Place your bets

[eddiew]

Trump Impeachment Is More Likely Than Ever, According to Gambling Sites
Rob Wile
May 17, 2017
Ladbrokes, one of the largest betting sites in the world, announced today that it has tweaked the odds that Trump leaves office early via impeachment or resignation to 4/5, or 55 percent. That means that if you were to bet $100, you would get just an $80 profit.Previously, the odds were 11/10, meaning that a $100 bet would yield $110 if it paid off.


“Political punters are wondering how many more scandals can Trump overcome," Jessica Bridge of Ladbrokes said in a statement released on Wednesday, as controversy has reached a fevered pitch for the Trump administration. “And despite the short price on offer, money has poured in for the President to be impeached, leaving us with little option but to cut the odds.”

Ladbrokes says it's now even money that Trump serves his full first term, and the payout is even worse for odds that Trump is not reelected, at 2/7. (Overseas gambling sites like Ladbrokes are off-limits to Americans; sports books and gambling sites in the U.S. do not accept bets on political matters.)

On the odds-making site PredictIt.com, the chances of Trump still being president at the end of the year have fallen from 87 percent to 69 percent just in the past week.

Lewis Davey, a spokesman for the Ireland-based gambling site Paddy Power, described the early days of the Trump administration as a "roller coaster," and told Politico last week that interest in betting on Trump's demise has surged recently: “Paddy Power customers have been lumping on Trump to come undone, with thousands staked on him not completing his first term in office and to be impeached.”

Across most betting sites, a Democratic candidate now has the upper hand for the 2020 election. Gambling Bovada puts the odds at 61 percent that a Democrat will be in the White House after the next presidential election, while the odds are 54 percent at PredictIt at and 60 percent on Ladbrokes.

Yeah, well the odds on Hillary winning were pretty high right up 'til November 9. These guys don't actually know any more than we do.

Very true BTW see how trump defends son from that meeting with russian lawyer ? See no evil hear no evil ??

I believe that about as much as I do that his inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama's.
He better not try that when he's called to testify, or he's going to be in big poop. There is no way anyone could believe that he didn't know, because what son would not at least mention to his Dad that he just got an email saying the highest levels of Russian government are sending support for Dad's campaign and apparently sending "dirt" to help? Does anyone honestly think Jr. never mentioned that to his father?

As well as trumps top man Kirshner saying nothing ? A den of liars and vipers

 

[Geaux4it]

The time has come," the Walrus said,

"To talk of many things:

Of shoes--and ships--and sealing wax--

Of cabbages--and kings--







And why the sea is boiling hot--

And whether pigs have wings."

(Apologies to Lewis Carroll)



The Trump clan has now admitted that they did, in fact, collude with the Russians to influence the election. What's next?



The time has come to state how many days will pass before Mr. Trump no longer resides in the White House. Place your bets.

It's still not an easy guess because there is clearly a lot more information to be discovered, either by Gowdy's drips, or Mueller's investigations. And Trump is not going to leave easily.



So, my initial guess is 365 days, but I reserve the right to change it!!

7.5 years so roughly 2737 days

-Geaux

 

[iceberg]

really?

what did i just say in the post above this? did i or did i NOT say this was on me for not following through? seemed pretty honest to me, even in understanding your jumping my ass with the "unmitigated gall" crap. i have never lied to you nor dogged on you and up until this point had a lot of respect for you.

guess i can stop doing that now. at this point i'm done. have a great day.

Go suck an egg, little Matilda. Don't give me all that self righteous indignation when you play harder than that and just don't want anyone talking back.
If you ask me, this is a very convenient way to weasel out of your "word" to give me information on the Hillary / dossier connection. Actually, I looked it up and the dossier was compiled for one of the Republicans running against Trump, who dropped out. The company then offered it for sale to Hillary's campaign. But it seems they never got it--they never used it anyway. It ended up in the hands of the FBI and then got leaked to several major news outlets, who sat on it because they couldn't confirm anything. At least as far as I can make out, she neither hired nor paid for the dossier. But tomorrow if you can clarify that, fine.
Like I said, it's still not about Trump's culpability/ethical standing. But I guess we should know by now what Trump's ethical standing is like.

you can call it what you want, and i'm sure you will. i told you and took ownership of yes, i didn't follow through as i should have and said so the very next response.

why ignore that one? Hmmmm???

