1. anon_de_plume

    anon_de_plume Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,121
    Just suppose the investigation turns up irrefutable evidence of a connection between Trump and Russia. Then what?
     
    stumbler likes this.
  2. Hush

    Hush Happy Hhedonist

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    11,557
    My guess is one of two things...

    [​IMG]

    Or...

    [​IMG]


    Hush....an alias
     
    1. justpassingthru
      LMAO, that first one almost made me choke I laughed so hard.
       
      justpassingthru, Mar 19, 2017
      Distant Lover likes this.
  3. pussy in boots

    pussy in boots ride em cowgirl up

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    26,617
    Of course there is a connection between U.S. and Russia. There are connections between U.S. and every country in the world. It's called foreign policy.
     
    ace's n 8's likes this.
    1. anon_de_plume
      You know exactly what I meant. And no, it would not be foreign policy as the executive branch is the only part of the government that is legally allowed to execute foreign policy, and if these things happened before a Trump took office, he was engaging in something illegal.
       
      anon_de_plume, Mar 19, 2017
  4. shanksy

    shanksy Porno Junky

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    266
    Just suppose there are people that people who couldn't give a shit about trump or Russia. Then what?
     
    shadow walker and CharlieFlorida like this.
  5. TwoCards

    TwoCards Sex Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2014
    Messages:
    614
    Fuck the froth, they've been grasping at straws since the election. Hillary and the Dems lost for one reason only; themselves.
     
    shadow walker and ace's n 8's like this.
  6. CharlieFlorida

    CharlieFlorida Amateur

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    86
    I was told all Murica's are fools

    [​IMG]
     
    1. TwoCards
      Hey Charlie, you live in Florida. You're not allowed to refer to others as idiots. You reside in the land of fugitives and misfits, sprinkled with white trash and ethnic intruders. A melting pot of shit so to speak. Unfortunately I find myself stuck in the same shit hole...not much longer hopefully.
       
      TwoCards, Mar 19, 2017
  7. ace's n 8's

    ace's n 8's Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    30,272
    Just suppose the investigation turns up irrefutable evidence of a connection between Clinton and Russia. Then what?
     
    1. TwoCards
      Don't mention Clinton or Nobama. You are well aware that everything is Bush's and now Trump's fault.
       
      TwoCards, Mar 19, 2017
    2. ace's n 8's
      Ok....Just suppose the investigation turns up irrefutable evidence of a connection between Bush/Trump and Russia. Then what?
       
      ace's n 8's, Mar 19, 2017
      TwoCards likes this.
    3. anon_de_plume
      So, now you just repeat my very question in other words... What's your answer?
       
      anon_de_plume, Mar 19, 2017
    4. ace's n 8's
      My answer....dont care...YET.
       
      ace's n 8's, Mar 20, 2017
    5. anon_de_plume
      Kind of what I thought... for you!
       
      anon_de_plume, Mar 20, 2017
  8. Sage_of_the_Forlorn_Path

    Sage_of_the_Forlorn_Path Sex Machine

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    Messages:
    675
    I love how it's so hard for trump supporters to just answer the fucking question. All they can do is deflect or throw Obama and Hillary under the bus to avoid having to think critically.
     
    justpassingthru likes this.
    1. View previous comments...
    2. naughtyguy4u
      If he personally knew of who, what, where, and how.
      Plus in communication about it.
      It's impeachable.

      Just as bad as "the one we shall not name" giving away all that money and such to Iran.
      But Hey! The left loves to ignore that one!

      Hell! It's hard to name a country that isn't hacking shit these days.

      Personally I dislike both parties.
       
      naughtyguy4u, Mar 20, 2017
    3. Sage_of_the_Forlorn_Path
      Maybe so, but that isn't the question here is it. It's not about Obama or Clinton, the question is about Trump. "If he personally knew of who, what, where, and how.
      Plus in communication about it.
      It's impeachable."
      So, are you saying you would support impeachment? That you would stop supporting Trump?
      Yes or no, that's all you need to say.
       
