Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
guess it's time to rehash this. between this and "what crime did trump commit" we seem to be stuck on topics that must repeat several times a week.
facebook ads. i looked. 95% of them were simply divisive. pit one extreme group against another and let them tear each other up while you sit back and giggle.
hack the DNC. unproven. the DNC was never given up to inspect. you can rattle off speculation about the russians hacking and point to many who are tagged as "deep state" who say it happened. but as far as i know you can't inspect a hacking without having the machine. it requires a lot of backtracking to several known methods.
DNC - info was "shoplifted" by the pakastani. more likely but again, unproven. the data we do have is consistent with this but also has fallen under question. usually by the "other" side out to give speaking points to discredit anything at all.
trump asked russia for the mails. the left will say trump is a liar and says stupid shit all the time. neither of which would i disagree. however, when he says something they want to attack, this seems to be a rare time that trump wasn't just talking smack (of which he certainly loves to do) and suddenly must be taken seriously. this is up there with trump mocking a handicapped person by making the same gestures he'd been making for the past decade. SUDDENLY these are to mock 1 person and the 10 years of history is ignored by the left. so - this is just bullshit and anyone tying their wagon to this post is a freaking dumbass of epic proportions.
so what else is there? if you say they tried to help trump - HOW? and be specific. this "well he lied about a meeting" is only focused on the lie cause nothing happened at the meeting itself. that's the dem way. accuse someone of rape then suddenly shift focus to lying once it's found no one raped anyone.
so what did russia do to help trump? random unproven links need not apply and Care4all no one needs your bulletpoints and "silly boy" shit. we know you memorized the talking points ad nauseum so don't bother telling me a bunch more of your unlinked pom pom we are 100% clean your side 100% sucks bullshit.
now - for everyone else - what EXACTLY did russia do? if facebook ads, link me to the ones in question that shifted the election. i didn't see many pure political ones.
Except for its not specific truthful or verified... how exactly did Clinton expedite the sale of uranium to the Russians?Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:
"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.
[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].
All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.
Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?
And your source for truth is the word of a Russian rep? Really?
You need to read the report. There are a couple of hundred pages of specific information there for you.guess it's time to rehash this. between this and "what crime did trump commit" we seem to be stuck on topics that must repeat several times a week.
facebook ads. i looked. 95% of them were simply divisive. pit one extreme group against another and let them tear each other up while you sit back and giggle.
hack the DNC. unproven. the DNC was never given up to inspect. you can rattle off speculation about the russians hacking and point to many who are tagged as "deep state" who say it happened. but as far as i know you can't inspect a hacking without having the machine. it requires a lot of backtracking to several known methods.
DNC - info was "shoplifted" by the pakastani. more likely but again, unproven. the data we do have is consistent with this but also has fallen under question. usually by the "other" side out to give speaking points to discredit anything at all.
trump asked russia for the mails. the left will say trump is a liar and says stupid shit all the time. neither of which would i disagree. however, when he says something they want to attack, this seems to be a rare time that trump wasn't just talking smack (of which he certainly loves to do) and suddenly must be taken seriously. this is up there with trump mocking a handicapped person by making the same gestures he'd been making for the past decade. SUDDENLY these are to mock 1 person and the 10 years of history is ignored by the left. so - this is just bullshit and anyone tying their wagon to this post is a freaking dumbass of epic proportions.
so what else is there? if you say they tried to help trump - HOW? and be specific. this "well he lied about a meeting" is only focused on the lie cause nothing happened at the meeting itself. that's the dem way. accuse someone of rape then suddenly shift focus to lying once it's found no one raped anyone.
so what did russia do to help trump? random unproven links need not apply and Care4all no one needs your bulletpoints and "silly boy" shit. we know you memorized the talking points ad nauseum so don't bother telling me a bunch more of your unlinked pom pom we are 100% clean your side 100% sucks bullshit.
now - for everyone else - what EXACTLY did russia do? if facebook ads, link me to the ones in question that shifted the election. i didn't see many pure political ones.
False dichotomy - CNN lives for this shit cause it sells. then again you did say "serious" - but then, not many of those really left. just those selling hate.Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:
"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.
[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].
All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.
Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?
False dichotomy.
Electioneering by foreign country could theoretically be BOTH true AND illegal. No serious domestic media outlet would knowingly participate in this illegal act.
Apparently I didn't make myself clear. I was not suggesting that the "story" was true - I have no idea and don't care whether it was true - my hypothetical was to ask whether published, truthful information can constitute "election tampering."
Obviously, if the information is false or distorted for political purpose, it can constitute tampering, but can disseminating truthful information be prosecuted as tampering?
I personally don't think so.
False dichotomy - CNN lives for this shit cause it sells. then again you did say "serious" - but then, not many of those really left. just those selling hate.Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:
"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.
[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].
All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.
Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?
False dichotomy.
Electioneering by foreign country could theoretically be BOTH true AND illegal. No serious domestic media outlet would knowingly participate in this illegal act.
Idiot, do you even know what the words "false dichotomy" mean?
