Quote:

---

You hate it when it's done against yo' boy, but when he does it all the time you vote for him. Tell him to stop, and when he does, I might. Until then get over it!

---

I have been very clear that I think both Trump and YOU should stop the constant, sophomoric name calling. Just think about it. You are saying that you and he are exactly alike in not being able to intelligently formulate arguments, so you just resort to name calling and mud slinging which, of course, you claim to hate. I'm not suggesting you lack intelligence. I'm just saying that the name calling is much easier to do and yet accomplishes nothing. In fact, it ends up being a negative. In your case, it makes you look just like Trump.

As to voting for Trump, should I have voted for a candidate who honestly and seriously believes that both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard are "Russian assets"? Trump has his major problems for sure, but at least he has not reached that level of being so paranoid.

DUDE, the latest smears were not a part of the converstion in 2016. Fact is you voted for a guy who started his campaign with trash talk and mud slinging and now you dare tell me to stop? If that's not having life and BS all mixed up I don't know what is. I haven't asked you to join in but maybe you shouldn't get between a lying cheating bully and his opposition. I can turn on his sycophants and enablers just as readily.

Haven't decided about you yet but I watch you closely and your minimizing this poor excuse for an executive is rather disturbing at times and I do say so. Now when YOU throw him under the bus for what he says and does, despite those judges and rich guy tax cuts that may change my perceptions but a bible thumper who makes deals with the devil is not a good look.

Just sayin'!

Quote:

---

DUDE, the latest smears were not a part of the converstion in 2016. Fact is you voted for a guy who started his campaign with trash talk and mud slinging and now you dare tell me to stop? If that's not having life and BS all mixed up I don't know what is. I haven't asked you to join in but maybe you shouldn't get between a lying cheating bully and his opposition. I can turn on his sycophants and enablers just as readily.

---

I haven't told you to do anything. I've just pointed out that you are using the same tactics as the man who must be your mentor. I would suggest you both stop.

Quote:

---

Haven't decided about you yet but I watch you closely and your minimizing this poor excuse for an executive is rather disturbing at times and I do say so. Now when YOU throw him under the bus for what he says and does, despite those judges and rich guy tax cuts that may change my perceptions but a bible thumper who makes deals with the devil is not a good look.

---

Says the man who voted for both Obama and HC. You have no room to talk. Like I have said a million times, it's your "holier than thou" attitude that is so pathetic. You are as deep in the dirt with those two as anyone else. Politics.

It's really foolish to continue to whine about "rich guy tax cuts". Rich guys pay over 85% of income taxes in our country, so your whining is complete nonsense. Stop drinking the kool aid and wake up!

I will consider when you wake up and stop whining about the debt while those rich guys get their tax cuts.

Quote:

---

I will consider when you wake up and stop whining about the debt while those rich guys get their tax cuts.

---

1. Your beloved hero, Mr. Obama, was the world's champ at running up debt.
2. Trump's deficits, like all of them, are the result of over-spending. Even if you rolled back the tax cuts, you would still have many hundreds of billions in deficit spending every year.
3. When the bottom 80% of income earners only pay about 15% of the income taxes, then even a fanatical liberal democrat can figure out that they will not profit much from a tax cut. Those "rich guys" you disdain so much will profit because they pay nearly 90% of all fed income taxes.
4. The past two years have seen deficit spending voted in by...get ready for this...a DEMOCRAT led House. Oh well. To be fair, the same thing was true of the last several years of the Obama admin, but when repubs did try and make a stand, Obama would shut down the gov and blame it on them. Assisted by the ever loyal national media, he would win that battle and the excessive spending would just continue. Maybe, some day, the dem House will take a stand on over-spending, but don't hold your breath on it.
5. Coorporate and individual income tax revenue for the feds has increased by about a trillion dollars since 2012, about an 80% increase, thanks in large measure to a much improved economy. The increase since Trump was elected in 2016 has been about 350 billion.

Now that I think about it, maybe you should stick with name calling. Data is not your strong point. And before everyone goes nuts, that is intended to be a joke.

1. He also inherited not just a offf the books war funding, but a recession too boot. He started in a job killing hole. Though even the bail out included a modest building fund and tax cuts for middle income, on top of the bush tax cuts. When they sunsetted he let the rich guy tax cut go, but kept the middle class tax cuts.

