's a prediction. Want evidence/proof? You'll simply have to wait for the election.

First of all, I did not say "collusion is not synonymous with conspiracy". In fact, Mueller did not say the opposite either. He said "largely", or whatever. There is a difference. I ended that argument because it's fucking stupid. You totally ignore what I quoted from Mueller and then take this out context to mean something it doesn't. He was defining conspiracy as a crime and comparing it to how collusion is "used" in the law. Collusion is NOT A CRIME. Conspiracy is. The difference between those two things is very simple...Conspiracy is working against the US. Collusion is simply working with another country...it does not have to rise to a criminal level. That is all Mueller was trying to say in the bits that we both quoted. You simply have an inability to read and understand things in context. You also do not have the ability to admit when you are wrong. So, there is no point in arguing over definitions of words. "Kenny's dead" "No he's not, he's resting." You are not able to accept that you sold a dead friend to somebody. Then the conversation degrades into "You're fat" "No I'm not, I'm big boned." That is conversation with you and it becomes pointless very fast - every single time.

You should care, or you don't care about Trump being forced out of office.

Makes no difference to me.

You don't even care if Trump is impeached, convicted, and removed from office. Riiiiiight.

Of course. You are proven wrong so you go on and disparage the other person and distract from the fact that you are wrong.

Someone can't be proven wrong on an election prediction until the election happens. And even if Trump loses, I will just do what you did, and blame Russian FB memes. LOL.

No, I blamed on Comey reoponing and then closing the Hillary investigation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJBZ1_NcrDc

That's what it's like to talk to you.

Must be nice to get royalty checks in the mail from South Park using your likeness.

Wow, I WISH that were true. This was from their episode where they did their World of Warcraft parody...one of their best episodes ever. So awesome. Never played WoW...just not much into PC games nowadays. They are comic geniuses.

Trey, Matt, I'd LOVE to be on South Park. if you have me on South Park, , you can use any image you want to depict me. It would be an absolute honor to be on the show.

[/quote]

[Andrew]

Congratulations President Trump on the Elimination of The Leader of isis, al baghdadi. About time.
CNN is actually doing a much better job of reporting this as it unfolds. Even though they are saying it is in spite
President Trump.

Not only CNN, most outlets. Kept in the dark so he didn't fuck it up; playing golf while it happened and photo staged; then a 50 minute "I'm awesome" press conference.

Aren't you sick of this absolute fuckwit???????

Clueless narcissistic asshole.

Glad he was booed extensively at the BB game.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Kept in the dark so he didn't fuck it up; playing golf while it happened and photo staged;

Link? By most accounts, Trump was given Baghdadi raid options last week, made the decision, and also watched it play out live in the WH Situation Room.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You're obsessed with bullshit. Obsessed with calling things "lies" that are not lies. Obsessed with trying to disparage anybody who disagrees with you. Obsessed with sex. Obsessed with mental illness. Obsessed insignificant nothingness.

I'm just here to discuss music and politics. Reply or don't reply, I really don't give a baker's shit.

Three days ago, the NYTimes reported that the justice department has opened a criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation. Since the dossier formed some of the basis for the entire investigation, the topic couldn't possibly be more current or relevant.

First of all, that is not true. They took an existing investigation and reclassified it as a criminal investigation.

Left without comment.


NYTimes: Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own Russia Investigation

ABC: Justice Department to open criminal investigation into origins of Russian interference probe

PBS: Justice Department has opened criminal investigation into Russia probe

Guardian: Justice department opens criminal inquiry into origins of Russia investigation

Vanity Fair: Justice Department Opens Criminal Probe Into Its Russia Investigation

And, you have no idea WHY they moved into a criminal instigation. You are simply making the connection to justify your strange obsessions.

I never said I did. But you can't claim that the dossier is irrelevant or off-limits when the origins of Russiagate are still actively being examined.

Yeah, you don't care about polls but you go on week long rants trying to prove the polls are wrong. You care very much about polls.

All I did was point out how you are retroactively lying about 2016 polls - pretending that Hillary was never viewed as a favorite. That is simply not borne out by the data, reality, or even your own posts. Even the polling website you cite, RCP, predicted a Hillary win.

