WestCanMan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/09/23/dinesh-dsouza-avoids-jail-time-get-five-years-of-probation-for-campaign-finance-violation/ I confess to not knowing exactly how this works, but I think that individuals are limited to about $5K or $10K per candidate. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ I don't ave time to read this page, but it seems as though there are campaign donation limits.

You say some crazy things here godzilla. And from a quick look back, you are misinterpreting at least some of b-c's quotes. I didn't check them all.

No offence, but a lot of people on this site are really bad at interpreting what they read, so I can't just take your word that B_C said all of those things. Do you at least have quotes of those posts?

I'm as guilty of that as anyone. I thought it was going to be good for some Democrats to get a chance to vote for a non-socialist, and that DNCers needed a capitalist voice on the debate stage. Now I see that they're not getting either because no one will want to vote for him and he's not a persuasive or insightful/quick-witted person so he'd be a dud on the debate stage.

One: the word Russublicans is moronic Two: can you give me an example of a russublican, whatever that is, giving two different stories?

I think that powerful people gave him two options: 1 he kills himself and 2 other people in his family commit suicide, Clinton-style. "He fell down an elevator shaft onto some bullets."

I thought that Bloomberg was a realistic candidate, then I saw him on TV yesterday wearing a green sweater and talking like an old, frail man. He looks as unpresidential as Carrot-Top in a bikini. On The Five last night Greg Gutfeld was passing on some speculation that he saw on twitter, some guy said that he may have just joined the race so that he could get around campaign finance laws and/or make his own ads to influence the election in favour of the Dems. IE, he can spend tens or hundreds of millions on attack ads aimed at Trump if he's a candidate, but he can't give that much money to other candidates for their own campaigns. It makes sense, because IMO he's not really trying to become president when he makes speeches that seem to be coming from a low-cost care home.

Why don't you check it out instead of just guessing godzilla? You assume that Fox News is always wrong because that's what you hear on CNN, but it's CNN and the NYT and ABC that are getting busted for lying and printing retractions on a routine basis. When was the last time that Fox got busted for doing something like taking footage from a US gun range and saying that it's footage of the Turks blasting the Kurds? CNN et al were wrong with basically everything they said about Kavanaugh and Russian collusion. Did they miss the scoop on top FBI officials getting fired and demoted? That's kind of an important story, don't ya think? Have you ever pointed out any actual lies that you've heard on Fox because I pointed out actual lies that the Dems and CNN dozens of times, including comments that they have made about this exact "whistleblower" debacle. You're still just at the point where you're able to regurgitate what you hear on the "news", you're unable to process what you see/hear and reach informed conclusions based on what you absorb. In ear, out mouth, retract when necessary, but you think that you can just let the story go away after you've been proven wrong. Just bury it, right godzilla? "Don't bring up how wrong we all were about Kavanaugh and collusion and obstruction and every other news story for the past 3 years." This is CNN's core philosophy: "[Insert bogus story line here, the peons will gobble it up] IS THE BIGGEST SCANDAL SINCE WATERGATE!!!!!" Rinse, repeat, they'll never notice.

Why are all the Dems lying about everything pertaining to Trump-Ukraine and Biden-Ukraine then Boges? Joe Biden: "I didn't even know that my son was working for Burisma. We never talked about it and the investigation into Burisma was over long before I fired the prosecutor. He was lazy on corruption, and I put someone 'solid' in his place. There's no need for an investigation." Hunter Biden: "My dad didn't even know that I was working for Burisma. We never talked about it" Joe and Hunter Biden: "IT'S TRUE!!!!!!" Hunter Biden: "OK my dad actually did know I was working there and we talked about it once or twice." Joe Biden: "WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE RELEASE THAT PICTURE? FIND OUT WHO LEAKED THAT PICTURE!!!!!! FOCUS ON TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah I knew that he worked at Burisma, we talked about it briefly once or twice. But the investigation into Burisma was over long before I fired him, and he was fired because he was lazy on corruption. FOCUS ON TRUMP!!!!!!!" Joe and Hunter: "Yep, the rest is true!" Joe: "Yep. Lots of people lie 5 out of 6 times. That's actually a pretty good track record in my opinion. FOCUS ON TRUUUMP!!!! Don't make me have ta do ta you like I did to Soda Pop!"

