Not my face. Keep in mind you are talking to someone who considered going to war over the outright destruction of a couple buildings to be gross over reaction.
I never doubted you did.
Not my face. Keep in mind you are talking to someone who considered going to war over the outright destruction of a couple buildings to be gross over reaction.
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.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?
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.
I doubt there's any presidential candidate in American history who has a worse voter popularity-to-electoral-win ratio.
@Zelig Mechaicalsalvation deserves an apology.
He made comments about Russia and uranium which you called ignorant. He turned out to be the better informed.What are you referring to?
So the Russian collusion thing is Obama's fault? Got it.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.
He made comments about Russia and uranium which you called ignorant.
Try searching "ignorant".Where?
No, a different one popped up. Older and much more serious from the look of things. Also, note the source. The Hill is left leaning, so it is admission against interest.So the Russian collusion thing is Obama's fault? Got it.
This seems either disingenuous, or willfully ignorant.
You can trivially find the information you're asking for, from well-respected sources: https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15952...russia-manafort-kushner-clinton-2016-election
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.Still accurate.