    4. naughtyguy4u
      Yes!

      Now exactly what do you think he did?
       
      naughtyguy4u, Mar 21, 2017
    5. Sage_of_the_Forlorn_Path
      Thank you, an answer is all I wanted.
      I think he knew about what the Russian hackers were doing in real time, I think he actively worked with Putin to make sure he won the election, and I think he's taking Russian bribes or working to get some kind of personal benefit from them.
       
    6. naughtyguy4u
      I'm pretty sure the illegal Obama wire taps would of picked up on that!!:thumbsup:
       
      naughtyguy4u, Mar 21, 2017
  9. ace's n 8's

    ace's n 8's Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    30,272
    Fantastic co-relation.

    The leftists on this site have done a fabulous job in the course of speculation, I personally will allow them to maintain championing that.

    When the proof is irrefutable.... then there will be time to consider the options.

    Until then, it's irrelevant.
     
    Mr Smith 36 and TwoCards like this.
    1. View previous comments...
    2. TwoCards
      He hasn't shown any incompetence. And if Obama wasn't impeached, I'm confident that Trump will be just fine. Gross incompetence is Obama's middle name.
       
      TwoCards, Mar 19, 2017
    3. ace's n 8's
      Perpetulant boredom has struck the hour.
       
      ace's n 8's, Mar 19, 2017
    4. Mr Smith 36
      Can you believe it??? Now these clowns are fantasizing about fictional conspiracy theories they dream up and believing they are real. C'mon guys, you're going off the deep end...
       
      Mr Smith 36, Mar 19, 2017
      TwoCards likes this.
    5. TwoCards
      All they have Mr Smith, all they have...
       
      TwoCards, Mar 19, 2017
      Mr Smith 36 likes this.
    6. Sage_of_the_Forlorn_Path
      Really? What do you call baseless accusations of a former president? Last time I checked, slander is illegal.
       
  10. shadow walker

    shadow walker Полковник

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,941
    I wouldn't give a shit. Putin has no interest in America he has his own Country to deal with.
     
    Mr Smith 36, TwoCards and ace's n 8's like this.
    1. View previous comments...
    2. Sage_of_the_Forlorn_Path
      Well Bannon is working him like a puppet. He got onto the security council because Trump signed the executive order without even reading it.
       
    3. ace's n 8's
      ace's n 8's, Mar 20, 2017
      TwoCards likes this.
    4. TwoCards
      Looks like Sage has a bit of pedophile in him also...
       
      TwoCards, Mar 20, 2017
    5. Sage_of_the_Forlorn_Path
      No, it's true. And TwoCards, I'm guessing you tried digging around my profile?
       
    6. Mr Smith 36
      Is anyone at all surprised?
       
      Mr Smith 36, Mar 20, 2017
  11. ace's n 8's

    ace's n 8's Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    30,272
     
    shadow walker likes this.
  12. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,678
    It depends on if Trump was personally involved or just people in his campaign. If its just people in his campaign Trump will have the good old plausible deniability. And the people in his campaign will end taking the fall. But if they can prove that Trump was actively involved then he will either have to resign or be impeached.

    And now two things I've seen just today claim Trump was actually personally involved. And the second thing is that the intelligence community have recordings of two Russians they were monitoring discussing the collusion between them and the Trump campaign.
     
    justpassingthru likes this.
    1. justpassingthru
      I'm just waiting for the "Gotcha" moment and the media is going to cream themselves lol.
       
      justpassingthru, Mar 19, 2017
      stumbler likes this.
  13. justpassingthru

    justpassingthru No Rest For The Wicked

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    28,100
    Is "The Devil made me do it" a viable legal defense yet ???
     
    stumbler likes this.
  14. anon_de_plume

    anon_de_plume Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,121
    Then why bother posting at all...
     
    stumbler and justpassingthru like this.
    1. shanksy
      I could say the same to you! Do you ever have rational or meaningful debate? No its just childish mudslinging. Utterly pointless.
       
      shanksy, Mar 20, 2017
  15. anon_de_plume

    anon_de_plume Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,121
    Unable to engage in a hypothetical discussion, I see. You're that afraid it might actually happen that you refuse to talk about it... Just shout everyone down...