Just like it's hard to refute an accusation of an attempted rape with no witnesses, no location, and no date which it occurred, no old police records, and no physical evidence which can be challenged. There's a pattern to all of these Dem accusations and it's that they use criminal investigations as a smear tactic. They're pathetic.

Tying Ukrainian aid to Trump's request for an investigation is a completely unproven allegation. Not one single person has a quote from Trump saying that, the President of Ukraine said that he hadn't felt that was the case at all, yet I'm somehow supposed to believe that this is the biggest issue from Ukraine? Trump had already sent the first shipment of Javelins to Ukraine before this phone call even happened. There were obviously no conditions placed on that one. There's nothing more than a Dem accusation around this shipment which remains completely unsupported at the present time, and by now we all know what unproven allegations from the Dems are worth. Their word is utter crap if you've been keeping score. Let's juxtapose the obvious need for an investigation of Biden beside Trump's request for assistance. Does his request seem unsuitable? Not even a tiny bit. It's true that Trump isn't asking for a whole lot of other investigations, but how many other people have gone on TV and bragged about committing crimes which aren't being investigated? Is it just Biden? Can you compile a list for me Rue? Let's compare what Trump did for Ukraine to what Obama did for Ukraine. Does it seem like Trump's administration is doing far more and that Trump's family and associates are personally bringing home a lot less money? Let's talk about how much time the Dems have spent investigating Trump to how much evidence has ever come out which justifies all of their serious accusations. This has been a 3 year long smear campaign disguised as a series of investigations which have all turned up no real evidence. Let's talk about how the Dems have blatantly lied about Trump's phone call, by saying that Zelensky's request to purchase Javelins was immediately followed by a request to investigate Biden. (Crowdstrike only has relevance in the fake investigation that was done on Trump). That's a complete lie, and how many times you've called them out for it? Have you never noticed they were lying or do you give them a free pass? Sorry Rue but I'm not giving any credibility to anyone who can't see the need for an investigation into a crime that Biden bragged about on tv. Not just the crime of admitting that he tied foreign aid to the firing & slandering of a prosecutor who was conducting an investigation that might somehow implicate his own son, but also the sick admission that he, Joe Biden, "put a guy in place who was "solid". IE, someone who has left Burisma completely alone ever since he was anointed by Biden. Any reasonable person can see a huge double-standard and gross injustice across the board in the investigations into Hillary, Trump, Kavanaugh and now Biden. The Dems reek of corruption and their media and followers reek of pure ignorance. This has been a really sad 4 years for the Dems, just like the last 3 years of Obama were really sad for the entire USA.

Of course you’re protecting Biden. Biden and CNN have said “there’s nothing to see here” and you’re just regurgitating that. Biden is blatantly guilty of profiteering in Ukraine and you, CNN, Adam Schiff, etc act like that’s no reason for an investigation. “GOTTA PROTECT BIDEN. JUST FOCUS ON NTRUMP. ANYONE WHO THREATENS OUR PROFITEERING RACKET, PAYS!!!!!”

Fox was alleging that Andrew McCabe had tampered with FBI witness reports for a while before he got fired. After McCabe was fired the official reason given as something else iirc.

Nope. On matters of importance, such as campaign promises and the ongoing investigations, Trump’s record is brilliant by comparison to Schiff. If you go back and look at all the things that Schiff has said during the Russian collusion investigation, obstruction investigation, the Kavanaugh hearings, and now this latest farce, you’ll find that anytime Adam Schiff speaks publicly every single thing he says is patently untrue. He has a 0% track record for telling the truth on any issues of importance. The truth would have to be pretty bad in order for shift to actually tell it like it is. He doesn’t tell lies like “Trump was standing on Venus when he said that” that even a Demmie would notice, he says things like “Trump went right from Zelinsky asking about javelins into investigate Biden for me”. The average Demmie would never bother looking into that. It’s close enough to what they think went on that they just except that statement as fact when it’s actually a complete fabrication. There are plenty of different ways to lie and fabricating is the worst one of all.