Where did I say the vast majority of Americans care about Tulsi's comments? If I said that, please quote me. I simply praised Tulsi for defending herself from Hillary's sleazeball McCarthyite attacks.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to engage in what you believed was relevant conversation. But, it's just you trolling for arguments yet again.

Tulsi standing up to baseless McCarthyism and corporatist candidates is very much relevant to me. I post what I find interesting. I am not here to represent the vast majority of Americans. Again, reply or don't, I don't care.

First of all, I did not say "collusion is not synonymous with conspiracy".

Left without comment.


Monker: YOU in your infinite stupidity equated collusion and conspiracy. They are not the same thing. Collusion is not a crime, conspiracy is.

Monker: You posted some bullshit argument that is essentially saying that the written definition of conspiracy somehow describes collusion. It doesn't...they are two different things.

Monker: BULLSHIT. You are trying to say that collusion and conspiracy are the same thing. THEY ARE NOT. Period.

In fact, Mueller did not say the opposite either. He said "largely", or whatever. There is a difference. I ended that argument because it's fucking stupid.

You ended it because you never read the Mueller report and what you were arguing was contradicted by Mueller's own words (quote below). Anyone who read the report would have known that Mueller was using the legal and prosecutable charge of conspiracy for collusion.

"But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371."

You totally ignore what I quoted from Mueller and then take this out context to mean something it doesn't. He was defining conspiracy as a crime and comparing it to how collusion is "used" in the law. Collusion is NOT A CRIME. Conspiracy is. The difference between those two things is very simple...Conspiracy is working against the US. Collusion is simply working with another country...it does not have to rise to a criminal level. That is all Mueller was trying to say in the bits that we both quoted. You simply have an inability to read and understand things in context. You also do not have the ability to admit when you are wrong. So, there is no point in arguing over definitions of words. "Kenny's dead" "No he's not, he's resting." You are not able to accept that you sold a dead friend to somebody. Then the conversation degrades into "You're fat" "No I'm not, I'm big boned." That is conversation with you and it becomes pointless very fast - every single time.

The jig is up, dude. You may as well cry "Bazzinga!" and go home.

You are now contorting yourself into knots claiming that 1) Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to investigate a crime ("collusion") that could never be proven/charged and 2) that Mueller, a veteran prosecutor, willingly accepted the job of investigating a crime that never could be proven. This is all nonsense.

You don't even care if Trump is impeached, convicted, and removed from office. Riiiiiight.

Nope. Right now I'm supporting Bernie or Tulsi. I'm not a partisan hack like you.

No, I blamed on Comey reoponing and then closing the Hillary investigation.

Also, as I've already discussed, the idea that the Comey letter cost Hillary the election is dubious.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/upsh ... ffect.html

Wow, I WISH that were true. This was from their episode where they did their World of Warcraft parody...one of their best episodes ever. So awesome. Never played WoW...just not much into PC games nowadays. They are comic geniuses.

Trey, Matt, I'd LOVE to be on South Park. if you have me on South Park, , you can use any image you want to depict me. It would be an absolute honor to be on the show.

I think you also have a few royalty checks coming your way from Netflix in the very near future.

[RPM]

Congratulations President Trump on the Elimination of The Leader of isis, al baghdadi. About time.
CNN is actually doing a much better job of reporting this as it unfolds. Even though they are saying it is in spite
President Trump.

Not only CNN, most outlets. Kept in the dark so he didn't fuck it up; playing golf while it happened and photo staged; then a 50 minute "I'm awesome" press conference.

Aren't you sick of this absolute fuckwit???????

Clueless narcissistic asshole.

Glad he was booed extensively at the BB game.

It’s You that is clueless. I’m sure all your anger issues will subside in 5 years when Trump is gone.

[Andrew]

What does that post even mean? You make as much sense as this old grandpa did a couple of days back.

Where’s the straight jacket?

https://youtu.be/6QaUzWFKc30

That is the speech of a 4yr old doing a book report. Nearly 50 minutes!!! And a plug for his book and a dozen fresh lies.

Just accept you voted in a moron.

[Monker]

You're obsessed with bullshit. Obsessed with calling things "lies" that are not lies. Obsessed with trying to disparage anybody who disagrees with you. Obsessed with sex. Obsessed with mental illness. Obsessed insignificant nothingness.

I'm just here to discuss music and politics. Reply or don't reply, I really don't give a baker's shit.

