Olympics........Useful Idiots

You not caring if Trump conspired with the Russians and whether he actually did are not the same LL. T

... Nevermind Originally Posted by themystic

Why must you be so vague? In a month or so it will be three years that this bullshit has been "vaguely" discussed and the "World's Finest Law Enforcement Agency" has not been able to find ONE FACT that would be admissible evidence that "Trump conspired with the Russians" .... Now did you purposely OMIT the finishing phrase ...

.. to win the election against Hillary Clinton?

Or have you, like all intellectually competent humans, decided that there is NO EVIDENCE to support such phrase?

Do yourself, and WTF, a favor Junior! Don't spew that crap about it being a "secret," because there's an ongoing INVESTIGATION!!!

For a year and a half the Obaminable Administration KNEW OF RUSSIANS MEDDLING (AS VARIOUS COUNTRIES HAVE DONE IN PAST ELECTIONS IN THE U.S., BTW!) and did NOTHING ABOUT IT!

But YOU NOT CARING ABOUT the Russians "meddling in elections" is not the same as ... Trump "colluding" with the Russians after he was nominated to be the Republican candidate!!!!

I didn't buy the:

"You can keep your doctors and your insurance either!" Did you?

You should have started with "Nevermind" in the beginning. You're too stupid to embarrass yourself, but you're doing a fine job of it. Take my word for that! Because the same LE Agency that concluded that Hillary couldn't be prosecuted for any crimes she committed with the mishandling of her emails BEFORE they completed the INVESTIGATION, which included the INTERVIEW OF HER, in about a six month period of time, so three years to work on the Trump INVESTIGATION is adequate!!!

Mrs. Weaver was not in custody and will probably not be charged, the trooper said. “She was trying to restrain her husband,” Mohr said. “There’s no indication there was any foul play intended.” Originally Posted by lustylad

I call bs on what those troopers said. I've seen guys who DID get arrested and charged, cause all they did (as seen by multiple witnesses) was just grab and restrain the arms of the woman who was being violent. BUT cause they grabbed so hard, they left bruises..

As for my question about domestic violence, it fits the customary definition, but the question is whether or not "she" would get charged. As the stats seem to reveal ... probably not. The new wave of "victimization" and excused violence by females would "set them free"! Females are not treated equally as males in that situation. Originally Posted by LexusLover

From what i've seen over the years, they've never been. During my first ship's med cruise, we had one guy who got into a verbal argument with wifey who literally slapped 2 other men's face to get the out of the way when she came aboard. HE Started to walk off, and she ran after him, grabbed his hair, and yanked back..
He turned around and punched her.
HE GOT DONE for DV. Not a god damn thing happened to her.. NOT even charges of assaulting those other 2 officers.

Another situation came from the base 'enlisted club' down in mayport. A GF had a mass hissy, and took off her high heels, to try and STAB her BF, even smacking and injuring 3 other people. HE just grabbed her arm, and judo flipped her then held her in an arm bar to STOP HER attacking him or anyone else.. BUT cause HE flipped her to the gruond, you guessed it; HE GOT ARRESTED.. She, again nothing. No charges of assault, no charges of dv.. Not even after all 3 other people who SHE smacked with the heels told the base cops, and tried to push for charges.. The base's AG said "Sorry, but we just can't charge a woman. As it MIGHT make other women who feel pressued in a wrong relationship, to stay silent'...

The same bull i keep hearing time and time again, for why spineless cowards in the DA's office, FAIL TO CHARGE those who make falsified reports of rape, say, for why they won't charge the fakers..

The same bull i keep hearing time and time again, for why spineless cowards in the DA's office, FAIL TO CHARGE those who make falsified reports of rape, say, for why they won't charge the fakers.. Originally Posted by garhkal

I've seen and read reports of women charged (and threatened with charges) for giving a false report to a police officer and also for 911 abuse for making a false 911 call about domestic violence.

What happens if one advocates that decision is a ground swell of criticism based on supposition and innuendo by people who don't know the facts (you've seen it on here and in the media), so to avoid the anguish they "let it slide." If they charged it more, it might cut down on it, but I don't believe it would stop it. There are all kinds of reasons females make up that shit, and males do also. The sad part it can have a detrimental effect on the legitimate complaints.

I have not heard anyone discussing why the women complaining about Porter didn't insist on criminal charges being filed when the incidents occurred. And I would like to hear them saying it and not some stupid "mind reader" guessing as to why they didn't.

