kent_island_sailor

The Trump Circle completes

Recommended Posts

Dog, let me repeat what someone said earlier, you do know the difference between 'about the Russians' and 'from the Russians'. the difference matters a whole lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

No I can't, I think everyone accepts who finance it. Some however pretend to be unconvinced that those who financed it, got it.

Clinton receiving or not receiving the Dossier has no bearing on the legality of the method by which it was obtained. Let's say she did. So what? Fusion GPS was contracted to dig up dirt on Trump and they did. The Russians did not provide the Dossier and the Clinton campaign members, to the best of our knowledge, did not collude or have contact with Russians to produce any dirt documents.

Do you believe if Clinton got the dossier she committed a crime? If so, what crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog - Pravda (or Sputnik or whatever the hell they call it now) and the CIA both produce reports with information that originated in Russia.

They are not the same - do we need to explain why :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bhyde said:

Clinton receiving or not receiving the Dossier has no bearing on the legality of the method by which it was obtained. Let's say she did. So what? Fusion GPS was contracted to dig up dirt on Trump and they did. The Russians did not provide the Dossier and the Clinton campaign members, to the best of our knowledge, did not collude or have contact with Russians to produce any dirt documents.

Do you believe if Clinton got the dossier she committed a crime? If so, what crime?

Bhyde....Is it possible that after what I have said on the subject that you believe I think the Clinton campaign committed a crime procuring the Russian dirt? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bhyde....Is it possible that after what I have said on the subject that you believe I think the Clinton campaign committed a crime procuring the Russian dirt? 

Yes. You seem to be implying that. Are you saying that Clinton did not commit a crime? Help a brother out here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Yes. You seem to be implying that. Are you saying that Clinton did not commit a crime? Help a brother out here.

The mind boggles. Do you even read what I write?

141 168

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

The mind boggles. Do you even read what I write?

Yes I did. And I'm confused by this statement:

On 8/5/2018 at 11:56 AM, Dog said:

No it's not... The Clinton campaign succeeded in procuring dirt on Trump from Kremlin connected Russians. The defense in that case is that the material was paid for and therefore somehow legit (even though we don't know if the Russian sources were paid). So if dirt can be procured from the Russians legally how do we know the Trump campaign would not have done it legally and how the hell can not procuring any dirt at all be illegal?

Not robbing a bank is not illegal.

If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying Clinton got dirt on Trump from "Kremlin connected Russians." What exactly are you saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dog, I purchase the New York Times. I thereby finance their work. Does that mean I am "getting my news from Russians, Californians and folks in Argentina?"

No. It means I am paying the NYT to collect news, print it, and distribute it to me 7 days of the week. It's godawful expensive, but worth it IMO. I almost never meet with the newsmakers myself. There is an intermediary, an American Company I lawfully pay. I tell anyone who asks... it's not a secret. 

Now, if while working for, say,a presidential campaign I met with a Russian Lawyer with ties to the Kremlin to discuss disparaging information she had on Hillary Clinton, then I would be negotiating a thing of value from a foreign agent. If I subsequently acted in a secretive way, conspiring with her to hide the reason for the meeting by neglecting to document such contact in national security forms which specifically ask me about meeting with foreign agents, then I would be engaged in a "conspiracy". If I subsequently testified untruthfully to Congress that I had never received nor sought assistance (directly or indirectly) from foreign governments or foreign nationals or had the Trump Campaign ever done so, then I'd be guilty of "Perjury" to Congress, a felony.

If I was doing all this in order to prevent law enforcement from discovering that I was acting in contravention to Federal and State election laws, than I would be "conspiring against America". If the goal of the shenanigans was a covert operation to manipulate social networks in order to alter the results of an election, that would be a "conspiracy to defraud the United States."

And if these criminal acts were performed in concert with other criminal acts performed by other members of the same organization, then RICO Act violations have occurred, and the whole criminal network may be at risk for indictment and serious jail time.

Any questions?

So, once again. Do you have any citation that suggests such scurrilous behavior by the Clinton Campaign, or did they just purchase news from an American firm as I did? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Yes I did. And I'm confused by this statement:

If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying Clinton got dirt on Trump from "Kremlin connected Russians." What exactly are you saying?

Yes, I admit that the language there is a bit contorted. The point I was trying to make is that if the Russian dirt can be obtained legally how can it be illegal if no dirt is obtained at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Dog, I purchase the New York Times. I thereby finance their work. Does that mean I am "getting my news from Russians, Californians and folks in Argentina?"

No. It means I am paying the NYT to collect news, print it, and distribute it to me 7 days of the week. It's godawful expensive, but worth it IMO. I almost never meet with the newsmakers myself. There is an intermediary, an American Company I lawfully pay. I tell anyone who asks... it's not a secret. 