    Good for you!
     
    justpassingthru likes this.
    1. TwoCards
      You are pathetic. You fucks are frothing. Haven't and won't post a fact. All speculation and whine. Why should we entertain hypotheticals when you all lie about the realities. No one way street in my world. Try again when you have something of value to discuss. You fucks keep calling people fearful. Look in a fucking mirror, your fear is profound in every Trump thread you start.
       
      TwoCards, Mar 19, 2017
      Mr Smith 36 likes this.
  16. anon_de_plume

    anon_de_plume Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    13,121
    Let the truth come out! But you are doing nothing but deflecting with this attempt at turning the tables. I've yet to hear anyone put forth the notion that Clinton had any connection.
     
    stumbler likes this.
    1. shootersa
      The Russian Uranium deal?
      Clinton made a few bucks off of that deal...............
       
      shootersa, Mar 20, 2017
    2. anon_de_plume
      And how many times does that get debunked?
       
      anon_de_plume, Mar 20, 2017
    3. shootersa
      Haven't seen it debunked. Seen excuses made, but not debunked.
       
      shootersa, Mar 20, 2017
    4. anon_de_plume
      At least nothing you'll believe...
       
      anon_de_plume, Mar 20, 2017
    5. shootersa
      Hard to believe "But 13 other government offices had to sign off on the deal" and "Well yes, there was a sizeable donation to the Clinton Global Initiative from Russia right after the deal was signed, but they aren't connected"
       
      shootersa, Mar 20, 2017
  17. ace's n 8's

    ace's n 8's Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    30,272
    So what.

    Talk is cheap today bitch, as of today, there inst a thread of truth to the Trump/Russia debacle, but that hasn't stopped you simplistic fucking clowns.
     
    1. anon_de_plume
      I really thought there would be at least one of the Trumpets that would give it some thought.

      I was wrong.
       
      anon_de_plume, Mar 20, 2017
    2. ace's n 8's
      My thoughts about it.....as long as the masses continue to think that Russia was at fault for Hillary's loss, the left will continue to lose elections.
       
      ace's n 8's, Mar 20, 2017
    3. anon_de_plume
      Wow, not even willing to play a mental excersize...
       
      anon_de_plume, Mar 20, 2017
  18. M4MPetCock

    M4MPetCock Porn Star

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,138
    Looks like the chickens may be leaving Russia and coming home to roost.


    Key Democratic Officials Now Warning Base Not to Expect Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion

    3/16/17

    From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party’s base since Trump’s victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election — a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.

    The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies — just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected — that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.

    [​IMG]

    Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.

    The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton’s most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

    But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to “cast doubt” on “allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all,” he said, adding, “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”

    Obama’s former CIA chief also cast serious doubt on the credibility of the infamous, explosive “dossier” originally published by BuzzFeed, saying that its author, Christopher Steele, paid intermediaries to talk to the sources for it. The dossier, he said, “doesn’t take you anywhere, I don’t think.”

    Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obama’s DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20.

    Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. “There’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation,” BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins wrote.

    Moreover, “several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.” One member told Watkins: “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations.”
    ...
    For so long, Democrats demonized and smeared anyone trying to inject basic reason, rationality, and skepticism into this Trump/Russia discourse by labeling them all Kremlin agents and Putin lovers. Just this week, the Center for American Progress released a report using the language of treason to announce the existence of a “Fifth Column” in the U.S. that serves Russia (similar to Andrew Sullivan’s notorious 2001 decree that anyone opposing the war on terror composed an anti-American “Fifth Column”), while John McCain listened to Rand Paul express doubts about the wisdom of NATO further expanding to include Montenegro and then promptly announced: “Paul is working for Vladimir Putin.”

