Anonymous wrote:You guys can't see the forest for the trees here.

What if Manafort was actually spying on the Trump campaign for Russia, who was in turn feeding that intel back to Clinton?

Why else would Manafort be briefing the Russians on Trump? If Russia were helping, wouldn't the briefings be coming FROM them, as opposed to going TO them?


That's the problem with demanding investigations when your own side is dirty. You never know where or when something might lead back to you.


This is getting REAL interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can't see the forest for the trees here.

What if Manafort was actually spying on the Trump campaign for Russia, who was in turn feeding that intel back to Clinton?

Why else would Manafort be briefing the Russians on Trump? If Russia were helping, wouldn't the briefings be coming FROM them, as opposed to going TO them?


That's the problem with demanding investigations when your own side is dirty. You never know where or when something might lead back to you.


This is getting REAL interesting.

So Manafort, whose days with he GOP go back to before Lee Atwater, was a Clinton operative? I want what you're drinking.

The third act twist no one saw coming!

No. That the Russians would've much rather seen a Clinton presidency because of the previous arrangements with the Clintons (Uranium One, etc)

It was in the interest of Russia to have her in the Whitehouse rather than Trump. So spying on his campaign with a long time asset (Manafort) to pass info back to the Clintons to use to defeat Trump makes sense.

Complicating this whole mess was the hacked email scandal though, which may or may not have been done by the Russians, but pushed Clinton into a face-saving escalation of hostilities against them.

I shudder to think that we'd literally fight a war - a NUCLEAR WAR - with Russia over something so trivial as hacked emails, but with the way she was ratcheting up the rhetoric, it was conceivable. Thank God that crazy harpy didn't get elected.

So let me ask you this, as a serious question: Let's say at the end of his investigation, Mueller concludes that there was collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians, and that the collusion involved Manafort. Given what you believe now, will you accept that conclusion? Would you say that Mueller was obviously corrupt? Or that the Deep State was there to twist all the evidence? I know you don't believe this is what Mueller will find, but just humor me here.

The only thing I DO believe is that we will NEVER know what, if anything, really happened. That's the ONLY thing I'm 100% certain of.

There's too much obfuscation, partisan sniping, media bias, and an earnest desire by BOTH parties to see Trump destroyed to ever allow a true finding of what did or didn't happen to ever be known. The whole thing is as fncked up as a soup sandwich.

As far as the "deep state" thing goes.... it's amusing how many liberals can, in the same sentence, both ridicule the very idea of it even existing, AND then boast about how effective it is at stifling Trump. It just leaves me shaking me head.

Frankly, I'm far more disgusted at the GOP than I am democrats. Democrats are just being themselves: childish, immature liberals who hate America and want to see it transformed into something no one recognizes. No big deal. That's what they've always wanted. And it was the prime directive of the GOP to counter that, with the two opposing forces creating something of a peaceful equilibrium or stasis where we could function as a country without being pulled too far left or right. But the GOP has become enraged that a rank outsider has stepped in and usurped party orthodoxy and power. So now they have set about to aid democrats in stifling Trump. And that leaves people like me - millions of us - furious at republicans.

Dems should rejoice, because the GOP has essentially killed itself by turning its back on Trump. The whitehouse and both houses of congress will be in democrat control by 2020, because millions of people like me aren't going to support their candidates in national elections. We'll likely be in economic free-fall again by 2022-2024, and the country will accelerate its decline towards malaise. I was a kid in the 70's. I remember it. We'll see it again, only worse. And next time there won't be a Reagan getting elected to turn it around.

Or maybe North Korea will just hit us with an EMP attack and we'll all be sitting in the dark while we starve to death.

Either way, the future is gonna be pretty bleak.

So you're saying if that's what Mueller finds, you will take it as confirmation that we will never know the truth?

Do you believe it is possible that Trump - or his surrogates - were colluding with the Russians?

I haven't heard Democrats bragging about the deep state taking Trump down. I have heard, and said, that there is great relief that our institutions are so far sort of handling this stress test. Maybe that's the same thing in your mind?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can't see the forest for the trees here.

What if Manafort was actually spying on the Trump campaign for Russia, who was in turn feeding that intel back to Clinton?

Why else would Manafort be briefing the Russians on Trump? If Russia were helping, wouldn't the briefings be coming FROM them, as opposed to going TO them?


That's the problem with demanding investigations when your own side is dirty. You never know where or when something might lead back to you.


This is getting REAL interesting.

So Manafort, whose days with he GOP go back to before Lee Atwater, was a Clinton operative? I want what you're drinking.

The third act twist no one saw coming!

No. That the Russians would've much rather seen a Clinton presidency because of the previous arrangements with the Clintons (Uranium One, etc)

It was in the interest of Russia to have her in the Whitehouse rather than Trump. So spying on his campaign with a long time asset (Manafort) to pass info back to the Clintons to use to defeat Trump makes sense.

