Kemp

So, no one is reporting the truth? Rhino claims otherwise. But I'm dense.

We'll find out next season. He did seem to react slowly.

This is purely Trump idiocy. More money (and safety) comes to the U.S. on the back-end than is being lost up-front. NATO promotes peace within Europe and deters major US adversaries from launching large-scale conventional wars. World War II cost the United States more than 400,000 lives and an estimated $4.1 trillion (in 2011 dollars). NATO has been key to preserving peace within the European continent and preventing other adversaries from launching a major conventional war. According to credible sources, a major conventional war today could cost the United States upwards of $2.5 trillion per year. NATO also promotes the American values of democracy and rule of law. Twenty-six of the twenty-nine NATO member states were labelled as “free” by Freedom House in 2018. By comparison, just 39 percent of the world’s population lives in “free” countries. NATO is a force multiplier that gives the United States access to military tools in greater numbers than it can achieve by itself. Non-US NATO members have 1,857,000 active duty service members and 1,232,290 reservists. The seven largest non-US NATO member armies have the same number of active duty troops as the United States (1.3 million). Non-US NATO members can deploy 6,983 battle tanks, 34,000 armored vehicles, 2,600 combat aircraft, 382 attack helicopters, 252 major naval craft (including submarines), and 1,582 patrol and surface combatants. France and the United Kingdom alone provide 30 percent of the Alliance’s ballistic-missile-submarine fleet. NATO's European members are beginning to host the first stages of the Alliance’s new ballistic-missile-defense system aimed at preventing long-range attacks by rogue states on the United States and Europe. NATO members frequently share intelligence across the Alliance, aiding US operations and intelligence-gathering. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany alone add 40,000 intelligence personnel to the Alliance’s intelligence capabilities. Non-US NATO members host twenty-eight US main operating bases in Europe, which cut down on the time needed for the United States to respond to a crisis and are critical for US missions in the Middle East and North Africa. In 2009, for example, Germany contributed $800 million to offset and improve its US bases. NATO undertakes numerous missions to protect member states and promote security around the globe. NATO has five active missions around the world deploying 18,000 troops. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has completed thirteen missions including two in the United States (Hurricane Katrina relief and post-9/11 air reconnaissance patrol). NATO allies contributed thousands of troops to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, including 38,000 in 2011, saving the United States an estimated $49 billion that year. The operation in Afghanistan was the first and only time NATO's mutual defense commitment was invoked. Non-US members sustained more than 1,000 combat deaths in Afghanistan, with an additional one hundred lost by NATO partners. Non-US NATO members contributed more than 60 percent of assets for Operation Unified Protector in Libya. Non-US Coalition members flew one-third of all coalition airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) in Operation Inherent Resolve. NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield against piracy in the Gulf of Aden has been led at different times by Denmark, Spain, Norway, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Portugal. NATO supports and protects the economies of Europe, which are critical to the health of the US economy. US trade with the European Union reached $699 billion in 2015, only made possible because of the security and stability provided by NATO. US exports to the former Communist NATO member states (not including East Germany) grew from $0.9 billion in 1989 to $9.4 billion in 2016. Non-US NATO members rely heavily on the US defense industry to supply their forces. Currently, European members are planning to purchase as many as 500 new F-35s from the United States.

Does this mean that your contention is that DOJ manufactured the collusion/conspiracy narrative? It's my understanding that all of this was started by the Republicans, not the Democrats. Do you agree? None of this disputes all of the evidence of Trump's partiality towards Putin and Russia since then. Do you disagree? Eric Trump?

I didn't see your answer. Who is reporting the truth?

Another in a long line of non-answers. If you want to tell me that the MSM is lying about Trump why can't you say who IS reporting the truth besides Deranged Rhino and unnamed sources? It would seem to be a simple task to quote "reliable" sources. Isn't it possible that there are bad actors in the government AND Trump is guilty of what he is being accused of? Also, those that complain about the length of the investigation make little sense to me. If the accusations are true, how could it possibly be a short investigation?

That's easy to answer. There is little doubt that Trump wants the investigation to stop. That's why he tossed Sessions. Trump said it so it's tough to claim otherwise. He just fears the repercussions of dumping Mueller. Ever notice that Trump never fires anyone directly? He has others inform the fired, yet tries to maintain his supposed macho image. Wouldn't it be easier to cite a few examples of who is reporting the truth? Sure. It's a fluid situation, like most things.

