socalgeo wrote:

Hillis wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

if it is true then Obama may end up in jail.

It wasn't true. You must feel like a complete heel.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/ ... index.html

Not at all - CNN is not credible. AKA "Very Fake News".

Here is a credible source. Your very favorite NEW YORK TIMES.

http://m.hannity.com/articles/election- ... -15618638/

LOL

Credible source...Hannity? Who is so far up trump's butt hole he could diagnose his gum disease? Using an almost two month article everyone already knew about? Bless your heart.

Everyone needs to remember, by wiretap, Trump did not mean wiretap. By British, Trump did not mean British, and by Obama, Trump did not mean Obama.

Is everything clear?

No????

Sean Spicer will have press conference to further clear things up later today, and by clear, we do not mean clear.

MaverickM11 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

Hillis wrote:

It wasn't true. You must feel like a complete heel.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/ ... index.html

Not at all - CNN is not credible. AKA "Very Fake News".

Here is a credible source. Your very favorite NEW YORK TIMES.

http://m.hannity.com/articles/election- ... -15618638/

LOL

Credible source...Hannity? Who is so far up trump's butt hole he could diagnose his gum disease? Using an almost two month article everyone already knew about? Bless your heart.

I put socalgeo on my block list. Life is so much nicer when you don't have to deal with a nincompoop.

tommy1808 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Credible source...Hannity? Who is so far up trump's butt hole he could diagnose his gum disease? Using an almost two month article everyone already knew about? Bless your heart.

I put socalgeo on my block list. Life is so much nicer when you don't have to deal with a nincompoop.

On the other hand that is exactly the filter bubble that allowed stupidity to spread into the white house.

Perhaps. But I believe that no matter what you tell people like him/her, they won't listen. They live in an alternate reality, and nothing will shake them out of it.

socalgeo wrote:

No wiretaps, no Russia narrative.

Does that really make sense to you?

salttee wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

No wiretaps, no Russia narrative.

Does that really make sense to you?

The Russia narrative goes WAY beyond this made-up wiretap crap. Flynn, Tillerson, Bannon, and others have deep ties with Russia; you have 45's call for Russia to hack the DNC during the campaign. 45 Is still constantly bending over backward to appease Putin. The wiretapping falsehood was merely a smokescreen to get people to look away from ther things that are going on, like his demonic budget or the Repblican Insurance Plan (RIP).

This wiretap nonsense was a bigly mistake, as it's focused even more on what the hell is going on with 45 and the Russians.

Trump has doubled down on his wiretap claim!

President Donald Trump has stood by claims he was wiretapped under Barack Obama, telling visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel: "At least we have something in common perhaps."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39310801

You just couldn't make this stuff up! Oh to be a microwave in Sean Spicer's office when he found out!

Oh my god you all are quite entertaining! I can eaisily visualize your keyboards and monitors covered with spittle from your angry shouting as you loudly type your insults and diatribes out as fast as you can.

I'm smiling as I type this because you still have no idea how or why President Trump won the election. Your anger and inability to be even the least bit introspective prevents you from even a small amount of understanding.

I assure you that very few, if any, of the people who voted President Trump into office feel that he has made any mistakes. In fact it is the exact opposite. The more all of you gnash your teeth and cry your tears, the more we feel that Trump is on the right track.

Your insults won't changes these facts.

Cheers!

socalgeo wrote:

I can eaisily visualize your keyboards and monitors covered with spittle from your angry shouting as you loudly type your insults and diatribes out as fast as you can.

I'm guessing it's because you are seeing your reflection in your screen

Tugg

[quote="socalgeo"]Oh my god you all are quite entertaining! I can eaisily visualize your keyboards and monitors covered with spittle from your angry shouting as you loudly type your insults and diatribes out as fast as you can.quote]

Oh pumpkin, we're not angry with you. We'll feel sorry for you. Trump's triple down lies are funny when it's Alec Baldwin doing another great SNL routine. But when it's the real Donald Trump, the real President of the United States and our face to the world, when that man becomes a laughing stock and the butt of jokes worldwide, that's still funny in a certain sense but really quite sad in another. It's not easy to muster up enough neurons to see that, at least not while keeping your eyes from crossing and drooling on your lap, and so I think what see you see here with the crew is a sort of empathetic melancholy. The good news is that laughter is an excellent remedy so you just go on laughing and despite any of our differences please know that we wish you the best.

socalgeo wrote:

I'm smiling as I type this because you still have no idea how or why President Trump won the election.