Complicating this whole mess was the hacked email scandal though, which may or may not have been done by the Russians, but pushed Clinton into a face-saving escalation of hostilities against them.

I shudder to think that we'd literally fight a war - a NUCLEAR WAR - with Russia over something so trivial as hacked emails, but with the way she was ratcheting up the rhetoric, it was conceivable. Thank God that crazy harpy didn't get elected.

So let me ask you this, as a serious question: Let's say at the end of his investigation, Mueller concludes that there was collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians, and that the collusion involved Manafort. Given what you believe now, will you accept that conclusion? Would you say that Mueller was obviously corrupt? Or that the Deep State was there to twist all the evidence? I know you don't believe this is what Mueller will find, but just humor me here.

The only thing I DO believe is that we will NEVER know what, if anything, really happened. That's the ONLY thing I'm 100% certain of.

There's too much obfuscation, partisan sniping, media bias, and an earnest desire by BOTH parties to see Trump destroyed to ever allow a true finding of what did or didn't happen to ever be known. The whole thing is as fncked up as a soup sandwich.

As far as the "deep state" thing goes.... it's amusing how many liberals can, in the same sentence, both ridicule the very idea of it even existing, AND then boast about how effective it is at stifling Trump. It just leaves me shaking me head.

Frankly, I'm far more disgusted at the GOP than I am democrats. Democrats are just being themselves: childish, immature liberals who hate America and want to see it transformed into something no one recognizes. No big deal. That's what they've always wanted. And it was the prime directive of the GOP to counter that, with the two opposing forces creating something of a peaceful equilibrium or stasis where we could function as a country without being pulled too far left or right. But the GOP has become enraged that a rank outsider has stepped in and usurped party orthodoxy and power. So now they have set about to aid democrats in stifling Trump. And that leaves people like me - millions of us - furious at republicans.

Dems should rejoice, because the GOP has essentially killed itself by turning its back on Trump. The whitehouse and both houses of congress will be in democrat control by 2020, because millions of people like me aren't going to support their candidates in national elections. We'll likely be in economic free-fall again by 2022-2024, and the country will accelerate its decline towards malaise. I was a kid in the 70's. I remember it. We'll see it again, only worse. And next time there won't be a Reagan getting elected to turn it around.

Or maybe North Korea will just hit us with an EMP attack and we'll all be sitting in the dark while we starve to death.

Either way, the future is gonna be pretty bleak.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can't see the forest for the trees here.

What if Manafort was actually spying on the Trump campaign for Russia, who was in turn feeding that intel back to Clinton?

Why else would Manafort be briefing the Russians on Trump? If Russia were helping, wouldn't the briefings be coming FROM them, as opposed to going TO them?


That's the problem with demanding investigations when your own side is dirty. You never know where or when something might lead back to you.


This is getting REAL interesting.

So Manafort, whose days with he GOP go back to before Lee Atwater, was a Clinton operative? I want what you're drinking.

The third act twist no one saw coming!

No. That the Russians would've much rather seen a Clinton presidency because of the previous arrangements with the Clintons (Uranium One, etc)

It was in the interest of Russia to have her in the Whitehouse rather than Trump. So spying on his campaign with a long time asset (Manafort) to pass info back to the Clintons to use to defeat Trump makes sense.

Complicating this whole mess was the hacked email scandal though, which may or may not have been done by the Russians, but pushed Clinton into a face-saving escalation of hostilities against them.

I shudder to think that we'd literally fight a war - a NUCLEAR WAR - with Russia over something so trivial as hacked emails, but with the way she was ratcheting up the rhetoric, it was conceivable. Thank God that crazy harpy didn't get elected.

So let me ask you this, as a serious question: Let's say at the end of his investigation, Mueller concludes that there was collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians, and that the collusion involved Manafort. Given what you believe now, will you accept that conclusion? Would you say that Mueller was obviously corrupt? Or that the Deep State was there to twist all the evidence? I know you don't believe this is what Mueller will find, but just humor me here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not Russian. I'm an American. A combat Veteran of two wars. I have an MBA. I'm a small business owner and I coach wrestling. I'm so American I bleed apple pie.

The "Vlad" jokes reveal that you have no substantive retort. Snark is all you've got. It's a white flag.

You're an idiot who capitalizes veteran to try and give yourself a particular stature in perpetuity that isn't real. You clearly voted for and continue to support a kakistocracy so inept and corrupt that language fails to capture the contours. You're a sack of fetid excrement and worth less than the current valuation of the long dead Trump football league. Kick rocks.

Wow, SO much respect for someone who put his/her life on the line to protect your right to say the above! Impressive!

