Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

The Only 2016 Campaign That Deliberately Colluded With Russians Was Hillary Clinton’s

There was Russian collusion during the 2016 presidential campaign, but it didn't come from Donald Trump.

 

 

BY:  Sean Davis

 

For more than two years, the campaign, presidential transition, and official government administration of Donald Trump operated under a cloud of suspicion that they had engaged in a treasonous conspiracy to steal the 2016 election from former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Trump and his top associates were accused of collusion and of conspiring with the Russians to subvert American democracy.

 

The former director of the Central Intelligence Agency publicly declared Trump to be guilty of treason, an offense punishable by death. The former head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the country’s premier law enforcement agency, intimated that the president had illegally obstructed justice.

 

In the end, none of it was true. After a nearly two-year-long investigation that issued 2,800 subpoenas, interviewed 500 witnesses, and used nearly 300 wiretaps and pen registers, Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that there was no evidence of collusion by Trump or his associates.

 

But that doesn’t mean 2016 was free of Russian collusion. To the contrary, there is clear evidence that a 2016 presidential campaign willfully and deliberately colluded with Russians in a bid to interfere with American elections. It wasn’t Trump’s campaign that colluded with shady Russia oligarchs and sketchy Russian sources to subvert American democracy: it was Hillary Clinton’s.

 

In fact, the entire Russian collusion conspiracy that held the nation hostage for more than two years was the brainchild of a foreign national who was working on behalf of a sanctioned Russian oligarch with close ties to the Kremlin. At the same time he was telling the media that Trump was the undisclosed agent of Russia, that foreign national was lobbying the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to ease up on his Russian benefactor.

 

As it turns out, the DOJ official being lobbied was the spouse of one of that foreign national’s co-workers at the firm that hired the two of them to foment Russian hysteria on behalf of the Clinton campaign. And in a twist almost too absurd for even the most bizarre Franz Kafka novel, that firm was itself working on behalf of a Russian billionaire’s corporation that had been charged by U.S. federal prosecutors with illegally evading U.S. sanctions.

Concocting a Giant Setup

 

That foreign spook-turned-international political provocateur was none other than Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous and utterly debunked Steele dossier that ignited a domestic firestorm after it was briefed to president-elect Trump in January 2016 and subsequently published in full by BuzzFeed. His Russian benefactor at the time was Oleg Deripaska. His co-conspirator at DOJ was Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie Ohr received more than $40,000 for her work for Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign-sponsored opposition research firm that just so happened to be working on behalf of Prevezon, a company owned by Russian billionaire Denis Katsyv, during the 2016 campaign.

 

The curious Clinton campaign collusion connections don’t end there. Somehow it gets worse. The Russian attorney for Prevezon, which later settled charges of laundering money and violating sanctions in exchange for $5.9 million in fines paid to the DOJ, was none other than Natalia Veselnitskaya, who arranged the Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, a meeting that was alleged to be proof-positive that the Trump campaign had illegally colluded with the Russians during the 2016 campaign.

 

Unlike the fabulist musings of Steele, who by his own admission colluded with Kremlin officials as he prepared and disseminated his anti-Trump dossier, the Clinton-Russian connections are not the delusions of a deranged conspiracy theorist. They are documented and verified facts which for some reason escaped the attention of the scores of journalists and investigators who purported to root out any and all instances of foreign collusion during the 2016 election.

How It All Went Down

Fusion GPS was hired in April 2016 by the Clinton campaign’s law firm to do opposition research against the Trump campaign after it became clear that Trump would be the Republican presidential nominee. The campaign expenditures to Fusion GPS were never disclosed in campaign finance reports.

 

At the same time, it was also working on behalf of Prevezon, a company owned by Kremlin-connected Russian oligarch Denis Katsyv, in the company’s battle with U.S. prosecutors over Magnitsky Act sanctions against the company. Shortly after Fusion was hired to work for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, it retained the services of Steele and directed him to dig up dirt on connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. The series of reports and memoranda prepared and peddled by Steele collectively became known to the public as the so-called Steele dossier.

