Why isn't the board in full melt down?

#226
#226
#231
#231
99volfan said:
I personally think it's sick when the president throws our intelligence agencies under the bus.
Click to expand...

How about Trump's actually trying to protect our intelligence agencies by defusing the whole thing. Mueller is the one gone rogue and who made his latest and greatest indictment when the adults were out of the room. If Mueller continues, he has to give up intelligence sources (if he actually has them and wasn't played) ... something nobody in their right mind wants.

Remember the last time Mueller did something almost this stupid he had to bow out - tell the court he wasn't ready to prosecute the Russians he indicted. Apparently he's too stupid to learn from his mistakes.
 
#232
#232
The libs, who want to remove a duly elected President becuase their candidate lost, are now screeching about MUH TREASON
 
#233
#233
Grand Vol said:
I merely asked a question of if they thought Trump should have called Putin a liar right there in the middle of the joint statement.

I also (in another post) stated "wait and see" on what happens in the next little bit.

Not sure that's defending what he said.
Click to expand...

Should Trump have tweeted that statement? Should he have responded differently in the press conference.
 
#234
#234
ClearwaterVol said:
Should Trump have tweeted that statement? Should he have responded differently in the press conference.
Click to expand...

Which one? This one?

[twitter]1018943446583668736[/twitter]

Or the political risk one? I'll go on the assumption it's the one I posted. Which means what exactly? That he doesn't trust his intelligence services? Are you drawing inference from that Tweet that he's ignoring the advice of the National Intelligence apparatus?

Specifically, what part of his speech did you object to?

Trump-Putin Helsinki meeting: read the full transcript - Vox

(I feel dirty for going to Vox, but anyway...)

TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven’t they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the democratic national committee? I’ve been wondering that. I’ve been asking that for months and months and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others and said they think it’s Russia.

I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server. But I have confidence in both parties. I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC? Where are those servers? They’re missing. Where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton’s emails? 33,000 emails gone — just gone. I think in Russia they wouldn’t be gone so easily. I think it’s a disgrace that we can’t get Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails. So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that president Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. And what he did is an incredible offer. He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that’s an incredible offer. Okay thank you.
Click to expand...

Cherry picking one sentence out of that whole thing?

"I have confidence in both parties" implying he trusts them both. He has not picked a side like the media is reporting.

Let's be patient and wait and see as I always suggest.

But the hard question is this. What if Putin admitted right then and there he did the hacking? Are we to go to war over it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#236
#236
Grand Vol said:
Which one? This one?

[twitter]1018943446583668736[/twitter]

Or the political risk one? I'll go on the assumption it's the one I posted. Which means what exactly? That he doesn't trust his intelligence services? Are you drawing inference from that Tweet that he's ignoring the advice of the National Intelligence apparatus?

Specifically, what part of his speech did you object to?

Trump-Putin Helsinki meeting: read the full transcript - Vox

(I feel dirty for going to Vox, but anyway...)



Cherry picking one sentence out of that whole thing?

"I have confidence in both parties" implying he trusts them both. He has not picked a side like the media is reporting.

Let's be patient and wait and see as I always suggest.

But the hard question is this. What if Putin admitted right then and there he did the hacking? Are we to go to war over it?
Click to expand...

Dems are idiots who fell to some lame email phishing scams. No reason to wage a full blown war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#238
#238
Grand Vol said:
Which one? This one?

[twitter]1018943446583668736[/twitter]

Or the political risk one? I'll go on the assumption it's the one I posted. Which means what exactly? That he doesn't trust his intelligence services? Are you drawing inference from that Tweet that he's ignoring the advice of the National Intelligence apparatus?

Specifically, what part of his speech did you object to?

Trump-Putin Helsinki meeting: read the full transcript - Vox

(I feel dirty for going to Vox, but anyway...)



Cherry picking one sentence out of that whole thing?

"I have confidence in both parties" implying he trusts them both. He has not picked a side like the media is reporting.

Let's be patient and wait and see as I always suggest.

But the hard question is this. What if Putin admitted right then and there he did the hacking? Are we to go to war over it?
Click to expand...