Now, if while working for, say,a presidential campaign I met with a Russian Lawyer with ties to the Kremlin to discuss disparaging information she had on Hillary Clinton, then I would be negotiating a thing of value from a foreign agent. If I subsequently acted in a secretive way, conspiring with her to hide the reason for the meeting by neglecting to document such contact in national security forms which specifically ask me about meeting with foreign agents, then I would be engaged in a "conspiracy". If I subsequently testified untruthfully to Congress that I had never received nor sought assistance (directly or indirectly) from foreign governments or foreign nationals or had the Trump Campaign ever done so, then I'd be guilty of "Perjury" to Congress, a felony.

If I was doing all this in order to prevent law enforcement from discovering that I was acting in contravention to Federal and State election laws, than I would be "conspiring against America". If the goal of the shenanigans was a covert operation to manipulate social networks in order to alter the results of an election, that would be a "conspiracy to defraud the United States."

And if these criminal acts were performed in concert with other criminal acts performed by other members of the same organization, then RICO Act violations have occurred, and the whole criminal network may be at risk for indictment and serious jail time.

Any questions?

So, once again. Do you have any citation that suggests such scurrilous behavior by the Clinton Campaign, or did they just purchase news from an American firm as I did? 

No I have no such citation and never said the Clinton campaign did anythig worng in it's procruement of Russian dirt. On the contrary I said they did it legally. Any questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Yes, I admit that the language there is a bit contorted. The point I was trying to make is that if the Russian dirt can be obtained legally how can it be illegal if no dirt is obtained at all?

Situation 1:

Politicians do opposition research by hiring an *American* firm that uses various sources and methods to collect information. Done every day of the week.

Situation 2:

A foreign government, and an adversary at that, offers information to one candidate on their opponent. This candidate takes them up on the offer and does all kinds of lying and distractions to hide it.

One is legal, one is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Dog said:

No I have no such citation and never said the Clinton campaign did anythig worng in it's procruement of Russian dirt. On the contrary I said they did it legally. Any questions?

Ok. The way Clinton did it was legal. Thanks for clearing that up.

I have one question...

If while working for, say,a presidential campaign I met with a Russian Lawyer with ties to the Kremlin to discuss disparaging information she had on Hillary Clinton, then I would be negotiating a thing of value from a foreign agent. If I subsequently acted in a secretive way, conspiring with her to hide the reason for the meeting by neglecting to document such contact in national security forms which specifically ask me about meeting with foreign agents, then I would be engaged in a "conspiracy". If I subsequently testified untruthfully to Congress that I had never received nor sought assistance (directly or indirectly) from foreign governments or foreign nationals or had the Trump Campaign ever done so, then I'd be guilty of "Perjury" to Congress, a felony.

If I was doing all this in order to prevent law enforcement from discovering that I was acting in contravention to Federal and State election laws, than I would be "conspiring against America". If the goal of the shenanigans was a covert operation to manipulate social networks in order to alter the results of an election, that would be a "conspiracy to defraud the United States."

And if these criminal acts were performed in concert with other criminal acts performed by other members of the same organization, then RICO Act violations have occurred, and the whole criminal network may be at risk for indictment and serious jail time.

 

Am I wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

 

Ok. The way Clinton did it was legal. Thanks for clearing that up.

I have one question...

If while working for, say,a presidential campaign I met with a Russian Lawyer with ties to the Kremlin to discuss disparaging information she had on Hillary Clinton, then I would be negotiating a thing of value from a foreign agent. If I subsequently acted in a secretive way, conspiring with her to hide the reason for the meeting by neglecting to document such contact in national security forms which specifically ask me about meeting with foreign agents, then I would be engaged in a "conspiracy". If I subsequently testified untruthfully to Congress that I had never received nor sought assistance (directly or indirectly) from foreign governments or foreign nationals or had the Trump Campaign ever done so, then I'd be guilty of "Perjury" to Congress, a felony.

If I was doing all this in order to prevent law enforcement from discovering that I was acting in contravention to Federal and State election laws, than I would be "conspiring against America". If the goal of the shenanigans was a covert operation to manipulate social networks in order to alter the results of an election, that would be a "conspiracy to defraud the United States."

And if these criminal acts were performed in concert with other criminal acts performed by other members of the same organization, then RICO Act violations have occurred, and the whole criminal network may be at risk for indictment and serious jail time.

 

Am I wrong? 

No, I don't think so. There's a lot of ifs there and I have seen no evidence that a thing of value was secured from a foreign agent or any consideration given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

No, I don't think so. There's a lot of ifs there and I have seen no evidence that a thing of value was secured from a foreign agent or any consideration given.