Riiiigghht. You are constantly trolling for attention.

Three days ago, the NYTimes reported that the justice department has opened a criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation. Since the dossier formed some of the basis for the entire investigation, the topic couldn't possibly be more current or relevant.

First of all, that is not true. They took an existing investigation and reclassified it as a criminal investigation.

Left without comment. [/quote]

Do you only read headlines?

First of all, a few more:
NBC News: Justice Department review of Russia probe turns into criminal investigation
NPR: Democrats Say White House Is Interfering As Russia Review Becomes A Criminal Case
CBS News: Justice Department upgrades Russia review to criminal investigation

Even the articles you quoted say this:

NYTimes: "Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry"

ABC News: "The federal prosecutor reviewing the origins of the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election has been granted the authority to pursue the probe as a criminal investigation"

PBS: "The Justice Department has shifted its review of the Russia probe to a criminal investigation"

Guardian, "The US attorney general, William Barr, launched a review earlier this year to investigate Trump’s complaints that his campaign was improperly targeted by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies during the 2016 election.

Now that review has reportedly shifted to a criminal inquiry."

Vanity Fair: "But the president never dropped his obsession with the Mueller inquiry, and this spring Barr granted Trump the review of how it all began he’d wanted.

According to the New York Times, that probe has now become a criminal investigation"

Most of these come from the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article YOU posted. You didn't even go to the link and check them out, just grabbed a bunch of Google results.

Anybody who has been paying even the slightest amount of attention knows that Barr started this very shortly after he took office. You are simply WRONG about it...even according to the source YOU posted.

And, you have no idea WHY they moved into a criminal instigation. You are simply making the connection to justify your strange obsessions.

I never said I did. But you can't claim that the dossier is irrelevant or off-limits when the origins of Russiagate are still actively being examined.

Can you grow up for five minutes? All you are doing is taking a months old argument and trying to prolong it with your childish "What about the 100% verified dossier?" crap. You have NO interest in discussing the above. You obviously do not even know what you are talking about, or even if there is a connection to the dossier. In fact - nobody does.

Yeah, you don't care about polls but you go on week long rants trying to prove the polls are wrong. You care very much about polls.

All I did was point out how you are retroactively lying about 2016 polls - pretending that Hillary was never viewed as a favorite. That is simply not borne out by the data, reality, or even your own posts. Even the polling website you cite, RCP, predicted a Hillary win.

Well, you' are triggered again...almost everything you are saying now is a lie.

This is a flat out LIE on your part. You are lying about what I said about the polls. In fact, I post a link to RealClearPolitics that posted the final result of ALL of the polls. The race was too close to call. Period. That is a FACT. You are alo LYING that I said Hillary was never viewed as a favorite. That is a complete fabrication on your part, you are inventing it. What I said was that the final polls show that the race was too close to call. That is exactly where it stood on election day. It is a FACT.

Yes, RCP predicted Hillary would win. All of these predictions were done by trying to guess who would win states that were too close to call. RCP simply took who was ahead, despite it being in the margin of error, or if the poll history showed Trump surging, etc. They were wrong...they, along with most of those making such prediction, should have stuck to what the data showed - the race was too close to call.

First of all, I did not say "collusion is not synonymous with conspiracy".

Left without comment.[/quote]

Nowhere in ANY of our quotes did I say, "collusion is not synonymous with conspiracy". Those are NOT MY WORDS...and you are quoting them as if they are...LYING about what I said.

You ended it because you never read the Mueller report and what you were arguing was contradicted by Mueller's own words (quote below). Anyone who read the report would have known that Mueller was using the legal and prosecutable charge of conspiracy for collusion.

"But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371."

I ended it because it is a STUPID argument. Even in what you quoted above, he says collusion is not a crime. Collusion is not a crime. Yes, it is "LARGELY synonymous" with conspiracy....but they are NOT the same thing.

You are now contorting yourself into knots claiming that 1) Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to investigate a crime ("collusion") that could never be proven/charged[/quote]

Correct, collusion is not a crime. Name somebody who has been charged and convicted of "collusion."

and 2) that Mueller, a veteran prosecutor, willingly accepted the job of investigating a crime that never could be proven. This is all nonsense.

Collusion is not a crime. Period.