Place your bets

you bypass that and accuse me of all kinds of shit. if you read back up you will plainly see me DEFEND YOU in your response to me and take ownership of my bad communication simply cause i'm slammed at work and didn't have a lot of time to dive into it. MY BAD - I SAID IT ALREADY yet you dogpile on.

in a world where 1/2 of what you read is speculation i was wanting to dive in and understand more to give you a better response as well as educate myself more on this. that's it. you want to call it weaseling out so fine.

now you want to stand there and call me names and get all insulting and fine. have a day.

my apathy has kicked in.

bye.

Golly, you're sensitive. I think it's fair, since I'm not psychic, to respond to your totally silly reply that you don't trust anything you read, etc. etc. and go on about it for a whole post instead of just saying, I'm busy I'll get back to you on that. Once you did, I said I'd be interested, and I still would, because the article I read was pretty foggy on who got the dossier where. McCain gave it to Comey, but the article I read said McCain got it from "other sources." And there were obviously multiple copies floating around out there. I'd still like to know if Hillary's campaign EVER had it. Lots of interesting stuff there. I wouldn't put much past Hillary--she was a lizard.
However, like you I'm not anxious to read through a bunch of Breitbart and MSNBC hype to try and find the basic facts.
I STILL don't think you have any right to claim moral superiority when you're willing to use accusations like that without knowing what the facts are.
Make accusations, claim conservative theories as fact, but don't make claims of being all morally superior on top of it.

now - first of all oldlady, i've never claimed a thing. i have simply asked for an even playing field of judgement or baseline of right and wrong to compare to all. that is so very hard to come by because when you do you typically get things like:

1) moral equiv. yes i hate that phrase. to me it means "i know it's the same but shut up and focus on YOUR sides problems, not ours that is in effect the same thing. in all fairness, you used it against me and yes, i will throw it right back on someone and did to the point YOU were sick of hearing about it. great. maybe you won't bring it up again and we can both walk away happy on that phrase.
2) deflect. this isn't about person xyz, it's about trump! trump jr! and the like. a desire to stick to 1 person is nice and all, but hardly realistic any longer. both sides are knee deep in at the very minimum accusations, if not guilt. how can we talk about 1 person guilt the a baseline of right and wrong has yet to be established?

now - the issue at hand is trump jr getting a phone call from a russian lawyer saying they have dirt on hillary and your supposition is that this shows the tone of trumps camp willing to work with the russians.

the problems i have with this are pretty simple. she was NOT with the gov, just had dirt on clinton. in the end, it was nothing and they talked over adoption policies instead. if i misunderstand this let me know. each article i read seems to slant this a new way to the point i'm just tired of giving a damn about it. but i did want to at least try and look and wait for the emo to die down and more of the story itself to be clear and not a smoking gun the left has been looking for all these months.

if we have not much other "russian proof" then this call to me is business as usual.

i'm sure both hillary and trump camps would welcome dirt on the other. how did "grab them by the p**** come to be? whizzing on russian prostitutes? someone offer up some dirt? well who would do that? looking for dirt on your opponent started about the time we had opponents. so the mere act of trolling for dirt on your opposition i *hope* isn't your stance here of why trump jr was so evil.

now - i don't believe this was done in a russian collusion, they just have contacts from their pre-political lives in several levels. so showing me pics of them together years ago to support such a claim is meaningless when i can do the same for *everyone* on the left pretty much if i dig hard enough.

so what is left out of all this is the act itself was wrong - to you - as it spoke of RUSSIA in clear uncertain terms.

i disagree. given we've seen nothing else to link the 2 other than throwing past meetings into question w/o proof or evidence of wrongdoing, just *ass*umptions and desire to make them that way is all i see. if you have evidence or proof they have colluded please show me and i'll be glad to read through it with an open mind. promise.

now if you are going that the act itself of getting help from a foreign country is bad, then i will simply ask why things like

now - after waiting on more details cause as you guessed - i do NOT trust the media for shit - more is coming out now isn't it?

Did Donald Trump Jr. know the Hilary Clinton dirt was part of a Russian plot to aid the Trump candidacy?
"The Times story does not quote the email but says its contents were conveyed to them by three anonymous sources. At least one of those sources, the Times said, portrayed the note as Goldstone simply passing along information others had given him. The email does not mention Russian hacking."

i hope newsweek is ok. consider the times didn't quote the mail but just said what they heard YET AGAIN from anonymous sources, was blah blah blah.

anonymous doesn't mean a thing to me anymore. far too abused on either side and not verifiable now is it? hell even goldstone is relaying what he heard if this is correct.

so - when i bring up hillary, obama and others who are actively engaged in digging up dirt on the other side, you want to call that a foul and i must prove it. great. i will ask for a common standard to use on both sides and ask we both do that. you seem to have an issue there. i stop caring at this point when we can't use 1 set of standards for both cause that's how we got into this pile of crap we are all now in.

