Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

"We were very worried about creating any type of impression like that. Our impression was this was about to leak in the press. We decided this was the right thing to do. We thought that would be even worse to know this information and not tell the president-elect."

Haven’t we known this since January 2017? I think Comey testified to this twice? They put it in as an appendix, not in the main report, and thought it best to warn the president. It’s been in news reports and he testified to it. Seriously what else do you think should have been done, hide it from him?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

Just quoting this so we all know what the line is. Saying a public figure deserves a snapped neck for treason is acceptable, which is a good sign.  I assume no one will complain about that sentence being written about any other political figures.  

Pretty amazing how Bozeman gets away with that disgusting post.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James Daulton said:

Right here we have the perfect example of a Trump supporter.

 

Disagree. 

The perfect example of a Trump supporter is not paying attention to this story, either to its main elements or to the “spygate” conservative alternative story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

Pretty amazing how Bozeman gets away with that disgusting post.

He deliberately makes all of his posts in the middle of the night. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Big fan of this guy.

yeah you turned me on to him a while back. Great twitter follow and someone who actually espouses Libertarian principles. 

I think Amash and Hurd are my two favorite congressmen right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, timschochet said:
20 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Rep. Jason Amash is a Republican Congressman and he wrote this.

- Please send him a good bootle of scotch or a case of beer or something.

This is what the Democrats needed. 

I would still like to get Mueller’s public testimony first. But if Trump prevents that somehow, start the process. 

This isn't new from this guy.  He's said these sorts of things all they while you've held the position you have, so tell me why  him saying this stuff THIS time is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

You are one of the more intelligent posters here.

Can you point to any Facebook political ad that you feel convinced voters in WI, MI, and PA to switch their vote from Hillary to Trump?

Would you include any of the misinformation ads pushing the narrative against Hillary to fall into this category or any of the ads that took her words out of context to push the narrative against Hillary?  What about the meme that did the same?  

If we take 30 seconds to go through our posting histories on facebook and see all the things that have been removed from accounts it's pretty clear to see the sorts of things that had an impact.  I'll say well over half the things "shared" to me by various conservative frineds of mine are gone as part of the clean up.  I'll say that about 75% of what my own mother "shared" is now gone. I had this exact conversation with her not two weeks ago when she was wondering why she couldn't find some of the things she shared.  They were from the bot farms in mother russia.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can’t other politicians be more like Justin Amash? Because:

“Like him or not, I’ve never met a member of Congress quite like Amash; he takes every vote—even procedural votes in committee—dead seriously, and he is extraordinarily principled, and almost absurdly not partisan. Often to a fault, mind you....

“As a political strategy, his tactics often backfire. It’s a strange office resource allocation, he annoys his party, he takes unpopular stands, he makes enemies. 

“But he does walk the principled walk, as much or more than anyone.

“I see a lot of comments to this that suggest other politicians should be like Amash. That’s a lot tougher than it sounds.

“The number of people who seem to believe you can be as principled as (or even more principled than) Amash and survive (nevermind thrive) in politics amazes me. Strategic compromise is a key political skill. Representatives have to win elections and represent actual people.

“Amash is admirable—I certainly think highly of him—but he’s simply not a template others can copy. His district and skill set are predicates for his style. Others who attempted it would be crushed.

“Moreso, Amash isn’t particularly successful. He’s widely hated and lacks power.”

— Matt Glassman  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Commish said:

This isn't new from this guy.  He's said these sorts of things all they while you've held the position you have, so tell me why  him saying this stuff THIS time is important.

You’re correct and when I wrote that I wasn’t very familiar with Amash. Still if you recall I’ve said all along that if the Dems were to move forward with impeachment proceedings they needed at least some Republican support. Up until Amash they had none. 

Beyond that, I’ve been moving toward a pro-impeachment stance as Trump continues to obstruct justice in real time. If none of these guys are going to testify, if the White House is simply going to deny every request, I don’t see what choice they have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Still if you recall I’ve said all along that if the Dems were to move forward with impeachment proceedings they needed at least some Republican support. Up until Amash they had none

When you wrote that his comments were already out there. He's been saying this stuff for a while now. And you've made this assertion many times after his comment had been made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Why can’t other politicians be more like Justin Amash? Because:

“Like him or not, I’ve never met a member of Congress quite like Amash; he takes every vote—even procedural votes in committee—dead seriously, and he is extraordinarily principled, and almost absurdly not partisan. Often to a fault, mind you....