Nowhere in Rosenstein's letter does the word "collusion" appear.
Mueller was hired to investigate Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, and any links and coordination the Trump campaign had with the Russia government.

Yes, he was authorized to prosecute crimes. But, it was about Russia interference and understanding what they did....and to understand the Trump campaigns connections to it.

Saying that Mueller was investigating the crime of "collusion" is in your imagination, and Trump's. It is flat out not true...and a lie.

You don't even care if Trump is impeached, convicted, and removed from office. Riiiiiight.

Nope. Right now I'm supporting Bernie or Tulsi. I'm not a partisan hack like you.

So, you are a self-described life long Democrat, and the most liberal person on this forum....and you support the most liberal and socialist of the candidates in Sanders, and you say you are not a partisan hack. That's hillarious.

And, to recap what I have said: I said I will vote for ANY of the Democrats over Trump. I have said I do not belong to EITHER party and will not donate to ANY candidate. And, I have said if I were to throw my support behind someone, it would be Bob Weld. Yeah, I'm partisan. Anti-Trump, Never-Trump, impeach Trump...yes....But, I'm not a Democrat.

As for the below, I really don't care. I don't even know what it is. You are obsessing over me. It's like I have been saying, you go from denying reality (Kenny's dead...) to insults (you're fat). Again, I don't think you know how to have a conversation or a real "debate"....it is just worthless and pointless (big foot and fart noise).

Wow, I WISH that were true. This was from their episode where they did their World of Warcraft parody...one of their best episodes ever. So awesome. Never played WoW...just not much into PC games nowadays. They are comic geniuses.

Trey, Matt, I'd LOVE to be on South Park. if you have me on South Park, , you can use any image you want to depict me. It would be an absolute honor to be on the show.

I think you also have a few royalty checks coming your way from Netflix in the very near future.

[Monker]

What does that post even mean? You make as much sense as this old grandpa did a couple of days back.

Where’s the straight jacket?

https://youtu.be/6QaUzWFKc30

That is the speech of a 4yr old doing a book report. Nearly 50 minutes!!! And a plug for his book and a dozen fresh lies.

Just accept you voted in a moron.

He's obviously reading from a teleprompter. It's painful to watch. Don't know if he can't read...or if his eyesight is goingj..but it's not normal. He constantly complained about Obama and the teleprompter, Obama never looked this bad.

[Andrew]

What does that post even mean? You make as much sense as this old grandpa did a couple of days back.

Where’s the straight jacket?

https://youtu.be/6QaUzWFKc30

That is the speech of a 4yr old doing a book report. Nearly 50 minutes!!! And a plug for his book and a dozen fresh lies.

Just accept you voted in a moron.

He's obviously reading from a teleprompter. It's painful to watch. Don't know if he can't read...or if his eyesight is goingj..but it's not normal. He constantly complained about Obama and the teleprompter, Obama never looked this bad.

At least the number of people defending him is shrinking by the hour. What a turnip (sorry, pumpkin).

[The_Noble_Cause]

Kept in the dark so he didn't fuck it up; playing golf while it happened and photo staged;

Link? By most accounts, Trump was given Baghdadi raid options last week, made the decision, and also watched it play out live in the WH Situation Room.

Can anyone else verify this?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Riiiigghht. You are constantly trolling for attention.

So says the resident MR drama queen who feels the need to vaingloriously announce his intentions to quit the forum. This is pure projection on your part. When you’re not on here getting exposed as a liar, you are splayed ass-up on your Ikea fainting couch, huffing the smelling salts, incoherently crying “Oh Andrew, help me! Help me!”

Do you only read headlines?

First of all, a few more:
NBC News: Justice Department review of Russia probe turns into criminal investigation
NPR: Democrats Say White House Is Interfering As Russia Review Becomes A Criminal Case
CBS News: Justice Department upgrades Russia review to criminal investigation

Even the articles you quoted say this:

NYTimes: "Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry"

ABC News: "The federal prosecutor reviewing the origins of the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election has been granted the authority to pursue the probe as a criminal investigation"

PBS: "The Justice Department has shifted its review of the Russia probe to a criminal investigation"

Guardian, "The US attorney general, William Barr, launched a review earlier this year to investigate Trump’s complaints that his campaign was improperly targeted by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies during the 2016 election.