 

Nellie Ohr, wife of top DOJ official Bruce Ohr, was also hired by Fusion GPS to assist with its Russia-related anti-Trump research. And it was Ohr who later became the secret conduit between Steele and the FBI after Steele’s status as a confidential human source for the FBI was terminated when the bureau learned he had lied about his contacts with the news media.

 

Natasha Veselnitskaya, the Russian attorney for Prevezon with whom Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson worked directly, just so happened to be responsible for setting up the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting that was touted as evidence that the Trump campaign was going out of its way to collude with corrupt Russian officials in order to take down Hillary Clinton. Veselnitskaya met with Simpson both before and after the meeting, although both claim that they never discussed that meeting, only the Prevezon matter.

 

However, information Veselnitskaya provided during the Trump Tower meeting — the “dirt” which was promised to the president’s oldest son — was actually produced by Fusion GPS, raising questions about the claims that Simpson and Veselnitskaya never discussed the Trump Tower meeting with each other. Veselnitskaya was indicted by federal authorities early this year for obstructing justice during the course of the same Prevezon litigation that she and Fusion GPS worked on together.

Steele Brokering Russian Access to U.S. Officials

 

In addition to funneling unverified allegations from his dossier to the FBI and the media, Steele also repeatedly intervened with Ohr, the DOJ official, on behalf of Oleg Deripaska. Transcripts of Ohr’s congressional testimony show that Steele referred to Deripaska as “our favorite business tycoon” and tried several times to broker a meeting between Deripaska and DOJ.

 

Although Deripaska was prohibited from traveling to the United States, he used diplomatic cover to enter the United States at least twice in 2016, once in June and again in September. Federal agents interviewed him in New York during his September visit, according to Deripaska’s attorney and registered foreign agent Adam Waldman.

 

The relationship between Steele and Deripaska’s team continued well past the election into 2017, when Waldman offered himself to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) as the middleman between Steele and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Waldman’s offer to Warner to broker access to Steele came to light when secret, encrypted text messages between Waldman and Warner were published by Fox News in February 2018.

 

Waldman also previously registered as a foreign agent for former Russian minister Sergey Lavrov. Federal records show that his formal lobbying on behalf of the Russian politician ended on May 31, 2017. Separate federal filings required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act show that Waldman collected nearly $1.1 million from Deripaska in 2016 and 2017.

Project Much, Mrs. Clinton?

It is beyond dispute that the Clinton campaign and the DNC funded an opposition research firm that was working on behalf of a company owned by a Kremlin-connected Russian oligarch. To dig up dirt on alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, that firm then hired a foreign national who was working on behalf of another Russian oligarch. At the same time he was providing his unsubstantiated allegations of Trump campaign malfeasance to federal authorities, that same foreign national was trying to get those same federal officials to allow that sanctioned oligarch entry to the United States.

 

Meanwhile, the Russian attorney whose presence at a Trump Tower meeting with top Trump campaign officials was taken as proof-positive of collusion was also secretly meeting with the founder of the firm used by the Clinton campaign and DNC to allege that it was the Trump campaign that was improperly communicating with the Russians. And if that weren’t enough, the most salacious allegations in the infamous dossier that was a primary basis for secret federal surveillance of a political campaign were sourced to various anonymous officials with the Kremlin.

 

So there was absolutely Russian collusion during the 2016 campaign. There was absolutely a presidential campaign eager to deploy Russian information against its opponent. There was absolutely foreign interference in the 2016 election from one of America’s top geopolitical adversaries.

 

As the Mueller investigation reportedly concluded, though, there was no illegal conspiracy within the Trump campaign to collude with the Russians to subvert our democracy. There was collusion, alright, but it was committed by the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/28/campaign-colluded-russians-2016-hillary-clintons/

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

That's right this is published by the Federalist.

 

 They employ real investigative reporters that investigate, get the facts and write the story.  

 

No fake news narrative like CNN and MSNBC...

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
685 Views
54
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

PUTIN HATES HILLARY   so how in the world did anyone come up with the idea that RUSSIA was  HELPING Hillary....    BUT  It's easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled.   Regardless I couldn't help but respond anyway to shed some truth  to the fiction in this thread.    Apparently, people have not been paying attention to Trump's kids who have met with Russians and Trump at Helsinki and how he practically kissed Putin's rump.  


