Trump and Russia

[Deranged Rhino]

[BeginnersMind]

Volume I supports the Intelligence Community’s conclusion from 2.5 years ago that Russians attempted to interfere. 

 

Took a long time for people to buy that, and here they were right all along. 

 

 

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

For those who missed Seth Abramson's meltdown yesterday... it's worth the laugh. 

 

 

He lost his mind years ago - but now is desperate to stay relevant after gaslighting his readers for two years. 

 

This is not a well man. He's sick in the head and should be thoroughly shamed for his actions the past two years. 

 

Today he's taken to retweeting sections of yesterday's meltdown as if they're somehow profound.

 

My personal favorite is where he argues that the Fifth Amendment is obstruction of justice. 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

Volume I supports the Intelligence Community’s conclusion from 2.5 years ago that Russians attempted to interfere. 

 

Took a long time for people to buy that, and here they were right all along.

 

I don't think a single person didn't buy that Russia tried to interfere in the election.  The problem for the Dems is they knew about it well before the election and did nothing.

[row_33]

25 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I don't think a single person didn't buy that Russia tried to interfere in the election.  The problem for the Dems is they knew about it well before the election and did nothing.

 

why do you keep wasting your time with this person?

 

are you really a mult of Beg-Mind, just arguing to keep things going?

 

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, row_33 said:

why do you keep wasting your time with this person?

 

are you really a mult of Beg-Mind, just arguing to keep things going?

 

Because I can.

 

And yeah, I'm a mult because I've responded to him a couple times. ?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

I don't think a single person didn't buy that Russia tried to interfere in the election.  The problem for the Dems is they knew about it well before the election and did nothing.

 

BM is wrong or intentionally being dishonest per usual. 

 

No no one doubted meddling. There were boxes of evidence that supported that. 

 

They rejected that said meddling had an impact on votes AND/OR that there was active collusion w Russians and Trump to meddle. From day one this was presented as truth. 

 

But when you're a dishonest asshat who refuses to read the material, then all you can do is what BM does: ***** it up. 

 

(And we were right. Ben Franklin / BM was wrong. But he won't admit it because he changed screen names so he could hide from his errors.)

Edited April 19, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[BeginnersMind]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

I don't think a single person didn't buy that Russia tried to interfere in the election.  The problem for the Dems is they knew about it well before the election and did nothing.

 

Lots of people here didn’t believe the intelligence community conclusion. Maybe not you—bravo!

7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

BM is wrong or intentionally being dishonest per usual. 

 

No no one doubted meddling. There were boxes of evidence that supported that. 

 

They rejected that said meddling had an impact on votes AND/OR that there was active collusion w Russians and Trump to meddle. From day one this was presented as truth. 

 

But when you're a dishonest asshat who refuses to read the material, then all you can do is what BM does: ***** it up. 

 

(And we were right. Ben Franklin / BM was wrong. But he won't admit it because he changed screen names so he could hide from his errors.)

 

Your obsession is showing!

[Deranged Rhino]

My obsession is with finding the truth and exposing the bad actors wherever and whenever possible. 

 

Your analysis has always been paltry and thin. You have brought nothing to this discussion - and now you're trying to retcon it to show people were wrong by pushing false information. Why? Because you're a liar and full of Schiff. 

[BeginnersMind]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

My obsession is with finding the truth and exposing the bad actors wherever and whenever possible. 

 

Your analysis has always been paltry and thin. You have brought nothing to this discussion - and now you're trying to retcon it to show people were wrong by pushing false information. Why? Because you're a liar and full of Schiff. 

 

Sorry friend “retcon” must be a term of art in your Q community. English translation please. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[Doc]

49 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

Lots of people here didn’t believe the intelligence community conclusion. Maybe not you—bravo!

 

You have evidence of that?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

You have evidence of that?

 

Of course he doesn't. He doesn't even have the proper frame of reference to have a substantive conversation about what people were saying/thinking in January of 2017. 

 

(because he's too lazy to read)

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

BM is wrong or intentionally being dishonest per usual. 

 

No no one doubted meddling. There were boxes of evidence that supported that. 