Good work!

Really.

What you said is laughable on its face, but maybe we'll spend some time proving all those things happened and then you'll jump back a few steps to "well Clinton did all that too" and then we'll show that to be wrong and you'll jump someplace else. Endlessly proving the sun rises in the east :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yes, I admit that the language there is a bit contorted. The point I was trying to make is that if the Russian dirt can be obtained legally how can it be illegal if no dirt is obtained at all?

Really? You question that? I had some hope you actually had a modicum of intelligence. That hope is fading...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dog said:

No, I don't think so. There's a lot of ifs there and I have seen no evidence that a thing of value was secured from a foreign agent or any consideration given.

Did you know that the legal definition of conspiracy specifically states that the transaction need not be completed for the conspiracy to exist?

You are right, there are a lot of “ifs” there. That’s why Mueller is so interested. Do you favor Mueller’s unfettered investigation into the unanswered questions? Or are these questions best left unanswered?

If Mueller wants to get to the bottom of this, shouldn’t he use all the power of his office to complete his task? Including prosecuting Manafort for unrelated crimes?

Youve been against this, in the past btw.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yes, I admit that the language there is a bit contorted. The point I was trying to make is that if the Russian dirt can be obtained legally how can it be illegal if no dirt is obtained at all?

Pretty simple. You can fuck your wife, but you don't actually have to fuck a prostitute to be guilty of solicitation. Whether or not you got laid is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hill just came out with an interesting article saying the same thing that Dog is.

The argument is that to meet with someone to get dirt on your opponent is not illegal. If it were Steele's Dossier is also illegal. The author is claiming neither is illegal. Just imagine the legal implications if the dossier that got the FISA warrant were to be thrown out because it fall under the same purview as the Trump meeting if considered illegal.

You have got to hand it to the press they have you guys wound pretty tight...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

The Hill just came out with an interesting article saying the same thing that Dog is.

The argument is that to meet with someone to get dirt on your opponent is not illegal. If it were Steele's Dossier is also illegal. The author is claiming neither is illegal. Just imagine the legal implications if the dossier that got the FISA warrant were to be thrown out because it fall under the same purview as the Trump meeting if considered illegal.

You have got to hand it to the press they have you guys wound pretty tight...

 

You guys don't seem to be paying attention

"getting dirt on your opponent" is not the crime.

"meeting with foreign gov't to get dirt on your opponent" is the crime.

"promising to change official US policy to favorable treatment to a foreign gov't for personal gain" is another crime

"Lying about all the above" is another crime.

Of course, that's not the Team R playbook is it? Yell about all the stuff that isn't a crime and hope the judge is kinda stupid .... it helps if the judge is a bit of a fascist too, which is why President Trump is setting records in appointing judges

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You guys don't seem to be paying attention

"getting dirt on your opponent" is not the crime.

"meeting with foreign gov't to get dirt on your opponent" is the crime.

"promising to change official US policy to favorable treatment to a foreign gov't for personal gain" is another crime

"Lying about all the above" is another crime.

Of course, that's not the Team R playbook is it? Yell about all the stuff that isn't a crime and hope the judge is kinda stupid .... it helps if the judge is a bit of a fascist too, which is why President Trump is setting records in appointing judges

-DSK

 

point 1: agree.

Point 2 & 3: Meeting with the foreign gov't is not a crime. Getting the dirt is. There are no credible reports that the Trump team got anything other than pitch to removing sanction via the adoption clause in the existing sanctions. Something Trump had no means to influence as then candidate Trump as such no crime.

Point 4: Donald Jr has some splainin to do.  

I'm paying plenty of attention, we just disagree...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

 

point 1: agree.

Point 2 & 3: Meeting with the foreign gov't is not a crime. Getting the dirt is. There are no credible reports that the Trump team got anything other than pitch to removing sanction via the adoption clause in the existing sanctions. Something Trump had no means to influence as then candidate Trump as such no crime.

Point 4: Donald Jr has some splainin to do.  

I'm paying plenty of attention, we just disagree...

lying about meeting with the foreign gov't? crime. Perjury at the minimum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump himself admitted the adoption thing was a lie and they were there to get dirt on HRC.

Putin admitted he wanted Trump to win and helped him.

This is like the James Gang making a video of themselves robbing banks, Jesse James running around town with a shirt that says "I rob banks" while leaving a trail of $20 bills, the bank manager says he was there while the James Gang robbed the bank, and somehow a good part of the town refuses to believe any bank robbing is going on, or if there is the PTA did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

 

point 1: agree.