Now that review has reportedly shifted to a criminal inquiry."

Vanity Fair: "But the president never dropped his obsession with the Mueller inquiry, and this spring Barr granted Trump the review of how it all began he’d wanted.

According to the New York Times, that probe has now become a criminal investigation"

Most of these come from the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article YOU posted. You didn't even go to the link and check them out, just grabbed a bunch of Google results.

Anybody who has been paying even the slightest amount of attention knows that Barr started this very shortly after he took office. You are simply WRONG about it...even according to the source YOU posted.

As I already demonstrated, the supposedly incorrect language I used (“opened a criminal investigation”) is exactly the language used verbatim by many major news organizations. Now you are attempting to change your argument (big surprise) to semantic nonsense. I have no interest in debating the picayune difference between “opening a criminal investigation” and “upgrading” or “shifting” – the meaning is the same. Take it up with the NYTimes and everyone else.

Can you grow up for five minutes? All you are doing is taking a months old argument and trying to prolong it with your childish "What about the 100% verified dossier?" crap. You have NO interest in discussing the above. You obviously do not even know what you are talking about, or even if there is a connection to the dossier. In fact - nobody does.

If you can prove that the dossier is 100% verified and is not kompromat, please do so. As long as an investigation into Russiagate’s origins is ongoing, the topic remains very much current.

Well, you' are triggered again...almost everything you are saying now is a lie.

This is a flat out LIE on your part. You are lying about what I said about the polls. In fact, I post a link to RealClearPolitics that posted the final result of ALL of the polls. The race was too close to call. Period. That is a FACT. You are alo LYING that I said Hillary was never viewed as a favorite. That is a complete fabrication on your part, you are inventing it. What I said was that the final polls show that the race was too close to call. That is exactly where it stood on election day. It is a FACT.

Yes, RCP predicted Hillary would win. All of these predictions were done by trying to guess who would win states that were too close to call. RCP simply took who was ahead, despite it being in the margin of error, or if the poll history showed Trump surging, etc. They were wrong...they, along with most of those making such prediction, should have stuck to what the data showed - the race was too close to call.

If you thought the 2016 race was too close to call or thought the polls were inaccurate, please point to a post where you said that. This is revisionist history on your part. Instead, what you really said was the following -

Monker: "Statistically, Trump can't win. He has alienated himself from all minorities, including women. The Republican party can't win unless they get votes from both women and Hispanics. Trump loses on both of those demographics."

Monker: "At this point, the Democrats can run Dukakis and win by 10pts."

Monker: "I've known Clinton is going to win for about a year now."

Monker: "Well, OK, he HAS all of the voters he can get by acting like an ass. But it's not enough....and he's screwed now - he CAN'T win."

Monker: "Republicans are so screwed. They are so screwed that even if Hillary goes to jail, she could still win."

Monker: "In fact, the Latino vote alone kills Trumps chances at being elected - regardless of who he runs against."

Monker: "Nominated Trump, Carson, or even Cruz...and it won't matter who the Democrats nominate - they will win."

Monker: "Trump isn't going to win...even he knows it. He is behind nationally. He is behind in ALL of the battleground states. He is behind in the states he wanted to 'flip'. He is not ahead in ANY state that he needs to win. He simply has no true path to victory."

Monker: "I have simply said that Clinton will be the next President. You can keep pretending differently, but it won't change anything."

Monker: "Clinton will win with an ever grater margin than when Obama was reelected."

I ended it because it is a STUPID argument. Even in what you quoted above, he says collusion is not a crime. Collusion is not a crime. Yes, it is "LARGELY synonymous" with conspiracy....but they are NOT the same thing.

Already went over this. You are now arguing that the entire mission statement of the special counsel was impossible to undertake. If any serious evidence of co-ordination/collusion existed, it would have fallen under the rubric of conspiracy, which is against the law.

Correct, collusion is not a crime. Name somebody who has been charged and convicted of "collusion."

Already went over this. There’s also no crime called ‘shooting someone dead’ or ‘breaking into a house and stealing a TV." The legal terms are homicide and burglary. Mueller looked for conspiracy.

Nowhere in Rosenstein's letter does the word "collusion" appear.

Rosenstein’s special counsel letter says “coordination” – which is also not a crime.

Additionally, his memo to Mueller regarding Manafort says to look for “a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law.”