so, i must prove what i'm saying while you rely on the news of the minute that isn't even directly validated but does seem to make you feel more emotionally secure in your dislike of trump. and i'm the arrogant one?

in any event, i promised you a more thought out answer and despite you going into ***** mode - there it is. i don't believe this is an example of collusion with russia as we have nothing else but a phone call through a varied connection offering some dirt. put more "proof" around this more than you FEEL like it shows their mindset. and since this stems around how you THINK their minset is or was i leave you with your own quote from above:

"Golly, you're sensitive. I think it's fair, since I'm not psychic, to respond to your totally silly reply that you don't trust anything you read,"

but you know this shows their mindset.

yea, i'm the arrogant one. but at least i kept my word.

No, dear, you didn't keep your word. You were going to provide me with some facts to back up your assertion that Trump Jr.'s behavior was no worse than Hillary hiring the Brits to get dirt on Trump re the dossier.
I already know the oppo research that led to the dossier was actually requested by a Republican candidate who later dropped out. The company then offered it to the Clinton campaign. The British government was never involved; a former MI6 spy was hired by the oppo company to dig up dirt. He was a private citizen.
I had hoped you were going to flesh out some more details on this story for me. Particularly how it would back up your assertions that Hillary and her connection to the Russian dossier was just the same as Don Jr. saying he "loved it" that the Russian government was supporting his Dad's campaign and about to hand over damning information on his opponent.

I honestly wonder if you've read the emails. They are in this thread. Pour a stiff drink and read them. That is ALL I'm basing my opinion on. If you think it's perfectly alright to accept support from Russia for an American election, fine. I disagree.

honey - i don't drink.

if you think it's wrong to accept help from russia then great. that is our baseline.

Democrats spread false Russian information on Trump, campaign aides

why is that ok and what trump did wrong? first help me understand this difference as you've yet to do that and then i'll dig deeper with you and if i've been wrong about something, glad to say so.

but not until we determine and define "right" and "wrong". cause right now i see both sides taking help from anyone that will give it yet it's wrong for one side and wrong to ask about the other side doing it.

not playing that game.

 

[iceberg]

No, dear, you didn't keep your word. You were going to provide me with some facts to back up your assertion that Trump Jr.'s behavior was no worse than Hillary hiring the Brits to get dirt on Trump re the dossier.
I already know the oppo research that led to the dossier was actually requested by a Republican candidate who later dropped out. The company then offered it to the Clinton campaign. The British government was never involved; a former MI6 spy was hired by the oppo company to dig up dirt. He was a private citizen.
I had hoped you were going to flesh out some more details on this story for me. Particularly how it would back up your assertions that Hillary and her connection to the Russian dossier was just the same as Don Jr. saying he "loved it" that the Russian government was supporting his Dad's campaign and about to hand over damning information on his opponent.

I honestly wonder if you've read the emails. They are in this thread. Pour a stiff drink and read them. That is ALL I'm basing my opinion on. If you think it's perfectly alright to accept support from Russia for an American election, fine. I disagree.

(removing the rest of the discussion)

Place your bets

that's not what i said now is it? i went back and looked. i never said HIRED i said GOT HELP FROM.

then your reply:
Place your bets

and the quote that pissed you off:
if you can't tell me why it's ok for hillary and the dems to get help from the brits to doctor up a dosier against trump then i don't give a flying horse shit trump jr talked to a russian lawyer.
we either care about the same core values or we don't. putting names and spins on either side is pointless and you keep thinking i'm defending trump.
nope. again - i want the same values placed on all. that's it.

you quoted me on it and still don't understand what i'm saying. i posted the link a LOT i would like clarification on and i still don't have it and now you're telling me i need to defend things i said OF WHICH - as you can see...

i never said. i said hillary and the dems in reference to her campaigns side getting help from outside sources is ok. you telling me they didn't do this? again *I* never said hired OR ONLY HILLARY, you did.

and i'm the arrogant one with unmitigated gall.

my word has been 100% kept. you're now asking me to defend things i never said and i'm not going there.

 

[meaner gene]

Democrats spread false Russian information on Trump, campaign aides

why is that different?.

Are you sure that information was false? We now know that Donald Trump jr., Paul Manafort, and Jarred Kushner all met with someone they believed was a Kremlin agent, offering to share Russian espionage on Hillary Clinton.