When mass protests against Russian President Vladimir Putin erupted in Moscow in December 2011, Putin made clear who he thought was really behind them: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

With the protesters accusing Putin of having rigged recent elections, the Russian leader pointed an angry finger at Clinton, who had issued a statement sharply critical of the voting results. “She said they were dishonest and unfair,” Putin fumed in public remarks, saying that Clinton gave “a signal” to demonstrators working “with the support of the U.S. State Department” to undermine his power. “We need to safeguard ourselves from this interference in our internal affairs,” Putin declared.
Story Continued Below

Five years later, Putin may be seeking revenge against Clinton. At least that’s the implication of the view among some cybersecurity experts that Russia was behind the recent hack of the Democratic National Committee’s email server.   www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153

470 Views
1
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

When mass protests against Russian President Vladimir Putin erupted in Moscow in December 2011, Putin made clear who he thought was really behind them: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

With the protesters accusing Putin of having rigged recent elections, the Russian leader pointed an angry finger at Clinton, who had issued a statement sharply critical of the voting results. “She said they were dishonest and unfair,” Putin fumed in public remarks, saying that Clinton gave “a signal” to demonstrators working “with the support of the U.S. State Department” to undermine his power. “We need to safeguard ourselves from this interference in our internal affairs,” Putin declared.
Story Continued Below

Five years later, Putin may be seeking revenge against Clinton. At least that’s the implication of the view among some cybersecurity experts that Russia was behind the recent hack of the Democratic National Committee’s email server. 

 

So Hillary and the U.S. were "meddling" in Russia's election. What goes around, comes around. 

478 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@jimc91 wrote:

There was Russian collusion during the 2016 presidential campaign, but it didn't come from Donald Trump.

 

 

Not true jimc91 ......

 

The collusion came from Trump's son and son-in-law when they met with Russian agents and spies ..... and also provided requested polling data to the Russians.

 

Please recall that Trump also requested the Russians to hack into our cyber systems to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton. And on the same day of that request, 12 Russian intelligence officers attempted to hack into Hillary's server.

 

I prefer to believe the findings of our country's 17 intelligence agencies instead of a biased rag publication that attempts to rationalize child molestation!

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
533 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

I agree with Schiff on collusion....

 

Schiff doubles down on collusion.

578 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Sure would be good if posters debated the post rather than always bringing up the fact they don't like the source.  Somehow seems to defeat the pupose of a forum that is for debating political views.  I bet the ratings here would improve if the guidelines were followed more closely.  

622 Views
47
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@Soosie wrote:

Sure would be good if posters debated the post rather than always bringing up the fact they don't like the source. 


It is not that I don't like the source.

 

In fact, I love when sources like that are being used.

 

BECAUSE....................................................................

 

Why debate a post that is predicated on a source that is FAKE, BOGUS, PHONY, MAKE-BELIEVE, DECEITFUL, ERRONEOUS, MISLEADING, UNTRUE, CONCOCTED, AND DECEIVING?

NO! IT'S CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE NUTTIER THAN SQUIRREL POOP!
506 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Soosie , debating these kind of "stories" serves no useful purpose , unless you enjoy the ridiculous. I guess some people even believe the National Inquirer.

573 Views
1
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Soosie , debating these kind of "stories" serves no useful purpose , unless you enjoy the ridiculous. I guess some people even believe the National Inquirer. @mandm84......................It is hard to determine what you are referring to, but I will take a stab that it is the whackadoodle speculaton. I am learning some new important political words here. It reminds me of being in a line and hearing the guy who in a loud voice give his very studious opinion of the world happenings and then does his he, he, he, he bit. It is when everyone's eyes roll, but he still thinks he is cute.
0 Kudos
475 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@Soosie wrote:

Sure would be good if posters debated the post rather than always bringing up the fact they don't like the source.  Somehow seems to defeat the pupose of a forum that is for debating political views.  I bet the ratings here would improve if the guidelines were followed more closely.


Criticizing the source instead of the content would be like criticizing the poster instead of what they post.  One poster consistently attacks the source instead of the content.  That is the same as censorship.  I've noted that this poster has never offered a source with an opposing view.

