CNN exposed as fake news, Russia narrative is BS

Well, yeah. And whose fault is that? Can you really blame a politician for saying what gets them elected? Isn't it time to hold voters responsible for the "I believe what sounds good even if a cursory examination reveals it to be impossible" that seems to drive them?
Oh, I agree with you 100% there, and I hold that Señor Trump being president is not the cause of the US' political crisis but its effect.

What I intended, actually, was to say that El Donald is still all about slogans, as if he were still campaigning.
 
The only Russian meddling in an election was when the Clinton administration meddled into the Election of Boris Yeltsin by supplying his campaign with way more funds and resources than the other candidates campaigns. As well in relation to meddling from the last election, we should be talking about the investigation into DNC's fradulent election process. You're telling people everything is fair, people are giving their own money to the Sanders, O'Malley and Clinton campaign, but it's all a facade as Hillary was going to be the nominee no matter what.
 
Yuo is of posting repetitionings…
 
The only Russian meddling in an election was when the Clinton administration meddled into the Election of Boris Yeltsin by supplying his campaign with way more funds and resources than the other candidates campaigns. As well in relation to meddling from the last election, we should be talking about the investigation into DNC's fradulent election process. You're telling people everything is fair, people are giving their own money to the Sanders, O'Malley and Clinton campaign, but it's all a facade as Hillary was going to be the nominee no matter what.

Of the 2008 primaries, the 2016 primaries, and the 2016 general election where Clinton won the popular vote, why is only the time she won fraudulently unfair?

I doubt there's any presidential candidate in American history who has a worse voter popularity-to-electoral-win ratio.
 
What are you referring to?
He made comments about Russia and uranium which you called ignorant. He turned out to be the better informed.

In case anyone missed the details, the Obama administration knew of Russian bribery the first year of his first term, but never released an official comment.

J
 
He made comments about Russia and uranium which you called ignorant. He turned out to be the better informed.

In case anyone missed the details, the Obama administration knew of Russian bribery the first year of his first term, but never released an official comment.
So the Russian collusion thing is Obama's fault? Got it.

:shake:
 
Honestly, by now, the Clinton shenanigans with their charity fund should be deemed unacceptable. There's nearly nothing there where Trump isn't worse, so drawing a new line in the sand of what's tolerable is a rather good idea. We've already seen that Republicans will accept worse in order to win, but there's no point equivocating.
 
So far Trump has been untouchable. He's not even really at risk of being removed from power. He's a winner and American liberals are the losers. Meanwhile, Obamacare is slowly being dismantled and gun deaths continue to mount.

A loser country with a winner president.
 
Last edited:
Still accurate.
Is it? Calling Vox a well respected source is already suspect. Vox is an advocate for Trump's removal, even more than the Hill. The article is an attack piece with no pretense of impartiality. If they were bringing forth the Uranium 1 story, then it would be strong. As it is, it is suspect. Events since the post have born out his position more than your own.

At the least you should acknowledge that "willful ignorance" is much too strong. I think he deserves an apology.

J
 
Top Bottom