2. Yes that's true, but the 1.2 trillion dollar spending for rich guys wouldn't be there to make the deficit WORSE!

3. I've tried to explain revenue, taxes, and the very different wealth to you, it was hopeless. Trickle down economics, supply side economics or whatever you want to call it hasn't ever worked. It never will as long as the rich have the loopholes havens and shelters to avoid paying the real taxes they owe. That's why we have had income inequality hollowing out the middle class and run bookoo deficits. I'll just chalk it up to stupid humans falling for the okedoke. Legalized stealing.

4. Any House by LAW cannot pass a budget on it's own they can initiate one, but the senate has to pass it as is, modify it and reconcile it with the House bill, or send their own bill back to the House for a vote. That's how it works and even under Obama, repubs had the House and senate. Dems just got the House back THIS year so where you got the dems had the House for the last two years is beyond me, and UNTRUE! I will leave out the fact that the shut downs were not just spending fights, but efforts to repeal Obama care. You should have done your homework BEFORE you posted that BS like everyone has been suggesting.

5. Finally we can agree the more people working AND paying taxes, AND buying stuff is what keeps the economy strong.

Quote:

---

Now that I think about it, maybe you should stick with name calling. Data is not your strong point. And before everyone goes nuts, that is intended to be a joke.

---

That's the way I took it.

8D

Just for YOU.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/...60&u=t&o=f&l=f

Quote:

---

2. Yes that's true, but the 1.2 trillion dollar spending for rich guys wouldn't be there to make the deficit WORSE!

---

That's over ten years. Be honest.

Quote:

---

3. I've tried to explain revenue, taxes, and the very different wealth to you, it was hopeless. Trickle down economics, supply side economics or whatever you want to call it hasn't ever worked. It never will as long as the rich have the loopholes havens and shelters to avoid paying the real taxes they owe. That's why we have had income inequality hollowing out the middle class and run bookoo deficits. I'll just chalk it up to stupid humans falling for the okedoke. Legalized stealing.

---

And again. The top 20% pay more than 85% of income tax. All you posted was just worn out garbage. Like I said. Data is not your thing.

Quote:

---

Any House by LAW cannot pass a budget on it's own they can initiate one, but the senate has to pass it as is, modify it and reconcile it with the House bill, or send their own bill back to the House for a vote. That's how it works and even under Obama, repubs had the House and senate. Dems just got the House back THIS year so where you got the dems had the House for the last two years is beyond me, and UNTRUE! I will leave out the fact that the shut downs were not just spending fights, but efforts to repeal Obama care. You should have done your homework BEFORE you posted that BS like everyone has been suggesting.

---

So are you saying that this democrat House has actually passed a balanced budget and sent it to the Senate? If not, then everything you just posted is just word candy.

Quote:

---

5. Finally we can agree the more people working AND paying taxes, AND buying stuff is what keeps the economy strong.

---

So you do give Trump some credit? Wonderful.

Talaniman: I am not rich and, realistically, never will be.....And I like your combativeness and your support for your arguments (i.e. I respect you)....However, in all honesty, I do not think we can continue to tax the pure hell out of the rich....85% of total taxes coming from them is probably enough....they will find more and more inventive ways to hide their money, all legal of course, so taxing them to death is a dead-end road. I also don't think we can "TAX WITHOUT REPRESENTATION": We have driven off the rails in the U.S. with taxes....the purpose of taxes is not so the government can become more centralized or more obese or more lethargic than it already is: The purpose of government is to perform the work directed by the will of the people and government has long since abandoned that principle.

Like any municipality in this country, all they want to do is "get bigger"...and it has gotten so bad that I think that they think that is their REAL PURPOSE! Its not! We need to pare-down the size of government and stop spending so much....reduce the taxes, particularly on the strapped Middle Class....we need to cut spending across the board.....I will give you and example that I KNOW YOU CAN RELATE TO: If a manufacturing facilities cost of raw materials is fixed, its costs of labor is fixed, and its production capacity is fixed, the only way that the facility can increase profits is to reduce variable costs.....Likewise, under the same scenario, the only way that facility can maintain profits, and not allow them to slip, in the face of rising raw material and labor costs, is to IMPROVE PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY while, also, reducing variable costs: Its the EFFICIENCY of government that is lacking: It doesn't necessarily take more people to get goals accomplished, it only takes BETTER people to accomplish those goals....GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GO ON A DIET! They are fat and they are lazy!