600 Views
37
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:


Criticizing the source instead of the content would be like criticizing the poster instead of what they post. 
One poster consistently attacks the source instead of the content.  
I've noted that this poster has never offered a source with an opposing view.

Criticizing the source is NOTHING like criticizing the poster, as you propose.

 

I, in fact, love when sources like THE FEDERALIST are used.

 

To use a source that is well known to have been described as BOGUS, PHONY, MAKE-BELIEVE, DECEITFUL, ERRONEOUS, MISLEADING, UNTRUE, CONCOCTED, and DECEIVING relieves me of the responsibility of finding an opposing view.

 

It is the responsibility of the poster to defend their sources and, in this case, it can't be done.

 

The source is too contaminated.

NO! IT'S CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE NUTTIER THAN SQUIRREL POOP!
513 Views
35
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Here is one factoid from the original article:

 

As it turns out, the DOJ official being lobbied was the spouse of one of that foreign national’s co-workers at the firm that hired the two of them to foment Russian hysteria on behalf of the Clinton campaign. And in a twist almost too absurd for even the most bizarre Franz Kafka novel, that firm was itself working on behalf of a Russian billionaire’s corporation that had been charged by U.S. federal prosecutors with illegally evading U.S. sanctions.

Concocting a Giant Setup

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Here is a simple challenge for the posters that are trying to make this about the source.  

 

What in the above paragraph is inaccurate?  

 

The reporter that wrote this story did the legwork to discover these facts and then wrote about it.  You did not read this on CNN or MSNBC, have you wondered why?  

 

How about because they both supported Hillary in the 2016 election and this story certainly does not support her, so it does not lend itself to their narrative.

 

So exactly where am I wrong or the article wrong?

 

When the left has no real rebuttal they simply attack the source...  And that's a fact!

 

 

VIMTSTL
461 Views
30
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@jimc91 wrote:

Here is one factoid from the original article:

 

As it turns out, the DOJ official being lobbied was the spouse of one of that foreign national’s co-workers at the firm that hired the two of them to foment Russian hysteria on behalf of the Clinton campaign. And in a twist almost too absurd for even the most bizarre Franz Kafka novel, that firm was itself working on behalf of a Russian billionaire’s corporation that had been charged by U.S. federal prosecutors with illegally evading U.S. sanctions.

Concocting a Giant Setup

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Here is a simple challenge for the posters that are trying to make this about the source.  

 

What in the above paragraph is inaccurate?  

 

The reporter that wrote this story did the legwork to discover these facts and then wrote about it.  You did not read this on CNN or MSNBC, have you wondered why?  

 

How about because they both supported Hillary in the 2016 election and this story certainly does not support her, so it does not lend itself to their narrative.

 

So exactly where am I wrong or the article wrong?

 

When the left has no real rebuttal they simply attack the source...  And that's a fact!

 

 


Well guess what. FOX News tells us you are wrong. FOX News reported that in the Muller report there is a part that tells us their was collusion between Trump Campaign and Russia. The former Judge made that announcement on his show. Looks like you missed that and are still following old orders. Now your source had not seen the Muller report so you were using a bad source again. Typical far right.

471 Views
27
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@john258 wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

Here is one factoid from the original article:

 

As it turns out, the DOJ official being lobbied was the spouse of one of that foreign national’s co-workers at the firm that hired the two of them to foment Russian hysteria on behalf of the Clinton campaign. And in a twist almost too absurd for even the most bizarre Franz Kafka novel, that firm was itself working on behalf of a Russian billionaire’s corporation that had been charged by U.S. federal prosecutors with illegally evading U.S. sanctions.

Concocting a Giant Setup

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Here is a simple challenge for the posters that are trying to make this about the source.  

 

What in the above paragraph is inaccurate?  

 

The reporter that wrote this story did the legwork to discover these facts and then wrote about it.  You did not read this on CNN or MSNBC, have you wondered why?  

 

How about because they both supported Hillary in the 2016 election and this story certainly does not support her, so it does not lend itself to their narrative.

 

So exactly where am I wrong or the article wrong?

 

When the left has no real rebuttal they simply attack the source...  And that's a fact!