Mueller was hired to investigate Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, and any links and coordination the Trump campaign had with the Russia government.

Yes, he was authorized to prosecute crimes. But, it was about Russia interference and understanding what they did....and to understand the Trump campaigns connections to it.

Saying that Mueller was investigating the crime of "collusion" is in your imagination, and Trump's. It is flat out not true...and a lie.

Ah, so Mueller was hired to investigate the non-existent crime of “co-ordination” instead of the non-existent crime of “collusion”. Got it. Glad we are now clear.

So, you are a self-described life long Democrat, and the most liberal person on this forum....and you support the most liberal and socialist of the candidates in Sanders, and you say you are not a partisan hack. That's hillarious.

Not sure what is partisan about supporting a socialist who has spent most of his career as an independent.

And, to recap what I have said: I said I will vote for ANY of the Democrats over Trump. I have said I do not belong to EITHER party and will not donate to ANY candidate. And, I have said if I were to throw my support behind someone, it would be Bob Weld. Yeah, I'm partisan. Anti-Trump, Never-Trump, impeach Trump...yes....But, I'm not a Democrat.

You are obviously suffering from political party dysphoria, need to undertake political hormone therapy, and embrace the real you. Anyone who comes on here and makes up lies to help Hillary ("she had permission!") is definitely not an independent.

As for the below, I really don't care. I don't even know what it is.

LOL. What a massive self-own. I post a cartoon vag and you go "I don't even know what it is."
Yea, no shit. Thanks for confirming the obvious.

[Andrew]

Kept in the dark so he didn't fuck it up; playing golf while it happened and photo staged;

Link? By most accounts, Trump was given Baghdadi raid options last week, made the decision, and also watched it play out live in the WH Situation Room.

Can anyone else verify this?

His movements are all public record. Left golf course at the same time raid was happening. At White House 30 mins later. Staged photo taken another hour after that.

[Memorex]

His movements are all public record. Left golf course at the same time raid was happening. At White House 30 mins later. Staged photo taken another hour after that.

Media will leap at anything they think paints Trump in a bad light and the sheep will buy it.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/reporters ... 29579.html

[Andrew]

His movements are all public record. Left golf course at the same time raid was happening. At White House 30 mins later. Staged photo taken another hour after that.

Media will leap at anything they think paints Trump in a bad light and the sheep will buy it.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/reporters ... 29579.html

It's not hard to paint the Crook-In-Chief in a bad light, but in this case I'll happily step back and say those reports are not able to be verified. Unlike most RWNJs, I'm happy to admit when wrong.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... aghdadi-r/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump ... oom-photo/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 74196.html

PS. His press conference was still Level 9 Nutso.

[The_Noble_Cause]

His movements are all public record. Left golf course at the same time raid was happening. At White House 30 mins later. Staged photo taken another hour after that.

Media will leap at anything they think paints Trump in a bad light and the sheep will buy it.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/reporters ... 29579.html

It's not hard to paint the Crook-In-Chief in a bad light, but in this case I'll happily step back and say those reports are not able to be verified. Unlike most RWNJs, I'm happy to admit when wrong.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... aghdadi-r/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump ... oom-photo/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 74196.html

PS. His press conference was still Level 9 Nutso.

As predicted, this was just another debunked lie and conspiracy theory. You weren't "happy to admit when wrong." You only admitted after being asked for proof several times. Speaking of which, any updates on that 100% verified dossier?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Ballsy move by Tulsi.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... udi-arabia

[Andrew]

“Just another debunked lie...”

Implying there’s been so many when Drumpf has passed 14,000 lies and continues to talk absolute shit every time he opens his mouth.

[RPM]

Ballsy move by Tulsi.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... udi-arabia

She has some valid points, I always felt our support for the Saudi's was hypocritical.
I think she is very sharp and would not be surprised at all if she gets picked for a V.P. slot

[RPM]

“Just another debunked lie...”

Implying there’s been so many when Drumpf has passed 14,000 lies and continues to talk absolute shit every time he opens his mouth.

Relax Andrew. 5 years fly by quickly, and then you can Cry about the next American President.