Point 2 & 3: Meeting with the foreign gov't is not a crime. Getting the dirt is. There are no credible reports that the Trump team got anything other than pitch to removing sanction via the adoption clause in the existing sanctions. Something Trump had no means to influence as then candidate Trump as such no crime.

Point 4: Donald Jr has some splainin to do.  

I'm paying plenty of attention, we just disagree...

I'm not sure we disagree, so much as it just looks like you're hopping on the We-didn't, well-yes-we-did-but-it-wasn't-a-crime, no-we-didn't, merry-go-round

Meeting with foreign gov't is not a crime.... however a private citizen has pretty sharp limits what they can do.

Accepting items of value in exchange for policy, that's a crime. Accepting items of value for a political campaign, that's a crime.

For that matter, I don't even understand how it's gotten this far. Revealing classified material from the candidates briefing is a crime; and for incoming Cabinet officials to lie REPEATEDLY (and fervently, for that matter) about contacts with a hostile foreign gov't, is a crime.

When you add the fact that President Trump has had several meetings with Putin from which any other American has been excluded, and his siding with Putin against his own agencies...... what conclusions would you draw?

All this is an affront to anybody who actually gives a flying fuck about this country. A crime? That's the least of our problems IMHO

-DSK

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Trump himself admitted the adoption thing was a lie and they were there to get dirt on HRC.

 

That's not true. The NTY conflated the pretext for the meeting which was dirt with the subject presented, adoptions, the media played along and you swallowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

Did you know that the legal definition of conspiracy specifically states that the transaction need not be completed for the conspiracy to exist?

You are right, there are a lot of “ifs” there. That’s why Mueller is so interested. Do you favor Mueller’s unfettered investigation into the unanswered questions? Or are these questions best left unanswered?

If Mueller wants to get to the bottom of this, shouldn’t he use all the power of his office to complete his task? Including prosecuting Manafort for unrelated crimes?

Youve been against this, in the past btw.

I'm all for investigating possible crimes. It becomes problematic when the subject comes before the crime. I'm not saying Mueller has gone there yet but he's close to the line and it's clear that many here would like him to go there out of hate.

riw3e9.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm all for investigating possible crimes. It becomes problematic when the subject comes before the crime. I'm not saying Mueller has gone there yet but he's close to the line

Bullshit. Why do you lie Dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

You guys don't seem to be paying attention

"getting dirt on your opponent" is not the crime.

"meeting with foreign gov't to get dirt on your opponent" is the crime.

"promising to change official US policy to favorable treatment to a foreign gov't for personal gain" is another crime

"Lying about all the above" is another crime.

Of course, that's not the Team R playbook is it? Yell about all the stuff that isn't a crime and hope the judge is kinda stupid .... it helps if the judge is a bit of a fascist too, which is why President Trump is setting records in appointing judges

-DSK

Correct. Clinton never met with Russians, never promised them she'd ease the Maginsky Act. Clinton hired an attorney, the attorney hired Fusion GPS. Fusion GOS hired Steele, who'd already been working on the dossier for GOP operatives. No indication Steele ever made promises to Russians, nor was he in a position to do so. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Bullshit. Why do you lie Dog?

Because he's sleeping....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

All this is an affront to anybody who actually gives a flying fuck about this country. A crime? That's the least of our problems IMHO

-DSK

Best thing posted on SA in a long time. Well done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dog said:

Would you like one confirming that the sun came up this morning too?

I gave you three links stating that Trump inc. got the Dem's hacked emails from the Russians. One of them is even from Trump's zany lawyer.

And when somebody asks you to back up the stupid shit you spew you crap out.

No wonder you are roundly mocked as a partisan block head on this forum. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

That's not true. The NTY conflated the pretext for the meeting which was dirt with the subject presented, adoptions, the media played along and you swallowed.

I'm not so sure. Because https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/world/americas/kremlin-adoptions-sanctions-russia.html makes a lot more sense than talking about Putin's concern for little kids. "Adoption" = Sanctions.

I think the Russians offered dirt on Clinton in exchange for lifting the sanctions. If they were talking about kids, why hide the meeting and wrap it in so many lies? And why have a pre-meeting?

Dog's have an excellent sense of smell. How does this even come close to passing the sniff test?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, bhyde said:

I'm not so sure. Because https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/world/americas/kremlin-adoptions-sanctions-russia.html makes a lot more sense than talking about Putin's concern for little kids. "Adoption" = Sanctions.

I think the Russians offered dirt on Clinton in exchange for lifting the sanctions. If they were talking about kids, why hide the meeting and wrap it in so many lies? And why have a pre-meeting?

Dog's have an excellent sense of smell. How does this even come close to passing the sniff test?

