President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[frank ryan]

Now she's giving credit to whites for the seasons of the year! No way she's not a troll.

Embedded Tweet

She's gone as far as to host an altright Mormon conference, like 4 people came. She's all in. She thinks MLK was a wicked man.

[frank ryan]

frank won't post it because it doesn't exist.

Embedded Tweet

From the referenced bloomberg article, "Why Some U.S. Ex-Spies Don't Buy the Russia Story":

Keep holding strong to your selective skepticism that nothing untoward happened. Go ahead and ignore the bountiful circumstantial evidence.

[Commando]

Well I guess when you put it that way...

Embedded Tweet

[snowcat]

She's gone as far as to host an altright Mormon conference, like 4 people came. She's all in. She thinks MLK was a wicked man.

She needs a court of love.

[frank ryan]

She needs a court of love.

I do know the church follows her account and are aware of her. She just might get a court of love.

[frank ryan]

Well I guess when you put it that way...

Embedded Tweet

Stop it, creekster already explained that your opinion is unreasonable.

[falafel]

Well I guess when you put it that way...

Embedded Tweet

Classic reverse psychology.

[creekster]

Keep holding strong to your selective skepticism that nothing untoward happened. Go ahead and ignore the bountiful circumstantial evidence.

The bountiful circumstantial evidence? Do tell, what is it? Circumstantial evidence of exactly what? What did they do?

And what makes you claim it is a "selective skepticism?" Do you have ANY skepticism about ANY of the "bountiful circumstantial" items?

Look, if you think this is as bad and as big as scandals of the past, then put something up there. The Trump camp appears to have had contact with Russians that was ill-advised and probably inappropriate (not unlike all kinds of inappropriate things they have done) but there has been nothing I have seen that has risen to a level of collusion to subvert an election. At most it shows attempted coordination to win an election. That would be troubling, I agree, but it is far, far from saying he colluded to subvert the election and, of course, nothing shows Russia had any success.

You know, its funny, because today I was listening to Radio Pacifica on KPFA 94.1. It broadcasts from Berkeley and is, shall we say, far on the other side of the spectrum from Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPFA The funny thing was that they were discussing this topic and they had nothing but invective for both Trump, who they cannot stand for many reasons, and the media circus yammering on about the Russians and the election issue, which they see as a non-issue being used by the media to divert people from worrying about the real issues.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Prompted by recent posts in this thread, I visited her Twitter page for the first time and ... yecchhhh. A favorite:

Embedded Tweet

I've emailed our kids in NYC, NC, CO, UT and San Francisco, telling them we're heading back to Norway where their future awaits.

[creekster]

Prompted by recent posts in this thread, I visited her Twitter page for the first time and ... yecchhhh. A favorite:

Embedded Tweet

I've emailed our kids in NYC, NC, CO, UT and San Francisco, telling them we're heading back to Norway where their future awaits.

Yikes. That is both ignorant and ignernt (tip o' the hat to my Utah roots).

[frank ryan]

The bountiful circumstantial evidence? Do tell, what is it? Circumstantial evidence of exactly what? What did they do?

And what makes you claim it is a "selective skepticism?" Do you have ANY skepticism about ANY of the "bountiful circumstantial" items?

Look, if you think this is as bad and as big as scandals of the past, then put something up there. The Trump camp appears to have had contact with Russians that was ill-advised and probably inappropriate (not unlike all kinds of inappropriate things they have done) but there has been nothing I have seen that has risen to a level of collusion to subvert an election. At most it shows attempted coordination to win an election. That would be troubling, I agree, but it is far, far from saying he colluded to subvert the election and, of course, nothing shows Russia had any success.

You know, its funny, because today I was listening to Radio Pacifica on KPFA 94.1. It broadcasts from Berkeley and is, shall we say, far on the other side of the spectrum from Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPFA The funny thing was that they were discussing this topic and they had nothing but invective for both Trump, who they cannot stand for many reasons, and the media circus yammering on about the Russians and the election issue, which they see as a non-issue being used by the media to divert people from worrying about the real issues.

