But so what if Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election?

No matter the law it is suspicious on many levels. What seems to be fine and dandy is collusion between political parties and the media organizations, up until and including cheating in debates and the dissemination of party-approved propaganda.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Cheating in debates? Who cheated in the debates? How did they do it and where is your evidence to show it happened?

a reply to: Noncents

Its also near impossible to violate the logan act. The First amendment guarantees a citizen can talk to who they like. The logan act contradicts itself by saying it will not abridge the right of citizens. No one cn be prosecuted successfully under this act. You would have to prove treason.

In the end though, if Trump Colluded with Russia to win the election....the question is, what benefit did he receive from Russia? Or how did they help Trump win the Election?

Because, I've got news for you. Nobody liked Clinton and that's why she lost. Trump fired up the republican base and got them excited, active and voting. Clinton had the establishment democratic base, but all the far left voted Green or didn't vote. She didn't fire up the base.

Any emails that were exposed, should have been exposed and were just plain truth.

Russia didn't cost Clinton the election...Clinton cost the Democrats the election.

To anyone that's upset at Russia keep in mind that we've been us...the USA has been influencing elections and regime changes for decades. The only reason we have a radicalized IRan right now is because we PUT the Shaw in power there and he was terrible and they had a revolution. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Grenada, etc.

Umm wow, so you are going to use situations from ages ago for a modern issua. If you can't see the problem with this and have to resort to those times as a resppnse then the word slow come to mind. Simple much?a reply to: allsee4eye

I will say that I would have to see proof of such a thing going down. As of right now he won in a fair manner. I may not like Trump but f u Hilla reply to: LesMisanthrope

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Donna Brazille sent debate questions to the Clinton campaign in advance. She admited to it:

"Then in October, a subsequent release of emails revealed that among the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and D.N.C. Vice Chair prior to assuming the interim D.N.C. Chair position was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign."
Source

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Cheating in debates? Who cheated in the debates? How did they do it and where is your evidence to show it happened?

That sound is the last of your credibility getting flushed down the crapper.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Donna Brazille sent debate questions to the Clinton campaign in advance. She admited to it:

"Then in October, a subsequent release of emails revealed that among the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and D.N.C. Vice Chair prior to assuming the interim D.N.C. Chair position was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign."
Source

So the source you just quoted me contradicts what you said. It clearly says potential town hall topics. Not what the actual topics were.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Cheating in debates? Who cheated in the debates? How did they do it and where is your evidence to show it happened?

That sound is the last of your credibility getting flushed down the crapper.

Oh no! Shooterbrody doesn't think I have any credibility just because I asked someone to provide evidence for their claims! WHATEVER shall I do with my life now?! I don't think i can go on! OH WOE IS ME!

Oh wait, no. I don't give a # about what you think about me. Try again.

a reply to: dragonridr

Can anyone fill me out? Which appeared first? The Logan act or the First amendment?

a reply to: allsee4eye

Poor argument. Time and again SCOTUS has ruled that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to all speech. That is why you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Cheating in debates? Who cheated in the debates? How did they do it and where is your evidence to show it happened?

That sound is the last of your credibility getting flushed down the crapper.

Oh no! Shooterbrody doesn't think I have any credibility just because I asked someone to provide evidence for their claims! WHATEVER shall I do with my life now?! I don't think i can go on! OH WOE IS ME!

Oh wait, no. I don't give a # about what you think about me. Try again.

You have no credibility because you intentionally lie,misrepresent,promote disinformation,post fabrications and intentionally leave out information to suit your agenda.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So the source you just quoted me contradicts what you said. It clearly says potential town hall topics. Not what the actual topics were.

That's cheating. She got fired from CNN for doing it.

Read this email:

"Subject: One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash

Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.
"
Source

The lady she is speaking about asked the question.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Cheating in debates? Who cheated in the debates? How did they do it and where is your evidence to show it happened?

That sound is the last of your credibility getting flushed down the crapper.

Oh no! Shooterbrody doesn't think I have any credibility just because I asked someone to provide evidence for their claims! WHATEVER shall I do with my life now?! I don't think i can go on! OH WOE IS ME!

Oh wait, no. I don't give a # about what you think about me. Try again.

You have no credibility because you intentionally lie,misrepresent,promote disinformation,post fabrications and intentionally leave out information to suit your agenda.

And I kick puppies and spit on nuns and steal candy from babies and all sorts of other evils. Yea yeah. I got it, you have a hate boner for me. I still don't care.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ok. Well no more arguments. I wasn't aware of that happening.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It was big news for a while there.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm sure it was, but news was flying about so quickly for a time there that it's possible to miss a thing or two.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm sure it was, but news was flying about so quickly for a time there that it's possible to miss a thing or two.

What a shame. Anyways, that's only a small part of what was revealed by Wikileaks about DNC and media collusion.

originally posted by: amazing
Because, I've got news for you. Nobody liked Clinton and that's why she lost.

It's true Clinton wasn't the most pleasant bunny on the planet..but, they both started and more or less stayed, as the most unpopular duo out of all the contenders, and it appears that Clinton got more real votes than Trump, so somebody er, liked her enough. Trump however was/still is a pathological liar about most everything, as well as being as bent as a pound note, manages to become president, so I guess people like him too. Now he is head of a wacky White House, full of nutballs and family...and ain't got nuttin' done, despite the reams of useless EO's...well, he has done one thing, he's helped clear the swamp around Capitol Hil...by bringing them all into the White House.