ssgtgood

You have a lot of gall Doc calling anyone stupid. Looked in the mirror lately.

buffalo Loc: Texas

.

sandy628

Obama is the worst president in history, that's his legacy .

buffalo Loc: Texas

.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Typical Lib! Just because she points to the zits on Obama's nose you accuse her of treason. Have you forgotten that we initiated this cyber war crap by attacking Iran's computers with a destructive virus that practically shut down the country? How would you like to be undergoing robotic surgery when the US decided to screw with the software controlling the knife?

You have difficulty differentiating scepticism from treason. You were suddenly (gasp) informed there are a lot of trolls on social media with every agenda under the sun. Let me be the first to inform you, Al-Qaeda uses Social Media. Maybe we should rename it to Anti-Social Media.

What swayed people to oppose Hillary was the sickening realization that we indeed have masters who are above the law. There were many people who had been tried, convicted and fined/jailed for breaches of the national security law. These breaches were trivial in comparison to the heinous nature of Hillary's security crimes. When Hillary was not prosecuted for crimes incredibly more heinous than the crimes being committed, by the little people, her fate was sealed.

There are countless numbers of us little people who have worked with classified material and we know without a doubt that what she did should have fetched her a hundred year sentence at minimum. No amount of Russian blather on social media could have done so much damage.

After Trump knocked off his Republican competition we were left with two choices, Trump or Hillary and anyone with a sense of justice would not vote for Hillary. That left Trump and the pygmies and any one with a brain knew that not voting for Trump would assure a Clinton win. Whether you liked him or not it was Trump or Hillary. Trump will have to be watched carefully because he has many faults, in regard to constitutional issues, but he was the best we could get.

You will note that no part of this analysis refers to e-mails , Wikileaks, Twits, or any of the other current rage buttons. They were not germane, it was the Congressional investigations into Ben Ghazi that uncovered her criminality. The head of the FBI confirmed it under oath in front of another Congressional committee, just after Hillary's husband put the fix in with the AG. All a matter of public record, no innuendo, no propaganda, no mind control. And, most important -- NO INDICTMENT. Just the facts Jack!

Hillary lost because she is a lying, thieving, treasonous, corrupt bitch, who has demonstrated she has infected enough of our government, with her corruption, to be essentially immune from being called to task for her numerous transgressions. For these reasons I and many others despise and hate her and we do not want to see her involved, in government, in any capacity and that goes for her whelp Chelsea also.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

I wonder what these guys would make of all this. This is a photo of Major Dick Winters and what remained of Easy Company after reaching the Eagle's Nest at the end of World War 2. What do you suppose they'd make of the childish infighting that goes on constantly in our political system?

Dr.Dross

Let me get the gist of what your are saying (trying to ignore your emblem of ignorance and hate). The Democrats never used the "the Russian hack story in an attempt to damage the nascent Trump presidency." They never accused Trump or the Republicans either.

A question: if the government came to you and asked to scour your computer for possible breaches, honestly, would you say "Fell free"? I have no idea whether your representation of what happened with the DNC and FBI happened or happened as you said; a source would have been good here.

There are so many gaping holes in your arguments it is hard to know which to address next. Let's start here: "Was the report commissioned purely for campaign purposes? Was the report done independent of DNC input, or did members of the party and the campaign direct Crowdstrike toward the Russians?" Bizarre thought: send a probably damaging Crowdstrike report to the Russians.

No, not going to satisfy this blindness any longer; your whole post is as ridiculous as almost all I have read so far. If you had the eyes to see what you said, in effect, is the rapist defense: "if she was wearing such provocative clothes..." Russia is free to interfere with our democratic process and tilt the scales for Trump because Hillary a "nastywoman"?

buffalo Loc: Texas

Great post!!!

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

the left chooses to ignore the Clinton Foundation influence and payola, because they seem to think that payola and fraud is only important when the Republicans do it. They may be correct in that the entire Democrat party is based and centered in fraud and payola.