You don't think Don Jr's meeting is alarming? And do you think it was the only one? How about Kushner asking the Russian ambassador to set up a backchannel that was bug proof? Jeff Sessions omitting the number of meetings he had with Kislyak multiple times? Michael Flynn failing to register as a foreign agent (working for a Turkish firm that also served Russian interests)? Manafort's close ties to Putin and allegations he worked directly for Putin? His house was raided by the FBI. Have you read about his daughters' text messages that were hacked? Did you watch the senate testimony from Clint Watts? 17 intel agencies agreed Russia was behind the hacked DNC emails. How about warning from allied intelligence services (including British, German, Dutch, Estonian and Polish) that Russia was trying to coordinate with Trump? How about Trump asking Russia to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails? Roger Stone communicating with Guccifer 2.0 (who is a Russian operation/asset)? How about Carter Page? It's almost a requirement that to serve in Trump's campaign you had to have serious ties to Russia.
Trump is not a moral person, and nothing in his life should inspire confidence he is above colluding. Do you buy Trump's assertion that he fired Comey, because Comey was mean to Hillary?

[creekster]

You don't think Don Jr's meeting is alarming? And do you think it was the only one? How about Kushner asking the Russian ambassador to set up a backchannel that was bug proof? Jeff Sessions omitting the number of meetings he had with Kislyak multiple times? Michael Flynn failing to register as a foreign agent (working for a Turkish firm that also served Russian interests)? Manafort's close ties to Putin and allegations he worked directly for Putin? His house was raided by the FBI. Have you read about his daughters' text messages that were hacked? Did you watch the senate testimony from Clint Watts? 17 intel agencies agreed Russia was behind the hacked DNC emails. How about warning from allied intelligence services (including British, German, Dutch, Estonian and Polish) that Russia was trying to coordinate with Trump? How about Trump asking Russia to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails? Roger Stone communicating with Guccifer 2.0 (who is a Russian operation/asset)? How about Carter Page? It's almost a requirement that to serve in Trump's campaign you had to have serious ties to Russia.
Trump is not a moral person, and nothing in his life should inspire confidence he is above colluding. Do you buy Trump's assertion that he fired Comey, because Comey was mean to Hillary?

As I thought. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out.

I have never said he was above collusion. I said there is no public evidence, and there remains none that you have presented, that it has happened. Alarming? Perhaps, but you have also ignored the many voices concluding the opposite on the same bountiful set of circumstances (e.g. the article from The Nation I posted the other day). There may be something to it. But I will wait and see.

[falafel]

You don't think Don Jr's meeting is alarming? And do you think it was the only one? How about Kushner asking the Russian ambassador to set up a backchannel that was bug proof? Jeff Sessions omitting the number of meetings he had with Kislyak multiple times? Michael Flynn failing to register as a foreign agent (working for a Turkish firm that also served Russian interests)? Manafort's close ties to Putin and allegations he worked directly for Putin? His house was raided by the FBI. Have you read about his daughters' text messages that were hacked? Did you watch the senate testimony from Clint Watts? 17 intel agencies agreed Russia was behind the hacked DNC emails. How about warning from allied intelligence services (including British, German, Dutch, Estonian and Polish) that Russia was trying to coordinate with Trump? How about Trump asking Russia to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails? Roger Stone communicating with Guccifer 2.0 (who is a Russian operation/asset)? How about Carter Page? It's almost a requirement that to serve in Trump's campaign you had to have serious ties to Russia.
Trump is not a moral person, and nothing in his life should inspire confidence he is above colluding. Do you buy Trump's assertion that he fired Comey, because Comey was mean to Hillary?

Frank, you're kind of a broken record on this issue. I'm no Trump apologist (I voted for Grandma Clinton), but each time you go on one of these rants, the best you can do is point to examples of circumstantial evidence. Creekster doesn't need any help in this argument, but I just can't see any concrete proof in any of the things you've posted that show that Trump colluded with Russia or that it had any effect on the election. And its been a while now -- don't you think there should be something more than "Manafort has a house in Russia!"?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Prompted by recent posts in this thread, I visited her Twitter page for the first time and ... yecchhhh. A favorite:

Embedded Tweet

I've emailed our kids in NYC, NC, CO, UT and San Francisco, telling them we're heading back to Norway where their future awaits.

Native Americans everywhere are nodding in agreement.

[frank ryan]

As I thought. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out.

I have never said he was above collusion. I said there is no public evidence, and there remains none that you have presented, that it has happened. Alarming? Perhaps, but you have also ignored the many voices concluding the opposite on the same bountiful set of circumstances (e.g. the article from The Nation I posted the other day). There may be something to it. But I will wait and see.

I read the contrarian The Nation article you posted. It was an underwhelming opinion piece. I don't buy the whistleblower theory, and I certainly don't buy the Seth Rich bullshit. I realize you're glad Trump won and that likely influences your feelings on the matter.