boyst Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 1 minute ago, Crayola64 said: Since I am still unaware of what he is arguing about, I'm going to go ahead and say it wasn't sound (we agreed and he is just bewildered I don't really care about the topic or find it troubling). I'm more than aware that you and a few others have fun being ridiculous and have fun with some insults. I honestly don't mind it and think its entertaining too My goal is to avoid the word filters when providing colored dissertations on my beliefs. Disirregardless, Tasker is serious. He's a hard nut to crack in his posting style when he replies. He doesn't waste his efforts or beliefs and you're better off pointedly asking for clarification on comments he may make which may be obacure or misunderstood. He'll be a dick, likely, but he has quite the ability to portray a belief system that many don't have. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Crayola64 said: Huh? I didn't claim I was on a moral high ground and was just joking about his use of italics. He can call me stupid as much as he wants, you can call me a pansy, and I can chuckle at the irony you whining like a little soft B word that there are too many thin-skinned people. So, yea, boyst, don't act like a whiny pansy to prove others are little pansies (seriously, me saying the word insult set you off like that?). I know this may be tough to hear, but there isn't anything anyone can do here to insult me...its a message board. I think my high stressed job puts me through the wringer more than a nonsensical takeittotasker and boyst62. Bullying is wrong. 2 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: My goal is to avoid the word filters when providing colored dissertations on my beliefs. Disirregardless, Tasker is serious. He's a hard nut to crack in his posting style when he replies. He doesn't waste his efforts or beliefs and you're better off pointedly asking for clarification on comments he may make which may be obacure or misunderstood. He'll be a dick, likely, but he has quite the ability to portray a belief system that many don't have. Gossiping is wrong.
boyst Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 9 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Bullying is wrong. Gossiping is wrong. I own Tasker.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, keepthefaith said: Sure, because after 2+ years now so many voters have come out and said they were duped by Russia and team Trump. They were gonna vote Hillary but instead voted Trump because, because, well because nobody knows or has said - yet. Or because Russians hacked voting machines and changed vote totals. Or Russians snuck over our southern border and disguised themselves as voting judges in precincts in key states and changed the vote totals. Or Russians paid off Americans to change the vote totals. Or Russians paid Fox News to run negative Hillary stories. Or Russians altered video to make it look like Hillary needed help climbing stairs or getting into a van. Or it was a Russians that threw a shoe at Hillary during one of her campaign speeches. Or Russians sent a woman lawyer into Trump tower and, and, and ? Or Russians put some ***** out on a few facebook pages and 100's of thousands or millions of stupid Americans voted Trump after reading a couple paragraphs. If you look at what Mueller has produced so far, none of it even suggests that voters were swayed or that votes were tampered with or that team Trump colluded. Zip, zero, zilch. He isn't even on that path and today we learned he's about done. Really we know with great certainty that what little Russia did wasn't enough to boil a pot of water let alone alter the votes of several entire states in favor of 1 candidate. Even if Wikileaks source was Russians, the handful of emails by Podesta that were published paled in comparison the Hillary's self inflicted wounds from destroying email, leaving a trail of dirty money through their foundation and most importantly running a lazy campaign void of any quality policy. He gave himself away with his post. He claims "we know very little" ... implying there isn't information out there. That's false. There's a FLOOD of information out there on this matter, you just have to look for yourself and dig to find it. "He" knows "very little" about this because thinking for yourself, doing your own homework are things BM is incapable of doing - even in threads he participates in. Willful ignorance is real, and rampant.
BeginnersMind Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, LABillzFan said: The US media ran an active campaign to help elect Trump (to run against Hillary to make Hillary a shoo-in). They gave him unprecedented airtime...every single Trump rally was aired by every single station. Think about that for just a moment, and maybe you, too, will see what really happened. The only reason people like yourself believe Russia ran a campaign to get him elected is because you never imagined Hillary would go down as THE single worst presidential candidate in the history of modern times. The plan backfired. So it must mean....RUSSIA!!! I swear there are times I wonder how some of you can even use a fork without hurting yourself with every bite. Russia did run a campaign to help Trump. That’s all I said. Must have been fun for you to add all other stuff you think I believe though. Fiction is fun to read and write here at PPP and the insults make worthwhile dialog nearly impossible. Edited January 29, 2019 by BeginnersMind
Nanker Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 3 hours ago, /dev/null said: Is that Dan Rather reacting to Princess Di’s funeral procession? I thought I heard he draped himself over the hood of the hearse screaming like that as it went by.
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 15 hours ago, BeginnersMind said: The Russians ran an active campaign to help elect Trump. No, they didn't. They ran an active campaign to cast doubt and spread uncertainty about the legitimacy of the 2016 election and the American system of government. And they're still running it. And they're succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. 1
Doc Brown Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 16 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, they didn't. They ran an active campaign to cast doubt and spread uncertainty about the legitimacy of the 2016 election and the American system of government. And they're still running it. And they're succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. That was their primary objective, but all the reporting I've seen along with statements from the intelligent community said they would've preferred Trump as Putin was not a fan of Hillary when she was SOS. Who is?