Rivers

"Russia was the one whom got caught with it's hand in the cookie jar"???? Please show me the proof.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Mind telling us HOW someone, possibly Russia "swayed our election?" Which votiing machines were tampered with in what districts in what states? Put up or shut up. Are you trying to tell me that you will be the very first Liberal to claim that the information published in Wikileaks was somehow false? Was there anything UNTRUE published?

Dr.Dross

Kumquat, provide the proof Russia did not hack us. You and Trump must be privy to info no else has in this world. Show it! As foolish as it was to say the Russians did it, to say the didn't without proof is equally foolish. And very, very strange.

I too quickly jumped on the bandwagon of Russian hacking, simply trusting our Intelligence agencies. When no hard evidence materialized, I apologized for that unwarranted leap. Now, supposedly, evidence of that hacking has been unclassified. There appears to be proof.

You are getting very tiring with your lack of intellectual integrity. To address this usual tidbit of sophistry offered by the Right without anywhere else to go, being without facts or support: "For someone who didn't support Hillary, you are awfully upset about her loss." Please show a shred of evidence for this lie.


Do you know what the words "topic" or "subject" mean? It is conversation or comments directed in a forum to what is under discussion. Tangential posts are not necessarily out of order and can add needed insight and depth, but to condemn the topic or subject because tangential material was not presented is absurd and, again, typical Right deflection. Focus, fool. There are at least a few thousand points that could relate to this thread. Space and attention is limited. I am talking to my aunt Lilian about her sister Marion: she is the subject/topic. You interrupt to ask "What about Uncle Alfred? And Hitler? And the 1929 Stock Market crash?" Absurd!

"You never broke wind orally to complain about the 13 times that Obama executive orders were overturned by SCOTUS." Irrelevant and ridiculous but I did specifically, in these comments, say that I disagreed with a number of Obama's executive orders. Give this embarrassing attempt at deflection away. What you appear to be saying is patently absurd. One who has done wrong is excused from wrong-doing because someone has done the same or worse. "Yeah, look at Obama..." So we do not look at Trump?

Zombiefarmer23 Loc: Bull Hills

Obfuscation and deflection. Nice. Commie troll alert.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

[quote=Dr.Dross]Read history? How dare you assume a limited topic, where my comments have been specific to that topic, somehow means I am ignorant of other history.

OK. We are reaching a bit of common ground here. That's a good thing. I am glad to learn of your sense of moral outrage of US interference in other countries elections. In the limited time that I have been a member of OPP, I have only read your anti-Trump/anti-Russia posts. I have not read a single post critical of HRC or President Obama. It's the sense of a one sided, unrelenting, and unceasing critique on those two issues.

I suppose that I also do not understand why you are more concerned with the Russian hacking (if in fact it was the Russians) of the Podesta emails, and the DNC files, rather than the much more serious efforts of the DNC to subvert our Democratic processes. In my mind, the DNC and the Clinton camp rigged the Democratic primary and unfairly deprived Bernie Sanders from winning the primary. Your focus is on the messenger, rather than the message.

I personally find that Wikleaks, the Russian hack (if in fact they did it), and whistle blowers in general, do a service to our nation. The American public deserves to know the truth. Governments in general, try to deceive their populations, and use spin and propaganda to influence and brain-wash to population. Your focus on the Russians and not the corrupt leadership of the DNC is simply misplaced.

And before you call me an apologist for the RNC, I will be the first to admit that the attempt by the House leadership to weaken ethics rules was a colossal and inexcusable moral and ethical lapse on their part. But I don't suppose you would find it in your heart to mention Trump's role in dropping this rule change.

You see, that's the type of balance and sense of fair play that I find lacking in your posts.

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

Nobody is saying russia (putin) did not hack and try to influence , what I am saying is when DNC turned down FBI request to access their security procedures they were turned down by the DNC , why is that smart guy ?? Was it because it would reveal the corruption in the DNC ,, YES !!!!! So they made their own bed and were hacked and lost ,, DNC is at fault . WE hack them and they hack us , that's the way it is !! SO quit crying when you get your ass handed to ya .