 

I worked for a nationally known co at their HQ.  we routinely had pre meeting meetings to hone the PowerPoint slides and spin like crazy.  Sometimes we had pre pre meetings.  Glad I’m done with that shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

Sure thing Philly...you who won't accept that the Clinton campaign who financed the operation got the Russian dirt it generated. You're not playing games are you?

Still waiting for the cite asked for in this post. Just sayin'

9 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Do you have a cite which even suggests the Clinton Campaign received information “from the Russians?” Or are you just lying, repeatedly?

 

 

4 hours ago, Dog said:

Yes, I admit that the language there is a bit contorted. The point I was trying to make is that if the Russian dirt can be obtained legally how can it be illegal if no dirt is obtained at all?

Asked and answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

I gave you three links stating that Trump inc. got the Dem's hacked emails from the Russians. One of them is even from Trump's zany lawyer.

And when somebody asks you to back up the stupid shit you spew you crap out.

No wonder you are roundly mocked as a partisan block head on this forum. 

 

Oh please, I'm mocked because I'm a conservative in a liberal bubble and it's easier that engaging in debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

Oh please, I'm mocked because I'm a conservative in a liberal bubble and it's easier that engaging in debate.

Keep telling yourself that.  99% of your posts are spent spinning for Trump (who you don’t support).  Trump is not a conservative, he’s has no political true north.

You are full of dog shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Keep telling yourself that.  99% of your posts are spent spinning for Trump (who you don’t support).  Trump is not a conservative, he’s has no political true north.

You are full of dog shit.

QED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dog said:

Oh please, I'm mocked because I'm a conservative in a liberal bubble and it's easier that engaging in debate.

That’s funny. Conservatives have principles that don’t flip flop when the GOP changes course. You don’t qualify. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That’s funny. Conservatives have principles that don’t flip flop when the GOP changes course. You don’t qualify. 

This X100,000

Trump can't even SEE conservative from where he is. Trumper <> conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Oh please, I'm mocked because I'm a conservative ignoring major ethical, moral, economic, foreign policy and possibly criminal behavior by the GOP, the NRA and the administration  in a liberal bubble and I’m pretending to be engaging in debate.

FIFY

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Oh please, I'm mocked because I'm a conservative in a liberal bubble and it's easier that engaging in debate.

A Guy from Chesapeake is a conservative, and yet he is not mocked. Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Oh please, I'm mocked because I'm a conservative in a liberal bubble and it's easier that engaging in debate.

Not really.... you're mocked because you continually lie, parrot reich-wing talking points, and dodge around trying to deny what you've said.

If you don't want to be such a spin-Dog then don't be one. Simple

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Oh please, I'm mocked because I'm a conservative in a liberal bubble and it's easier that engaging in debate.

And yet there are conservatives on this forum that are not mocked, as pointed out to you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bhyde said:

A Guy from Chesapeake is a conservative, and yet he is not mocked. Why is that?

Because he is honest and forthright?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not really.... you're mocked because you continually lie, parrot reich-wing talking points, and dodge around trying to deny what you've said.

If you don't want to be such a spin-Dog then don't be one. Simple

-DSK

Please.... I'm personally attacked here because I'm a conservative, You're just not honest enough to admit it. Just up the page I was attacked for my views on whether the Clinton campaign broke the law procuring Russian dirt by people who hold the same view as I do on that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dog said:

Please.... I'm personally attacked here because I'm a conservative, You're just not honest enough to admit it. Just up the page I was attacked for my views on whether the Clinton campaign broke the law procuring Russian dirt by people who hold the same view as I do on that matter.

awww, pore widdle snowflake.

Do you attack others just for being "on the left" as you put it? Then you deserve to get ridden on a rail yourself.

However, that's not why -I- mock you. You're intellectually dishonest, an unremitting bullshit artist (and one with a poor grasp of the palette). Personally, I'd mock you for that if you were a centrist, a LaFollette progressive, or whatever else.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This X100,000

Trump can't even SEE conservative from where he is. Trumper <> conservative.

I think that the only ideology that Trump adheres to is the ideology of Trump.   Before he got an interest in running for office?  I would've classified him as a limousine liberal.   I guess it goes to show that just 'cause someone calls themselves something, doesn't mean that they are. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

awww, pore widdle snowflake.

Do you attack others just for being "on the left" as you put it? Then you deserve to get ridden on a rail yourself.

However, that's not why -I- mock you. You're intellectually dishonest, an unremitting bullshit artist (and one with a poor grasp of the palette). Personally, I'd mock you for that if you were a centrist, a LaFollette progressive, or whatever else.

-DSK

No...I don't attack other's for their political beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

....    ...   ...

Do you attack others just for being "on the left" as you put it? Then you deserve to get ridden on a rail yourself.

....    ...    ...

No...I don't attack other's for their political beliefs.