Hmmm..... let me guess: Because geniuses like yourself voted for that Kremlin puppet?

socalgeo wrote:

I assure you that very few, if any, of the people who voted President Trump into office feel that he has made any mistakes. In fact it is the exact opposite.

That's probably the Deplorables' version of the American Dream. They project it as their own gratification: "Look Ma, even someone who has a vocabulary of 300 words and behaves like 5-year old can [nowadays in the post-fact world] become a US President."

socalgeo wrote:

Oh my god you all are quite entertaining! I can eaisily visualize your keyboards and monitors covered with spittle from your angry shouting as you loudly type your insults and diatribes out as fast as you can.

I'm smiling as I type this because you still have no idea how or why President Trump won the election. Your anger and inability to be even the least bit introspective prevents you from even a small amount of understanding.

I assure you that very few, if any, of the people who voted President Trump into office feel that he has made any mistakes. In fact it is the exact opposite. The more all of you gnash your teeth and cry your tears, the more we feel that Trump is on the right track.

Your insults won't changes these facts.

Cheers!

see my avatar? That's me and that's what I do as much as possible. Not sitting here getting into your little propaganda wars.

Aside from playing around on computers, what do you actually do? What are you going to achieve this year?

tommy1808 wrote:

......any sane person would have understood since a while back that your "no wire taps, no Russia connection" drum line is not just not supported by your "evidance", it is also logically faulty to begin with.

Look, your assertions are patently false. You know this. The entire Russian connection stems from a series of NYT and WaPo articles where the authors claim to have heard or seen transcripts from the recorded conversations of Trump and his staff. Both during the campaign and after. Just one example:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nyt ... p.amp.html

The first 6 words of this article are "phone records and intercepted calls show". If this is not FAKE news(a lie) then it means there were wiretaps on Trump and his organization.

I challenge you to find another single piece of credible information that shows that the claims of a Russian connection stem from something other than unproven claims of wiretaps or bugs.

If you can't produce this, then my assertion is correct: no wiretaps, no Russians. You are just going to have to come to terms with this reality.

socalgeo wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

......any sane person would have understood since a while back that your "no wire taps, no Russia connection" drum line is not just not supported by your "evidance", it is also logically faulty to begin with.

Look, your assertions are patently false. You know this. The entire Russian connection stems from a series of NYT and WaPo articles where the authors claim to have heard or seen transcripts from the recorded conversations of Trump and his staff. Both during the campaign and after. Just one example:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nyt ... p.amp.html

The first 6 words of this article are "phone records and intercepted calls show". If this is not FAKE news(a lie) then it means there were wiretaps on Trump and his organization.

I challenge you to find another single piece of credible information that shows that the claims of a Russian connection stem from something other than unproven claims of wiretaps or bugs.

If you can't produce this, then my assertion is correct: no wiretaps, no Russians. You are just going to have to come to terms with this reality.

What amuses me about the right wing apologists is how they believe literally EVERYTHING the orange menace says simply because he calls himself president. Let's break down what happened:

The orange baby TWEETED that Obama bugged Trump Tower.
The media got ahold of this piece of crazy and paraded it around for the crazy it is.
The crazy TWEET reached Fox "news"
The orange menace screamed "I TOLD YOU OBAMA BUGGED MY OFFICE! THERE IS THE PROOF! ON FOX!"

Keep in mind, this is all based on a late night Tweet. There has been zero proof Obama bugged Trump Tower. Intelligence agencies were told to come up with evidence. The response? Crickets.

This keeps happening. The orange menace tweets something crazy at 3AM. Enough people on the right believe it is true.

Compare that to Obama wanting to get actual government policy things done. Remember when we used to debate actual government policy things and not idiotic tweets sent at 3AM that some people believe are honest truthful news?

As far as Russia goes, there is credible evidence that Russia is involved with the administration. I went to Google and typed "russia trump administration" and the first two hits are "Everything You Need To Know About Russia And The Trump Administration" from npr.org and "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russians" from nytimes.com. Of course, you will see none of this on Fox or Breitbart or Infowars because if the human cheeto says it, it must be true....

seb146, With due respect to you and your opinions, and with apologies for the long post, here is what I said:

"......I challenge you to find another single piece of credible information that shows that the claims of a Russian connection stem from something other than unproven claims of wiretaps or bugs. If you can't produce this, then my assertion is correct: no wiretaps, no Russians. You are just going to have to come to terms with this reality."

I've provided a link and relevant analysis.