I'm surprised that it's unanimous. Good answers everyone!

Poor Adam Schiff lol. He's the biggest liar in the history of politics and you think he should feel bad because he has to listen to people who don't drink his Kool-Aid.

That's not true at all. Trump was conducting foreign affairs with a country that just got slapped around and pillaged by the Obama administration. Ukrainians aren't stupid. They know that they "help" they received (how much military aid exactly?) from the Obama government, while their Ukrainian soldiers were dying, came at the expense of extremely high-paying, cushy jobs being gifted to the Democrat carpetbaggers. The most blatant offenders were the Bidens, like pigs at the trough, and then Joe Biden flagrantly used the weight of the US government as a weapon to get Ukraine's top prosecutor fired when their profiteering racket was threatened. Then Joe Biden went on TV and bragged that he slapped around the Ukrainian justice department and put his own "solid" (sycophant) guy in charge. You don't think that Ukrainians know that the Bidens just stole their lunch money Boges? You don't think that normalizing relations with Ukraine requires upsetting the apple cart a bit? What went on under Obama and Biden was an atrocity. You can try to make the point that the US and the Ukraine should try to have a working relationship while ignoring the elephant in the room but don't try to pass that off as wisdom or democratic principles when it's just blatant ignorance. Biden committed heinous crimes against the Ukraine. The fact that Biden and CNN say "it was looked into and everything's fine" should be alarming to you. There was far less evidence that Trump did anything wrong and the FBI & the Dems made a 3 yr long public spectacle of a trial out of it. The fact that Obama isn't endorsing Biden should suddenly make sense to you now. He's treating Biden like dogcrap on his heel because Biden is a threat to Obama's legacy. He doesn't want to be remembered as Biden's partner in crime.

You obviously didn't understand what was written there: That means that Russia couldn't have a dim-witted, snivelling, terrorist sympathizer. Trudeau's level of corruption wasn't really a consideration for this topic. He's just average by far-eastern standards. In what way do you see Trump pushing "Russian love"? Is it like this" or like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/20/flashback-obamas-debate-zinger-on-romneys-1980s-foreign-policy/ or more like this: Or is it like when Hillary pays Russians for bogus intel on her political opponent, which the FBI passes along to the FISA court to get a warrant to spy on Americans, stating that it's verified & corroborated when they knew that neither was true? It doesn't seem, from the video evidence, that Trump is the Russian asset, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument gz.

I don't think Russians are as worried about personal wealth as most westerners are. Their geopolitical situation is entirely different from ours. They share borders with China, NoKo and ten other countries. Many of them have been enemies of Russia at one point or another. They're not far from a lot of Nato countries. The US is only a small distance from Russia over the arctic circle, Turkey is to the south, to the west is the bulk of NATO, and now NATO is courting Ukraine which is right on their border. That's like if Russia was supplying Mexico with military aid. Russians don't just want a strong leader, they need a strong leader. They couldn't survive two terms of a PM like Trudeau, corruption aside.

To be honest, I can't imagine Russians voting for anyone else. A Komrade Hillaryov type candidate definitely wouldn't win the popular vote there. She's good at the Russian-style "expediency", but she's still no Vlad.

I accidentally quoted my own post, I was understandably drawn to it's awesomeness. This post can be deleted but I don't have the option.

If she did, and I couldn't care either way, it still doesn't mean that Trump was doing something wrong by asking about an investigation into crowdstrike, because crowdstrike only has to do with Trump-Russia, not Biden-Ukraine. Get it? If she proved that crowdstrike was pertinent to Biden somehow then you'd have a link between the Javs and Biden from the transcripts.

So goes the unproven accusation, but I have ample proof that the Dems are scrambling, as per Putin's plan.

Lol, yeah that's what I'm doing alright. I like how you provided a cite that contradicted mine. Stay awesome.

I'm in favour of cheap energy, but we still won't be adding $100 billion PER YEAR worth of exports to our economy with the new "clean energy" industry, and we shouldn't be dismantling our energy sector while there are still trillions worth of exports there. A reasonable target is a fraction of one billion per year.