Anonymous wrote:I'm not Russian. I'm an American. A combat Veteran of two wars. I have an MBA. I'm a small business owner and I coach wrestling. I'm so American I bleed apple pie.

The "Vlad" jokes reveal that you have no substantive retort. Snark is all you've got. It's a white flag.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can't see the forest for the trees here.

What if Manafort was actually spying on the Trump campaign for Russia, who was in turn feeding that intel back to Clinton?

Why else would Manafort be briefing the Russians on Trump? If Russia were helping, wouldn't the briefings be coming FROM them, as opposed to going TO them?


That's the problem with demanding investigations when your own side is dirty. You never know where or when something might lead back to you.


This is getting REAL interesting.

So Manafort, whose days with he GOP go back to before Lee Atwater, was a Clinton operative? I want what you're drinking.

The third act twist no one saw coming!

No. That the Russians would've much rather seen a Clinton presidency because of the previous arrangements with the Clintons (Uranium One, etc)

It was in the interest of Russia to have her in the Whitehouse rather than Trump. So spying on his campaign with a long time asset (Manafort) to pass info back to the Clintons to use to defeat Trump makes sense.

Complicating this whole mess was the hacked email scandal though, which may or may not have been done by the Russians, but pushed Clinton into a face-saving escalation of hostilities against them.

I shudder to think that we'd literally fight a war - a NUCLEAR WAR - with Russia over something so trivial as hacked emails, but with the way she was ratcheting up the rhetoric, it was conceivable. Thank God that crazy harpy didn't get elected.

Anonymous wrote:

No. That the Russians would've much rather seen a Clinton presidency because of the previous arrangements with the Clintons (Uranium One, etc)

It was in the interest of Russia to have her in the Whitehouse rather than Trump. So spying on his campaign with a long time asset (Manafort) to pass info back to the Clintons to use to defeat Trump makes sense.

Complicating this whole mess was the hacked email scandal though, which may or may not have been done by the Russians, but pushed Clinton into a face-saving escalation of hostilities against them.

I shudder to think that we'd literally fight a war - a NUCLEAR WAR - with Russia over something so trivial as hacked emails, but with the way she was ratcheting up the rhetoric, it was conceivable. Thank God that crazy harpy didn't get elected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see all mention of the lunch invitation for Friday has been deleted.

My, what thin skins around here. Even by DCUM standards. Gotta protect that Russian troll meme, I suppose.

It's not a meme; there are paid Russians trolling. Plus it was incredibly aggressive, as well as a sorry attempt to take the thread far off topic. If that's how aggressive you are on an anonymous board, I shudder at how you must be IRL.

I read all those posts before they were deleted and there was nothing aggressive about them whatsoever. I think it was refreshing that someone who disagrees with strangers would invite them to lunch. I'm going. I want to see who shows up, even if it's just two of us. And if he doesn't show up, I'm still having lunch anyway, because sushi, haha. Although I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to recognize him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can't see the forest for the trees here.

What if Manafort was actually spying on the Trump campaign for Russia, who was in turn feeding that intel back to Clinton?

Why else would Manafort be briefing the Russians on Trump? If Russia were helping, wouldn't the briefings be coming FROM them, as opposed to going TO them?


That's the problem with demanding investigations when your own side is dirty. You never know where or when something might lead back to you.


This is getting REAL interesting.

So Manafort, whose days with he GOP go back to before Lee Atwater, was a Clinton operative? I want what you're drinking.

The third act twist no one saw coming!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not Russian. I'm an American. A combat Veteran of two wars. I have an MBA. I'm a small business owner and I coach wrestling. I'm so American I bleed apple pie.

The "Vlad" jokes reveal that you have no substantive retort. Snark is all you've got. It's a white flag.

I was married to an Intel Analyst, Ranger, Green Beret (we're still good friends). He and his buddies would agree with your assessment as a very distinct possibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can't see the forest for the trees here.

What if Manafort was actually spying on the Trump campaign for Russia, who was in turn feeding that intel back to Clinton?

Why else would Manafort be briefing the Russians on Trump? If Russia were helping, wouldn't the briefings be coming FROM them, as opposed to going TO them?


That's the problem with demanding investigations when your own side is dirty. You never know where or when something might lead back to you.


This is getting REAL interesting.

So Manafort, whose days with he GOP go back to before Lee Atwater, was a Clinton operative? I want what you're drinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see all mention of the lunch invitation for Friday has been deleted.

My, what thin skins around here. Even by DCUM standards. Gotta protect that Russian troll meme, I suppose.

It's not a meme; there are paid Russians trolling. Plus it was incredibly aggressive, as well as a sorry attempt to take the thread far off topic. If that's how aggressive you are on an anonymous board, I shudder at how you must be IRL.