Here is how you replied:

"What amuses me about the right wing apologists is how they believe literally EVERYTHING the orange menace says simply because he calls himself president. Let's break down what happened:"

My comment on this: This kind of general dismissive statement really doesn't do anything to convince anyone that your beliefs or positions are worth listening to. Calling the President of the United States derogatory names is disrespectful of the office and honestly, comes off as a bit unhinged.

Perhaps if we all showed some respect the tone of the conversation might improve. I know that you will say that the President doesn't deserve respect, (along with his supporters) and that you can provide lots of what you consider to be excellent examples of his (and our) boorishness. Its all meaningless to us, so don't bother repeating it - we can get a massive dose of it on CNN at any time 24 hours a day 7 days a week if we choose.

And by the way, the definition of apologist is "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial" We can argue about this, but the reality is that I'm not defending anything - thus not an apologist. The tweets, the behavior, the claims by the President, none of it. I'm simply saying that I think its brilliant and that the left is being manipulated by him. I've also stated that few of any Trump supporters care about the controversy in the least. There is no need to defend any of it. It simply exists, and we love that the President's opponents don't like it.

You also added this:
"The orange baby TWEETED that Obama bugged Trump Tower.
The media got ahold of this piece of crazy and paraded it around for the crazy it is.
The crazy TWEET reached Fox "news"
The orange menace screamed "I TOLD YOU OBAMA BUGGED MY OFFICE! THERE IS THE PROOF! ON FOX!"
Keep in mind, this is all based on a late night Tweet. There has been zero proof Obama bugged Trump Tower. Intelligence agencies were told to come up with evidence. The response? Crickets.
This keeps happening. The orange menace tweets something crazy at 3AM. Enough people on the right believe it is true.
Compare that to Obama wanting to get actual government policy things done. Remember when we used to debate actual government policy things and not idiotic tweets sent at 3AM that some people believe are honest truthful news?"

My comment on this: Again, what is with all of the name calling? Its not necessary, and frankly its childish. I understand that you don't like any of President Trumps methods. Really, we all get it. But it is really irrelevant to the subject of the thread. The fact that the President did a late night tweet has no bearing on the facts of the situation. If you were pointing out that his tweets were imprecise and potentially caused confusion, then that would be something to discuss. The fact of the matter is that the point he was making is that he, and his organization were spied upon by the US government under the Obama administration. This is not in doubt. Ill agree that the tweet could have been phrased better, but its really not important.

You ended with this:
"As far as Russia goes, there is credible evidence that Russia is involved with the administration. I went to Google and typed "russia trump administration" and the first two hits are "Everything You Need To Know About Russia And The Trump Administration" from npr.org and "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russians" from nytimes.com. Of course, you will see none of this on Fox or Breitbart or Infowars because if the human cheeto says it, it must be true...."

My comment on this: Still with the childish name calling, but finally, to the question at hand. Spending 3/4 of your post calling the President names and complaining about his methods, and then telling me to do a Google search doesn't do anything other than highlight the fact that you cant provide any credible evidence that my assertion is wrong.

No wiretaps, no Russians.

socalgeo wrote:

seb146, With due respect to you and your opinions, and with apologies for the long post, here is what I said:

"......I challenge you to find another single piece of credible information that shows that the claims of a Russian connection stem from something other than unproven claims of wiretaps or bugs. If you can't produce this, then my assertion is correct: no wiretaps, no Russians. You are just going to have to come to terms with this reality."

I've provided a link and relevant analysis.

Here is how you replied:

"What amuses me about the right wing apologists is how they believe literally EVERYTHING the orange menace says simply because he calls himself president. Let's break down what happened:"

My comment on this: This kind of general dismissive statement really doesn't do anything to convince anyone that your beliefs or positions are worth listening to. Calling the President of the United States derogatory names is disrespectful of the office and honestly, comes off as a bit unhinged.

Perhaps if we all showed some respect the tone of the conversation might improve. I know that you will say that the President doesn't deserve respect, (along with his supporters) and that you can provide lots of what you consider to be excellent examples of his (and our) boorishness. Its all meaningless to us, so don't bother repeating it - we can get a massive dose of it on CNN at any time 24 hours a day 7 days a week if we choose.

And by the way, the definition of apologist is "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial" We can argue about this, but the reality is that I'm not defending anything - thus not an apologist. The tweets, the behavior, the claims by the President, none of it. I'm simply saying that I think its brilliant and that the left is being manipulated by him. I've also stated that few of any Trump supporters care about the controversy in the least. There is no need to defend any of it. It simply exists, and we love that the President's opponents don't like it.