Talaniman: Vlad was on the right side of history in Syria and we were not. If anything, Vlad should have acted earlier to prevent so much murdering by ISIS from taking place. Assad is a Medical Doctor amongst a whole region of religious zealots! The Baathist Party is modeled on Mussolini's Italian Fascist Government and it is SECULAR (NO RELIGION ALLOWED)! The U.S. backed the wrong horses in Syria: We were supplying money and arms to terrorist who were murdering children while Assad and Vlad were fighting ISIS! And, I am pretty sure a lot of "Chemical Attacks" were false flag attacks perpetrated by John McCain's beloved "Moderate Rebels"......Don't you think the people of Syria have suffered enough?

Quote:

---

GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GO ON A DIET! They are fat and they are lazy!

---

Pretty good statement.

Quote:

---

Talaniman: I am not rich and, realistically, never will be.....And I like your combativeness and your support for your arguments (i.e. I respect you)....However, in all honesty, I do not think we can continue to tax the pure hell out of the rich....85% of total taxes coming from them is probably enough....they will find more and more inventive ways to hide their money, all legal of course, so taxing them to death is a dead-end road. I also don't think we can "TAX WITHOUT REPRESENTATION": We have driven off the rails in the U.S. with taxes....the purpose of taxes is not so the government can become more centralized or more obese or more lethargic than it already is: The purpose of government is to perform the work directed by the will of the people and government has long since abandoned that principle.

---

Don't go there. It's impossible to tax a rich guy to death with the breaks and loopholes and havens they enjoy, and a well know fact is the dependence of the people elected officials on the favors of those rich guy. Unless of course you think it's the will of the people to not get a raise in decades while prices are steadily going up.

Quote:

---

Like any municipality in this country, all they want to do is "get bigger"...and it has gotten so bad that I think that they think that is their REAL PURPOSE! Its not! We need to pare-down the size of government and stop spending so much....reduce the taxes, particularly on the strapped Middle Class....we need to cut spending across the board.....I will give you and example that I KNOW YOU CAN RELATE TO: If a manufacturing facilities cost of raw materials is fixed, its costs of labor is fixed, and its production capacity is fixed, the only way that the facility can increase profits is to reduce variable costs.....Likewise, under the same scenario, the only way that facility can maintain profits, and not allow them to slip, in the face of rising raw material and labor costs, is to IMPROVE PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY while, also, reducing variable costs: Its the EFFICIENCY of government that is lacking: It doesn't necessarily take more people to get goals accomplished, it only takes BETTER people to accomplish those goals....GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GO ON A DIET! They are fat and they are lazy!

---

I guess that explains why plants close and cities die in America while big biz hunts for cheap labor overseas, Let me know what you will cut that helps YOUR city, and I'm sure you have a plan to follow up on your broad statements. Me I would ask for less influence of big money on the peoples government for starters. Government should be as efficient on behalf of the people as it is at delivering wealth to the rich guys.Taxing rich guys to death is surely a joke since you only tax half of it in the first place if that!

Quote:

---

Talaniman: Vlad was on the right side of history in Syria and we were not. If anything, Vlad should have acted earlier to prevent so much murdering by ISIS from taking place. Assad is a Medical Doctor amongst a whole region of religious zealots! The Baathist Party is modeled on Mussolini's Italian Fascist Government and it is SECULAR (NO RELIGION ALLOWED)! The U.S. backed the wrong horses in Syria: We were supplying money and arms to terrorist who were murdering children while Assad and Vlad were fighting ISIS! And, I am pretty sure a lot of "Chemical Attacks" were false flag attacks perpetrated by John McCain's beloved "Moderate Rebels"......Don't you think the people of Syria have suffered enough?

---

Vlad has a huge military base in the Mediterranean Sea they will protect at all costs and wants a lot of other stuff as well. They get that with Assad, and whomever takes his place may not deliver what they want. Assad and his family have been murderous dictators for decades if that's the suffering you mean. Assad and Vlad weren't fighting ISIS, they were fighting their own people by whatever means they could. Maybe you should bone up on the history of the region before you decide about which side of history you believe is the correct one.