I read it and I am not sure what is on those pages that proves or even hints that Trump has committed no crimes or that indicates that there is nothing odd between Trump and the Russians. What conclusion have you drawn from those pages? You didn't say who IS reporting the truth.

I asked a few questions that you didn't answer and then you accuse me of not answering questions. What questions posted to me have I not responded to? Ask and I will try and answer.

On the private side, it's pretty easy to include Trump on your list.

So, who is reporting the truth?

I have no quarrel with the idea that the CIA and the FBI has a long history for scary stuff. The great filmmaker Errol Morris has Wormwood on Netflix going through an especially egregious case.

What did it omit?

Who is reporting the truth? Are you saying the MSM is colluding with the "Deep State" or inept?

In other words, you can't or won't answer a few simple questions. This notion that a person on a Buffalo Bills chat board has more verifiable information than everyone else is bizarre, at best. When did I call you a white nationalist? Please re-post pages 83-84 and save me a little time. I liked your little idiot part.

Some more questions. Manafort was planted by whom and why? Is Mueller part of the Deep State? Pence? Ryan? Besides Trump, who isn't part of the Deep State? Why did Trump hide details of meetings with Putin? What's your opinion of Graham in all of this? Do you believe that Rohrbacher and some other members of Congress took money from Russia? If yes, Is that okay? I realize you don't have to answer any of these. Just curious as to your opinion. By the way, I am impressed that you believe you are ahead of all of this as it unfolds. Are you part of the Deep State or do you claim to have an inside connection to the Deep State?

It's clear to no one that you don't have a side. Why do you believe there are so many links between Trump, his employees and Russia? Why do you believe Trump had all the Ukranians at the inauguration? Why do you believe Mnuchin just dropped some sanctions? Why do you believe Trump believes everything Putin says? How did Trump purchase a property and quickly sell it to a Russian at double what he paid? You believe Manafort is a plant. Does that mean you believe he is a crook who the Deep State took advantage of or that he is not a crook? With or without Trump's knowledge, do you believe that Russians tried to sway the election towards Trump? Why did Manafort send voter info to Ukraine and/or Russia? Trump may turn out to be innocent, but to deny that there are a lot of oddities going on with Trump and Russia defies facts.

You let me know when you can find anyone here who has NOT made up their mind as to how this will play out. One side will turn out to be right, the other wrong. People disagree now which side will turn out to be right. For people who share my viewpoint, the notion that all bad news for the other side can be explained as conspiracy is the oddest part. For the people on the other side, it's clear that a conspiracy by the "Deep State" is behind everything against Trump. The most fascinating thing to me is that even if you agree with Trump on policy, that someone cannot see that on a personal level, Trump has done a lot of crooked things and that he has a personality you would never accept on a personal level. You can say that most politicians are crooked to some extent, but it's absurd to think that Trump is not a liar and a crook. There is enough evidence of it that has been documented to believe it's not true. Is there anyone here that still believes that Trump has not been involved in money laundering? Yeah, I know that some here will say it's not true, but if they have the ability to think and deduct, they are lying if they say they don't think he may have been involved in money laundering. The collusion stuff is up-for-grabs, but without a doubt there's a lot of odd coincidences linking Trump and his inner circle with Russia in many unusual ways.

I've learned that all bad news can be explained away as conspiracy. It's going to be fun for all of us when all the reports come out. One side will say I told you so. The other will cry bullshite. Time (not much) will tell which side we all fall on.

Who planted Manafort?

Passing along American voter rolls to foreigners is not suspicious? What about their relationship justifies it?

By the way, you still didn't address the point about anonymous sources being good or bad, no matter which side of the debate it falls on. Give it a shot. Now that your confusion has cleared why not answer? Bet you can't.

Manafort also gave the info to Kilimnik according to Manafort's attorney and wouldn't sharing that info with any foreigners be suspicious? What would be a non-nefarious reason for giving out the info?

Sorry you couldn't understand what was obvious to some, but I do appreciate your personal compliment.

Aren't both of those Ukranian gentlemen pro-Russia as opposed to pro-Ukranian?