“As a political strategy, his tactics often backfire. It’s a strange office resource allocation, he annoys his party, he takes unpopular stands, he makes enemies. 

“But he does walk the principled walk, as much or more than anyone.

“I see a lot of comments to this that suggest other politicians should be like Amash. That’s a lot tougher than it sounds.

“The number of people who seem to believe you can be as principled as (or even more principled than) Amash and survive (nevermind thrive) in politics amazes me. Strategic compromise is a key political skill. Representatives have to win elections and represent actual people.

“Amash is admirable—I certainly think highly of him—but he’s simply not a template others can copy. His district and skill set are predicates for his style. Others who attempted it would be crushed.

“Moreso, Amash isn’t particularly successful. He’s widely hated and lacks power.”

— Matt Glassman  

The irony is,  we wouldn't have a Congress in such disarray if we had MORE people like him. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

“The number of people who seem to believe you can be as principled as (or even more principled than) Amash and survive (nevermind thrive) in politics amazes me. Strategic compromise is a key political skill. Representatives have to win elections and represent actual people.

Sadly this is too true.

When politicians step out of their partisanship lanes, they are often ridiculed by the "other side" rather than supported. It becomes self-fulfilling. Why take a strategic risk when there is no upside with a huge downside? 

This is why folks like Amash should be supported by those of us that don't like the partisanship. Don't support him because you like or agreed with what he said, support him because whether you like what he said, it's a principled approach that is very difficult in this hyper partisan age. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Commish said:

When you wrote that his comments were already out there. He's been saying this stuff for a while now. And you've made this assertion many times after his comment had been made. 

Are you sure? I thought his comments about impeachment were new, only reported yesterday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

I'll dumb this down for you.

Russia intentionally enacted a disinformation campaign into the 2016 election.

Stupid people fell for it. 

Hook.

Line.

Sinker.

FYI Calling people "stupid" is a bannable offense. Particularly when you are calling Trump supporters that. You should consider editing your post. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

I'll dumb this down for you.

Russia intentionally enacted a disinformation campaign into the 2016 election.

Stupid people fell for it. 

Hook.

Line.

Sinker.

This acrostic poem is terrible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Why can’t other politicians be more like Justin Amash? Because:

“Like him or not, I’ve never met a member of Congress quite like Amash; he takes every vote—even procedural votes in committee—dead seriously, and he is extraordinarily principled, and almost absurdly not partisan. Often to a fault, mind you....

“As a political strategy, his tactics often backfire. It’s a strange office resource allocation, he annoys his party, he takes unpopular stands, he makes enemies. 

“But he does walk the principled walk, as much or more than anyone.

“I see a lot of comments to this that suggest other politicians should be like Amash. That’s a lot tougher than it sounds.

“The number of people who seem to believe you can be as principled as (or even more principled than) Amash and survive (nevermind thrive) in politics amazes me. Strategic compromise is a key political skill. Representatives have to win elections and represent actual people.

“Amash is admirable—I certainly think highly of him—but he’s simply not a template others can copy. His district and skill set are predicates for his style. Others who attempted it would be crushed.

“Moreso, Amash isn’t particularly successful. He’s widely hated and lacks power.”

— Matt Glassman  

It's my own feeling that the phenomena that so many people despise today of partisan politics is the result of the growth of the modern political and media consulting industry. Politicians seem more motivated by what's safe and what best secures their funding at any given moment. 

And I'll add that modern American journalism is about having personalities that attract viewership, while the guests answer in a way that best ensures they will be asked back and questioners ask questions that best ensure the guest will come back.

But two models for how being contrarian can lead to political success are Winston Churchill and Barack Obama. I realize that Churchill might as well have been on another planet compared to current US politics but the guy survived repeatedly despite taking major stands against important party stands and common wisdom. - And Obama while he did not have to vote himself in Congress on it came right out bright and early and very publicly, with a rally no less, against the Iraq War. - eta - I guess John McCain could be another example, considering his long career.

I don't know who really gets primaried for taking particular stands. I think some seats do flip but not too often does an incumbent lose within his/her party for a given stance. One of Trump's newer media organs Charlie Kirk has already threatened Amish outright but I dn't know how much weight these people really carry in a district where someone like Amash is popular.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

When you wrote that his comments were already out there. He's been saying this stuff for a while now. And you've made this assertion many times after his comment had been made. 