You also added this:
"The orange baby TWEETED that Obama bugged Trump Tower.
The media got ahold of this piece of crazy and paraded it around for the crazy it is.
The crazy TWEET reached Fox "news"
The orange menace screamed "I TOLD YOU OBAMA BUGGED MY OFFICE! THERE IS THE PROOF! ON FOX!"
Keep in mind, this is all based on a late night Tweet. There has been zero proof Obama bugged Trump Tower. Intelligence agencies were told to come up with evidence. The response? Crickets.
This keeps happening. The orange menace tweets something crazy at 3AM. Enough people on the right believe it is true.
Compare that to Obama wanting to get actual government policy things done. Remember when we used to debate actual government policy things and not idiotic tweets sent at 3AM that some people believe are honest truthful news?"

My comment on this: Again, what is with all of the name calling? Its not necessary, and frankly its childish. I understand that you don't like any of President Trumps methods. Really, we all get it. But it is really irrelevant to the subject of the thread. The fact that the President did a late night tweet has no bearing on the facts of the situation. If you were pointing out that his tweets were imprecise and potentially caused confusion, then that would be something to discuss. The fact of the matter is that the point he was making is that he, and his organization were spied upon by the US government under the Obama administration. This is not in doubt. Ill agree that the tweet could have been phrased better, but its really not important.

You ended with this:
"As far as Russia goes, there is credible evidence that Russia is involved with the administration. I went to Google and typed "russia trump administration" and the first two hits are "Everything You Need To Know About Russia And The Trump Administration" from npr.org and "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russians" from nytimes.com. Of course, you will see none of this on Fox or Breitbart or Infowars because if the human cheeto says it, it must be true...."

My comment on this: Still with the childish name calling, but finally, to the question at hand. Spending 3/4 of your post calling the President names and complaining about his methods, and then telling me to do a Google search doesn't do anything other than highlight the fact that you cant provide any credible evidence that my assertion is wrong.

No wiretaps, no Russians.

So, I provide proof through my exact Google search and I still have no proof? I gave you proof and you cover your ears and scream "I can't hear you so you are wrong!" Did you even bother to do what I asked you to do? Nope.

As far as the "name calling" of the orange menace, sucks doesn't it? Guess what the world had to put up with for the past eight years because "it is patriotic"? Don't like it? You righties should have shown some respect. But, you all didn't so you are reaping what you sowed. Get over it.

You want links you will ignore? Here ya go:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ons-214868
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/these- ... to-russia/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 7a3a613c95
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/p ... .html?_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/ ... anization/

But. since they are not links to RT or Fox or Breitbart, they are fake news, right? Go back and google what we have all asked you to google. The truth hurts, I know.

seb146 wrote:

As far as the "name calling" of the orange menace, sucks doesn't it? Guess what the world had to put up with for the past eight years because "it is patriotic"? Don't like it? You righties should have shown some respect. But, you all didn't so you are reaping what you sowed. Get over it.

Personally, i"m becoming more enarmored with Cheeto Jesus myself.

Hillis wrote:

seb146 wrote:

As far as the "name calling" of the orange menace, sucks doesn't it? Guess what the world had to put up with for the past eight years because "it is patriotic"? Don't like it? You righties should have shown some respect. But, you all didn't so you are reaping what you sowed. Get over it.

Personally, i"m becoming more enarmored with Cheeto Jesus myself.

It just shows your deteriorating and fragile mental state. Sad actually. 8 years is a long time, you may not make it. All the while reciting whatever Rachel Maddow tells you and chanting "The Russians stole the election, the Russians stole the election, 45 will be impeached"

The media is rotting your brains.

The key thing to realize is that SoCal Geo does not understand the government and its structure. He doesn't appear to understand that "the government" is not the the same thing as "the president" or "the administration". He cannot apparently grasp that there is such a thing as an independent functioning government, that there are three branches, and that they do not answer to one another but rather balance each other.

Based on what SoCalGeo is stating as "proof" the fact the CIA, NSA, or FBI could be running an investigation into something as a part of their function and power, he confuses with the the executive branch and the idea that "Obama did it". He just doesn't get it which makes for annoying posts that are relatively meaningless and creating confusing elements at the least in threads.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

The Key thing to realize is that SoCal Geo does not understand the government and it structure. He doesn't appear to understand that "the government" is not the the same thing as "the president" or "the administration". He cannot apparently grasp that there is such a thing as in independent functioning government, that there are three branches, and that they do not answer to one another but rather balance each other.