 

[eddiew]

The time has come," the Walrus said,

"To talk of many things:

Of shoes--and ships--and sealing wax--

Of cabbages--and kings--







And why the sea is boiling hot--

And whether pigs have wings."

(Apologies to Lewis Carroll)



The Trump clan has now admitted that they did, in fact, collude with the Russians to influence the election. What's next?



The time has come to state how many days will pass before Mr. Trump no longer resides in the White House. Place your bets.

It's still not an easy guess because there is clearly a lot more information to be discovered, either by Gowdy's drips, or Mueller's investigations. And Trump is not going to leave easily.



So, my initial guess is 365 days, but I reserve the right to change it!!

7.5 years so roughly 2737 days

-Geaux

And you feel good about that ? Ever read the rise and fall of the roman empire?? Coming soon to USA

 

[iceberg]

Democrats spread false Russian information on Trump, campaign aides

why is that different?.

Are you sure that information was false? We now know that Donald Trump jr., Paul Manafort, and Jarred Kushner all met with someone they believed was a Kremlin agent, offering to share Russian espionage on Hillary Clinton.

not saying anything is real or false, i'm asking why it's a foul for one side to have another gov help them but not the other side.

only difference i've ever been after and you see where that has gone.

 

[eddiew]

Democrats spread false Russian information on Trump, campaign aides

why is that different?.

Are you sure that information was false? We now know that Donald Trump jr., Paul Manafort, and Jarred Kushner all met with someone they believed was a Kremlin agent, offering to share Russian espionage on Hillary Clinton.

not saying anything is real or false, i'm asking why it's a foul for one side to have another gov help them but not the other side.

only difference i've ever been after and you see where that has gone.

You don't think the info on trump in russia had any truth to it and the info on Hillary mostly false , and provided by OUR enemy??

 

[iceberg]

Democrats spread false Russian information on Trump, campaign aides

why is that different?.

Are you sure that information was false? We now know that Donald Trump jr., Paul Manafort, and Jarred Kushner all met with someone they believed was a Kremlin agent, offering to share Russian espionage on Hillary Clinton.

not saying anything is real or false, i'm asking why it's a foul for one side to have another gov help them but not the other side.

only difference i've ever been after and you see where that has gone.

You don't think the info on trump in russia had any truth to it and the info on Hillary mostly false , and provided by OUR enemy??

i don't think much of anything is "true" anymore w/o some digging. every step of the way a story gets...embellished it would seem. or full of anonymous sources. or just laced in hate and while i don't care for trump overall, that's no excuse for a responsible person to allow bullshit to alter their opinion much less allow stories to change and become meaningful ONLY cause it's trump when in a similar situation i see apathy from the left OR the need for more PROOF while holding themselves not accountable for the very things they ask for.

 

[eddiew]

Democrats spread false Russian information on Trump, campaign aides

why is that different?.

Are you sure that information was false? We now know that Donald Trump jr., Paul Manafort, and Jarred Kushner all met with someone they believed was a Kremlin agent, offering to share Russian espionage on Hillary Clinton.

not saying anything is real or false, i'm asking why it's a foul for one side to have another gov help them but not the other side.

only difference i've ever been after and you see where that has gone.

And Ice one last thing I appreciate you want everything even handed but you have to know when pigs fly that will happen Trump is a degenerate liar He can't be trusted He lied about Obama for 6 years and never apologized to him He is a slimebag and anyway to get him out of our WH will be good enough for me IMHO

 

[OldLady]

Go suck an egg, little Matilda. Don't give me all that self righteous indignation when you play harder than that and just don't want anyone talking back.
If you ask me, this is a very convenient way to weasel out of your "word" to give me information on the Hillary / dossier connection. Actually, I looked it up and the dossier was compiled for one of the Republicans running against Trump, who dropped out. The company then offered it for sale to Hillary's campaign. But it seems they never got it--they never used it anyway. It ended up in the hands of the FBI and then got leaked to several major news outlets, who sat on it because they couldn't confirm anything. At least as far as I can make out, she neither hired nor paid for the dossier. But tomorrow if you can clarify that, fine.
Like I said, it's still not about Trump's culpability/ethical standing. But I guess we should know by now what Trump's ethical standing is like.

you can call it what you want, and i'm sure you will. i told you and took ownership of yes, i didn't follow through as i should have and said so the very next response.

why ignore that one? Hmmmm???