You just posted complete icoherency that in no way addressed the simple fact that direct electioneering by foreigners is illegal reguardless of being true or not.
Don't let The GEIGH win. You can beat it on your own.
False dichotomy - CNN lives for this shit cause it sells. then again you did say "serious" - but then, not many of those really left. just those selling hate.Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:
"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.
[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].
All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.
Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?
False dichotomy.
Electioneering by foreign country could theoretically be BOTH true AND illegal. No serious domestic media outlet would knowingly participate in this illegal act.
Idiot, do you even know what the words "false dichotomy" mean?
You just posted complete icoherency that in no way addressed the simple fact that direct electioneering by foreigners is illegal reguardless of being true or not.
Don't let The GEIGH win. You can beat it on your own.
what the fuck?
False dichotomy - CNN lives for this shit cause it sells. then again you did say "serious" - but then, not many of those really left. just those selling hate.False dichotomy.
Electioneering by foreign country could theoretically be BOTH true AND illegal. No serious domestic media outlet would knowingly participate in this illegal act.
Idiot, do you even know what the words "false dichotomy" mean?
You just posted complete icoherency that in no way addressed the simple fact that direct electioneering by foreigners is illegal reguardless of being true or not.
Don't let The GEIGH win. You can beat it on your own.
what the fuck?
Is the medication to keep you Insane and addicted to Globalism and Hatred of Trump a Suppository?
I guess that is what I was really asking.
It’s not a question of deciding. If you believe Donald Trump, then you have to believe Vladimir Putin. Because they’re both on the same side.
It’s just that simple.
Illegals who voted for him are foreign adversaries. It’s a joke, relax, Leftist.
False dichotomy - CNN lives for this shit cause it sells. then again you did say "serious" - but then, not many of those really left. just those selling hate.
Idiot, do you even know what the words "false dichotomy" mean?
You just posted complete icoherency that in no way addressed the simple fact that direct electioneering by foreigners is illegal reguardless of being true or not.
Don't let The GEIGH win. You can beat it on your own.
what the fuck?
Is the medication to keep you Insane and addicted to Globalism and Hatred of Trump a Suppository?
I guess that is what I was really asking.
Moron, this thread is not even about Trump. It is about the general idea of foreign governments electioneering in America.
this, from you, is a sure sign my sanity is just fine.guess it's time to rehash this. between this and "what crime did trump commit" we seem to be stuck on topics that must repeat several times a week.
facebook ads. i looked. 95% of them were simply divisive. pit one extreme group against another and let them tear each other up while you sit back and giggle.
hack the DNC. unproven. the DNC was never given up to inspect. you can rattle off speculation about the russians hacking and point to many who are tagged as "deep state" who say it happened. but as far as i know you can't inspect a hacking without having the machine. it requires a lot of backtracking to several known methods.
DNC - info was "shoplifted" by the pakastani. more likely but again, unproven. the data we do have is consistent with this but also has fallen under question. usually by the "other" side out to give speaking points to discredit anything at all.
trump asked russia for the mails. the left will say trump is a liar and says stupid shit all the time. neither of which would i disagree. however, when he says something they want to attack, this seems to be a rare time that trump wasn't just talking smack (of which he certainly loves to do) and suddenly must be taken seriously. this is up there with trump mocking a handicapped person by making the same gestures he'd been making for the past decade. SUDDENLY these are to mock 1 person and the 10 years of history is ignored by the left. so - this is just bullshit and anyone tying their wagon to this post is a freaking dumbass of epic proportions.
so what else is there? if you say they tried to help trump - HOW? and be specific. this "well he lied about a meeting" is only focused on the lie cause nothing happened at the meeting itself. that's the dem way. accuse someone of rape then suddenly shift focus to lying once it's found no one raped anyone.
so what did russia do to help trump? random unproven links need not apply and Care4all no one needs your bulletpoints and "silly boy" shit. we know you memorized the talking points ad nauseum so don't bother telling me a bunch more of your unlinked pom pom we are 100% clean your side 100% sucks bullshit.
now - for everyone else - what EXACTLY did russia do? if facebook ads, link me to the ones in question that shifted the election. i didn't see many pure political ones.
Idiot, do you even know what the words "false dichotomy" mean?
You just posted complete icoherency that in no way addressed the simple fact that direct electioneering by foreigners is illegal reguardless of being true or not.
Don't let The GEIGH win. You can beat it on your own.
what the fuck?
Is the medication to keep you Insane and addicted to Globalism and Hatred of Trump a Suppository?
I guess that is what I was really asking.
Moron, this thread is not even about Trump. It is about the general idea of foreign governments electioneering in America.
Like what Foreign Governments?
vice - bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - i'll pull out infowars in response.guess it's time to rehash this. between this and "what crime did trump commit" we seem to be stuck on topics that must repeat several times a week.
facebook ads. i looked. 95% of them were simply divisive. pit one extreme group against another and let them tear each other up while you sit back and giggle.
hack the DNC. unproven. the DNC was never given up to inspect. you can rattle off speculation about the russians hacking and point to many who are tagged as "deep state" who say it happened. but as far as i know you can't inspect a hacking without having the machine. it requires a lot of backtracking to several known methods.
