Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Trump/Russia Collusion Insanity

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,625 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    wildeside wrote: »
    The Dems hired Crowdstrike (private company) to investigate if Russia hacked their servers. Wonder what CrowdStrike would find? Dems did not allow FBI to investigate (S.O.P). I wonder why?

    In some people's minds I'm sure that doesn't warrant questioning.

    And I guess neither does the fact that Robert Mueller was at the heart of Iraqi WMD claims so he's obviously a stand up guy!

    The FBI was in fact given forensic data which led the Grand Jury to indict 12 Russians.

    Fun fact: Republicans have hired Crowdstrike more recently.


  • Options
    #123
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    Overheal wrote: »
    The FBI was in fact given forensic data which led the Grand Jury to indict 12 Russians.

    Fun fact: Republicans have hired Crowdstrike more recently.

    Also, what were the Russians indicted for? That's right, trolling. That's all they got. Trolling does not equal collusion with a foreign govt!

    So Republicans are using Crowdstrike. I'm not sure what your point is?


  • Options
    #124
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    well the DNC desperately need to impeach him as it looks like they cant stop him at the ballot box.


  • Options
    #125
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,625 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    wildeside wrote: »
    Also, what were the Russians indicted for? That's right, trolling. That's all they got. Trolling does not equal collusion with a foreign govt!

    So Republicans are using Crowdstrike. I'm not sure what your point is?

    “The FBI never got the data”

    /the FBI got the data

    “Uh yeah but Uhm so what”

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #126
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    well the DNC desperately need to impeach him as it looks like they cant stop him at the ballot box.
    Seems Nancy Pelosi agrees with you. She recently wrote “The weak response to these hearings has been, ‘Let the election decide.’ That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.”

    So what she’s saying is if Democrats fail to impeach Trump, and remove him from office, the entire 2020 election is illegitimate, before it even happens, because she feels voters are too stupid to agree with the Democrats.

    So this impeachment inquiry farce that stated out as Russian Collusion, and has morphed into other things, and currently is Bribery. Apparently their impeachment witch-hunt is now being run by focus groups. So it really IS all about Democrats affecting the 2020 election. The Democrats are worse than the Russians.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Seems Nancy Pelosi agrees with you. She recently wrote “The weak response to these hearings has been, ‘Let the election decide.’ That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.”

    So what she’s saying is if Democrats fail to impeach Trump, and remove him from office, the entire 2020 election is illegitimate, before it even happens, because she feels voters are too stupid to agree with the Democrats.

    So this impeachment inquiry farce that stated out as Russian Collusion, and has morphed into other things, currently is Bribery. Apparently their impeachment witch-hunt is now being run by focus groups. So it really IS all about Democrats affecting the 2020 election. The Democrats are worse than the Russians.

    thats a lie.


  • Options
    #128
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,625 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Seems Nancy Pelosi agrees with you. She recently wrote “The weak response to these hearings has been, ‘Let the election decide.’ That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.”

    So what she’s saying is if Democrats fail to impeach Trump, and remove him from office, the entire 2020 election is illegitimate, before it even happens, because she feels voters are too stupid to agree with the Democrats.

    I firmly understand the Democrats concern to mean that the elections are in jeopardy if this impeachment process is not resolved. There is a legitimate concern Republicans will "Biden Rule" the Impeachment, dismiss the trial on those grounds, and ask voters to decide whether the President engaged in a pattern of impeachable conduct, while that President enjoys the unfettered use of the power of the office through January 2021 *even if* voters overwhelmingly unseat the incumbent based on a clear understanding of impeachable conduct.


  • Options
    #129
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    thats a lie.
    Wrong. Is it now you who are lying?
    Grounds asserted for impeachment have included possible violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by accepting payments from foreign dignitaries; alleged collusion with Russia during the campaign for the 2016 United States presidential election; alleged obstruction of justice with respect to investigation of the collusion claim; and accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #130
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,625 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Wrong. Is it now you who are lying?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

    That doesn't reinforce your position. This inquiry was opened to investigate the alleged shakedown of Volodomir Zelensky. This inquiry was not instigated by the Grand Jury.


  • Options
    #131
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Wrong. Is it now you who are lying?



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump
    Overheal wrote: »
    That doesn't reinforce your position. This inquiry was opened to investigate the alleged shakedown of Volodomir Zelensky. This inquiry was not instigated by the Grand Jury.

    what Overheal said.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,625 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    what Overheal said.

    Thanks he has me on ignore :pac: that or by pure coincidence he hasn't responded to a single post of mine in about a month...