 

They rejected that said meddling had an impact on votes AND/OR that there was active collusion w Russians and Trump to meddle. From day one this was presented as truth. 

 

But when you're a dishonest asshat who refuses to read the material, then all you can do is what BM does: ***** it up. 

 

(And we were right. Ben Franklin / BM was wrong. But he won't admit it because he changed screen names so he could hide from his errors.)

 

There's two things the left has managed to do in the past two years, in such a subtle fashion that few people have noticed:

 

1) Make "Russian meddling in the election" equivalent to "Trump colluding with Russia."  They've - once again - eliminated the middle ground: if you don't think Trump colluded, then you think the Russians are innocent.  

 

2) far more insidiously,, in pushing the idea that Russia successfully manipulated the election with nothing more than Facebook memes, they've managed to portray Facebook as some sort of critical national infrastructure that has to be regulated to the detriment of constitutional protections.  Can't have freedom of expression or assembly when you have to protect the people against Russian advertising.

12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Of course he doesn't. He doesn't even have the proper frame of reference to have a substantive conversation about what people were saying/thinking in January of 2017. 

 

(because he's too lazy to read)

 

Odds are he doesn't even know the IC's conclusion himself.

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

There's two things the left has managed to do in the past two years, in such a subtle fashion that few people have noticed:

 

1) Make "Russian meddling in the election" equivalent to "Trump colluding with Russia."  They've - once again - eliminated the middle ground: if you don't think Trump colluded, then you think the Russians are innocent.  

100%

But to pat my own back - Note this section: (page 2)

 

This is an important distinction which, over the course of twenty-four plus months has been purposefully obscured. The corporate/establishment media has worked diligently to conflate these two very distinct actions as being one and the same: Russian meddling was slowly made to become synonymous with Russian collusion/conspiracy for many millions of Americans.

 

Ask yourself why. What purpose would it serve to purposefully conflate the two? We will return to this question in short order… 

The move to conflate meddling with collusion was more than simple semantics on the part of journalists and editors across the country, it was an intentional distorting of reality to fit a specific narrative. There are stone cold facts we can point to which prove Russian meddling happened in the 2016 election, such as Facebook ads purchased by Kremlin cut-outs which targeted US voters.[1] While we can rationally debate the effectiveness of such meddling techniques, we cannot deny that they occurred. The evidence is abundant, public, and overwhelming. And although this kind of information warfare is alarming, Russians purchasing politically divisive Facebook ads during a contentious election is nowhere near the threat presented by a victorious presidential candidate working with Russian intelligence services to tilt the election in their favor. Conflating these two very different threats as being equal is like attempting to paint the common cold as being equal to pancreatic cancer. It’s more than semantics, it’s dishonest to the point of absurdity.

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/401394773/Building-a-Monster-Partial-introduction

 

(written over a year ago now)

 

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

2) far more insidiously,, in pushing the idea that Russia successfully manipulated the election with nothing more than Facebook memes, they've managed to portray Facebook as some sort of critical national infrastructure that has to be regulated to the detriment of constitutional protections.  Can't have freedom of expression or assembly when you have to protect the people against Russian advertising.

 

This is an excellent point. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Tiberius]

Just getting through first part of the Mueller report and its pretty obvious that Trump could not have won the election without the support he received from Russia. Just amazing the breath and scope of the Russians direct help to Trump. No wonder he loves Putin so much and keeps his meetings (2020 strategy meetings) totally top secret.

 

 

[Tiberius]

Giuliani: 'There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians'

 

 

Oh, from "No Collusion, to Collusion is cool."

[RochesterRob]

19 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Just getting through first part of the Mueller report and its pretty obvious that Trump could not have won the election without the support he received from Russia. Just amazing the breath and scope of the Russians direct help to Trump. No wonder he loves Putin so much and keeps his meetings (2020 strategy meetings) totally top secret.

 

 

  I know I will be sorry for asking but how do you know that Trump would have lost?  Is there a poll taken from 2016 that says so?  Can you mind meld with 100's of millions of Americans to know their intent?   

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Giuliani: 'There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians'

 

 

Oh, from "No Collusion, to Collusion is cool."