 

 


Well guess what. FOX News tells us you are wrong. FOX News reported that in the Muller report there is a part that tells us their was collusion between Trump Campaign and Russia. The former Judge made that announcement on his show. Looks like you missed that and are still following old orders. Now your source had not seen the Muller report so you were using a bad source again. Typical far right.


WRONG AGAIN

 

John, why did you not provide a link to support your post?

 

Brcause you can’t!

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
470 Views
26
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@jimc91 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

Here is one factoid from the original article:

 

As it turns out, the DOJ official being lobbied was the spouse of one of that foreign national’s co-workers at the firm that hired the two of them to foment Russian hysteria on behalf of the Clinton campaign. And in a twist almost too absurd for even the most bizarre Franz Kafka novel, that firm was itself working on behalf of a Russian billionaire’s corporation that had been charged by U.S. federal prosecutors with illegally evading U.S. sanctions.

Concocting a Giant Setup

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Here is a simple challenge for the posters that are trying to make this about the source.  

 

What in the above paragraph is inaccurate?  

 

The reporter that wrote this story did the legwork to discover these facts and then wrote about it.  You did not read this on CNN or MSNBC, have you wondered why?  

 

How about because they both supported Hillary in the 2016 election and this story certainly does not support her, so it does not lend itself to their narrative.

 

So exactly where am I wrong or the article wrong?

 

When the left has no real rebuttal they simply attack the source...  And that's a fact!

 

 


Well guess what. FOX News tells us you are wrong. FOX News reported that in the Muller report there is a part that tells us their was collusion between Trump Campaign and Russia. The former Judge made that announcement on his show. Looks like you missed that and are still following old orders. Now your source had not seen the Muller report so you were using a bad source again. Typical far right.


WRONG AGAIN

 

John, why did you not provide a link to support your post?

 

Brcause you can’t!

 

 

 

 


Try reading my post. I gave you the source it was FOX News. Go look it up. Once again the enablers prove the xperts correct.

477 Views
25
Report
Reply
Esteemed Social Butterfly

Man, right wingers sure are lazy. It took me one Google search and 10 seconds to find it. Trump supporters must always need something to complain about.

 

Judge Napolitano: Adam Schiff ‘Is Correct' That Mueller Report Will Show Trump/Russia Collusion

 

 

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ (13 pages of lies and growing)
1,276 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@john258 wrote:


Try reading my post. I gave you the source it was FOX News. Go look it up. Once again the enablers prove the xperts correct.


Are you now getting your information from FOX News?  And even at that is one supposed to accept that as gospel news?  Why is it that you never provide a specific source for your information?

486 Views
23
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@john258 wrote:


Try reading my post. I gave you the source it was FOX News. Go look it up. Once again the enablers prove the xperts correct.


Are you now getting your information from FOX News?  And even at that is one supposed to accept that as gospel news?  Why is it that you never provide a specific source for your information?


He already did Tex ..... So "why is it that you" demand answers to questions, including questions already answered, but fail to answer questions posed to you?

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
1,297 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@john258 wrote:


Try reading my post. I gave you the source it was FOX News. Go look it up. Once again the enablers prove the xperts correct.


Are you now getting your information from FOX News?  And even at that is one supposed to accept that as gospel news?  Why is it that you never provide a specific source for your information?


I gave a source go look at it. Unlike the enablers I get information from all sources then I can determine what is good and what is bad. Try it some time.

489 Views
21
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@john258 wrote:


I gave a source go look at it. Unlike the enablers I get information from all sources then I can determine what is good and what is bad. Try it some time.


You only said FOX News. that takes in a lot of territory...nothing specific.  How about showing where to access that information?

486 Views
20
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@john258 wrote:


I gave a source go look at it. Unlike the enablers I get information from all sources then I can determine what is good and what is bad. Try it some time.


You only said FOX News. that takes in a lot of territory...nothing specific.  How about showing where to access that information?


I was specific in the thread where I posted about it in more detail. You can do what I did as you know where to look it up. A little more work and you will be better informed.

1,271 Views
6
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@john258 wrote:



I was specific in the thread where I posted about it in more detail. You can do what I did as you know where to look it up. A little more work and you will be better informed.