I cannot believe you back Assad, and Vlad, and Mussolini. What's up with this love of cruel murderous dictators?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I cannot believe you back Assad, and Vlad, and Mussolini. What's up with this love of cruel murderous dictators?

---

I've been asking that question for weeks now - the fractured history supporting the worst players.

Athos & Talaniman: Russia has been fighting terrorism for as long as we have...of course, like the ChiComs, they covered up a lot of Muslim zealot attacks....And Russia has shown great restraint when Chechen terrorists invaded the Belsan School in 2004: It is amazing that Russia didn't go ALL In and begin an wholesale kill off of Chechens when this terrorist act occurred....such horrors.

I don't like dictators but when confronted with wild-eyed crazy religious zealots and Bolsheviks, someone, somebody has to step-in and level the playing field to provide regional stability.

I prefer SECULAR Government.

Geez, V7 - this may be your worst post yet. Please read and learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Athos & Talaniman: Russia has been fighting terrorism for as long as we have

---

No they haven't. We started with terrorists in the plane hijackings in the 60s. The Russians had no terrorists until the Soviet Union collapsed.

Quote:

---

And Russia has shown great restraint when Chechen terrorists invaded the Belsan School in 2004

---

GREAT RESTRAINT???? Are you kidding???? The showed NO restraint. After three days, they charged in guns ablaze and killed 334 of their own people including 188 CHILDREN!!! Total casualties (not counting 30 terrorists) surpassed 1200!!!!!!! Some restraint!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

It is amazing that Russia didn't go ALL In and begin an wholesale kill off of Chechens when this terrorist act occurred....such horrors.

---

Let me get this straight. NOT COMMITTING GENOCIDE was an act of amazement in your world????

Quote:

---

I prefer SECULAR Government.

---

Russia IS a secular government!!


(Btw, who are the Bolsheviks you referred to?)

Athos: The particular "CRAZY" breed of Bolshevik that I refer to is like the Shining Path guerillas of Peru or the ones in Nepal.....just ape sh&$ crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Athos: The particular "CRAZY" breed of Bolshevik that I refer to is like the Shining Path guerillas of Peru or the ones in Nepal.....just ape sh&$ crazy.

---

no they are just misinformed

You should be used to fringe groups with agendas resorting to violence to bring about the change they desire.

Yep. Take Antifa, for instance.

And that's not to mention the numerous left-wing college campus groups that have basically shut down the concept of free speech with their violent reactions against conservative speakers.

Antifa was who I had in mind as a loony fringe group who uses violence to further and agenda, as well as the KKK, with or without the hood and robes, and white supremist. I think both sides throw down when faced with each other, and moderate sane people in the middle get caught between such antics.

Talaniman: Its almost a shame we couldn't let the "crazies" from both sides have at each other and eliminate one another.....I know that would be very questionable from a legal perspective but it is an intriguing thought.

Call the cops and send 'em to jail for rioting or whatever charge you can get, and stick 'em in the same cell. Or call...

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...Fakvw.PPjA--~C

Talaniman: Good idea about the same cell! Tulsi….I think she could pull it off! Man, she is EASY ON THE EYES! Especially when she is angry!

I doubt Tulsi would run a third party candidacy nor have a hope of winning, but any third party candidate would only help the dufus get re elected, including Jill Stein who no doubt drew votes from HC in '16 in key states. I can see and it has been reported that Ruskies are at it again for the '20 elections with a cyber disinformation campaign to help the dufus AGAIN, as the impeachment inquiry moves forward.

Quote:

---

I doubt Tulsi would run a third party candidacy nor have a hope of winning, but any third party candidate would only help the dufus get re elected, including Jill Stein who no doubt drew votes from HC in '16 in key states. I can see and it has been reported that Ruskies are at it again for the '20 elections with a cyber disinformation campaign to help the dufus AGAIN, as the impeachment inquiry moves forward.

---

I thought TG was a "Russian asset" who was being "groomed" by the Russkies to run a third party effort and thus, so the theory goes, ensure the election of Trump. Are you saying that HC has it wrong?

I think HC issued a warning to dems using TG, as there has been cyber activity pushing her and other dems by online bots from the same cast of characters from 2016. Did she get it wrong? Only if you dismiss Vlad and his minions for what they have done and trying to do.