 

It's only OK when a British spy does it for the Dems.

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  I know I will be sorry for asking but how do you know that Trump would have lost?  Is there a poll taken from 2016 that says so?  Can you mind meld with 100's of millions of Americans to know their intent?   

If Trump and Russia didn't have complete access to Hillarys and the Democrats operation they could not have strategized against them effectively and weaponized the material the stole to suppress voters. The Russians broke the law for a reason. It's just common sense, one side could--and still is!--keeping secrets about all this and the other side--The Dems--were violated and illegally exposed.

 

its that simple. The Russian propaganda point on this is that information in an election is unimportant. 

 

And no, there is no polling that would be able to prove this 

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

It's only OK when a British spy does it for the Dems.

Russia helped Trump win the election and Rudy is admitting that. 

[Boatdrinks]

28 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Just getting through first part of the Mueller report and its pretty obvious that Trump could not have won the election without the support he received from Russia. Just amazing the breath and scope of the Russians direct help to Trump. No wonder he loves Putin so much and keeps his meetings (2020 strategy meetings) totally top secret.

 

 

Nonsense. You truly believe a few Facebook ads/ memes seen by a minimal number of people influenced voters to back Trump? You clearly have a dim view of the voting public’s intelligence. On the other hand, perhaps this is justified..lol. Anyway, this election simply came down to folks not being able to stomach voting for Hillary Clinton. Biased media outlets such as CNN just turned more voters to Trump. Far more than anything Russia did, in my view. Blame your Dems for not putting up a moderate and electable candidate that was capable of fending off the flawed Donald Trump. 

[GG]

For God's sake, please stop engaging Gator in any discussion.  

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Nonsense. You truly believe a few Facebook ads/ memes seen by a minimal number of people influenced voters to back Trump? You clearly have a dim view of the voting public’s intelligence. On the other hand, perhaps this is justified..lol. Anyway, this election simply came down to folks not being able to stomach voting for Hillary Clinton. Biased media outlets such as CNN just turned more voters to Trump. Far more than anything Russia did, in my view. Blame your Dems for not putting up a moderate and electable candidate that was capable of fending off the flawed Donald Trump. 

I never repeated that GOP tLking point. 

 

Read what I write here: The Russians and Trump had access to all the Democrats information. All their material and used it. That was a tremendous advantage. They used that advantage to help Trump win. 

 

That is a fact.

2 minutes ago, GG said:

For God's sake, please stop engaging Gator in any discussion.  

Now you know I'm right if this complete clown is afraid of what I'm saying. GG is a brainwashed empty head and is afraid of the truth. 

 

Hes afraid of the truth, pure and simple. What a very small person. 

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

I never repeated that GOP tLking point. 

 

Read what I write here: The Russians and Trump had access to all the Democrats information. All their material and used it. That was a tremendous advantage. They used that advantage to help Trump win. 

 

That is a fact.

Ridiculous. Voters didn’t make their choice on the basis of Russia or anything Russia “ did”. The Republicans nominated Donald Trump. That alone might have been enough for the Dems to win if they had a respectable, moderate candidate. Trump could know everything down to what Hillary was having for breakfast that day and he’d still be Trump. This shouldn’t be hard to understand. Just what advantage in winning the election did Trump get from this Russian “ meddling” ?

[RochesterRob]

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

If Trump and Russia didn't have complete access to Hillarys and the Democrats operation they could not have strategized against them effectively and weaponized the material the stole to suppress voters. The Russians broke the law for a reason. It's just common sense, one side could--and still is!--keeping secrets about all this and the other side--The Dems--were violated and illegally exposed.

 

its that simple. The Russian propaganda point on this is that information in an election is unimportant. 

 

And no, there is no polling that would be able to prove this 

Russia helped Trump win the election and Rudy is admitting that. 

  Nonsense.  Opinions for the most part were formed well in advance of 2016.  Many people either disliked or liked the Clinton's.  A number of people wanted a Washington outsider to be President.  This is why a class action suit was never heading to court over the hacks.  It could never be proven if any impact by the hacks was had on the 2016 election.  

