HorrorMovieFans.com

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:I read about this yesterday. I figured some NEWS that SHOCKED THE WORLD by STORM had surely come about that I had just not seen, yet.

DIdn't know it was the #CNNnothingburger I read about yesterday.

To be fair, anyone can read news but not everyone will understand it. Probably just stay out of it tbh

It's not so difficult to understand that 99% of mainstream news isn't even news.

BREAKING: Trump put Russian dressing on his salad. Russia collusion confirmed.

Every joke/analogy/comparison you've made about this topic today has been 100% off the mark...

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:Of course you believe her!!!!!

Here's a bombshell: I would literally care about this situation exactly the same if it turns out she actually did work for the Russian government.

Trump Jr's emails, dude.

Jmac Attack wrote:

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:Of course you believe her!!!!!

Here's a bombshell: I would literally care about this situation exactly the same if it turns out she actually did work for the Russian government.

Trump Jr's emails, dude.

Ok...

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:I know there is some sort of reality disconnect at play here, so let me shock you with a truth bolt:

Trump is an international business person. Presidential campaigns spend millions upon millions doing opposition research. Just how many times do you think advocates, contractors, and employees of Hillary Clinton reached out to foreign nationals and foreign governments to get information on his business dealings? Do you think they would be interested in corruption if approached with information?

They attempted to extract opposition research from a foreign government, and if that's considered information of value that is illegal.

"But Hillary...but Hillary...but Hillary.,,"

That is not illegal.

Just pointing out that any election involving those with international dealings is going to include information exchange with foreign nationals. It is part of the research process. Do you think the government under the Obama Admin is going to say, "Oh, BTW, the Clinton foundation is corrupt as fuck.". That info has to come from the opposition. It is part of why these campaigns are so expensive.

Did you not want Trump opponents to look into his international dealings? How do you think they could do that without talking to foreign nationals?

Yes, it is illegal if the information expected to be exchanged is considered something of value.

Just pointing out that your hypothetical dealings do not pertain to the one that took place last summer, where Donald Trump Jr. set up a meeting with who he perceived to be a foreign government official with the intent of obtaining state information on an opponent.

If you want to clean up the whole process, fine. The "but everyone does it" is a terrible defense though and you know that. You're not excusing what happened even a little bit.

I think the process is just fine. There is nothing to clean up with this situation. Information was offered. Information would have been accepted. So what?

You literally had a quid pro quo situation with the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments that was shady as fuck, and you are worried about someone offering to share dirt on a political candidate with their opponent? The latter is perfectly normal.

By your logic, if Trump's limo stopped and asked an illegal immigrant for directions, they committed a crime, because that information has value and came from a foreigner.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:Of course you believe her!!!!!

Here's a bombshell: I would literally care about this situation exactly the same if it turns out she actually did work for the Russian government.

We know. You're too invested in Trump to accept damaging facts. Not exactly breaking news.

What am I not accepting? Am I denying he met with some Russian attorney? You must've misread when I said I don't give a shit.
/quote]
Right. You don't care about intent to collude or campaign laws. After months of saying nothing ever happened. You'll just shamelessly shape your argument however you need to to paint Trump favorably without ever admitting you've been wrong every step of the way. Congrats?

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:I read about this yesterday. I figured some NEWS that SHOCKED THE WORLD by STORM had surely come about that I had just not seen, yet.

DIdn't know it was the #CNNnothingburger I read about yesterday.

To be fair, anyone can read news but not everyone will understand it. Probably just stay out of it tbh

It's not so difficult to understand that 99% of mainstream news isn't even news.

BREAKING: Trump put Russian dressing on his salad. Russia collusion confirmed.

Every joke/analogy/comparison you've made about this topic today has been 100% off the mark...

I'm still waiting to hear what the bombshell is.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:I know there is some sort of reality disconnect at play here, so let me shock you with a truth bolt:

Trump is an international business person. Presidential campaigns spend millions upon millions doing opposition research. Just how many times do you think advocates, contractors, and employees of Hillary Clinton reached out to foreign nationals and foreign governments to get information on his business dealings? Do you think they would be interested in corruption if approached with information?

They attempted to extract opposition research from a foreign government, and if that's considered information of value that is illegal.

