Hodad

Clearly you have not read the report. It has a very specific remit: Russian interference in the 2016 election. Hence why it was so stupid to go around calling it a witch hunt. They left Trump's shady business dealing out by design. Mueller Report Doesn’t Cross ‘Red Line’ Into Trump’s Finances

Why WOULD it be part of the Mueller report? Well outside the scope. The reality is that Trump is a Russian stooge, and even when the family tells you that's where their bread is buttered, you'll bend over to pretend it's not true.

The only emotion is dismay that an actual person could say out loud that Trump is trying to appear "unbiased" to negotiate a better peace, when he factually takes every opportunity to display his pro-Putin bias. Zelensky is the dictator, not Putin. Ukraine started the war, not Putin's invasion. The shameful vote at the UN siding with Putin. He's not playing 7D chess. He's just Putin's biotch And the Russian money is not a rumor. The Trump family boasts about it. Why do you feel compelled to cover for these traitorous grifters? Vanity Fair ...it wouldn’t be the first time that the Trumps have been connected to Russian money. A number of reports have indicated the Trump Organization received substantial financing from Russia when the business was struggling in the mid 1990s and again during the Great Recession, since major U.S. banks had refused to loan money to him. Most recently, Reuters reported that a group of 63 Russia billionaires have invested nearly $100 million in several Trump properties in Florida. Donald Trump Jr. himself famously said in 2008 that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Oh, fark right off. Trump IS visibly and vocally on "one side of the fence." It just happens to be Russia's side, as it always has been. When the US banks stopped lending to Trump, Eric helpfully told the world that it was okay, because they had all the money they needed from Russia. Trump will always take Russia's side. He sided with Russia against his own intelligence agencies, FFS. Putin owns him.

Suuuuuuure it was. All those murdered protestors are just "crisis actors" too? Ukrainians wanted to be free. They rejected Putin's proxy. So other democratic people cheer for such change? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean they caused it.

That is some top-notch Russian propaganda you've got there. Very fresh.

NOTHING has befouled "our cherished Oval Office" like the presence of the man who currently occupies it. Zelensky could have spat on the floor and still lost that race. The embarrassment is only beginning.

There's no spin. What I described is exactly what happened. A democratic country asked the international community for aid as they fell under the attack of a acquisitive dictator. And the democratic world responded. Nobody asked Ukraine to fight a war. They could have --and can still -- quit any time they've decided it's not worth it. But a people who have living memory of what it's like to live under an oppressive regime don't take freedom for granted in the way that's now very trendy in conservative circles. The Republicans haven't suddenly become pacifists holding every life dear. They simply aren't invested in democracy anymore.

It should be bizarre. We used to have values, like actual ideological values to which the parties aligned. Now the republicans are realigned not by value, but by style of government. They've simply come to believe that autocrats and oligarchs are the best way to get what they want and that pesky democracy can be dispensed with.

I wholly reject the entire farking premise that these disingenuous asshats want to make an analogue between the Iraq war and the Ukraine war. 1. Dictator Putin invaded a democratic Ukraine and the democratic countries of the world offered aid to a people fighting to retain their freedom. 2. The Bush administration used (at its most generous interpretation) "questionable" intelligence to invade a sovereign nation for the sake of regime change and resource grab.

Bullies will bully--and side with other bullies. And the sniveling subs will be at half mast for it.

Bullshit. You're just a shameless liar. You'll pretend Trump didn't say EXACTLY what he said, just because it feels convenient in the moment. You said yourself that the Palestinians wouldn't be able to live there. You know full well that if that insane plan were to come to pass the Palestinians would not be allowed move into the remodeled Gaza. And you're STILL trying to peddle your lies. Jeebus. The "loyal opposition" of decent people died a decade ago. Now all we have is a Republican cult of personality and there is no degree to which you people will not debase yourselves in service of that demonstrably awful person.

What a massive pile of bullshit. You can't invent a whole new conversation to cover up his intent or your dishonesty. He answered the direct question directly. "No, they wouldn't." Trump's cockamamie plan is NOT to rebuild Gaza so that the Palestinians can move back in. Peddle your prevarication elsewhere.

You are a bald faced liar--and utterly farking shameless about it. Baier: "Would Palestinians have the right to return?" Trump: "No, they wouldn't." It's on video for the entire world to see, you gaslighting mofo.

Prove the world is round and the sky is blue too? This has been covered heavily by every news outfit in the country. Open wide. Here comes the airplane! Baier asked Trump directly if the Palestinians have the right to return. Trump says "No, they wouldn't."

There is no "he" in this situation. The person censored was Navalni's widow. Widowed, of course, because, as a brutal dictator, Putin does not tolerate political dissent.

Nobody aside from the President, who has said on multiple occasions that the Palestinians would not be allowed to return to Gaza.

It's because Canadians vaccinated. 💡

The implied "so far" hangs heavy at the end of your sentence. Unfortunately, this administration is just a month old and the shameful behavior is only getting warmed up.

You want to try reading that post again and asking me about something I actually said? Acosta let Epstein slide. I know you don't let any real news into your conspiracy binging, but it's even been discussed heavily in this forum. Vanity Fair After the Miami Herald’s Julie Brown published her extensive investigation of Epstein, “Perversion of Justice,” in November 2018, though, attitudes toward his crimes changed substantially. A federal judge ruled that Acosta and Epstein’s nonprosecution agreement was illegal, and the Southern District decided to pursue Epstein after all. Acosta resigned as Donald Trump’s labor secretary last year over criticism of the kid-glove treatment he gave Epstein, but the fallout from his 2007 decision may still be unraveling

B. You made up C. Why would they need to charge federally a man already in jail and being prosecuted? This is a very dumb conspiracy theory. You think your made up shit is really going to make people forget that Trump's people have already coddled Epstein?

A. Neither Obama nor Biden have Epstein the sweetheart deal of the century, which no one can justify. Nice try at deflection though. B. Epstein was arrested and was being prosecuted while Biden was in office, so WTF are you even talking about? C. Both were state and local cases, not federal. So again, WTF?

Well, except Trump's last labor secretary and his current AG, who let Epstein slide. They should all be released, but I absolutely do not trust the pathological liar and his toadies.

"The left" didn't say that Trump was buddies with Epstein. Trump did.

That's not a big boy table. It's a milking table, and Trump is thirsty.