There's over whelming public "disinformation" -- not "knowledge", mistake, and you conspicuously left out the adjective "illegal" again, you disingenuous, lying jackass.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Good to see you finally changed your Avatar. Mr Clean lol. Although you dont care, " Mr Clean" is the biggest LIAR in American Political History

Good to see you finally changed your Avatar. Mr Clean lol. Although you dont care, " Mr Clean" is the biggest LIAR in American Political History Originally Posted by themystic

hildebeest holds that title, mistake, and Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator is still the only president to be impeached for lying under oath, mistake.

Poll: 'Liar' Most Frequently Associated Word With hildebeest

(ABC)

I recall the only "fact" that connected a "Russian" to any election was around $18,000 spent on an Anti-HillariousNoMore ad in either Wisconsin or Minnesota ... one of the states up there that Trump carried ... and in which she didn't personally appear to campaign more than one time, if at all. Based on the amount the DNC/Campaign advertised for her up there the pissy amount was like spitting in a hurricane as far as having any effect on the result.

It's immature, silliness to continue making the claim that the Russians "influenced" the outcome of the election. It's nonsensical and lacking in reality. That stupid shit is approaching three years of rumor and innuendo with ludicrous amounts of fantasy and fiction.

The Trump Campaign Team beat the shit out of HillariousNoMore~!

The whining pussies ought to move on. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Someone told me they heard a rather strange theory to this Russian Collusion. Hillary Clinton could not be given the presidency because she's incapacitated due to some serious health issues. So they had no choice but to put Trump in. So in order to keep any suspicion about Hillary Clinton not winning the election because of health concerns the DNC orchestrated this Russian Collusion crock of shit. Even though there is no real evidence of any collusion the Democrats are going to milk it for as long as they can. Who the hell knows. I say if there is wrong doing by Trump and the Russians handle it appropriately. If their isn't then move on. The Democrats waste more time and money because they are dishonest and vindictive.

Jim

Russia didn't meddle in our election. The Democrats who didn't approve of Trump meddled with Russia. The election didn't go as they had planned so they came up with this scheme that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. That's how Liberal Democrats operate. Since they have the media in their pocket they can set the scene for any ridiculous scenario and the media with report on it and they know the majority of people in America will believe anything the Media reports no matter what. So with the help of the media Trump is a Russian colluder and sympathizer and once again Liberals are victims.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Clint Watts indicates you are incorrect.

Someone told me they heard a rather strange theory to this Russian Collusion. Hillary Clinton could not be given the presidency because she's incapacitated due to some serious health issues. So they had no choice but to put Trump in. So in order to keep any suspicion about Hillary Clinton not winning the election because of health concerns the DNC orchestrated this Russian Collusion crock of shit.
Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Weelllll....

#1: She had "health/mental issues" before the Republican Primary began. There were candidates more compatible to their agenda than Trump and over whom they had more control (like REAL SHIT on them).

#2: Russians (and other countries) had been screwing with U.S. elections before Trump announced. As has been disclosed the "Russians" (or someone pretending to be Russian) hacked into the DNC computer system and starting "mining" emails and information off their computer system.

They had to continue claiming the Clintons' private server was "safe" so they couldn't publicize the Russian successful hacking in the midst of claiming the information on the private server was "safe" and couldn't be hacked. So they kept what they knew under wraps (which included the IT who tried to flee to Pakistan).

When Hillary didn't win they had to have an excuse. They fabricated the Trump collusion bullshit, figuring if the Russians hacked them there must be pecker tracks into Trump's campaign. That was there attempt to marginalize the legitimacy of Trump beating the inevitable, anointed one ... who had sold herself as being a "shoe in" .... The Russians were on scene and easy target, because they had been meddling. Just not through Trump or colluding with Trump.

Underlying the need for an excuse was something to tell the folks who turned on the fire hose for the Clinton Foundation with all the purchases of "good will" by stuffing money into their pockets for favors once the Clintons were "back in" as before! Think about the conversations of the contributors after she lost .... wanting their money back.

The false narrative would tarnish the Trump presidency ... and prevent him from accomplishing shit in his first term ... so they would be able to trash him for not getting anything done. They've been doing that all the first year.

Pull the wheels and then bitch because he's not going any where!

#3: Her backup was her VP choice. He's a perfect "Gerald Ford"!
No personality. No agenda. No ambition. And no problem 2nd round! But acceptable by the rank and file of the DNC for a one-termer. Besides until she died they could prop her up and let Bill run things behind the scene with the VP calling the public shots.

Weelllll....

#1: She had "health/mental issues" before the Republican Primary began. There were candidates more compatible to their agenda than Trump and over whom they had more control (like REAL SHIT on them).

#2: Russians (and other countries) had been screwing with U.S. elections before Trump announced. As has been disclosed the "Russians" (or someone pretending to be Russian) hacked into the DNC computer system and starting "mining" emails and information off their computer system.