"But Hillary...but Hillary...but Hillary.,,"

That is not illegal.

Just pointing out that any election involving those with international dealings is going to include information exchange with foreign nationals. It is part of the research process. Do you think the government under the Obama Admin is going to say, "Oh, BTW, the Clinton foundation is corrupt as fuck.". That info has to come from the opposition. It is part of why these campaigns are so expensive.

Did you not want Trump opponents to look into his international dealings? How do you think they could do that without talking to foreign nationals?

Yes, it is illegal if the information expected to be exchanged is considered something of value.

Just pointing out that your hypothetical dealings do not pertain to the one that took place last summer, where Donald Trump Jr. set up a meeting with who he perceived to be a foreign government official with the intent of obtaining state information on an opponent.

If you want to clean up the whole process, fine. The "but everyone does it" is a terrible defense though and you know that. You're not excusing what happened even a little bit.

I think the process is just fine. There is nothing to clean up with this situation. Information was offered. Information would have been accepted. So what?

You literally had a quid pro quo situation with the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments that was shady as fuck, and you are worried about someone offering to share dirt on a political candidate with their opponent? The latter is perfectly normal.

By your logic, if Trump's limo stopped and asked an illegal immigrant for directions, they committed a crime, because that information has value and came from a foreigner.

So after months of your "no collusion"BS, now it turns out you just don't care about it. So why didn't you make that clear in the first place? Seems like you and others just continue to move the goalposts.

That's not my logic, that's your strawman. Has nothing to do with a political campaign either so huh? Twisting words does not make a productive argument.

This literally has nothing to do with News. It is Trump Jr's own emails.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:I read about this yesterday. I figured some NEWS that SHOCKED THE WORLD by STORM had surely come about that I had just not seen, yet.

DIdn't know it was the #CNNnothingburger I read about yesterday.

To be fair, anyone can read news but not everyone will understand it. Probably just stay out of it tbh

It's not so difficult to understand that 99% of mainstream news isn't even news.

BREAKING: Trump put Russian dressing on his salad. Russia collusion confirmed.

Every joke/analogy/comparison you've made about this topic today has been 100% off the mark...

I'm still waiting to hear what the bombshell is.

I'm sorry about your reading disability.

If I am running for office, I would take any information about my opponent I could get.

Does that mean I am willing to steal it? To use it? To not report it was obtained illegally? No, but I am willing to listen.

Some people seem to confuse being willing to listen with some tit for tat, favors, payments, etc.

Foo and Jason: please, no more analogies. No, this isn't comparable to info on a 50+ year old murder. No, this isn't comparable to getting directions from an illegal immigrant. No, this isn't comparable to getting the pussy tape.

You guys are tripping over yourselves coming up with the worst analogies and comparisons I've ever seen.

Foo wrote:If I am running for office, I would take any information about my opponent I could get.

Does that mean I am willing to steal it? To use it? To not report it was obtained illegally? No, but I am willing to listen.

Some people seem to confuse being willing to listen with some tit for tat, favors, payments, etc.

What does your personal choice in how you'd like to derail your campaign have to do with Trump Jr. entering a meeting with the expectation of collusion with a foreign official?

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:Of course you believe her!!!!!

Here's a bombshell: I would literally care about this situation exactly the same if it turns out she actually did work for the Russian government.

We know. You're too invested in Trump to accept damaging facts. Not exactly breaking news.

What am I not accepting? Am I denying he met with some Russian attorney? You must've misread when I said I don't give a shit.

Right. You don't care about intent to collude or campaign laws. After months of saying nothing ever happened. You'll just shamelessly shape your argument however you need to to paint Trump favorably without ever admitting you've been wrong every step of the way. Congrats?

lol@ "Intent to collude/campaign laws".

#1, Ever heard of that one politician who accepts millions of dollars of from special interest groups that come from actual U.S. enemies? I forget her name. The one with the seizures.
#2, Intent to collude? You mean hearing what some broad has to say (or in this case DIDN'T have to say) about a political figure? Hell yeah, I'd listen. Intently. What if she actually had dirt on Hillary? Should we not know about it? I'd surely want to know these things, regardless of who the political figure is.
#3, Campaign laws? What campaign laws? None were broken, and Trump was nowhere near that nothingburger meeting.