Based on what SoCalGeo is stating as "proof" the fact the CIA, NSA, or FBI could be running an investigation into something as a part of their function and power, he confuses with the the executive branch and the idea that "Obama did it". He just doesn't get it which makes for annoying posts that are relatively meaningless and creating confusing elements at the least in threads.

Tugg

Are you surprised? Many voters of this man think that he IS the government, all by himself. They want an authoritarian president, who would rule by decree, if they could get it. Then all those colored people, all those fags and dykes, all those Muslims would simply be gone from 'Murica.

What's the most amazing thing is that people like him continue to support this clown even as he's promoting cuts that will hurt the very people who voted for him. He's wanting to take away their health care, the meals on wheels, school lunches, etc. All are things that many, many supporters of 45 have in their daily lives. They took a gamble that he could snap his fingers and all would be well. Well, they're finding out the grim reality that yes, a billionaire, who made his money by walking over the common man, doesn't really give a shit about the socalgeo's of the world.

Tugger wrote:

The key thing to realize is that SoCal Geo does not understand the government and its structure. He doesn't appear to understand that "the government" is not the the same thing as "the president" or "the administration". He cannot apparently grasp that there is such a thing as an independent functioning government, that there are three branches, and that they do not answer to one another but rather balance each other.

Based on what SoCalGeo is stating as "proof" the fact the CIA, NSA, or FBI could be running an investigation into something as a part of their function and power, he confuses with the the executive branch and the idea that "Obama did it". He just doesn't get it which makes for annoying posts that are relatively meaningless and creating confusing elements at the least in threads.

Tugg

It's pointless debating with him/her and people of that ilk. You lay out the facts, they don't want to accept them. Even Nunes, Trump's butt buddy in the House, has come out and said there is no evidence pointing to a wiretap. Either SoCalGeo is a delusional person, or a well paid Russian troll.

NIKV69 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

seb146 wrote:

As far as the "name calling" of the orange menace, sucks doesn't it? Guess what the world had to put up with for the past eight years because "it is patriotic"? Don't like it? You righties should have shown some respect. But, you all didn't so you are reaping what you sowed. Get over it.

Personally, i"m becoming more enarmored with Cheeto Jesus myself.

It just shows your deteriorating and fragile mental state. Sad actually. 8 years is a long time, you may not make it. All the while reciting whatever Rachel Maddow tells you and chanting "The Russians stole the election, the Russians stole the election, 45 will be impeached"

The media is rotting your brains.

You righties made it through eight years of believing the president was not born in the United States, was a closet Muslim, was going to march door to door taking everyone's guns and forcing everyone into Sharia. The difference is, with the former president, those were simply boogymen to keep you righties scared. Cheetolini is actually destroying the republic but you all would rather put party ahead of country.

seb146 wrote:

Cheetolini is actually destroying the republic but you all would rather put party ahead of country.

Businesses are staying, jobs are being created and we are not letting people just walk into our country. Not to mention finally stopping the huge debt we have.

Yea he is really destroying it.

NIKV69 wrote:

Not to mention finally stopping the huge debt we have.

Stopping? You might want to look at the proposed budget. It's not balanced and no doubt riders will load it up so that it ends up as a deficit (ergo, adding to the debt).

But don't let facts get in the way.

seb146 wrote:

You want links you will ignore? Here ya go:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ons-214868
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/these- ... to-russia/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 7a3a613c95
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/p ... .html?_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/ ... anization/

But. since they are not links to RT or Fox or Breitbart, they are fake news, right? Go back and google what we have all asked you to google. The truth hurts, I know.

Ok - lets go through your credible evidence of President Trump being a Russian agent, or that he colluded with the Russians to win the election, that is not based on wiretaps

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ons-214868 - First sentence of the web page - "What is the real story of Donald Trump and Russia? The answer is still unclear" Kind of speaks for itself. There is a nice chart that has lots of lines, but nothing that means, or proves anything. Thus - FAIL

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/these- ... to-russia/ - Another FAIL. This entire article adds up to this - Democrats want to investigate President Trump. There is nothing here about any collusion between the President's campaign and the Russians. The one possible thing in this article is at the end where it mentions the two alleged meetings between then Senator Sessions and the Russian ambassador, one of which was set up by the Obama admin. If that is the totality of the alleged collusion between the President and the Russians, then you are wasting everyone's time. Thus - FAIL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 7a3a613c95 - Not a credible source ever since the owner of this rag announced that he was assigning a special department to investigate and defeat then candidate Trump. Still, this is an opinion piece that talks about how one of Trumps opponents in the election is calling for an investigation. Sad really. Thus FAIL

