Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:48 pm » wrote:
Oh gosh, did I forget to say,"Please read and consider?"

Or did I insert the words,"Imperative! This must be accepted at face value without question!"

How utterly freaking ridiculous can you be, psycho?


After which you can babble in idiocy and ignorance.

What was that middle part again?

I think that middle part.

Wait. What are my options?

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:51 pm » wrote: I certainly question accepting Russian money, but for example, Flynn's acceptance of relative chump change gave him a chance to offer an objective, pro-American opinion on a Russian Propaganda outlet. I accept that he has the integrity not to be bought.

Depends on the individual.

Does anyone trust Hillary and Bill Clinton and their cronies, who got 10's of millions of dollars?

Funny how silent liberals are about that.

Depends on who the money is coming from. Legitimate money from legitimate business is one thing, and that includes Bill making speeches.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 4:49 pm » wrote:YWhy do you continue to shift the responsibility to Russia?

Because 1) they're terrified that the felonies committed by Obama officials is going to be exposed.


2) Because the Democrats have a long, long, long history of lying and creating fake or overblown scandals to undermine Repubs, with the help of the corrupt MSM of course.

and 3) because they're terrified to talk issues, because they know they'd lose on that.

Huey » 31 Mar 2017 4:53 pm » wrote:Depends on who the money is coming from. Legitimate money from legitimate business is one thing, and that includes Bill making speeches.

What did Clinton do to deserve $500,000 from some Russian group or company, and a lot more elsewhere, other than peddle influence and favors through HRC?

What did Podesta do to deserve $35 million or so?

Maybe I missed something, but I cannot possibly think of any value Podesta could have offered for that.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:48 pm » wrote:Oh gosh, did I forget to say,"Please read and consider?"

Or did I insert the words,"Imperative! This must be accepted at face value without question!"

That's exactly what you just did when you offered me an opinion piece as 'PROOF' that the Obama administration has committed multiple felonies.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 4:51 pm » wrote:
What was that middle part again?

I think that middle part.

Wait. What are my options?

Who's on first?

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 4:57 pm » wrote: [/size]That's exactly what you just did when you offered me an opinion piece as 'PROOF' that the Obama administration has committed multiple felonies.

Not to bother you with mere reality, but facts are contained in opinion pieces. Even more hilarious given that you have zero evidence of your conspiracy theory.


Who committed those felonies?
1) The permanent intelligence community
2) Obama officials
3) Aliens from outer space
4) George Bush

The left will never, ever accept the fact that the reason they lost is most of America rejected their candidate. Simple fact. It was not the Russians, it was not fake news, it was not the almighty dollar. It was the candidate and the games they played during the campaign. In addition to people being sick and tired of establishment types.

They got the popular vote only because of a relative few highly populated blue population centers. Namely CA. Take out CA and they got squat. By county and state you got your *** kicked. Rejected.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:55 pm » wrote: What did Clinton do to deserve $500,000 from some Russian group or company, and a lot more elsewhere, other than peddle influence and favors through HRC?

What did Podesta do to deserve $35 million or so?

Maybe I missed something, but I cannot possibly think of any value Podesta could have offered for that.

If you can get that much money to give a speech more power to you.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 4:53 pm » wrote:
Because 1) they're terrified that the felonies committed by Obama officials is going to be exposed.

2) Because the Democrats have a long, long, long history of lying and creating fake or overblown scandals to undermine Repubs, with the help of the corrupt MSM of course.

and 3) because they're terrified to talk issues, because they know they'd lose on that.

Is this the true answer, Misty?

Huey » 31 Mar 2017 5:00 pm » wrote:If you can get that much money to give a speech more power to you.

Which doesn't answer my question.

I would understand if Clinton or any president got high fees from some grateful country or business for general good performance. That happens.


Russian money doesn't fall into that category.

What did the Clinton's and their cronies get for receiving 10's of millions of dollars from Russian sources?

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 5:05 pm » wrote: Which doesn't answer my question.

I would understand if Clinton or any president got high fees from some grateful country or business for general good performance. That happens.

Russian money doesn't fall into that category.

What did the Clinton's and their cronies get for receiving 10's of millions of dollars from Russian sources?

That was Clinton's standard fees.

But it’s important to keep in mind that Bill Clinton regularly delivers speeches for fees of $500,000 or higher — such as a $750,000 speech in Hong Kong in 2011, paid for by a Swedish communications company, and a $600,000 speech in the Netherlands, also in 2011, paid for by a Dutch finance corporation.

Also, Renaissance Capital regularly invites world leaders to speak at its events, like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... hillary-c/

And
And Podesta was a board member of an American company with Russian ties.

In 2011, Podesta joined the board of Joule Unlimited, a solar-based alternative fuel company headquartered in Massachusetts, with operations in New Mexico and the Netherlands. A few months after Podesta took on this role, Anatoly Chubais, chairman and CEO of Russia-backed investment fund RUSNANO, also joined Joule’s board.

There doesn’t appear to be anything untoward or illegal about the fact that Podesta sat on a corporate board with a Russian banker. Nonetheless, some of his and Clinton’s critics have played it up. Conservative website the Daily Caller has alleged that Podesta didn’t properly disclose his shares in Joule when he joined the Obama administration in 2014.

In any case, the company is American, not Russian.

Did I cover it all?

Huey » 31 Mar 2017 4:59 pm » wrote:The left will never, ever accept the fact that the reason they lost is most of America rejected their candidate. Simple fact. It was not the Russians, it was not fake news, it was not the almighty dollar. It was the candidate and the games they played during the campaign. In addition to people being sick and tired of establishment types.

They got the popular vote only because of a relative few highly populated blue population centers. Namely CA. Take out CA and they got squat. By county and state you got your *** kicked. Rejected.

True.

Trouble is, liberals can't handle a reality like that.

I had a comical experience with a group of local liberals who 1) were appallingly ignorant about very, very basic facts yet insisted stridently that they were correct and I was wrong,

and 2) were so reality averse that they obviously didn't want to face facts or even non-liberal opinion. They wanted, to quote one, "a safe place."

Needless to say,I was asked to leave.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 4:49 pm » wrote:You've proved Blumenthal has a dog in the fight. Well done.
Now, show us some evidence that Russia had any effect on tRump's win.

How can I show you evidence of something that is not provable?
What I can say is that it sure didn't help the Democrats.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 4:49 pm » wrote:It seems to me that democrats' decision to run a criminal was responsible.

I don't disagree that the decision to run such a flawed candidate was a big mistake.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 4:49 pm » wrote:Why do you continue to shift the responsibility to Russia?

I'm not shifting anything.
I don't care for the fact that Russia tried to **** with our election.
And it seems that TrumpCo. used that fact to their advantage.

Republicans don't seem to care, because it wasn't hurting their side, this time.

Marco Rubio said yesterday that the Russians have twice tried to hack into the email of one of his campaign staffers, once as recently as two days ago.
So they don't have a favorite side.
Next time it could very well be the Republican presidential candidate they target.

If and when that happens, people like Clem will be running around with their heads on fire.

Huey » 31 Mar 2017 5:08 pm » wrote:And
And Podesta was a board member of an American company with Russian ties.

In 2011, Podesta joined the board of Joule Unlimited, a solar-based alternative fuel company headquartered in Massachusetts, with operations in New Mexico and the Netherlands. A few months after Podesta took on this role, Anatoly Chubais, chairman and CEO of Russia-backed investment fund RUSNANO, also joined Joule’s board.

There doesn’t appear to be anything untoward or illegal about the fact that Podesta sat on a corporate board with a Russian banker. Nonetheless, some of his and Clinton’s critics have played it up. Conservative website the Daily Caller has alleged that Podesta didn’t properly disclose his shares in Joule when he joined the Obama administration in 2014.

In any case, the company is American, not Russian.

Did I cover it all?

Without getting into the Clinton fees, which I'd have to take a lot of time to research, it's my understanding that Podesta profited by $35 million.

I've watched and read about ordinary businessmen, and it is all but impossible for him to have earned that unless he was bringing political influence in some way; funding, access, favors, protection, whatever.

It is all but a certainty that something is rotten there.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 5:12 pm » wrote: Without getting into the Clinton fees, which I'd have to take a lot of time to research, it's my understanding that Podesta profited by $35 million.

I've watched and read about ordinary businessmen, and it is all but impossible for him to have earned that unless he was bringing political influence in some way; funding, access, favors, protection, whatever.

It is all but a certainty that something is rotten there.

Like the trump campaign Russian ties I treat Podesta the same way. Until we solid proof we have nothing but speculation that changes by the day and does nothing but the sheeple of both side riled up for no reason.

As the commercial used to say where (the ****) is the beef?

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 5:08 pm » wrote:True.
Trouble is, liberals can't handle a reality like that.

ROFL at the people who still think that this is all about sour grapes over the election.

Like I said in my last post.
The Russians aren't done tampering in our democracy.
Ask Marco Rubio.

You can look the other way now, but when they target your party you'll be changing your tune.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 5:11 pm » wrote:I'm not shifting anything.

She lies.

I don't care for the fact that Russia tried to **** with our election.
And it seems that TrumpCo. used that fact to their advantage.

Republicans don't seem to care, because it wasn't hurting their side, this time....

If and when that happens, people like Clem will be running around with their heads on fire.

That's bulls***, as usual.

I, conservatives in general and Repubs do care, and we want it investigated.

We want appropriate action taken against Russia, once a real case is established.
But we can see that your endless propaganda has little to do with reality.

We do not want a new Cold War begun on the basis of endless lies and Disinformation. That is literally dangerous and highly, highly irresponsible.

Huey » 31 Mar 2017 5:14 pm » wrote:Like the trump campaign Russian ties I treat Podesta the same way. Until we solid proof we have nothing but speculation that changes by the day and does nothing but the sheeple of both side riled up for no reason.

As the commercial used to say where (the ****) is the beef?

I am not at all demanding that Podesta be charged, let alone imprisoned. Yes, I am speculating, albeit from an informed opinion.

On top of what's recently revealed, there is obvious Clinton corruption and felonies going back many years. That is proven beyond doubt.

I want a thorough investigation into everything recent, not just the Trump administration.

The Clinton Foundation, the server, Podesta and the whole stinking mess and to the degree it extends into the Republican Party.


Drain the Swamp.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 5:16 pm » wrote: ROFL at the people who still think that this is all about sour grapes over the election.

Like I said in my last post.
The Russians aren't done tampering in our democracy.
Ask Marco Rubio.

You can look the other way now, but when they target your party you'll be changing your tune.

No, the Russians probably aren't done. As it has been pointed out the Russians have tampered with our elections for decades, as we have done to other countries FOR DECADES. WE probably aren't done tampering with elections. Plus, tamper is too stronng a word. Did we tamper with Israel's elections? Yes or no misty? Have we tampered with the elections of other countries, to include our allies? Have we not "wiretapped" foreign leaders, Misty?

Please answer, Misty.