  

  

[row_33]

14 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Nonsense.  Opinions for the most part were formed well in advance of 2016.  Many people either disliked or liked the Clinton's.  A number of people wanted a Washington outsider to be President.  This is why a class action suit was never heading to court over the hacks.  It could never be proven if any impact by the hacks was had on the 2016 election.  

  

  

 

why do you engage with this person?  he doesn't remotely show that he could care less about your response

 

 

[3rdnlng]

52 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  I know I will be sorry for asking but how do you know that Trump would have lost?  Is there a poll taken from 2016 that says so?  Can you mind meld with 100's of millions of Americans to know their intent?   

Yes, every poll in 2016 had Hillary winning. Those damn Russians must have flipped the election for Trump.

[RochesterRob]

14 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

why do you engage with this person?  he doesn't remotely show that he could care less about your response

 

 

  My hope is if we keep him engaged somebody from the medical world will see it and offer him the help he needs.  Or at least make for one heck of a psychological study.

[Doc]

48 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Russia helped Trump win the election and Rudy is admitting that. 

 

And you'd think that selling Uranium One would have gotten Hilly more help than it did.

6 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  My hope is if we keep him engaged somebody from the medical world will see it and offer him the help he needs.  Or at least make for one heck of a psychological study.

 

No use.  I would have discharged him as a patient long ago.

[GG]

12 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  My hope is if we keep him engaged somebody from the medical world will see it and offer him the help he needs.  Or at least make for one heck of a psychological study.

You’re about a half decade late with that observation.

 

The best medicine at this point is for everyone to ignore him.  And that includes you Tom & Greggy

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Meathead has been an active participant and financier of the PR side of the coup since the beginning. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

And you'd think that selling Uranium One would have gotten Hilly more help than it did.

 

No use.  I would have discharged him as a patient long ago.

Well, the Left seems to be for third term + abortions. Maybe in HAHA Gator's case we could get them to go for a retroactive abortion, based on merit.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

50 min but worth the time. 

 

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

Ridiculous. Voters didn’t make their choice on the basis of Russia or anything Russia “ did”. The Republicans nominated Donald Trump. That alone might have been enough for the Dems to win if they had a respectable, moderate candidate. Trump could know everything down to what Hillary was having for breakfast that day and he’d still be Trump. This shouldn’t be hard to understand. Just what advantage in winning the election did Trump get from this Russian “ meddling” ?

They hacked the DNC's entire computer system. You do understand why people, organizations, etc. have passwords, right? Well, Russia gave Trump every last piece of information the Dems had and he used it.

 

Information is one of the most important things we  humans have. That's why we have pass words. Through Russian criminality Trump got Hillary's playbook, secrets, internal polling, strategies, etc. Heck, I bet you are angry Dems want to see Trump's taxes, right?

 

Not many people are saying it yet, but this was a stolen election. And not just because of what I have posted today.

 

Have you read the report?

[row_33]

4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Well, the Left seems to be for third term + abortions. Maybe in HAHA Gator's case we could get them to go for a retroactive abortion, based on merit.

 

acid, amnesty and abortion in 1972,

 

so things never change, bless them....

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  My hope is if we keep him engaged somebody from the medical world will see it and offer him the help he needs.  Or at least make for one heck of a psychological study.

Lol, I'm not the one telling poster to stay away from other posters. Those people are afraid of the truth.

 

Why do I need help simply for reporting on what Mueller wrote about? The Russians hacked the entire DNC system and weaponized the information against Hillary. Truth hurts.

[BillsFanNC]

43 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

50 min but worth the time. 

 

 

That was absolutely fantastic. Thanks for posting.

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

That was absolutely fantastic. Thanks for posting.

 

his work is worth reading...

 

 

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, Doc said:

 

And you'd think that selling Uranium One would have gotten Hilly more help than it did.

 

That's about as funny of a conspiracy theory as Seth Rich being the one who gave Julian Assange the hacked emails! Mueller comments on that lie right in the report.

 

Now who was spreading that lie on here? Hmmmmm.....

 

Mueller's report actually directly contradicts many lies that have been spread by certain individuals on this board. LOL. Love it.

 

Read the report! Not Russian generated propaganda!

 

Read the Report!