[Monker]

Ballsy move by Tulsi.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... udi-arabia

No, it's not. It' just a BS attempt to get a headline. The bottom line is Tulsi has not connected to voters beyond her small following. In caucus states her words about Clinton probably doomed her...at least in Iowa. All this is showing is that she is getting very desperate.

As for what she said, I have said since the FIRST Iraq war that if we wanted out of the middle east, we had to end this countries addiction to oil. As long as the US consumes so much oil, we NEED Saudi Arabia because they control so much of the oil reserves, by a LARGE percentage. Saying we need to end our relationship with Saudi Arabia is ludicrous bullshit until we end our dependence on oil. So, come up with an energy policy that does that. Move off of oil to "whatever" by 2030. At least move off of gasoline for new cars sold in the US, which is an attainable goal.

[Monker]

Riiiigghht. You are constantly trolling for attention.

So says the resident MR drama queen who feels the need to vaingloriously announce his intentions to quit the forum. This is pure projection on your part. When you’re not on here getting exposed as a liar, you are splayed ass-up on your Ikea fainting couch, huffing the smelling salts, incoherently crying “Oh Andrew, help me! Help me!”

Dude, almost everything you post is drama. You literally have to go back YEARS for what you said about me.

As I already demonstrated, the supposedly incorrect language I used (“opened a criminal investigation”) is exactly the language used verbatim by many major news organizations.

Again, you are making shit up and lying about things. I did not say anything about you using "incorrect language". What you said was not true...it came from an already existing investigation. Saying Barr started a criminal investigation implies that it is something new - it's not. If you had actually read ANY of those articles, you would know that. If you had been paying attention, you would know that. You simply did not know what was going on.

Now you are attempting to change your argument (big surprise) to semantic nonsense.

I'm not changing ANYTHING. You are just making shit up and inventing your own reality where I said what you WANT me to say.

I have no interest in debating the picayune difference between “opening a criminal investigation” and “upgrading” or “shifting” – the meaning is the same. Take it up with the NYTimes and everyone else.

It is NOT the same thing...one implies it is something new, the other states that it is an ongoing process. It is not the NYT's fault that you don't read beyond the headline and do not understand what is going on - it is YOUR ISSUE.

Can you grow up for five minutes? All you are doing is taking a months old argument and trying to prolong it with your childish "What about the 100% verified dossier?" crap. You have NO interest in discussing the above. You obviously do not even know what you are talking about, or even if there is a connection to the dossier. In fact - nobody does.

If you can prove that the dossier is 100% verified and is not kompromat, please do so. As long as an investigation into Russiagate’s origins is ongoing, the topic remains very much current.

So, the answer is 'no',. you can't grow up for five minutes. You have to continue to act like a child.

If you thought the 2016 race was too close to call or thought the polls were inaccurate, please point to a post where you said that. This is revisionist history on your part. Instead, what you really said was the following

It's not up to me to prove anything. I said, many times now, that after Comey reopened and closed the Clinton investigation that I had my doubts. All of these quotes you made were well before that happened. Post one for the last two weeks prior to the election. You have never done that because you can't. The absence of evidence is not proof.

Already went over this. You are now arguing that the entire mission statement of the special counsel was impossible to undertake. If any serious evidence of co-ordination/collusion existed, it would have fallen under the rubric of conspiracy, which is against the law.

Coordination and collusion are not crimes. Period. Mueller was to investigate if they rose to criminal conspiracy. THAT was his task. You, and Trump, are simply in denial of reality.

Already went over this. There’s also no crime called ‘shooting someone dead’ or ‘breaking into a house and stealing a TV." The legal terms are homicide and burglary. Mueller looked for conspiracy.

This is stupid, too. All you are doing is posting the definition of a word. The definition of conspiracy is not collusion or coordination. They are three different things. One is a crime, the other two are not.

If a husband and wife are arguing, it is not necessarily a crime. It could just be an argument. If the police are called, they have to determine if things rose to a criminal level. THAT is a better comparison to what Mueller was asked to do.

Nowhere in Rosenstein's letter does the word "collusion" appear.

Rosenstein’s special counsel letter says “coordination” – which is also not a crime.

Additionally, his memo to Mueller regarding Manafort says to look for “a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law.”

So what? You are just repeating yourself. All he is doing is asking Mueller to investigate if that "colluding" rose to a criminal level. Collusion is not a crime.