Place your bets

you bypass that and accuse me of all kinds of shit. if you read back up you will plainly see me DEFEND YOU in your response to me and take ownership of my bad communication simply cause i'm slammed at work and didn't have a lot of time to dive into it. MY BAD - I SAID IT ALREADY yet you dogpile on.

in a world where 1/2 of what you read is speculation i was wanting to dive in and understand more to give you a better response as well as educate myself more on this. that's it. you want to call it weaseling out so fine.

now you want to stand there and call me names and get all insulting and fine. have a day.

my apathy has kicked in.

bye.

Golly, you're sensitive. I think it's fair, since I'm not psychic, to respond to your totally silly reply that you don't trust anything you read, etc. etc. and go on about it for a whole post instead of just saying, I'm busy I'll get back to you on that. Once you did, I said I'd be interested, and I still would, because the article I read was pretty foggy on who got the dossier where. McCain gave it to Comey, but the article I read said McCain got it from "other sources." And there were obviously multiple copies floating around out there. I'd still like to know if Hillary's campaign EVER had it. Lots of interesting stuff there. I wouldn't put much past Hillary--she was a lizard.
However, like you I'm not anxious to read through a bunch of Breitbart and MSNBC hype to try and find the basic facts.
I STILL don't think you have any right to claim moral superiority when you're willing to use accusations like that without knowing what the facts are.
Make accusations, claim conservative theories as fact, but don't make claims of being all morally superior on top of it.

now - first of all oldlady, i've never claimed a thing. i have simply asked for an even playing field of judgement or baseline of right and wrong to compare to all. that is so very hard to come by because when you do you typically get things like:

1) moral equiv. yes i hate that phrase. to me it means "i know it's the same but shut up and focus on YOUR sides problems, not ours that is in effect the same thing. in all fairness, you used it against me and yes, i will throw it right back on someone and did to the point YOU were sick of hearing about it. great. maybe you won't bring it up again and we can both walk away happy on that phrase.
2) deflect. this isn't about person xyz, it's about trump! trump jr! and the like. a desire to stick to 1 person is nice and all, but hardly realistic any longer. both sides are knee deep in at the very minimum accusations, if not guilt. how can we talk about 1 person guilt the a baseline of right and wrong has yet to be established?

now - the issue at hand is trump jr getting a phone call from a russian lawyer saying they have dirt on hillary and your supposition is that this shows the tone of trumps camp willing to work with the russians.

the problems i have with this are pretty simple. she was NOT with the gov, just had dirt on clinton. in the end, it was nothing and they talked over adoption policies instead. if i misunderstand this let me know. each article i read seems to slant this a new way to the point i'm just tired of giving a damn about it. but i did want to at least try and look and wait for the emo to die down and more of the story itself to be clear and not a smoking gun the left has been looking for all these months.

if we have not much other "russian proof" then this call to me is business as usual.

i'm sure both hillary and trump camps would welcome dirt on the other. how did "grab them by the p**** come to be? whizzing on russian prostitutes? someone offer up some dirt? well who would do that? looking for dirt on your opponent started about the time we had opponents. so the mere act of trolling for dirt on your opposition i *hope* isn't your stance here of why trump jr was so evil.

now - i don't believe this was done in a russian collusion, they just have contacts from their pre-political lives in several levels. so showing me pics of them together years ago to support such a claim is meaningless when i can do the same for *everyone* on the left pretty much if i dig hard enough.

so what is left out of all this is the act itself was wrong - to you - as it spoke of RUSSIA in clear uncertain terms.

i disagree. given we've seen nothing else to link the 2 other than throwing past meetings into question w/o proof or evidence of wrongdoing, just *ass*umptions and desire to make them that way is all i see. if you have evidence or proof they have colluded please show me and i'll be glad to read through it with an open mind. promise.

now if you are going that the act itself of getting help from a foreign country is bad, then i will simply ask why things like

now - after waiting on more details cause as you guessed - i do NOT trust the media for shit - more is coming out now isn't it?

Did Donald Trump Jr. know the Hilary Clinton dirt was part of a Russian plot to aid the Trump candidacy?
"The Times story does not quote the email but says its contents were conveyed to them by three anonymous sources. At least one of those sources, the Times said, portrayed the note as Goldstone simply passing along information others had given him. The email does not mention Russian hacking."

i hope newsweek is ok. consider the times didn't quote the mail but just said what they heard YET AGAIN from anonymous sources, was blah blah blah.

anonymous doesn't mean a thing to me anymore. far too abused on either side and not verifiable now is it? hell even goldstone is relaying what he heard if this is correct.

so - when i bring up hillary, obama and others who are actively engaged in digging up dirt on the other side, you want to call that a foul and i must prove it. great. i will ask for a common standard to use on both sides and ask we both do that. you seem to have an issue there. i stop caring at this point when we can't use 1 set of standards for both cause that's how we got into this pile of crap we are all now in.