Trump and Putin are LOLing mightily at this right now. Libs want so badly for America and Russia to actually be enemies, but it's only drawing the countries' leaders closer together. Oh, what collusion there will be then...

Also, I am genuinely curious, does anyone out there who alleges collusion actually know what collusion is?

If there was collusion, Trump Jr. would not be meeting with random Russian attorneys promising dirt on Hillary. You know, because to collude there needs to be a channel of communication, not some British guy saying he knows a girl who is from Russia and has no information but wants to talk about adoptions.

So now Foo is going to pretend we should assume Trump Jr. was going to take the moral high ground and report the meeting to the proper authorities.

Except...oh, he didn't.

Headhunter wrote:Foo and Jason: please, no more analogies. No, this isn't comparable to info on a 50+ year old murder. No, this isn't comparable to getting directions from an illegal immigrant. No, this isn't comparable to getting the pussy tape.

You're right. It's comparable to the nothingburger CNN themselves said it was.

Trump is under direct control of Putin, yet his son is running around on wild goose chases hoping for a nugget of information from some random Russian chick.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:Of course you believe her!!!!!

Here's a bombshell: I would literally care about this situation exactly the same if it turns out she actually did work for the Russian government.

We know. You're too invested in Trump to accept damaging facts. Not exactly breaking news.

What am I not accepting? Am I denying he met with some Russian attorney? You must've misread when I said I don't give a shit.

Right. You don't care about intent to collude or campaign laws. After months of saying nothing ever happened. You'll just shamelessly shape your argument however you need to to paint Trump favorably without ever admitting you've been wrong every step of the way. Congrats?

lol@ "Intent to collude/campaign laws".

#1, Ever heard of that one politician who accepts millions of dollars of from special interest groups that come from actual U.S. enemies? I forget her name. The one with the seizures.
#2, Intent to collude? You mean hearing what some broad has to say (or in this case DIDN'T have to say) about a political figure? Hell yeah, I'd listen. Intently. What if she actually had dirt on Hillary? Should we not know about it? I'd surely want to know these things, regardless of who the political figure is.
#3, Campaign laws? What campaign laws? None were broken, and Trump was nowhere near that nothingburger meeting.




Trump and Putin are LOLing mightily at this right now. Libs want so badly for America and Russia to actually be enemies, but it's only drawing the countries' leaders closer together. Oh, what collusion there will be then...

1. Deflection
2. Yes, hearing what a government official had to say shows intent. You don't get it, it's fine.
3. 52 USC 30121

Foo wrote:Trump is under direct control of Putin, yet his son is running around on wild goose chases hoping for a nugget of information from some random Russian chick.

I like how you continue to spin her as a random Russian chick. Putin loves it.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:Of course you believe her!!!!!

Here's a bombshell: I would literally care about this situation exactly the same if it turns out she actually did work for the Russian government.

We know. You're too invested in Trump to accept damaging facts. Not exactly breaking news.

What am I not accepting? Am I denying he met with some Russian attorney? You must've misread when I said I don't give a shit.

Right. You don't care about intent to collude or campaign laws. After months of saying nothing ever happened. You'll just shamelessly shape your argument however you need to to paint Trump favorably without ever admitting you've been wrong every step of the way. Congrats?

lol@ "Intent to collude/campaign laws".

#1, Ever heard of that one politician who accepts millions of dollars of from special interest groups that come from actual U.S. enemies? I forget her name. The one with the seizures.
#2, Intent to collude? You mean hearing what some broad has to say (or in this case DIDN'T have to say) about a political figure? Hell yeah, I'd listen. Intently. What if she actually had dirt on Hillary? Should we not know about it? I'd surely want to know these things, regardless of who the political figure is.
#3, Campaign laws? What campaign laws? None were broken, and Trump was nowhere near that nothingburger meeting.




Trump and Putin are LOLing mightily at this right now. Libs want so badly for America and Russia to actually be enemies, but it's only drawing the countries' leaders closer together. Oh, what collusion there will be then...

1. Deflection
2. Yes, hearing what a government official had to say shows intent. You don't get it, it's fine.
3. 52 USC 30121

#1


#2
I didn't realize some who is an attorney is actually a government official. News to me.

#3
"(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national-" Ooh, look at that. Failed already.

I love this thread.