Are you sure? I thought his comments about impeachment were new, only reported yesterday. 

Amash has been on the precipice of impeachment for 2 years now (see: "Comey allegations would be grounds for impeachment if true"), but this is the first time that he's decisively stated that Trump DID commit an impeachable offense.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Myth of Watergate Bipartisanship

The Republicans stuck with their president, right up to the end.

Reporters and political commentators often express frustrated surprise at the steadfast support of President Trump from most Republicans in the House and Senate. But they shouldn’t — it has happened before.

In fact, when these critics refer back to the Watergate era as a time of bipartisan commitment to the rule of law over politics, they get it exactly wrong. Defending the president at all costs, blaming investigators and demonizing journalists was all part of the Republican playbook during the political crisis leading up to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Despite the fact that 32 people and three companies have been indicted so far by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, only four of 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee joined Senate Democrats earlier this year in an effort to protect Mr. Mueller’s investigation. The House majority leader, Kevin McCarthy of California, said in June that he thinks “the Mueller investigation has got to stop.” Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Devin Nunes of California, have joined Mr. Trump in calling the investigation a “witch hunt.”

Dispiriting, perhaps, but not shocking or unprecedented. In late 1972, when a Democratic congressman, Wright Patman of Texas, began to investigate connections between Mr. Nixon’s aides and the Watergate burglary, the House Republican leader, Gerald Ford of Michigan (who later succeeded Mr. Nixon as president), called it a “political witch hunt,” according to the historian Stanley I. Kutler in his book “The Wars of Watergate.”

Mr. Ford wasn’t alone, and the countercharges didn’t end even as the evidence piled up. After reporters revealed close ties between the Watergate burglars and Mr. Nixon’s administration and re-election campaign, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas jumped to the president’s defense. He labeled the media accounts “a barrage of unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations by George McGovern” — whom Mr. Nixon defeated in the 1972 election — “and his partner in mud-slinging, The Washington Post.”

There is a big difference, of course, between the Watergate era and now. Republicans now control both houses of Congress; in the 1970s the Democrats held the reins.

In early 1973 Senate Democrats led the charge to form a special committee to focus on Watergate. While the Senate Watergate Committee was being created, Republican Senator Edward Gurney of Florida belittled the investigation as “one of those political wing-dings that happen every political year.” Ted Stevens, a Republican senator from Alaska, repeated Mr. Ford’s warning that the investigation could become a “political witch hunt,” according to Mr. Kutler.

Meanwhile, the ranking Republican on the Senate Watergate Committee, Howard Baker of Tennessee — a man often lauded for putting principle over party — met with Mr. Nixon to discuss strategy. To “maintain his purity in the Senate,” Mr. Baker didn’t want anyone to know about meeting Mr. Nixon, wrote the White House counsel, John Dean, in a memo before a meeting with Mr. Nixon. Once the hearings started in late spring of 1973, Mr. Baker’s staff leaked information about the committee’s witnesses and plans to Mr. Nixon.

When Mr. Baker famously asked, “What did the president know, and when did he know it?” during the Watergate hearings, he meant to protect Mr. Nixon in the mistaken belief that the president didn’t know about the Watergate cover-up until many months after it occurred. The question backfired once evidence mounted that Mr. Nixon was involved in the cover-up from the start, and Mr. Baker eventually became a critic of the president.

After it was revealed in July 1973 that Mr. Nixon had secretly taped conversations, Mr. Ford said he found nothing wrong with the president’s practices. Republican Senator John Tower of Texas later warned Congress not to get caught up in “the hysteria of Watergate.”

Most congressional Republicans rallied around Mr. Nixon when the White House released edited transcripts of those tapes in April 1974 that showed Mr. Nixon scheming with his aides. As the House Judiciary Committee began debating possible impeachment in July, Representative Delbert Latta of Ohio said the evidence failed to prove Mr. Nixon’s direct involvement in Watergate.

Mr. Latta and most other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted against all articles of impeachment on July 27-30, 1974. Eleven of 17 Republicans voted against the obstruction-of-justice article, 10 of 17 opposed the abuse-of-power resolution, and 15 of 17 voted against the article based on the president’s refusal to produce tapes in response to the committee’s subpoenas.