so, i must prove what i'm saying while you rely on the news of the minute that isn't even directly validated but does seem to make you feel more emotionally secure in your dislike of trump. and i'm the arrogant one?

in any event, i promised you a more thought out answer and despite you going into ***** mode - there it is. i don't believe this is an example of collusion with russia as we have nothing else but a phone call through a varied connection offering some dirt. put more "proof" around this more than you FEEL like it shows their mindset. and since this stems around how you THINK their minset is or was i leave you with your own quote from above:

"Golly, you're sensitive. I think it's fair, since I'm not psychic, to respond to your totally silly reply that you don't trust anything you read,"

but you know this shows their mindset.

yea, i'm the arrogant one. but at least i kept my word.

No, dear, you didn't keep your word. You were going to provide me with some facts to back up your assertion that Trump Jr.'s behavior was no worse than Hillary hiring the Brits to get dirt on Trump re the dossier.
I already know the oppo research that led to the dossier was actually requested by a Republican candidate who later dropped out. The company then offered it to the Clinton campaign. The British government was never involved; a former MI6 spy was hired by the oppo company to dig up dirt. He was a private citizen.
I had hoped you were going to flesh out some more details on this story for me. Particularly how it would back up your assertions that Hillary and her connection to the Russian dossier was just the same as Don Jr. saying he "loved it" that the Russian government was supporting his Dad's campaign and about to hand over damning information on his opponent.

I honestly wonder if you've read the emails. They are in this thread. Pour a stiff drink and read them. That is ALL I'm basing my opinion on. If you think it's perfectly alright to accept support from Russia for an American election, fine. I disagree.

honey - i don't drink.

if you think it's wrong to accept help from russia then great. that is our baseline.

Democrats spread false Russian information on Trump, campaign aides

why is that ok and what trump did wrong? first help me understand this difference as you've yet to do that and then i'll dig deeper with you and if i've been wrong about something, glad to say so.

but not until we determine and define "right" and "wrong". cause right now i see both sides taking help from anyone that will give it yet it's wrong for one side and wrong to ask about the other side doing it.

not playing that game.

Thank you for at last providing me with some articles on what you were referring to. I'd still like more information, but I'm not quibbling with what they say.
The difference between the two is this, as I see it:
A Republican running against Trump hired an American firm to do oppo research on Trump's dealings in Russia. The firm, Fusion for short, hired a former British spy, Steele, who had worked in Moscow for 13 years. Who better to ask questions about Russia's financial and political activities with an American businessman? You have to know who the Russian actors are, right? to begin nosing around? Steele was a reasonable choice, but he was not representing the UK government in any capacity. The information he provided, which he admitted was "untried" and needed to be vetted, came from his contacts in and with Russia, but it wasn't directly provided by the Russian government. It was directly critical of the Russian actors involved. Why would the government do that?
So neither government was actively or directly involved in the dossier. That it was a mess and a half and is still something of a mysterious shit pile to me, I'm not arguing in the least. I never read it. The MSM had it but wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole because the allegations couldn't be verified. Buzz Feed published it saying it KNEW the stuff was not true, but there was so much gossip about this secret dossier that they wanted people to know what it said. Questionable, but it's what they did.

Let's compare that with the Donald Jr. incident.

Jr. receives an email that states in black and white that the highest levels of Russian government are reaching out with damaging information on Trump's opponent in order to assist his campaign. Jr. says "I love it!" He follows through with the meeting and is admittedly disappointed that the information promised was not forthcoming.

The differences in my mind are: The Russian dossier was not supplied by official Russian sources in order to help Clinton win the WH. It was not supplied by UK government to help Clinton win the WH. The research was conducted by an American firm who hired a private UK citizen with experience and knowledge of the playing field in question.

Highest levels of Russian government supplying information to an American candidate for President is not a good thing in my mind. Russia, imo, is not our ally and should not be trusted and welcomed into an American campaign as an actor.

I don't see any levels of a foreign government involved in the dossier entanglements. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[iceberg]

oldlady said:
The differences in my mind are: The Russian dossier was not supplied by official Russian sources in order to help Clinton win the WH. It was not supplied by UK government to help Clinton win the WH. The research was conducted by an American firm who hired a private UK citizen with experience and knowledge of the playing field in question.

to my knowledge this lawyer went to trump, not trump to her.
she is also NOT a part of the government, unless i misunderstood that. i see in the mail it says russian gov attorney and then a follow up recant saying she's not involved with the gov.
for hillary, if not to help her presidential run, why care then? why was it supplied and how did you THINK she'd use it?

how is the russian government involved in the lawyers phone call?

as for the dossier being provided by the brits - isn't that a foreign gov?