    But with serious doubts — and fears — now emerging about what the Democratic base has been led to believe by self-interested carnival barkers and partisan hacks, there is a sudden, concerted effort to rein in the excesses of this story. With so many people now doing this, it will be increasingly difficult to smear them all as traitors and Russian loyalists, but it may be far too little, too late, given the pitched hysteria that has been deliberately cultivated around these issues for months. Many Democrats have reached the classic stage of deranged conspiracists where evidence that disproves the theory is viewed as further proof of its existence, and those pointing to it are instantly deemed suspect.
     
    1. View previous comments...
    2. ace's n 8's
      More importantly, I suspect that you believe none of it, would that be a good hunch?
       
      ace's n 8's, Mar 20, 2017
    3. Hush
      Well, besides being an extreme right propaganda site, and starting off trying to trick readers into thinking it is a MSNBC article by placing that lead line in bold and underlined like a link (which it is not, they should have made a link that goes no where so it would color like a link), and all of the over the top inflammatory language, excessive verbiage, outrageous points, and flat out lies... If I went through performing a word count, then totaled up the number of "and's, to's, it's, punctuation markes, etc." and so on... I suspect that a quick check would yield roughly 10% of the content which is neither true or false just simply is. So no... I would believe 10%

      Hush....an alias
       
      Hush, Mar 20, 2017
    4. ace's n 8's
      Pulling the overly opinionated, highly emotional rhetoric out of the equation, and reanalyzing it, while also removing the concept that it was written by an '' extreme right propaganda site''.

      Which truly means nothing at all at this point, as the entire situation is based upon overly opinionated, highly emotional rhetoric by the opposition party.

      As it does lead me to believe that your low percentage of belief in the story in it's eternity, questions your credibility as a whole.
       
      ace's n 8's, Mar 20, 2017
    5. Hush
      As you would "rightly" yet incorrectly surmise. I do not doubt that you do.

      Hush....an alias
       
      Hush, Mar 20, 2017
    6. ace's n 8's
      You have not proven otherwise as of late.

      I will believe what the investigation brings...when it's over.

      I doubt that the questions will be answered today, in this highly over hyped public hearing....but that's just me.
       
      ace's n 8's, Mar 20, 2017
  19. M4MPetCock

    M4MPetCock Porn Star

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Messages:
    12,138
    Extreme right, you say?




    [​IMG]

    The Intercept

    [​IMG]

    LEFT-CENTER BIAS


    Factual Reporting: HIGH

    Notes: The Intercept is an online publication launched in February 2014 by First Look Media, the news organization created and funded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. The editors are Betsy Reed, Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill (Wikipedia). The Intercept produces well sourced quality journalism. They have a left-center bias in reporting and tend to use loaded, sensational words.
     
    1. M4MPetCock
      Now that I look at it, I guess I should have noticed the "extreme right wing" links in the story.

      NBC News http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...oke-no-fire-no-russia-trump-collusion-n734176


      McClatchy http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article136600203.html


      BuzzFeedhttps://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/the-people-investigating-russias-role-in-the-election-worry?utm_term=.aglgN0N4Q#.dsbj848vO

      The Senate Intelligence Committee has been given sweeping powers, unseen since the Watergate era, to investigate Russian meddling in the US election. As its scope grows to include suspected ties between the Trump camp and Russia, investigators are starting to worry politics have overhyped the probe.
       
      M4MPetCock, Mar 20, 2017
    2. Hush
    3. Hush
      Seriously though... Many of the stories you post don't even take multiple layer fact checking, the verbiage and viewpoint so skewed, biased and extreme that they are the sorts of things that I simply bypass (in that in this day and age it's pretty tough to be the only site to uncover some "secret agenda"). So it boils down to this... If your intent is to intentionally try and undermine America one pervert at a time, then keep at it. If however you really care about America, you'll do what I have always done, simply base my agenda on right or wrong. I don't give a damn about right/left, Rep/Dem and so on. My viewpoints are about what is right and wrong, just or not, politics and politicians be damned. So are you for or against the American people? It is that simple.