You are the one claiming the source, which is very broad.  It could have been anytime since they have been broadcasting.  So you have a specific article or broadcast it was on?  Your saying that I, or someone else can look it up indicates it might be something you made up.  It also says your post more than likely isn't factual if you can't verify it.

1,139 Views
5
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@john258 wrote:



I was specific in the thread where I posted about it in more detail. You can do what I did as you know where to look it up. A little more work and you will be better informed.


You are the one claiming the source, which is very broad.  It could have been anytime since they have been broadcasting.  So you have a specific article or broadcast it was on?  Your saying that I, or someone else can look it up indicates it might be something you made up.  It also says your post more than likely isn't factual if you can't verify it.


I could care less what you do. Look it up or do not look it up. I claim nothing but gave facts which are true and you can not change therm no matter how hard you try. Now stop playing your silly games, and trying to be cute to drag this on for ever. 

1,137 Views
4
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

@john258 

 

AARP Online Community Guidelines

 

  • Cite your sources.

We encourage members to use online resources in their discussions. But please be sure to cite your sources and give credit where it is due

 

Have a good evening.

1,146 Views
3
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@john258 

 

AARP Online Community Guidelines

 

  • Cite your sources.

We encourage members to use online resources in their discussions. But please be sure to cite your sources and give credit where it is due

 

Have a good evening.


Jill Stein calling

1,183 Views
2
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Once again...Hillary is colluding with putin, in order for russia to help defeat her and elect trump? trump supporters expect us to believe this scenario?

wow! Unbelievable!

 

tax returns donnie

0 Kudos
1,180 Views
0
Report
Reply
Retired Moderator

Hi all,

This thread is starting to get off-topic. While you may have different opinions, please remember to be respectful of one another as our guidelines state: This is a diverse community of people with diverse opinions. It is up to each of us to be polite and treat each other with respect.

You can read the full guidelines here: http://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

Thanks and happy posting!

0 Kudos
1,176 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@john258 wrote:


I gave a source go look at it. Unlike the enablers I get information from all sources then I can determine what is good and what is bad. Try it some time.


You only said FOX News. that takes in a lot of territory...nothing specific.  How about showing where to access that information?


For some reason this poster never provides a link to support anything he says.  It appears he is just making stuff up or he would gladly provide a live link to support what he is saying.  Since he can't or won't I give his posts a vote of no confidence and ignore the noise...  You know like the sound an empty drum makes when you pound on it.  It's empty...

 

Enjoy your day, Spring is here!

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
359 Views
12
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@john258 wrote:


I give you facts and not opinions  and facts are something the enablers never have or understand, nor have they ever proved them wrong. Our enablers are all talk. The experts tell us the far right enablers traits are: Mostly white, poor, uneducated, easy to lead, rural, have trouble understanding things, etc. The last sentence proves the experts correct again about the enablers.


Where does your 'facts' come from...and can you provide adequate proof that they are correct?  You keep talking about 'facts', but they come across as 'opinions'. 

 

And who are these 'experts' you keep posting about?  You post often about them, but never identify who they are.

 

Why is it that you keep bringing up these abiguous 'facts' and 'experts' by never giving any specifics who they are or the sources where you get these 'facts' or identify these 'experts' you keep posting about?

 

 


"Why is it that YOU keep" asking a litany of questions to other posters while refusing to answer any questions posed to yourself?

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
1,153 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@john258 wrote:


I give you facts and not opinions  and facts are something the enablers never have or understand, nor have they ever proved them wrong. Our enablers are all talk. The experts tell us the far right enablers traits are: Mostly white, poor, uneducated, easy to lead, rural, have trouble understanding things, etc. The last sentence proves the experts correct again about the enablers.


Where does your 'facts' come from...and can you provide adequate proof that they are correct?  You keep talking about 'facts', but they come across as 'opinions'. 

 

And who are these 'experts' you keep posting about?  You post often about them, but never identify who they are.

 

Why is it that you keep bringing up these abiguous 'facts' and 'experts' by never giving any specifics who they are or the sources where you get these 'facts' or identify these 'experts' you keep posting about?

 

 


I know I confuse the enablers all the time, so you will have to just move on and stick with the right wing material you get from FOX. Thinking people know what I am talking about, and they are the people I am talking to.

1,172 Views
0
Report
Reply
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png