British Lawsuit Raises New Questions Over John McCain's Involvement With The "Trump Dossier" | Zero Hedge

and now mccain was paying people to get this info -

this is why i don't trust many media people whether they say something i like or not. misinformation is the key and going AH HA at any point in time is likely to be a bad idea.

may take years to sort out, but i'll wait. right now a search for the truth is pretty pointless as we've watered down the meaning of that word over the last decade.

 

[iceberg]

Democrats spread false Russian information on Trump, campaign aides

why is that different?.

Are you sure that information was false? We now know that Donald Trump jr., Paul Manafort, and Jarred Kushner all met with someone they believed was a Kremlin agent, offering to share Russian espionage on Hillary Clinton.

not saying anything is real or false, i'm asking why it's a foul for one side to have another gov help them but not the other side.

only difference i've ever been after and you see where that has gone.

And Ice one last thing I appreciate you want everything even handed but you have to know when pigs fly that will happen Trump is a degenerate liar He can't be trusted He lied about Obama for 6 years and never apologized to him He is a slimebag and anyway to get him out of our WH will be good enough for me IMHO

great. take out trump, put in hillary, we're even.

now what?

 

[eddiew]

Democrats spread false Russian information on Trump, campaign aides

why is that different?.

Are you sure that information was false? We now know that Donald Trump jr., Paul Manafort, and Jarred Kushner all met with someone they believed was a Kremlin agent, offering to share Russian espionage on Hillary Clinton.

not saying anything is real or false, i'm asking why it's a foul for one side to have another gov help them but not the other side.

only difference i've ever been after and you see where that has gone.

And Ice one last thing I appreciate you want everything even handed but you have to know when pigs fly that will happen Trump is a degenerate liar He can't be trusted He lied about Obama for 6 years and never apologized to him He is a slimebag and anyway to get him out of our WH will be good enough for me IMHO

great. take out trump, put in hillary, we're even.

now what?

Sorry I don't agree with ""even"" BUT Even IF Clinton was a lying pos like trump is she would be FAR MORE presidential than trump far more respected around the world

 

[OldLady]

oldlady said:
The differences in my mind are: The Russian dossier was not supplied by official Russian sources in order to help Clinton win the WH. It was not supplied by UK government to help Clinton win the WH. The research was conducted by an American firm who hired a private UK citizen with experience and knowledge of the playing field in question.

to my knowledge this lawyer went to trump, not trump to her.
she is also NOT a part of the government, unless i misunderstood that. i see in the mail it says russian gov attorney and then a follow up recant saying she's not involved with the gov.
for hillary, if not to help her presidential run, why care then? why was it supplied and how did you THINK she'd use it?

how is the russian government involved in the lawyers phone call?

as for the dossier being provided by the brits - isn't that a foreign gov?

British Lawsuit Raises New Questions Over John McCain's Involvement With The "Trump Dossier" | Zero Hedge

and now mccain was paying people to get this info -

this is why i don't trust many media people whether they say something i like or not. misinformation is the key and going AH HA at any point in time is likely to be a bad idea.

may take years to sort out, but i'll wait. right now a search for the truth is pretty pointless as we've watered down the meaning of that word over the last decade.

how is the russian government involved in the lawyers phone call?
What phone call?

 

[OldLady]

oldlady said:
The differences in my mind are: The Russian dossier was not supplied by official Russian sources in order to help Clinton win the WH. It was not supplied by UK government to help Clinton win the WH. The research was conducted by an American firm who hired a private UK citizen with experience and knowledge of the playing field in question.

to my knowledge this lawyer went to trump, not trump to her.
she is also NOT a part of the government, unless i misunderstood that. i see in the mail it says russian gov attorney and then a follow up recant saying she's not involved with the gov.
for hillary, if not to help her presidential run, why care then? why was it supplied and how did you THINK she'd use it?

how is the russian government involved in the lawyers phone call?

as for the dossier being provided by the brits - isn't that a foreign gov?

British Lawsuit Raises New Questions Over John McCain's Involvement With The "Trump Dossier" | Zero Hedge

and now mccain was paying people to get this info -

this is why i don't trust many media people whether they say something i like or not. misinformation is the key and going AH HA at any point in time is likely to be a bad idea.

may take years to sort out, but i'll wait. right now a search for the truth is pretty pointless as we've watered down the meaning of that word over the last decade.

as for the dossier being provided by the brits - isn't that a foreign gov?
The Brits were not involved in developing the dossier.