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/p ... .html?_r=0 - Hilarious actually. This is the exact same link I provided in the post you were responding to. I guess you didn't take the time to read my link. LOL. Again the first 6 words of this article are "Phone records and intercepted calls show..." Total and complete FAIL on your part. Unbelieveable really.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/ ... anization/ - Oh my god this is so stupid. Really. This link references another article from the NY Times that has this actual title: "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia" Talk about spin. This link you provided contains no actual evidence of anything, just dark and ominous gossip really. In this section of text,
"It's unclear if the Trump Organization server itself did anything in return. No one has produced evidence that the servers actually communicated.
Slate and The New York Times were first to report the unusual server activity.
The Times said the FBI had concluded there could be an "innocuous explanation." And cybersecurity experts told CNN this isn't how two entities would communicate if they wanted to keep things secret. "

It refers to this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/p ... .html?_r=0 Total and utter FAIL on your part.

Id recommend that you actually read the articles that you are posting here.

What is amazing, is that you have provided your own sources (not FOX news) that totally exonerate the President.

Repeat after me - No wiretaps, no Russians

LOL

socalgeo wrote:

seb146 wrote:

You want links you will ignore? Here ya go:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ons-214868
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/these- ... to-russia/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 7a3a613c95
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/p ... .html?_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/ ... anization/

But. since they are not links to RT or Fox or Breitbart, they are fake news, right? Go back and google what we have all asked you to google. The truth hurts, I know.

Ok - lets go through your credible evidence of President Trump being a Russian agent, or that he colluded with the Russians to win the election, that is not based on wiretaps

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ons-214868 - First sentence of the web page - "What is the real story of Donald Trump and Russia? The answer is still unclear" Kind of speaks for itself. There is a nice chart that has lots of lines, but nothing that means, or proves anything. Thus - FAIL

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/these- ... to-russia/ - Another FAIL. This entire article adds up to this - Democrats want to investigate President Trump. There is nothing here about any collusion between the President's campaign and the Russians. The one possible thing in this article is at the end where it mentions the two alleged meetings between then Senator Sessions and the Russian ambassador, one of which was set up by the Obama admin. If that is the totality of the alleged collusion between the President and the Russians, then you are wasting everyone's time. Thus - FAIL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 7a3a613c95 - Not a credible source ever since the owner of this rag announced that he was assigning a special department to investigate and defeat then candidate Trump. Still, this is an opinion piece that talks about how one of Trumps opponents in the election is calling for an investigation. Sad really. Thus FAIL

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/p ... .html?_r=0 - Hilarious actually. This is the exact same link I provided in the post you were responding to. I guess you didn't take the time to read my link. LOL. Again the first 6 words of this article are "Phone records and intercepted calls show..." Total and complete FAIL on your part. Unbelieveable really.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/ ... anization/ - Oh my god this is so stupid. Really. This link references another article from the NY Times that has this actual title: "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia" Talk about spin. This link you provided contains no actual evidence of anything, just dark and ominous gossip really. In this section of text,
"It's unclear if the Trump Organization server itself did anything in return. No one has produced evidence that the servers actually communicated.
Slate and The New York Times were first to report the unusual server activity.
The Times said the FBI had concluded there could be an "innocuous explanation." And cybersecurity experts told CNN this isn't how two entities would communicate if they wanted to keep things secret. "

It refers to this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/p ... .html?_r=0 Total and utter FAIL on your part.

Id recommend that you actually read the articles that you are posting here.

What is amazing, is that you have provided your own sources (not FOX news) that totally exonerate the President.

Repeat after me - No wiretaps, no Russians

LOL

So you ask for proof, we give you proof. We tell you exactly what to put into the google machine. But, that is too much work for you, so we provide you with links. But, that is too hard for you. I am sorry you have so much trouble navigating your mouse and making one click. Maybe you should pay for a doctor to help you out with that. You have been led to facts. You choosing to ignore them does not make you right or better. It actually makes you ignorant and childish. Good luck with that!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cli ... on-n734176

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key ... collusion/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/th ... #.wdYlMP9w


Not Fox News or Brietbart. This is from NBC and Buzzfeed.

This entire story is now over. Democratic Party leadership are now admitting the whole Russian thing was a ploy. There never was any evidence of collusion between Trump, or his organization and the Russian government.