  • Options
    #133
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    what Overheal said.
    History of the impeachment witch-hunt didn't suddenly just begin on 31 October 2019 by immaculate conception. The Democrats started their Stalinistic impeachment closed door kangaroo court in a deep dark secret secure chamber of the Capital building months before the “formal” impeachment inquiry was voted on.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #134
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    History of the impeachment witch-hunt didn't suddenly just begin on 31 October 2019 by immaculate conception. The Democrats started their Stalinistic impeachment closed door kangaroo court in a deep dark secret secure chamber of the Capital building months before the “formal” impeachment was voted on.

    step away from the crystal meth.


  • Options
    #135
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    step away from the crystal meth.
    You might want to consider attacking the post and not the poster.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #136
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    You might want to consider attacking the post and not the poster.

    Ok. the post was absolutely nuts and even trump himself would be embarrassed by it.


  • Options
    #137
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,400 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    History of the impeachment witch-hunt didn't suddenly just begin on 31 October 2019 by immaculate conception. The Democrats started their Stalinistic impeachment closed door kangaroo court in a deep dark secret secure chamber of the Capital building months before the “formal” impeachment inquiry was voted on.

    Even by normal every day pro-Trump standards this is embarrassing and a little cringeworthy.


  • Options
    #138
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,625 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    History of the impeachment witch-hunt didn't suddenly just begin on 31 October 2019 by immaculate conception. The Democrats started their Stalinistic impeachment closed door kangaroo court in a deep dark secret secure chamber of the Capital building months before the “formal” impeachment inquiry was voted on.

    Efforts to impeach Hillary Clinton began before 2016...


  • Options
    #139
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Ok. the post was absolutely nuts and even trump himself would be embarrassed by it.
    Better. Wrong, but better.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #140
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Even by normal every day pro-Trump standards this is embarrassing and a little cringeworthy.
    Sadly, it true. Democrats know they aren't turning voters opinions and will pay the price for their purely partisan actions at the voting booths.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #141
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,625 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Sadly, it true. Democrats know they aren't turning voters opinions and will pay the price for their purely partisan actions at the voting booths.

    [citation needed]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Billy Mays
    Registered Users Posts: 3,184 ✭✭✭Billy Mays


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Better. Wrong, but better.
    Agreed

    Trump himself wouldn't be embarrassed by it icon14.png


  • Options
    #143
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,400 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Sadly, it true. Democrats know they aren't turning voters opinions and will pay the price for their purely partisan actions at the voting booths.

    They are not looking to "turn" anyone, they are showing the undecided voters what a terrible President Trump is.


  • Options
    #144
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,285 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    step away from the crystal meth.
    notobtuse wrote: »
    You might want to consider attacking the post and not the poster.
    The pair of you can back off or else I will issue threadbans as a minimum

    Any questions PM me


  • Options
    #145
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    They are not looking to "turn" anyone, they are showing the undecided voters what a terrible President Trump is.
    So they are showing the undecided voters what a terrible President Trump is by behaving much worse than him and putting on display they simply won't accept the results of the 2016 election? Odd thinking the democrats have, there.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #146
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,400 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    So they are showing the undecided voters what a terrible President Trump is by behaving much worse than him and putting on display they simply won't accept the results of the 2016 election? Odd thinking the democrats have, there.

    Ah c'mon, Not this tired, worn out line! :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #147
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Ah c'mon, Not this tired, worn out line! :rolleyes:
    It might be tired, but it's true. It's written about in media articles almost daily. The reasons they've given for impeachment wouldn't have gone through so many iterations, otherwise.

    I think if Trump came out and said he supported the impeachment process it would force Democrats to oppose their own impeachment inquiry.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #148
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,625 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    It might be tired, but it's true. It's written about in media articles almost daily. The reasons they've given for impeachment wouldn't have gone through so many iterations, otherwise.

    I think if Trump came out and said he supported the impeachment process it would force Democrats to oppose their own impeachment inquiry.

    Bet.


  • Options
    #149
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    Overheal wrote: »
    “The FBI never got the data”

    /the FBI got the data

    “Uh yeah but Uhm so what”

    :rolleyes:

    They did? Or did the FBI rely on what Crowstrike said?

    https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-wouldnt-let-agents-see-hacked-email-servers/


  • Options
    #150
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    Can someone please tell me who in the Trump administration was actually convicted of collusion with the Russian government in trying to get Trump elected?

    And I mean convicted of this specific crime, as in the whole point of the investigation?

    Honestly, I may have missed it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    wildeside
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭wildeside


    This investigation is another giant waste of time

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tvE8Zb5fSk

    It will come to nothing. Like Russia-gate. It's sad.


Advertisement