      Hush....an alias
       
      Hush, Mar 20, 2017
    4. M4MPetCock
      Two words: Ha ha!
       
      M4MPetCock, Mar 20, 2017
  20. Hush

    Hush Happy Hhedonist

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    11,557
    Indeed I do:

    Fake security site “Media Bias Fact Check” is just one guy running a malicious scam:
    http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/ph...-just-one-guy-running-a-malicious-scam/26758/

    Amid the growing concern about the veracity of online news outlets, various internet users have begun to scrutinize what they read more carefully to make sure it’s not “fake news” before trusting it. And that’s a good thing. But theat paranoia has also created an opportunity for scam artists to maliciously create confusion for their own personal amusement or agenda. Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.

    One look at the “Media Bias Fact Check” website reveals it to be something that looks like it was created in 1995. Some independent news outlets (including this one) tend to have a bare bones look and feel about their design, in fitting with their non-corporate media parameters. But the site Media Bias Fact Check is trying to position itself as some kind web security firm or media authority, and any scrutiny of the site reveals it to be far from it.

    Despite claiming in its tag line to be “The most comprehensive media bias resource,” the site turns out to simply be one guy named Dave Van Zandt who posts whatever he feels like. He claims to use a “strict methodology” for assigning bias ratings to various news outlets, but his “ratings” typically read like the gibberish one might find in an unmoderated comment section in the worst corners of the internet.

    For instance, when it comes to Daily Kos, a widely respected political news site, Van Zandt’s rating consists of “Not a credible news source. Blatant left wing bias that is written by bloggers who won’t even use their real names. Requires fact and source checking. One of the worst sources on the internet.” That’s it; that’s his entire rating. To back up his personal opinion of Daily Kos, Van Zandt provides literally nothing in terms of examples or sources. His “rating” of Kos consists merely of his own brief and unsubstantiated opinion. And then bizarrely, after telling his audience that Kos is biased, he posts a poll asking the public whether Kos is biased.

    Van Zandt’s “ratings” for other sites are similarly pitiful. For instance he simply declares that the Huffington Post “Has typical left wing bias” while once again providing no sourcing or evidence or examples to back up his opinions. And his rating for Cosmopolitan Magazine consists entirely of “Cosmopolitan is an international fashion magazine for women and has a circulation of over 3 million. Cosmo’s primary focus is on fashion, sex and relationship tips, but they also cover politics. Cosmo has a strong left wing bias in reporting and story selection.” It reads like something he cribbed from Wikipedia.

    Worse, it turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony “Media Bias Fact Check” site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous “rating” – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as “has been accused of being satire.” Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this “Media Bias Fact Check” scam.

    But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is “real” or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated “ratings” they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets.

    None of this unsubstantiated trash from the bottom rungs of the internet would matter if people weren’t falling for it. But due to the current paranoia regarding “fake news” and such, scam artists like Van Zandt have managed to get a free pass from some members of the public who fall for his worthless “ratings” of respected news outlets without bothering to scrutinize the nobody who’s making up the ratings. “Media Bias Fact Check” is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.

    There’s nothing inherently malicious about posting ones personal opinions on the internet. It becomes sketchier when one does so without bothering to back it up with anything. And doing so while masquerading as some kind of internet security site? That makes it a scam. It speaks for itself when the individual changes his ratings in order to punish news outlets who try to expose his scam. But until the current paranoia toward independent news outlets dies down, there’s little to prevent con artists like Dave Van Zandt and phony sites like “Media Bias Fact Check” from conning the most gullible of social media users into believing whatever phony ratings they churn out. The public must work together to protect each other from falling for these kinds of fake security sites. If you enjoy Daily News Bin, consider making a contribution:


    You need to start checking your fact checking ;) Then again, that would entail that you really want to know the truth.

    Hush....an alias
     
    foxy36c likes this.