3rdnlng Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 9 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: That was their primary objective, but all the reporting I've seen along with statements from the intelligent community said they would've preferred Trump as Putin was not a fan of Hillary when she was SOS. Who is? Who do you think Putin would prefer today?
Doc Brown Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Who do you think Putin would prefer today? Impossible to tell as Hillary was the most hawkish person in the Obama administration.
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 35 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: That was their primary objective, but all the reporting I've seen along with statements from the intelligent community said they would've preferred Trump as Putin was not a fan of Hillary when she was SOS. Who is? I'm pretty sure if he wanted to throw the election against Clinton, he had plenty of ammunition from her 20 years in the public eye as First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and involvement in the Clinton Foundation. Why the hell would anyone actively try to support her opponent - particularly an opponent as unelectable as Trump - when they can much more easily and believably tear her down? 1
row_33 Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 26 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Impossible to tell as Hillary was the most hawkish person in the Obama administration. That means if she threatened a red line on chemical terror of children that at least she would have thought of swinging her purse when the red line was violated with a great big ***** YOU?
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Boyst62 said: I own Tasker. Gossiping about bullying may be the worst thing ever.
row_33 Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Gossiping about bullying may be the worst thing ever. Nah, I can think of at least 12 things I read in the paper today that were way worse
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I'm pretty sure if he wanted to throw the election against Clinton, he had plenty of ammunition from her 20 years in the public eye as First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and involvement in the Clinton Foundation. Why the hell would anyone actively try to support her opponent - particularly an opponent as unelectable as Trump - when they can much more easily and believably tear her down? The media treated this like it's a sporting event, and the dumbing down of a complex situation is pretty standard fare. The fact that the DOJ and FBI was all in was icing on the cake. Simple sells to simple people.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: That was their primary objective, but all the reporting I've seen along with statements from the intelligent community said they would've preferred Trump as Putin was not a fan of Hillary when she was SOS. Who is? Chaos was the primary goal. There were some reasons for Putin to favor Trump over Clinton (her position in Syria for example), but Putin and the Clinton Machine (beyond HRC) have a long history of working together on various matters. Putin knew she was available for purchase at the right price. Trump was more of a wildcard, though I imagine SVR/GRU saw Trump as equally pliable on most matters. The amount of money/time spent on their information campaign during the election was equally spent on both sides, so even if there was an internal preference it wasn't strong enough to impact their roll out plan. (Just my take) 1
Hedge Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: I'm pretty sure if he wanted to throw the election against Clinton, he had plenty of ammunition from her 20 years in the public eye as First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and involvement in the Clinton Foundation. Why the hell would anyone actively try to support her opponent - particularly an opponent as unelectable as Trump - when they can much more easily and believably tear her down? Yep, it would have been much simpler. In October 2016, a few weeks before the general election, Putin could have easily said: "You Americans are so stupid. To name a few things, we have given the Clinton Foundation $145 million, paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech, and purchased a sizable chunk of your uranium. Are you really going to vote for Comrade Clintons, who we own?" Granted, HRC still would have received 40 million votes because people are stupid, but it would have been more than enough to ensure that she lost the popular vote! But...no. Instead we are led to believe they preferred to go the route of this dog and pony show which barely tipped the scales in their "preferred" candidates direction. Edited January 29, 2019 by Hedge 1
Doc Brown Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Chaos was the primary goal. There were some reasons for Putin to favor Trump over Clinton (her position in Syria for example), but Putin and the Clinton Machine (beyond HRC) have a long history of working together on various matters. Putin knew she was available for purchase at the right price. Trump was more of a wildcard, though I imagine SVR/GRU saw Trump as equally pliable on most matters. The amount of money/time spent on their information campaign during the election was equally spent on both sides, so even if there was an internal preference it wasn't strong enough to impact their roll out plan. (Just my take) Chaos was definitely first as he pry didn't think Trump would win, but it's probably he preferred Trump who he pry just saw as a wildcard like you said. I don't buy that he thought she could be bought. High ranking Russian officials were on record in that there was a personal vendetta Putin had against Hillary as he publicly blamed her and the state department for the Moscow protests in 2011 and 2012. Hillary also compared him to Hitler when he annexed Crimea. It's likely all the meddling was to cause chaos and send Hillary a message that they weren't to be messed with when she became president.
BeginnersMind Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 7 hours ago, DC Tom said: No, they didn't. They ran an active campaign to cast doubt and spread uncertainty about the legitimacy of the 2016 election and the American system of government. And they're still running it. And they're succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. I accept that as well.
/dev/null Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 5 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Hillary also compared him to Hitler when he annexed Crimea. Who hasn't Hillary compared to Hitler?
Recommended Posts