Quote:

---

I think HC issued a warning to dems using TG, as there has been cyber activity pushing her and other dems by online bots from the same cast of characters from 2016. Did she get it wrong?

---

No, she was not issuing "a warning". She very specifically accused both TG and Stein of being Russian "assets" and said that TG was being "groomed" by the Russians to run a third party effort. And you wonder why I voted for Trump???

You think Vlad cannot target someone as an asset and use nefarious means to groom them without there knowledge or cooperation?

Quote:

---

You think Vlad cannot target someone as an asset and use nefarious means to groom them without there knowledge or cooperation?

---

Without their knowledge or cooperation? Well of course not!! He can get someone to run as a third party candidate without their knowledge??? That's laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Without their knowledge or cooperation? Well of course not!! He can get someone to run as a third party candidate without their knowledge??? That's laughable.

---

Here you go again.

The question is NOT can Vlad get someone to run as a third party candidate without their knowledge. As been patiently explained to you already, the grooming is done WITHOUT the candidate's knowledge. This ain't rocket science.

The dufus seems a willing Russian asset. Wonder if he owes Vlad momey, or maybe Vlad co signed for him to get money since American banks shun this idiot. Or he has a deal in place with Vlad we know nothing about. There are those phone calls and meeting unchaperoned, and those laughing boy White House encounters with Russian officials that our press was barred from. If Vlad hadn't told us we would never know.

We all know how those dufus phone calls to foreign leaders always screw things up.

Quote:

---

The question is NOT can Vlad get someone to run as a third party candidate without their knowledge. As been patiently explained to you already, the grooming is done WITHOUT the candidate's knowledge. This ain't rocket science.

---

And that is strictly, 100% your opinion. You don't have the slightest idea what HC meant when she said that, you only have an opinion. TG did not take it that way at all, and interestingly enough, HC has not walked back her comments or explained that she meant something similar to what you said. Like you said, it's not rocket science.

Quote:

---

The dufus seems a willing Russian asset. Wonder if he owes Vlad momey, or maybe Vlad co signed for him to get money since American banks shun this idiot. Or he has a deal in place with Vlad we know nothing about. There are those phone calls and meeting unchaperoned, and those laughing boy White House encounters with Russian officials that our press was barred from. If Vlad hadn't told us we would never know.

---

I wonder if maybe all those millions of dollars BC was paid for making speeches came with strings attached. I wonder if the millions of dollars given to the Clinton Foundation by Russians while HC was Sec. of State came with strings attached? If wonder what Lynch and BC agreed to in that secret meeting? Maybe they were Russian "assets".

You see how that blade cuts both ways? It's just all pure conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And that is strictly, 100% your opinion. You don't have the slightest idea what HC meant when she said that, you only have an opinion. TG did not take it that way at all, and interestingly enough, HC has not walked back her comments or explained that she meant something similar to what you said. Like you said, it's not rocket science.

---

With Jill Stein as a third-party candidate in 2016, the Russian strategy worked, didn't it. Those Russian bots were all over Facebook, dumping out promos for her.

Quote:

---

With Jill Stein as a third-party candidate in 2016, the Russian strategy worked, didn't it. Those Russian bots were all over Facebook, dumping out promos for her.

---

I could only agree with that if I was silly enough to believe this nonsense about a "Russian strategy", none of which has been proven. If the Russkies were so wild about getting Trump elected, then why did they donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation? Why did they pay Bill Clinton to make speeches to the tune of 500 thousand per? Did they pay Trump to make speeches? No, but they did pay BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And that is strictly, 100% your opinion. You don't have the slightest idea what HC meant when she said that, you only have an opinion.

---

It is NOT my opinion. IT IS WHAT THE WORDS MEAN!!

Quote:

---

TG did not take it that way at all

---

You are correct. TG MISQUOTED HC saying she was called a "Russian AGENT"! HC NEVER called her an agent. She called TG an asset". I won't explain the difference again here.

TG is not stupid. She is spinning it to her advantage.

Jl - You really don't seem to be up on the cyber-spying - for lack of a better word. There have been tons of words written about it, and how successful the Russians have been. Are you aware that the US Intelligence Community has unanimously said the Russians interfered in 2016? What they successfully did in 2016, they are, as we speak, doing the same thing again. Why not? It worked then, it will surely work again.

Quote:

---

interestingly enough, HC has not walked back her comments or explained that she meant something similar to what you said.