 

[iceberg]

oldlady said:
The differences in my mind are: The Russian dossier was not supplied by official Russian sources in order to help Clinton win the WH. It was not supplied by UK government to help Clinton win the WH. The research was conducted by an American firm who hired a private UK citizen with experience and knowledge of the playing field in question.

to my knowledge this lawyer went to trump, not trump to her.
she is also NOT a part of the government, unless i misunderstood that. i see in the mail it says russian gov attorney and then a follow up recant saying she's not involved with the gov.
for hillary, if not to help her presidential run, why care then? why was it supplied and how did you THINK she'd use it?

how is the russian government involved in the lawyers phone call?

as for the dossier being provided by the brits - isn't that a foreign gov?

British Lawsuit Raises New Questions Over John McCain's Involvement With The "Trump Dossier" | Zero Hedge

and now mccain was paying people to get this info -

this is why i don't trust many media people whether they say something i like or not. misinformation is the key and going AH HA at any point in time is likely to be a bad idea.

may take years to sort out, but i'll wait. right now a search for the truth is pretty pointless as we've watered down the meaning of that word over the last decade.

how is the russian government involved in the lawyers phone call?
What phone call?

sorry - e-mail. been a heavy phone call morning on my end.

 

[Geaux4it]

The time has come," the Walrus said,

"To talk of many things:

Of shoes--and ships--and sealing wax--

Of cabbages--and kings--







And why the sea is boiling hot--

And whether pigs have wings."

(Apologies to Lewis Carroll)



The Trump clan has now admitted that they did, in fact, collude with the Russians to influence the election. What's next?



The time has come to state how many days will pass before Mr. Trump no longer resides in the White House. Place your bets.

It's still not an easy guess because there is clearly a lot more information to be discovered, either by Gowdy's drips, or Mueller's investigations. And Trump is not going to leave easily.



So, my initial guess is 365 days, but I reserve the right to change it!!

7.5 years so roughly 2737 days

-Geaux

And you feel good about that ? Ever read the rise and fall of the roman empire?? Coming soon to USA

I feel great about it.

Thanks for asking

-Geaux

 

[OldLady]

oldlady said:
The differences in my mind are: The Russian dossier was not supplied by official Russian sources in order to help Clinton win the WH. It was not supplied by UK government to help Clinton win the WH. The research was conducted by an American firm who hired a private UK citizen with experience and knowledge of the playing field in question.

to my knowledge this lawyer went to trump, not trump to her.
she is also NOT a part of the government, unless i misunderstood that. i see in the mail it says russian gov attorney and then a follow up recant saying she's not involved with the gov.
for hillary, if not to help her presidential run, why care then? why was it supplied and how did you THINK she'd use it?

how is the russian government involved in the lawyers phone call?

as for the dossier being provided by the brits - isn't that a foreign gov?

British Lawsuit Raises New Questions Over John McCain's Involvement With The "Trump Dossier" | Zero Hedge

and now mccain was paying people to get this info -

this is why i don't trust many media people whether they say something i like or not. misinformation is the key and going AH HA at any point in time is likely to be a bad idea.

may take years to sort out, but i'll wait. right now a search for the truth is pretty pointless as we've watered down the meaning of that word over the last decade.

a search for the truth is pretty pointless
Oh, I don't know. You seem to feel the "fact" that the Brits supplied the information on the Trump dossier is fine. That it's a "fact" the lawyer has no connection to the Russian government. You seem to think some facts are just fine.

 

[eddiew]

The time has come," the Walrus said,

"To talk of many things:

Of shoes--and ships--and sealing wax--

Of cabbages--and kings--







And why the sea is boiling hot--

And whether pigs have wings."

(Apologies to Lewis Carroll)



The Trump clan has now admitted that they did, in fact, collude with the Russians to influence the election. What's next?



The time has come to state how many days will pass before Mr. Trump no longer resides in the White House. Place your bets.

It's still not an easy guess because there is clearly a lot more information to be discovered, either by Gowdy's drips, or Mueller's investigations. And Trump is not going to leave easily.



So, my initial guess is 365 days, but I reserve the right to change it!!

7.5 years so roughly 2737 days

-Geaux

And you feel good about that ? Ever read the rise and fall of the roman empire?? Coming soon to USA

I feel great about it.

Thanks for asking

-Geaux

You feel great about GDP reported to be by the CBO to be 1.9 not 3% like the moron in the wh said it would be?