You're better than this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#240
#240
Specifically, CWV, which Tweet got you all kinds of riled up?

Specifically, him mentioning he "believed" Putin at the PC?
 
#241
#241
Grand Vol said:
Specifically, CWV, which Tweet got you all kinds of riled up?

Specifically, him mentioning he "believed" Putin at the PC?
Click to expand...

Let's not characterize my reaction as riled up. I'm attempting to discern why some on the right support trump's statements while they condemned Obama.
You're willing to wait and see with trump and his statements. You didn't give Obama the same deference on his apology tour. That seems like defending him.

The statements I referred to were trump's tweet about american foolishness and stupidity and his willingness to believe Putin over his intelligence agencies. I think the statements were ill advised, but ultimately harmless. BTW, I viewed Obama's apology in much the same way.

I didn't view it as treasonous. Those who suggest trump should be impeached for this are delusional. I do think it shows his inexperience on that stage and wish he'd learn from his past mistakes. The morning tweet was stupid and the comment at the presser was a result of simply not being properly prepared. He should have had a quick sound bite ready for that question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#242
#242
BigOrangeTrain said:
Lol. You libs are like a lame version of Schrodingers cat. Both lame and hilarious at the same time.
Click to expand...


Here's the thing guy, I'm not liberal.


I'm a right leaning free thinking patriotic American who wasn't seduced by a demagogue. And doesn't like people who demonstrates no laudable leadership qualities being the most powerful man in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#243
#243
General Jack said:
Here's the thing guy, I'm not liberal.


I'm a right leaning free thinking patriotic American who wasn't seduced by a demagogue. And doesn't like people who demonstrates no laudable leadership qualities being the most powerful man in the world.
Click to expand...

You must have loved Obama too
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#245
#245
You know, CWV, I respect you for the things you've been through in this life, but that irrational thought where Trump is concerned overtakes your brain every once in a while.

Trump is asking a question about the DNC server. SAME ****ING QUESTION SO MANY OF US HAVE ASKED SINCE IT HAPPENED.

Same. One.

Go back to your law school days. What's the first thing they teach you about chain of evidence likely in your first semester?

Don't violate the chain of evidence. Things become, what's the word? Oh, INADMISSIBLE in court. The problem here is the freaking Agencies tasked with getting that evidence NEVER HAD THE ****ING EVIDENCE, NEVER SAW THE EVIDENCE AND RELIED SOLELY ON A CONTRACTED THIRD PARTY OF THE VERY ENTITY THAT WAS HACKED TO PROVIDE THEM EVIDENCE.

You, as a lawyer, would have a field day with that in court. Don't even try to deny it. You'd be grinning like a mule eating green briers if something like this came across your desk and you were on the defense.

"Did you ever see the physical evidence?"

"No, but we saw copies of and traced this and that and one other thing which supported the copy we saw."

"But you never saw the physical evidence?"

"Well...no."

"Why not?"

"Well, they wouldn't let us."

Don't act like you can't sew all kinds of disbelief into a jury or judge's head in that line of questioning. That's like a lawyer wet dream right there.

Furthermore, Putin is playing his chess game again. He knows by telling us "sure, come observe as our treaty allows" he puts Mueller in a corner. Furthermore, how in the hell would this ever go to court without having to bring some of our sources and methods to light? Yeah, we've ****ed ourselves good with this one. We are backed into a corner and Putin knows it. I had an old supervisor that used to tell me "I'll give you all the rope in the world." Either to pull myself up to to hang myself. Right now, we're hanging ourselves.

In a situation this massive and potentially destabilizing for decades to come between two nuclear powers, wouldn't you want every piece of evidence you could possibly get including the source evidence to prove your case to the world? Would you accept "no, you can't have it" as an answer if you were the lead investigator?

WTF is wrong with you? Nations have gone to war over lesser things than this. But you want to blindly believe what a contracted third party was saying? That very same third party that was contracted by the DNC?

Here's the real questions you need to be asking.

WTF are we doing to keep it from happening again if indeed a foreign power was influencing our elections?

And who benefits the most from this situation we're currently in?

Putin? What does he have to gain? A sympathetic President that could change out in four years and we go back to the status quo?