More Republicans abandoned Mr. Nixon on the obstruction-of-justice charge only after he complied with the Supreme Court’s order on Aug. 5, releasing the “smoking gun” tapes that proved he had ordered a cover-up of the Watergate crimes. Still, many party members of the Judiciary Committee later filed reports arguing that Mr. Nixon was innocent of two of the three articles of impeachment sent to the full House.

Senator Barry Goldwater, center, and other Republicasns held a news conference on Aug. 7 1974, after Mr. Goldwater informed President Richard Nixon that impeachment was

By then it was clear, however, that Mr. Nixon did not have the votes to save his presidency. The Senate Republican leader, Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, and two prominent Ariz ona Republicans — Senator Barry Goldwater and the House minority leader, John Rhodes — visited Mr. Nixon on Aug. 7 and told him he could no longer avoid impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. The president announced his resignation the next evening.

During Watergate, most Republicans in Congress supported Mr. Nixon until the tapes provided undeniable evidence that he had obstructed justice. It remains to be seen whether current party leaders will support Mr. Trump no matter what evidence Mr. Mueller’s investigation unearths about the conduct of the president and his aides. Such behavior might be unwarranted, but it won’t be unprecedented.

Michael Conway served as counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during its impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon. Jon Marshall is an assistant professor at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University and the author of “Watergate’s Legacy and the Press: The Investigative Impulse.”

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw I think that the lesson learned for some from Watergate wasn't to not obstruct, it was to not comply with Congressional and judicial orders to turn over evidence.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

Would you include any of the misinformation ads pushing the narrative against Hillary to fall into this category or any of the ads that took her words out of context to push the narrative against Hillary?  What about the meme that did the same?  

If we take 30 seconds to go through our posting histories on facebook and see all the things that have been removed from accounts it's pretty clear to see the sorts of things that had an impact.  I'll say well over half the things "shared" to me by various conservative frineds of mine are gone as part of the clean up.  I'll say that about 75% of what my own mother "shared" is now gone. I had this exact conversation with her not two weeks ago when she was wondering why she couldn't find some of the things she shared.  They were from the bot farms in mother russia.  

Does your mom know my dad?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, timschochet said:

This is what the Democrats needed. 

I would still like to get Mueller’s public testimony first. But if Trump prevents that somehow, start the process. 

I'll give this for Warren, she has expressed this in terms of following her constitutional oath. That's the way I see it.

One other thing - maybe the most important thing Amash said was that he read the report and that most Congressmen have not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boze must really want Raylan back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 12:01 PM, ren hoek said:

Good advertising works.  Throwing #### on a wall is not good advertising.  

https://imgur.com/a/T3e8f6N

Does this seem like effective advertising to you?  This is the stuff that flipped the 2016 election?  

 

So if this one carefully selected price of material is bad, then no others could possibly be effective? That seems unlikely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 12:47 PM, ren hoek said:

Of course- it was this one wasn’t it?  

https://imgur.com/a/4TLHbSW

I’m trying to figure out which ones people think influenced the election.  They said it was a vast influence operation.  Which ones flipped Pennsylvania?  

https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/russian-trolls-are-obsessed-with-black-lives-matter.html

On Thursday, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee released a trove of about 3,500 Facebook and Instagram ads purchased by Russian operatives to influence the 2016 election and exploit and attempt to worsen America’s polarized political climate in the months that followed. The ads reveal a sophisticated campaign clearly aimed at supporting Donald Trump’s presidential bid and inflaming Americans on some of the most divisive social and political issues in the country, like gun control, Islamophobia, immigration, and police violence. There were even ads aimed at sowing discord among Beyoncé fans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do love the rich irony in the fact that by blocking the SARs filings, DB allowed this story to be reported.  SARs filings are confidential and can’t be disclosed while non-SARs filings don’t get that cover.  Well played Donnie, well played.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html#click=https://t.co/VLCYRwGQj6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, joffer said:

Boze must really want Raylan back

Not sure about Boze but I sure do.  Justified was the s**t.  

Oh wait....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Not sure about Boze but I sure do.  Justified was the s**t.  

That guy could take a punch,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checking in...so are the forum liberals still holding out hope for a meaningless impeachment?  

 

What's the status here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, prefontaine said:

yeah you turned me on to him a while back. Great twitter follow and someone who actually espouses Libertarian principles. 

I think Amash and Hurd are my two favorite congressmen right now. 

Except for all of the other things he’s supported.  Sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Just more reasons on the pile that I’ve turned my back completely in this party until things change.  It’s complete crap and corrupt and needs to be purged.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TripItUp said:

Checking in...so are the forum liberals still holding out hope for a meaningless impeachment?  

 

What's the status here?

I don't think anyone was ever hoping for a meaningless impeachment, if that helps.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I don't think anyone was ever hoping for a meaningless impeachment, if that helps.

 

So still holding onto the dream for political gain.

 

Democrats need to take their "loss" and move one.   They may have just handed Trump another 4 years...now we all lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

 

So still holding onto the dream for political gain.

 

Democrats need to take their "loss" and move one.   They may have just handed Trump another 4 years...now we all lose.

It’s not about political gain. It’s about him committing impeachable offenses and being an embarrassment to our country. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TripItUp said:

Checking in...so are the forum liberals still holding out hope for a meaningless impeachment?  

 

What's the status here?

Meaningless impeachment, meaningless sex, whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

It’s not about political gain. It’s about him committing impeachable offenses and being an embarrassment to our country. 

 

I don't understand why this isn't perfectly clear. I don't care what letter comes after your name, any elected official acting the way this guy does is just wrong on so many levels and needs to be dealt with by congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TripItUp said:

Checking in...so are the forum liberals still holding out hope for a meaningless impeachment?  

 

What's the status here?

They want to impeach for asking McGahn to correct a press story that McGahn and Trump both agree was incorrect.

that is all they’ve got...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m old enough to remember when you  guys loved loved loved Lindsay Graham, until he evaluated the facts and disagreed with you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Just more reasons on the pile that I’ve turned my back completely in this party until things change.  It’s complete crap and corrupt and needs to be purged.  

And Judging by your posting history, they were sooo likely to get your vote too....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rove! said:

And Judging by your posting history, they were sooo likely to get your vote too....

What parts of Amash’s tweet do you disagree with, and why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

What parts of Amash’s tweet do you disagree with, and why? 

Pretty much all of it

the theory of obstruction that Weissman has concocted is flawed and has very dangerous implications for our democracy.  I can’t understand a “libertarian” getting behind that, at all.  That said, even using this flawed theory, there is no case here.  Any real defender of the rights of the people can see that this was an investigation in search of crime.  The OSC used police state tactics to subvert the results of an election.  

https://mobile.twitter.com/dbongino/status/1130470264393936896

-Collusion: No evidence -Source for the FISA: Discredited -Information used in the FISA: From Russian disinformation specialists -Woods Procedure: Violated -Innocent Americans: Spied on -Alleged “Libertarian” Congressman: “Impeach Trump!”

9:48 AM · May 20, 2019

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Rove! said:

I’m old enough to remember when you  guys loved loved loved Lindsay Graham, until he evaluated the facts and disagreed with you....

I'm old enough to remember when people provided links to support their ridiculous claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Rove! said:

They want to impeach for asking McGahn to correct a press story that McGahn and Trump both agree was incorrect.

that is all they’ve got...

Really?  You think that’s all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Rove! said:

And Judging by your posting history, they were sooo likely to get your vote too....

Well considering my voting history?  Yes, many were at some point.  Their moves have dictated my turn away from the party. This current party just finished the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rove! said:

Pretty much all of it

the theory of obstruction that Weissman has concocted is flawed and has very dangerous implications for our democracy.  I can’t understand a “libertarian” getting behind that, at all.  That said, even using this flawed theory, there is no case here.  Any real defender of the rights of the people can see that this was an investigation in search of crime.  The OSC used police state tactics to subvert the results of an election.  

https://mobile.twitter.com/dbongino/status/1130470264393936896

-Collusion: No evidence -Source for the FISA: Discredited -Information used in the FISA: From Russian disinformation specialists -Woods Procedure: Violated -Innocent Americans: Spied on -Alleged “Libertarian” Congressman: “Impeach Trump!”

9:48 AM · May 20, 2019

Basically your argument is that

1. There is no evidence that there was any collusion. 

2. Without such evidence there can be no obstruction of justice. 

3. The investigation itself was due to faulty, discredited, partisan sources. 

Is that the sum of your arguments? Or have I left anything out? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.