They had to continue claiming the Clintons' private server was "safe" so they couldn't publicize the Russian successful hacking in the midst of claiming the information on the private server was "safe" and couldn't be hacked. So they kept what they knew under wraps (which included the IT who tried to flee to Pakistan).

When Hillary didn't win they had to have an excuse. They fabricated the Trump collusion bullshit, figuring if the Russians hacked them there must be pecker tracks into Trump's campaign. That was there attempt to marginalize the legitimacy of Trump beating the inevitable, anointed one ... who had sold herself as being a "shoe in" .... The Russians were on scene and easy target, because they had been meddling. Just not through Trump or colluding with Trump.

Underlying the need for an excuse was something to tell the folks who turned on the fire hose for the Clinton Foundation with all the purchases of "good will" by stuffing money into their pockets for favors once the Clintons were "back in" as before! Think about the conversations of the contributors after she lost .... wanting their money back.

The false narrative would tarnish the Trump presidency ... and prevent him from accomplishing shit in his first term ... so they would be able to trash him for not getting anything done. They've been doing that all the first year.

Pull the wheels and then bitch because he's not going any where!

#3: Her backup was her VP choice. He's a perfect "Gerald Ford"!
No personality. No agenda. No ambition. And no problem 2nd round! But acceptable by the rank and file of the DNC for a one-termer. Besides until she died they could prop her up and let Bill run things behind the scene with the VP calling the public shots. Originally Posted by LexusLover

All That could have some merit. Maybe what I was told is the actual case. The DNC have been jacking around with this Russian collusion case since day one with nothing to show for it. There is also another rumor floating around out there that Hillary Clinton is already dead and there has been use of body doubles to throw off any suspicion. That I am not inclined to believe that, that would be a hard act to follow. Regardless, the Democrats will cling to the Russian Collusion story no matter how flimsy it gets.

Jim

Using a 2 and a half-year-old poll is a pretty disingenuous move on your part.
trump has put the lying title out of reach of 99% of all current politicians

hildebeest holds that title, mistake, and Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator is still the only president to be impeached for lying under oath, mistake. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Using a 2 and a half-year-old poll is a pretty disingenuous move on your part.
trump has put the lying title out of reach of 99% of all current politicians Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Your stupid-ass cannot cite a more current poll showing that there's been any change in equating "hildebeest" to "liar", masterdickmuncher.

I've seen and read reports of women charged (and threatened with charges) for giving a false report to a police officer and also for 911 abuse for making a false 911 call about domestic violence. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Strange, in all the cases i've read of willful false claims made, i've YET TO hear of one of them even being THREATENED with being charged with a crime. LET ALONE one actually GET charged...

IWhat happens if one advocates that decision is a ground swell of criticism based on supposition and innuendo by people who don't know the facts (you've seen it on here and in the media), so to avoid the anguish they "let it slide." If they charged it more, it might cut down on it, but I don't believe it would stop it. There are all kinds of reasons females make up that shit, and males do also. The sad part it can have a detrimental effect on the legitimate complaints. Originally Posted by LexusLover

So cause it MIGHT discourage people from making claims, don't do it??

Strange, in all the cases i've read of willful false claims made, i've YET TO hear of one of them even being THREATENED with being charged with a crime. LET ALONE one actually GET charged...
Originally Posted by garhkal

That is an extremely small sample.

First less than 10% of all criminal cases in the United States actually go to trial so that a result can be "discussed" and secondly, of those even fewer are appealed so there would be a written record of the disposition.

Thirdly, many prosecutors historically intimidate complaining parties with prosecution if they start equivocating and/or start trying to recant their initial complaint and/or report to the police. Judges will also, particularly Federal judges who have a generally more flexible role in the process of a trial as far as addressing witnesses and their veracity.

That is an extremely small sample. Originally Posted by LexusLover

What do you count as an extremely small sample??

How many times, over the past 2+ years, have we heard of news stories of false hate crimes, which were later found out to have been perpetrated by those who 'found the hateful acts'??? Quite a few.


HOW MANY of those folk got charged with falsifying the crimes? 0!

What do you count as an extremely small sample??

How many times, over the past 2+ years, have we heard of news stories of false hate crimes, which were later found out to have been perpetrated by those who 'found the hateful acts'??? Quite a few.


HOW MANY of those folk got charged with falsifying the crimes? 0! Originally Posted by garhkal

Weren't we discussing "domestic violence" complainants?

FYI: Just because there is a "not guilty" finding by a jury (or judge as does happen) doesn't mean the original allegation and/or complaint was "false"! Additionally, just because the prosecutor shit-cans a case and dismisses it after it's been filed also doesn't mean the original accusation was "false."