 

There's one for the ages.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Dog said:

No...I don't attack other's for their political beliefs.

Your loyalty to President Trump is not a “political belief”. 

More like “hero worship”. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Dog said:

No...I don't attack other's for their political beliefs.

OK... Now that (by your standards) we've determined that you do in fact attack people, just not for their political beliefs, what do you attack them for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Please.... I'm personally attacked here because I'm a conservative

you aren't a conservative, you are a lieing piece of shit that toes the Republican line, every fucking time. You aren't honest, you don't act in good faith, and you persist in juvenille bullshit games. You love to derail threads with inane bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

OK... Now that (by your standards) we've determined that you do in fact attack people, just not for their political beliefs, what do you attack them for?

For being dicks and lemmings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Please.... I'm personally attacked here because I'm a conservative, You're just not honest enough to admit it. Just up the page I was attacked for my views on whether the Clinton campaign broke the law procuring Russian dirt by people who hold the same view as I do on that matter.

If you are referring to the conversation we had above about Clinton/Dossier/Russians/etc., I most certainly did not personally attack you. I only questioned your views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

Please.... I'm personally attacked here because I'm a conservative, You're just not honest enough to admit it. Just up the page I was attacked for my views on whether the Clinton campaign broke the law procuring Russian dirt by people who hold the same view as I do on that matter.

Which "attack" was that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

Please.... I'm personally attacked here because I'm a conservative, You're just not honest enough to admit it. Just up the page I was attacked for my views on whether the Clinton campaign broke the law procuring Russian dirt by people who hold the same view as I do on that matter.

Imagine if you were a conservative. Imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

Please.... I'm personally attacked here because I'm a conservative, You're just not honest enough to admit it. Just up the page I was attacked for my views on whether the Clinton campaign broke the law procuring Russian dirt by people who hold the same view as I do on that matter.

If you are conservative I am a talking octopus. You don't even resemble a conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

Please.... I'm personally attacked here because I'm a conservative, You're just not honest enough to admit it. Just up the page I was attacked for my views on whether the Clinton campaign broke the law procuring Russian dirt by people who hold the same view as I do on that matter.

Do you believe that the folks attacking you are a "shadowy cadre of people who ... are “a group of child traffickers and pornographers” that were involved in the disappearance of year-old Florida girl Haleigh Cummings in 2009"?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

If you are conservative I am a talking octopus. You don't even resemble a conservative.

Exactly. He's a Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/republican-party-corruption-manafort-gates-chris-collins-wilbur-ross.html

Excerpt -

08-gop-criminals.w710.h473.jpg
Manafort, Collins, Ross. Photo: Getty Images

The entire Trump era has been a festering pit of barely disguised ongoing corruption. But the whole sordid era has not had a 24-hour period quite like the orgy of criminality which we have just experienced. The events of the last day alone include:

(1) The trial of Paul Manafort, which has featured the accusation that President Trump’s campaign manager had embezzled funds, failed to report income, and falsified documents. His partner and fellow Trump campaign aide, Rick Gates, confessed to participating in all these crimes, as well as to stealing from Manafort.

(2) Yesterday, Forbes reported that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross may have stolen $120 million from his partners and customers. Meanwhile Ross has maintained foreign holdings in his investment portfolio that present a major conflict of interest with his public office. (The “Don’t worry, Wilbur Ross would never do anything unethical just to pad his bottom line” defense is likely to be, uh, unconvincing to the many people filing suit against Ross for allegedly doing exactly that.)

(3) Also yesterday, ProPublica reported that the Department of Veterans Affairs is being effectively run by three Trump cronies, none of whom have any official government title or public accountability. The three, reports the story, have “used their influence in ways that could benefit their private interests.”

(4) And then, this morning, Representative Chris Collins was arrestedfor insider trading. Collins had been known to openly boast about making millions of dollars for his colleagues with his insider knowledge. He is charged with learning of an adverse FDA trial, and immediately calling his son — from the White House! — urging him to sell his holdings.

It has been, in sum, quite a day.

Some level of corruption is an inescapable part of political life in general, and certainly Democrats are not (and never have been) immune to it. But it has been especially chronic in the modern Republican Party, whose last experience with control of government ended in a series of corruption scandals so blatant they provoked widespread soul-searching on the right as to how the party and the conservative movement could so easily open itself up to grifters. (Remember Jack Abramoff? Bob Ney? Tom DeLay? Grover Norquist?) The temptation to use government as a vehicle for self-enrichment is especially strong in a party dedicated to a credal skepticism about the possibility government can do good.