You are obviously suffering from political party dysphoria, need to undertake political hormone therapy, and embrace the real you. Anyone who comes on here and makes up lies to help Hillary ("she had permission!") is definitely not an independent.

You know I don't make up lies to help Hillary. You just want it to be true so bad you invent motivation and pretend it is reality.

The truth is I never really endorsed Clinton in the primaries. I never said I would vote for her as President. All I did was say she would win. In fact, you have no idea who I voted for.

As for the below, I really don't care. I don't even know what it is.

LOL. What a massive self-own. I post a cartoon vag and you go "I don't even know what it is."
Yea, no shit. Thanks for confirming the obvious.

Dude, this is just stupid. You can be an expert on cartoon vaginas, I really don't care.

[Monker]

“Just another debunked lie...”

Implying there’s been so many when Drumpf has passed 14,000 lies and continues to talk absolute shit every time he opens his mouth.

Relax Andrew. 5 years fly by quickly, and then you can Cry about the next American President.

You're assuming President Pence will win reelection.

[RPM]

Relax Andrew. 5 years fly by quickly, and then you can Cry about the next American President.[/quote]

You're assuming President Pence will win reelection.[/quote]

I see nothing that changes a re-election for Trump. A house impeachment is meaningless.
I get it that it’s there only hope with no serious challenger to Trump, but it simply won’t work.
Unemployment at historic lows, stock market at record highs, border crossings way down
Another Supreme Court justice on the horizon, North Korea & isis which were such a high concern
Are at least in check for now. They are delusional if they think most of us who work very hard
To make a living care about a Ukrainian phone call or all the other crap they throw at him.
It’s true he has no support really in Washington, But 20,000 plus voters keep showing up to hear
Him talk the same message as he works to support Republican officials running for election.

[Andrew]

The “other crap” thrown at Trump are criminal acts according to the US constitution.

But let’s not quibble over minor details like that.

[RPM]

The “other crap” thrown at Trump are criminal acts according to the US constitution.

But let’s not quibble over minor details like that.

Thats not as clear as you would think Andrew. Some of these definitions are very vague.

This was written by self described Democrat Frank Bowman who does believe he should be removed.

"The House has opened an impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s behavior. What has Trump done that places him at peril for being removed from office?
The operative phrase in the Constitution is “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Whatever happened here plainly isn’t treason, because treason is very narrowly defined in the Constitution. It’s probably not bribery, either, in the original constitutional sense or in any current statutory sense. There’s an argument here that what happened was a violation of federal election law, if getting opposition research is a “thing of value” under election statutes. That’s the reason why Trump’s former lawyer [Michael Cohen] is now serving time — one of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty. But I don’t think that matters, whether there was a violation of any criminal statute. The key thing to understand about the last constitutional definition is that “high crimes and misdemeanors” doesn’t mean what it looks like it means."

He goes on to say that the main "crime" Trump committed is "Abuse of power"
There is no question that can be an impeachable offense, everyone agrees on that.
The first problem is in defining "abuse of power" the second is determining whether it rises to the level of removal.
This is where it gets partisan and alot of lawyers in Washington will have a wonderful Christmas.

So if its not clear cut and has to be debated, it will come down to how much the American People feel its worth it.
See my above post regarding that.

[Andrew]

I believe the majority are in favor of his removal.

Once the economy starts to tank due to his unaffordable tax cuts for the rich and his stupid tariff wars, then the calls for removal will be deafening.

[RPM]

I believe the majority are in favor of his removal.

Once the economy starts to tank due to his unaffordable tax cuts for the rich and his stupid tariff wars, then the calls for removal will be deafening.

We have a new deal with our North American partners so tariffs there are no longer an issue.
There is an agreement with China that is implemented in phases which I do not care for
But he is the first President to really emphasize intellectual property theft.
I Design and build Dies for custom manufacturing so I can relate to the importance of this.
You are correct that if the economy tanks the tables will turn, it would happen to any President.
As far as the tax cuts I find it interesting neither side is talking about the deficit. Ive never seen
a President put more public pressure on the fed to lower rates which sucks if your trying to save $
However he is focusing on growing the economy so it makes sense. His tax cuts pale in comparison
to all the "free" benefits being touted by the front runners on the left.

[Andrew]

Your record breaking deficit is out of control - you're right - no one is talking about that.