DNC - info was "shoplifted" by the pakastani. more likely but again, unproven. the data we do have is consistent with this but also has fallen under question. usually by the "other" side out to give speaking points to discredit anything at all.
trump asked russia for the mails. the left will say trump is a liar and says stupid shit all the time. neither of which would i disagree. however, when he says something they want to attack, this seems to be a rare time that trump wasn't just talking smack (of which he certainly loves to do) and suddenly must be taken seriously. this is up there with trump mocking a handicapped person by making the same gestures he'd been making for the past decade. SUDDENLY these are to mock 1 person and the 10 years of history is ignored by the left. so - this is just bullshit and anyone tying their wagon to this post is a freaking dumbass of epic proportions.
so what else is there? if you say they tried to help trump - HOW? and be specific. this "well he lied about a meeting" is only focused on the lie cause nothing happened at the meeting itself. that's the dem way. accuse someone of rape then suddenly shift focus to lying once it's found no one raped anyone.
so what did russia do to help trump? random unproven links need not apply and Care4all no one needs your bulletpoints and "silly boy" shit. we know you memorized the talking points ad nauseum so don't bother telling me a bunch more of your unlinked pom pom we are 100% clean your side 100% sucks bullshit.
now - for everyone else - what EXACTLY did russia do? if facebook ads, link me to the ones in question that shifted the election. i didn't see many pure political ones.
Explanation of why copies of the server are what's needed to identify hacking, and not the sever itself...
Trump's Stupid ‘Where Is the DNC Server?’ Conspiracy Theory, Explained
russian indictment details
https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download
Mueller Investigation in to Russian interference REPORT
The Mueller Report
and because there is so much info - i am NOT going to let you nor the left use it as a blanket "it's in there" bullshit response. either be specific or don't bother.Except for its not specific truthful or verified... how exactly did Clinton expedite the sale of uranium to the Russians?Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:
"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.
[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].
All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.
Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?
And your source for truth is the word of a Russian rep? Really?You need to read the report. There are a couple of hundred pages of specific information there for you.guess it's time to rehash this. between this and "what crime did trump commit" we seem to be stuck on topics that must repeat several times a week.
facebook ads. i looked. 95% of them were simply divisive. pit one extreme group against another and let them tear each other up while you sit back and giggle.
hack the DNC. unproven. the DNC was never given up to inspect. you can rattle off speculation about the russians hacking and point to many who are tagged as "deep state" who say it happened. but as far as i know you can't inspect a hacking without having the machine. it requires a lot of backtracking to several known methods.
DNC - info was "shoplifted" by the pakastani. more likely but again, unproven. the data we do have is consistent with this but also has fallen under question. usually by the "other" side out to give speaking points to discredit anything at all.
trump asked russia for the mails. the left will say trump is a liar and says stupid shit all the time. neither of which would i disagree. however, when he says something they want to attack, this seems to be a rare time that trump wasn't just talking smack (of which he certainly loves to do) and suddenly must be taken seriously. this is up there with trump mocking a handicapped person by making the same gestures he'd been making for the past decade. SUDDENLY these are to mock 1 person and the 10 years of history is ignored by the left. so - this is just bullshit and anyone tying their wagon to this post is a freaking dumbass of epic proportions.
so what else is there? if you say they tried to help trump - HOW? and be specific. this "well he lied about a meeting" is only focused on the lie cause nothing happened at the meeting itself. that's the dem way. accuse someone of rape then suddenly shift focus to lying once it's found no one raped anyone.
so what did russia do to help trump? random unproven links need not apply and Care4all no one needs your bulletpoints and "silly boy" shit. we know you memorized the talking points ad nauseum so don't bother telling me a bunch more of your unlinked pom pom we are 100% clean your side 100% sucks bullshit.
now - for everyone else - what EXACTLY did russia do? if facebook ads, link me to the ones in question that shifted the election. i didn't see many pure political ones.
Illegals who voted for him are foreign adversaries. It’s a joke, relax, Leftist.
if you believe that shit, you need to believe in santa clause - they're both on the same side. fantasy land.It’s not a question of deciding. If you believe Donald Trump, then you have to believe Vladimir Putin. Because they’re both on the same side.
It’s just that simple.
yea, it means shit you said.False dichotomy - CNN lives for this shit cause it sells. then again you did say "serious" - but then, not many of those really left. just those selling hate.Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:
"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.
[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].
All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.
Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?
False dichotomy.
Electioneering by foreign country could theoretically be BOTH true AND illegal. No serious domestic media outlet would knowingly participate in this illegal act.
Idiot, do you even know what the words "false dichotomy" mean?
You just posted complete icoherency that in no way addressed the simple fact that direct electioneering by foreign goverments is illegal reguardless of being true or not.
Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:
"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.
[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].
All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.
Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?