So, yes, this means that Trumps tweet was incorrect. There were no wiretaps.

As I have stated before, his tweet accomplished its goal to force the left to admit that the entire Russian narrative was made up.

He played all of you.

socalgeo wrote:

This entire story is now over. Democratic Party leadership are now admitting the whole Russian thing was a ploy.

That's an "alternate fact", the Democratic party leadership has said no such thing.

socalgeo wrote:

There never was any evidence of collusion between Trump, or his organization and the Russian government.

There is lots of circumstantial evidence of collusion, but we are still waiting while the committee charged with investigation conducts its investigation.

Meanwhile, the investigative committee has said that they have found no evidence of wiretapping.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... 6dd07ec1c7

salttee wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

This entire story is now over. Democratic Party leadership are now admitting the whole Russian thing was a ploy.

That's an "alternate fact", the Democratic party leadership has said no such thing.

socalgeo wrote:

There never was any evidence of collusion between Trump, or his organization and the Russian government.

There is lots of circumstantial evidence of collusion, but we are still waiting while the committee charged with investigation conducts its investigation.

Meanwhile, the investigative committee has said that they have found no evidence of wiretapping.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... 6dd07ec1c7

Face it - Its over. its time to move on to the next made up controversy. I see that they are now trying to pivot to the Presidents tax returns .... Again. Perhaps you should open up another anti-Trump thread with no actual facts and then we can spend the next two weeks going back and forth until the DNC admits that they made it all up - Again.

I'm game.

The denial by socalgeo and his fantasy world is, all at once, both amusing and tragic.

Hillis wrote:

The denial by socalgeo and his fantasy world is, all at once, both amusing and tragic.

It is hilarious that you used the term "fantasy world", which better describes your reality since President Trump's election victory last year.

You want President Trump to prove that 44 bugged his office?

I suspect that you will get it, along with the only billionaire President's tax returns, when all of those women who claimed that he sexually assaulted them provide proof.

These tactics work both ways. Sorry that you still have not figured it out.

Jesse

FlyDeltaJetsATL wrote:

Hillis wrote:

The denial by socalgeo and his fantasy world is, all at once, both amusing and tragic.

It is hilarious that you used the term "fantasy world", which better describes your reality since President Trump's election victory last year.

You want President Trump to prove that 44 bugged his office?

I suspect that you will get it, along with the only billionaire President's tax returns, when all of those women who claimed that he sexually assaulted them provide proof.

These tactics work both ways. Sorry that you still have not figured it out.

Jesse

Alternate facts, Alternate Universe, Alternate reality is the White House and Trump's and hisTrumpetts tactics. Throw out a cloud of bullshit and then deny ,deny.deny. This is the most clownish administration in history and they have just gotten started. No shame, no respect, just lie and then deny. I just love Trump pointing his finger at Fox and shifting the blame to them. Not that they are not part of the clown act. I call them thr Alternate Universe all the time.

coolian2 wrote:

You're just useless at gaslighting.

But great at ignoring questions he doesn't like.

FlyDeltaJetsATL wrote:

when all of those women who claimed that he sexually assaulted them provide proof.

"All of those women" as in multiple independent accusations of the same behavior - think about that Jessie.

BTW he is on tape, personally bragging about "grabbing a woman's pussy".

So now where's the tax return?

salttee wrote:

"All of those women" as in multiple independent accusations of the same behavior - think about that Jessie.

All of those women who all of a sudden realized what had happened to them years and years earlier, and who decided to go public right at the same time conveniently just weeks before a presidential election involving the man they were accusing - think about that salttee.

It has been months since these sexual assault claims were made and not only have we not seen any evidence to back them up, we have stopped hearing about them - think about that too salttee.

Jesse

FlyDeltaJetsATL wrote:

You want President Trump to prove that 44 bugged his office?

I suspect that you will get it, along with the only billionaire President's tax returns, when all of those women who claimed that he sexually assaulted them provide proof.

These tactics work both ways. Sorry that you still have not figured it out.

Jesse

Yes, when someone makes a charge, they have to prove it. Where's the proof? The FBI says it doesn't exist. Congress says it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. And talk about a convoluted deflection, going from talking about Trump's claims about Obama by bringing up Trump's philandering.

Trump lied. That's quite obvious. But then, he always lies. I don't think he's capable of telling the truth, about anything. Why you would support a man who seems to be on an emotional and intellectual level of a 7 year old is beyond me.