But the Trump administration has, even in its embryonic stage, already brought it all to a new level. Several possible explanations present themselves. Trump appears to select for greed and dishonesty in his cronies. (Collins does not work in the administration, but was Trump’s first endorser in Congress.) The sorts of people Trump admires are rich and brash and disdainful of professional norms, and seem unlikely to rat on him. The sorts of people who are apt to work for Trump seem to be those who lack much in the way of scruples.

The administration is understaffed and disorganized to the point of virtual anarchy, opening up promising avenues for insiders to escape accountability. Trump’s public ethos, despite his professions during the campaign that he could “drain the swamp” and impose a series of stringent ethics reforms, runs toward relativism — he famously tolerates anybody who supports him, regardless of criminal history or other disqualifications, defining their goodness entirely in terms of personal loyalty. And above all there is the simple fact that Trump himself is a wildly unethical businessman who has stiffed his counterparties and contractors, and worked closely with mobsters, his entire career. A president who is continuing to profit personally from his office is hardly in any position to demand his subordinates refrain from following suit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Do you believe that the folks attacking you are a "shadowy cadre of people who ... are “a group of child traffickers and pornographers” that were involved in the disappearance of year-old Florida girl Haleigh Cummings in 2009"?  

I liken them to the pathetic mobs we are starting to see forming when recognizable conservatives eat out. All sound and fury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

I liken them to the pathetic mobs we are starting to see forming when recognizable conservatives eat out. All sound and fury.

Sound so far. The fury will go over the line. And likely soon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

True conservatives don't eat out. They're home with their families eating a meal prepared for them by their wives.

Or their cook... Who's probably here on an over due H1-B visa, working for minimum wage and having to pay for her room over the garage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

I liken them to the pathetic mobs we are starting to see forming when recognizable conservatives eat out. All sound and fury.

that word "conservative" does not mean what you think it means. You mean "Republicans".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:
2 hours ago, Dog said:

I liken them to the pathetic mobs we are starting to see forming when recognizable conservatives eat out. All sound and fury.

Sound so far. The fury will go over the line. And likely soon.

Yeah, that's the problem with "let them eat cake." Your minimum-wage-or-less cooks, lawn help, etc etc, get really pissy and dangerous. You'd think they'd be grateful but no-o-o

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog - seriously - how the hell can you think of yourself as a conservative? You may align with Trump and you may align with Republicans, but you all left conservatism in the rearview years ago and I doubt you could even find it today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sean said:

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/republican-party-corruption-manafort-gates-chris-collins-wilbur-ross.html

Excerpt -

08-gop-criminals.w710.h473.jpg
Manafort, Collins, Ross. Photo: Getty Images

The entire Trump era has been a festering pit of barely disguised ongoing corruption. But the whole sordid era has not had a 24-hour period quite like the orgy of criminality which we have just experienced. The events of the last day alone include:

(1) The trial of Paul Manafort, which has featured the accusation that President Trump’s campaign manager had embezzled funds, failed to report income, and falsified documents. His partner and fellow Trump campaign aide, Rick Gates, confessed to participating in all these crimes, as well as to stealing from Manafort.

(2) Yesterday, Forbes reported that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross may have stolen $120 million from his partners and customers. Meanwhile Ross has maintained foreign holdings in his investment portfolio that present a major conflict of interest with his public office. (The “Don’t worry, Wilbur Ross would never do anything unethical just to pad his bottom line” defense is likely to be, uh, unconvincing to the many people filing suit against Ross for allegedly doing exactly that.)

(3) Also yesterday, ProPublica reported that the Department of Veterans Affairs is being effectively run by three Trump cronies, none of whom have any official government title or public accountability. The three, reports the story, have “used their influence in ways that could benefit their private interests.”

(4) And then, this morning, Representative Chris Collins was arrestedfor insider trading. Collins had been known to openly boast about making millions of dollars for his colleagues with his insider knowledge. He is charged with learning of an adverse FDA trial, and immediately calling his son — from the White House! — urging him to sell his holdings.

It has been, in sum, quite a day.

Some level of corruption is an inescapable part of political life in general, and certainly Democrats are not (and never have been) immune to it. But it has been especially chronic in the modern Republican Party, whose last experience with control of government ended in a series of corruption scandals so blatant they provoked widespread soul-searching on the right as to how the party and the conservative movement could so easily open itself up to grifters. (Remember Jack Abramoff? Bob Ney? Tom DeLay? Grover Norquist?) The temptation to use government as a vehicle for self-enrichment is especially strong in a party dedicated to a credal skepticism about the possibility government can do good.

But the Trump administration has, even in its embryonic stage, already brought it all to a new level. Several possible explanations present themselves. Trump appears to select for greed and dishonesty in his cronies. (Collins does not work in the administration, but was Trump’s first endorser in Congress.) The sorts of people Trump admires are rich and brash and disdainful of professional norms, and seem unlikely to rat on him. The sorts of people who are apt to work for Trump seem to be those who lack much in the way of scruples.