The GOP? What did they have to gain besides a candidate they didn't want?

The DNC? I'll let you answer this one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#246
#246
ClearwaterVol said:
You're willing to wait and see with trump and his statements. You didn't give Obama the same deference on his apology tour. That seems like defending him.
Click to expand...

I didn't?

I wasn't around when he was taking that victory lap around the world. However, having the benefit of hindsight, he sucked on the foreign policy stage.

Sucked huge donkey balls.

Furthermore, WTF were we supposed to apologize for? And even more, WTF ended under Obama's watch? Iraq? Nope, right back into it. Afghanistan? Nope. Syria...wait, that started under him. Libya? See Syria. Arab Spring? Yep, Obama. Cyberhacking of multiple government agencies? Obama. Getting ****ed over by countless nations on trade deals? Well, that one isn't Obama, but it sure as hell wasn't stopped under Obama.

Yeah, I have the ability to look at what happened in his eight years in office and resolutely say "he sucked" with historical backing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#247
#247
Grand Vol said:
You know, CWV, I respect you for the things you've been through in this life, but that irrational thought where Trump is concerned overtakes your brain every once in a while.

Trump is asking a question about the DNC server. SAME ****ING QUESTION SO MANY OF US HAVE ASKED SINCE IT HAPPENED.

Same. One.

Go back to your law school days. What's the first thing they teach you about chain of evidence likely in your first semester?

Don't violate the chain of evidence. Things become, what's the word? Oh, INADMISSIBLE in court. The problem here is the freaking Agencies tasked with getting that evidence NEVER HAD THE ****ING EVIDENCE, NEVER SAW THE EVIDENCE AND RELIED SOLELY ON A CONTRACTED THIRD PARTY OF THE VERY ENTITY THAT WAS HACKED TO PROVIDE THEM EVIDENCE.

You, as a lawyer, would have a field day with that in court. Don't even try to deny it. You'd be grinning like a mule eating green briers if something like this came across your desk and you were on the defense.

"Did you ever see the physical evidence?"

"No, but we saw copies of and traced this and that and one other thing which supported the copy we saw."

"But you never saw the physical evidence?"

"Well...no."

"Why not?"

"Well, they wouldn't let us."

Don't act like you can't sew all kinds of disbelief into a jury or judge's head in that line of questioning. That's like a lawyer wet dream right there.

Furthermore, Putin is playing his chess game again. He knows by telling us "sure, come observe as our treaty allows" he puts Mueller in a corner. Furthermore, how in the hell would this ever go to court without having to bring some of our sources and methods to light? Yeah, we've ****ed ourselves good with this one. We are backed into a corner and Putin knows it. I had an old supervisor that used to tell me "I'll give you all the rope in the world." Either to pull myself up to to hang myself. Right now, we're hanging ourselves.

In a situation this massive and potentially destabilizing for decades to come between two nuclear powers, wouldn't you want every piece of evidence you could possibly get including the source evidence to prove your case to the world? Would you accept "no, you can't have it" as an answer if you were the lead investigator?

WTF is wrong with you? Nations have gone to war over lesser things than this. But you want to blindly believe what a contracted third party was saying? That very same third party that was contracted by the DNC?

Here's the real questions you need to be asking.

WTF are we doing to keep it from happening again if indeed a foreign power was influencing our elections?

And who benefits the most from this situation we're currently in?

Putin? What does he have to gain? A sympathetic President that could change out in four years and we go back to the status quo?

The GOP? What did they have to gain besides a candidate they didn't want?

The DNC? I'll let you answer this one.
Click to expand...


CrowdStrike: Five Things Everyone Is Ignoring About The Russia-DNC Story | The Daily Caller
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#249
#249
Carl Pickens said:
Wonder how the liberal poons feel about this?
Click to expand...

It's deflection and redirection, you should expect the red hat outlets to engage in lots of this over the next few news cycles.

Anything to take the light off of the bed shting in Helsinki.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#250
#250
Septic said:
It's deflection and redirection, you should expect the red hat outlets to engage in lots of this over the next few news cycles.

Anything to take the light off of the bed shting in Helsinki.
Click to expand...

the article is from 2017
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top