Hillis wrote:

The FBI says it doesn't exist. Congress says it doesn't exist.....

Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes says it doesn't exist and the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), has said he has seen no evidence to support the charge of wiretapping that Trump leveled on Obama. That's about everyone.

CNN is running a story which leads with the headline: Trump's wiretapping accusation comes to a head at Comey hearing

The bizarre saga of President Donald Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by President Barack Obama last year reaches a dramatic climax Monday with FBI Director James Comey's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. It's a moment of political theater that could end in humiliation for Trump, with Comey expected to say that there was no wiretapping, debunking allegations that Trump has repeatedly refused to withdraw.

Tomorrow's going to be a good day to watch C-span.

Hillis wrote:

FlyDeltaJetsATL wrote:

You want President Trump to prove that 44 bugged his office?

I suspect that you will get it, along with the only billionaire President's tax returns, when all of those women who claimed that he sexually assaulted them provide proof.

These tactics work both ways. Sorry that you still have not figured it out.

Jesse

Yes, when someone makes a charge, they have to prove it. Where's the proof?

Thank you for making my point. Well done.

Hillis wrote:

And talk about a convoluted deflection, going from talking about Trump's claims about Obama by bringing up Trump's philandering.

Trump lied. That's quite obvious. But then, he always lies. I don't think he's capable of telling the truth, about anything.

If you can't see why Trump did this then that is too bad. Trump doesn't care what others think. People made stuff up about him, so he will go after those who he feels is responsible and do the same to them. As I said before, these tactics work both ways. Proof works both ways. He won't prove anything until those who tried to derail his campaign prove their claims.

I suspect he didn't really ever want to be president; he just wanted to prove that he can be the President if he wanted. That he could beat everyone. Beat the system. Win.This is the result of those who laughed at him last time he tried to run in the primaries and who said that he had no chance. It just fueled his desire to give them a big F you and prove them all wrong. And, he did just that; he won. He out smarted so many career politicians with decades of experience. I believe he did this not because he really wanted to be the president; but just to prove that he can. I wouldn't be surprised if he steps down after 2 years or so, so that he can go back to living his life of luxury.

Hillis wrote:

Why you would support a man who seems to be on an emotional and intellectual level of a 7 year old is beyond me.

And that is still higher than your emotional and intellectual level.

Jesse

FlyDeltaJetsATL wrote:

I suspect he didn't really ever want to be president; he just wanted to prove that he can be the President if he wanted. That he could beat everyone. Beat the system. Win.This is the result of those who laughed at him last time he tried to run in the primaries and who said that he had no chance. It just fueled his desire to give them a big F you and prove them all wrong. And, he did just that; he won. He out smarted so many career politicians with decades of experience. I believe he did this not because he really wanted to be the president; but just to prove that he can. I wouldn't be surprised if he steps down after 2 years or so, so that he can go back to living his life of luxury.

You paint a picture of a person with a voracious ego who gamed the heart of the American system just to satisfy his own selfish needs, yet you object to Hillis' opposition to this person. If you believe what you say you believe why wouldn't you be a supporter of Hillis?

salttee wrote:

You paint a picture of a person with a voracious ego who gamed the heart of the American system just to satisfy his own selfish needs, yet you object to Hillis' opposition to this person.

It's gone beyond opposition; a form of moral OCD would better describe what is happening with Hillis.

salttee wrote:

If you believe what you say you believe why wouldn't you be a supporter of Hillis?

Why support somebody who has been starting a new thread every day to express his hate for the POTUS? We get it. His side lost. It's okay. Life will go on, although you might not think that for Hillis.

There was an election with two candidates. I voted for Trump because;

1) Trump was the lesser of two evils in my opinion.

2) I almost always vote for the Republicans anyway.

3) Like many people, I have been sick of politics for years and I wanted to see a big shake up to the system. That is what Trump offered. That is why many people voted for Trump and so far, they have not been disappointed.

The other side picked a candidate so bad that she was really destined to lose no matter what.

Jesse

FlyDeltaJetsATL wrote:

I wanted to see a big shake up to the system. That is what Trump offered. That is why many people voted for Trump and so far, they have not been disappointed.

Sort of like if the TV has lines across the screen you just kick its side eh? You don't spend a lot of time thinking about the ramifications of your "big shake up" do you?

FlyDeltaJetsATL wrote:

The other side picked a candidate so bad that she was really destined to lose no matter what.

Ummm, she won the popular vote by almost 3 million. But I can see that you're not a detail oriented sorta guy.