The administration is understaffed and disorganized to the point of virtual anarchy, opening up promising avenues for insiders to escape accountability. Trump’s public ethos, despite his professions during the campaign that he could “drain the swamp” and impose a series of stringent ethics reforms, runs toward relativism — he famously tolerates anybody who supports him, regardless of criminal history or other disqualifications, defining their goodness entirely in terms of personal loyalty. And above all there is the simple fact that Trump himself is a wildly unethical businessman who has stiffed his counterparties and contractors, and worked closely with mobsters, his entire career. A president who is continuing to profit personally from his office is hardly in any position to demand his subordinates refrain from following suit.

IIRC, Collins was on Trump's transition team. So he was one of those setting the tone for the current administration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

True conservatives don't eat out. They're home with their families eating a meal prepared for them by their wives.

At 6pm, as God intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 11:30 AM, Dog said:

Please.... I'm personally attacked here because I'm a conservative, You're just not honest enough to admit it. Just up the page I was attacked for my views on whether the Clinton campaign broke the law procuring Russian dirt by people who hold the same view as I do on that matter.

In which post were you attacked? Who attacked you, despite sharing the same views on the matter?

I’ve got to ask for a cite, because we’ve recently caught you playing fast & loose with words and phrases, ie, lying to us.

Im not aware of anyone “attacking you”, only posters questioning your baseless accusations and misleading statements. If you don’t like the flies, don’t wallow in pig shit.

Mudslingers deserve scorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

In which post were you attacked? Who attacked you, despite sharing the same views on the matter?

I’ve got to ask for a cite, because we’ve recently caught you playing fast & loose with words and phrases, ie, lying to us.

Im not aware of anyone “attacking you”, only posters questioning your baseless accusations and misleading statements. If you don’t like the flies, don’t wallow in pig shit.

Mudslingers deserve scorn.

'Attack' = responding to Dog's bullshit with facts.  Poor little snowflake is being victimized by the truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

True conservatives don't eat out. They're home with their families eating a meal prepared for them by their wives.

True liberals eat out. They're in bed with their girlfriends eating a meal prepared for the occasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

If you are conservative I am a talking octopus. You don't even resemble a conservative.

Octopus?   With all those arms? Think about how many lines you could handle while still steering! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2018 at 2:35 PM, Dog said:

The mind boggles. Do you even read what I write?

141 168

Speaking for myself not much anymore.  It’s all drivel, defending a person you don’t support.  You’re like the Alan Dershowitz of PA only angrier and more unhinged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Speaking for myself not much anymore.  It’s all drivel, defending a person you don’t support.  You’re like the Alan Dershowitz of PA only angrier and more unhinged. 

Dershowitz supports the law not the individual. You know, the way it's supposed to work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Dershowitz supports the law not the individual. You know, the way it's supposed to work...

Which law is Dershowitz supporting? Cite his argument please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phillysailor said:

In which post were you attacked? Who attacked you, despite sharing the same views on the matter?

I’ve got to ask for a cite, because we’ve recently caught you playing fast & loose with words and phrases, ie, lying to us.

Im not aware of anyone “attacking you”, only posters questioning your baseless accusations and misleading statements. If you don’t like the flies, don’t wallow in pig shit.

Mudslingers deserve scorn.

You have got to be fucking blind then. You attack my character yourself with just about every post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only when you make baseless accusations. I’d call you ducking weak if you can’t take someone calling you on that. 

Also, when did I ever “agree with “Your views on whether the Clinton campaign broke the law procuring Russian dirt by people who hold the same view as I do on that matter?”

...because this is starting to look like yet another example of you willfully misinterpreting what others say.

Oops! You’ve done it again, Dog. You made me attack you for doggystylin.

Are your feelings going to be ok? I actually don’t want to offend you. I want you to be more responsible with your arguments. I like “Conservatives” I can respect, but you’re intent on losing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Only when you make baseless accusations. I’d call you ducking weak if you can’t take someone calling you on that. 

Also, when did I ever “agree with “Your views on whether the Clinton campaign broke the law procuring Russian dirt by people who hold the same view as I do on that matter?”

...because this is starting to look like yet another example of you willfully misinterpreting what others say.

Oops! You’ve done it again, Dog. You made me attack you for doggystylin.

Are your feelings going to be ok? I actually don’t want to offend you. I want you to be more responsible with your arguments. I like “Conservatives” I can respect, but you’re intent on losing it.

Just today in the drip drip drip thread you attacked me for something I didn't say. Should I take you seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites