WWTBAM Bored

He launches his campaign based on the big liberal lie about trump and Charlottesville.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/67538278 ... ential-run

You know what? There were fine people on both sides. There were also bad, evil people on both sides, Joe. We all know that, and so did the President. Shame on you, Joe, for pandering to the ignorant and the hateful.

If there was just ONE democrat that had their head on straight, I might support that person. But there is no one even close to being sane.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:He launches his campaign based on the big liberal lie about trump and Charlottesville.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/67538278 ... ential-run

You know what? There were fine people on both sides. There were also bad, evil people on both sides, Joe. We all know that, and so did the President. Shame on you, Joe, for pandering to the ignorant and the hateful.

If there was just ONE democrat that had their head on straight, I might support that person. But there is no one even close to being sane.

Careful, Bob insists Trump was saying the White Nationalists were "fine people". Bob doesn't count where in a press conference the sentence later in the interview where Trump says "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis or White Nationalists because they should be condemned totally." No, like the national press, Bob ignores what doesn't fit his narrative. Facts are only facts if they fit his narrative.

It's tough to find because much of the media has edited it out. But here it is...at 1:40

BackInTex wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:He launches his campaign based on the big liberal lie about trump and Charlottesville.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/67538278 ... ential-run

You know what? There were fine people on both sides. There were also bad, evil people on both sides, Joe. We all know that, and so did the President. Shame on you, Joe, for pandering to the ignorant and the hateful.

If there was just ONE democrat that had their head on straight, I might support that person. But there is no one even close to being sane.

Careful, Bob insists Trump was saying the White Nationalists were "fine people". Bob doesn't count where in a press conference the sentence later in the interview where Trump says "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis or White Nationalists because they should be condemned totally." No, like the national press, Bob ignores what doesn't fit his narrative. Facts are only facts if they fit his narrative.

It's tough to find because much of the media has edited it out. But here it is...at 1:40

I know that and you know that, but the front running (as of now) dem candidate for president either doesn't know it (stupidty, ignorance : unacceptable) or knows it and is using it as pandering to the uninformed, ignorant and willfully hateful (even worse). Not to mention there is not one dem candidate out of the hundreds who've already declared that dispute this lie (at least that I know of).

And to base your campaign on that lie when most fair-minded people know it is a lie? And you wonder why I disdain the democrat party?

BackInTex wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:He launches his campaign based on the big liberal lie about trump and Charlottesville.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/67538278 ... ential-run

You know what? There were fine people on both sides. There were also bad, evil people on both sides, Joe. We all know that, and so did the President. Shame on you, Joe, for pandering to the ignorant and the hateful.

If there was just ONE democrat that had their head on straight, I might support that person. But there is no one even close to being sane.

Careful, Bob insists Trump was saying the White Nationalists were "fine people". Bob doesn't count where in a press conference the sentence later in the interview where Trump says "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis or White Nationalists because they should be condemned totally." No, like the national press, Bob ignores what doesn't fit his narrative. Facts are only facts if they fit his narrative.

It's tough to find because much of the media has edited it out. But here it is...at 1:40

If you're talking about Bob#s, he DID backtrack on using those words when discussing Trump, back when I pointed out the contents of the entire video, which, despite the exhaustive, independent research he often claims to do, he had never seen. I haven't noticed him doing it since, but he didn't have the decency to apologize to those who he had accused of rewriting history, when, in fact, it was he who was doing so.

ASSShole, however, continued labeling a white nationalist as "one of Trump's fine people" in the same damn thread.

Estonut wrote:If you're talking about Bob#s, he DID backtrack on using those words when discussing Trump, back when I pointed out the contents of the entire video, which, despite the exhaustive, independent research he often claims to do, he had never seen.[/url] I haven't noticed him doing it since, but he didn't have the decency to apologize to those who he had accused of rewriting history, when, in fact, it was he who was doing so.

ASSShole, however, continued labeling a white nationalist as "one of Trump's fine people" in the same damn thread.

Hmm.. I missed Bob#s retraction. Good for him. Now if he'll backtrack on the "Russia, if you can, find those emails." comment as not being tongue in cheek.

BackInTex wrote:

Estonut wrote:If you're talking about Bob#s, he DID backtrack on using those words when discussing Trump, back when I pointed out the contents of the entire video, which, despite the exhaustive, independent research he often claims to do, he had never seen.[/url] I haven't noticed him doing it since, but he didn't have the decency to apologize to those who he had accused of rewriting history, when, in fact, it was he who was doing so.

ASSShole, however, continued labeling a white nationalist as "one of Trump's fine people" in the same damn thread.

Hmm.. I missed Bob#s retraction. Good for him. Now if he'll backtrack on the "Russia, if you can, find those emails." comment as not being tongue in cheek.

The Mueller Report found that within hours after Donny made that remark, Russia did indeed try (unsuccessfully) to do exactly what Donny had requested. Maybe Donny's handlers missed the memo that it was tongue in cheek. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Shame on you, Joe, for pandering to the ignorant and the hateful.

As opposed to Donald Trump who would never ever ever ever ever stoop to pandering to the ignorant and hateful. Yet you have no qualms about swooning over him after you figure out ways to excuse or explain away everything he says.

Bob78164 wrote:The Mueller Report found that within hours after Donny made that remark, Russia did indeed try (unsuccessfully) to do exactly what Donny had requested. Maybe Donny's handlers missed the memo that it was tongue in cheek. --Bob

From USA Today

On July 27, 2016, Trump called on Russia to find presidential Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump proclaimed. He added, “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

From the Mueller Report

Beginning in March 2016 units of the Russian Federations's Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU) hacked the computers and email accounts of organizaitons, employees, and volunteers supporting the Clinton Campaign, including the email account of campaign chairman John Podesta.

Startingin April 2016, the GUR hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

By no later than April 12, 2016, the GRU had gained access to the DCCC computer network using the credentials stolen from a DCCC employee...Over the ensuing weeks, the GRU traversed the network, identifying different computers connected to the DCCC network.

These sessions were captured as GRU officers monitored DCCC and DNC employee's work on infected computers regularly between April 2016 and June 2016.

Oh, here it is...

On July 27, 2016.....Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement....

But this is how silly the investigators and report writers are..

It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public.

You think maybe some of the "private" emails exchanged information with the DCCC and DNC? Likely. The GRU already had a bunch of emails and they likely had these "private" email addresses. Duh!

And why were they unsuccessful? Because of the obstructive actions of Clinton by destroying the servers and phones. But that's not mentioned in this "all encompassing investigative report".

But this is not the point of the thread. Uncle Joe is running! God bless him.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The Mueller Report found that within hours after Donny made that remark, Russia did indeed try (unsuccessfully) to do exactly what Donny had requested. Maybe Donny's handlers missed the memo that it was tongue in cheek. --Bob

. . . .

Robert Mueller wrote:On July 27, 2016.....Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement....

. . . .

Your claim was that Donny's public request to Russia was "tongue in cheek." Five hours after he made his request, Russia acted on it. You're okay with active cooperation between Donny and a hostile foreign government in the context of a campaign for President because you don't like how Secretary Clinton handled her e-mails. Got it. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The Mueller Report found that within hours after Donny made that remark, Russia did indeed try (unsuccessfully) to do exactly what Donny had requested. Maybe Donny's handlers missed the memo that it was tongue in cheek. --Bob

. . . .

Robert Mueller wrote:On July 27, 2016.....Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement....

. . . .

Your claim was that Donny's public request to Russia was "tongue in cheek." Five hours after he made his request, Russia acted on it. You're okay with active cooperation between Donny and a hostile foreign government in the context of a campaign for President because you don't like how Secretary Clinton handled her e-mails. Got it. --Bob

This election season will be hard for you. Be strong.

Bob78164 wrote: Your claim was that Donny's public request to Russia was "tongue in cheek." Five hours after he made his request, Russia acted on it. You're okay with active cooperation between Donny and a hostile foreign government in the context of a campaign for President because you don't like how Secretary Clinton handled her e-mails. Got it. --Bob

It was tongue in cheek. If the Russians acted on it, and there is no evidence they did other than timing (which even the best prosecutor wouldn't bring in front of a jury without something else), there still is no evidence that there was cooperation. None. There is a 400+ page document that says so. Your denial of it shows how you are either a complete idiot or a liar pulling our leg. I'll choose the later, though I"m starting to second guess myself.

And he "asked" Obama to not endorse him. Ha! I'm pretty sure he would not get the endorsement so he made the first move so as not to be embarrassed his former boss wouldn't even endorse him.

It will be interesting to see if Obama endorses someone else. He may have too much class to do that to Joe, at least until Joe's too many negatives make it clear he can't win.