---

There is nothing to walk back.

As far as explaining, she expects those who heard what she said to understand what she said. The thing was all over the cable TV News today and while she took a lot of criticism for dissing her own party, nobody commenting made the mistake of saying HC called TG an agent. Several of them keyed on what "grooming" means, which was as I indicated.

Quote:

---

You see how that blade cuts both ways?

---

Only in your mind does it cut both ways. Didn't you say you were a teacher? Why not ask some of your teacher friends what Hillary meant?

Quote:

---

It is NOT my opinion. IT IS WHAT THE WORDS MEAN!!

---

She said TG was an "agent" and was being "groomed" by the Russians. You claim that HC meant the Russians were doing that without TG's knowledge. She did not say that. That is strictly your opinion. I realize you highly value your opinion. I don't quite have that high view of it.

Quote:

---

You are correct. TG MISQUOTED HC saying she was called a "Russian AGENT"! HC NEVER called her an agent. She called TG an asset". I won't explain the difference again here.

TG is not stupid. She is spinning it to her advantage.

---

That might be true, but you don't know that for sure either. As to the asset/agent disparity, the word "asset" can very easily mean something very similar to agent, and at the least mean a person who is knowingly an ally of a particular government.

Quote:

---

Jl - You really don't seem to be up on the cyber-spying - for lack of a better word. There have been tons of words written about it, and how successful the Russians have been. Are you aware that the US Intelligence Community has unanimously said the Russians interfered in 2016? What they successfully did in 2016, they are, as we speak, doing the same thing again. Why not? It worked then, it will surely work again.

---

I am aware of it. It is also largely agreed that they interfered in 2018. So are we to conclude that they favored the democrat party takeover of the House?

But all of that is irrelevant to HC's crazy Russian accusations. Even if she only meant what you suggest, how would she know that both Stein and TG, whether wittingly or unwittingly, were Russian assets? If she know for sure, then how did she know? And if she could not be sure, then wouldn't it be the height of irresponsibility to allege it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

She said TG was an "agent" and was being "groomed" by the Russians

---

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She said "asset", NOT agent. Go watch the video - it's around somewhere.

Interesting how Trump has the power to influence his followers - fascinating example right here where the truth means nothing, facts don't count, yet the false comments - the same ones, to boot - continue unabated.

For the rest, get somebody else to do your explaining for you.

I swear, if I were a candidate, particularly a POTUS candidate, I would hire these damned RUSSIAN BOTS! From what I am reading here, they seem to be very, very effective at getting the votes for whomever they are trying to get elected! And, with the Exchange Rate the way it is, they are probably a whole heck of a lot cheaper than traditional campaign agencies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

She said TG was an "agent" and was being "groomed" by the Russians. You claim that HC meant the Russians were doing that without TG's knowledge. She did not say that. That is strictly your opinion. I realize you highly value your opinion. I don't quite have that high view of it.

---

Hillary Clinton:
“I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her [Gabbard] to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”

Quote:

---

She said "asset", NOT agent. Go watch the video - it's around somewhere.

---

You are absolutely correct. That was a typo on my part which can be clearly seen from my previous posts such as 184 where I posted, "I thought TG was a "Russian asset" who was being "groomed" by the Russkies to run a third party effort and thus, so the theory goes, ensure the election of Trump."

Still, that does not change the fact that her words do not say that the "assets" were unknowing, and the "grooming" was done without their knowledge. That is 100% speculation on your part. You claimed that was what her words said (the part about them being unwitting assets) and that is a false statement.

Quote:

---

but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”

---

I wonder how HC could make that "guarantee"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You are absolutely correct. That was a typo on my part which can be clearly seen from my previous posts such as 184 where I posted, "I thought TG was a "Russian asset" who was being "groomed" by the Russkies to run a third party effort and thus, so the theory goes, ensure the election of Trump."

Still, that does not change the fact that her words do not say that the "assets" were unknowing, and the "grooming" was done without their knowledge. That is 100% speculation on your part. You claimed that was what her words said (the part about them being unwitting assets) and that is a false statement.

---

People don't realize they're being groomed. That's the whole point in the grooming, e.g., pedophiles grooming children toward perversive activity.

Quote:

---

I wonder how HC could make that "guarantee"?

---

It was done during the 2016 campaign.