Stop playing deliberately stupid. One of the things the liberal news does is show clips of what the conservatives are saying. So, yeah, our nut heard your guys including Trump spouting off about 2nd Amendment remedies.
Sure, as a non- conservative his grievances were different but the means he used to address them were means the right has been insinuating about for decades while the left has been disparaging them. Urging everybody to keep a gun handy is something the NRA does, not the liberals.
Nope. Your guy got caught lying big time. No such info on Richâs computer.
Trump uses the term âfake newsâ when he doesnât like what is being said even or particularly when it is true. So, no, the media dies not like being called liars when they arenât.
CNN labeled a lie a lie.
Iâm not playing stupid, you are. Trying to twist the fact that this guy got propaganda from liberal news and make it seem like he was actually brainwashed by the NRA is just moronic. Yeah I know how liberal media presents conservatives âspouting off about 2nd Amendment remediesâ itâs put in a NEGATIVE LIGHT. So if anything this nut gets MORE opposed to âSecond Amendment Remediesâ the more he watches Rachel Maddow tell him how evil the NRA is.
This nut got fired up watching liberal news TV. Being brainwashed by the anti-Trump rhetoric they fed him. Until he got worked up enough to go out and start shooting. Period. End of story.
Save your spew for your pals on the echo-chamber liberal sites. Wheelerâs lawsuit is baseless, thereâs video of him out there personally stating that Rich was connected to Wikileaks. And that there was a cover-up. Of course CNN wonât report that part, so you stay ignorant. But that doesnât change the fact that Wheelerâs case is undermined by his own words. He said everything Fox News reported that he did.
You have no idea what was on Richâs computer. Plus youâve got trouble with Wasserman-Schulz and Awan, despite the liberal media refusing to report on that one too. This Russia stuff is backfiring on the Democrats big time.
CNN is a fake-news factory. Theyâve lied and had to retract a lot more stories than Fox News has this year.
Trump is always going to have a hard core of supporters. There are always victims of a con-job that are either too stupid or too proud to admit that they got fooled.
You assume any skeptic of the narrative must also be a Trump supporter. So you suffer a fatal logic flow from the start. I do get your point though, however it works both ways.
Consider the alternative: that in fact the victims of the âcon jobâ are those whoâve swallowed the Russian collusion narrative. Letâs say that narrative is exposed as false. Do you think these people are going to be swift to admit they got duped? Not likely. Their pride in being the âmore sophisticated and educatedâ largely coastal elites will overwhelm them to the point of full denial. They wonât eagerly give in to the fact that theyâre the ones whoâve been made the rubes. That you can bank on.
You keep getting ahead of yourself.
Power was THE U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and the representative on the UN Security Council of THE 800 lb gorilla on the Council.
And - had access to intel reports. (Necessary, if one is going to ask that masked US personsâ identities be revealed, if you stop and think about it. Which I suggest you do.)
Further, Nunes tells us that requests she made were NOT denied.
We can only speculate why not.
Maybe, as UN Ambassador, reporting directly to POTUS and speaking on POTUS behalf to the rest of the world and specifically to the other member representatives of the UN Security Council, she had a âneed to knowâ.
Thereâs also that member of the National Security Council part.
Nunes has been blowing smoke.
With the help of freshly fired Ezra Cohen-Watnick.
Whatever the case, we shall see, eventually.
Perhaps, so long as the testimony and reports arenât classified.
LOL
Youâre adorable.
To be clear, I am mocking you, because you are wrong in that assertion.
I feel I should remind you both that the person who shot Rep. Scalise and others had a history of domestic violence. As do many people who go on to commit non-domestic violent crimes, many with firearms.
Itâs actually a better predictor of gun violence than political identification.
I wonder if the NRA will stop opposing measures to control gun ownership by people who commit domestic violence.
First - theyâd have to realize they were fooled.
I suspect there is a cadre that will never get to that point.
So much so that the Republican Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence publicly called the Republican Chair* of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence a liar.
(*That would be Rep. Devin Nunes, who was forced to recuse himself from investigating âthe Russia stuffâ, and is under investigation by his own party-controlled Ethics Committee for leaking classified information. And who also got his big scoop from the guy who got fired from the White House today.)
The idea of shooting is a meme the right wing has been toying with for a long time. Doesnât matter if our guy heard it directly from the NRA or from Trump blithering about 2nd Amendment remedies or from Rachel reporting disapprovingly that they said such things. If anything, the way the use of guns was discussed by Rachel would have slowed him down from using guns. So the right wing got some blowback from their own rhetoric.
Do we have grievances with Trump for actions which will cost people their lives? We sure do. Are bullets the right way to solve these problems? No. Are we going to shut up about the disasters Trump has cased and is contemplating because some fool chose bullets? Hell, no.
Enjoy your fantasy while it lasts.
The U.N. Ambassador getting involved in unmaskings is curious at best. Your weak attempts to explain it away confirm it.
Now go ahead and explain what Rhodes was doing rooting around the woodpile too.
That, and Obama changing the law allowing intel agencies to share info as never before, on his way out. Itâs all odd to say the least.
This is your lamest attempt yet to deflect responsibility for the shooting away from liberal media. You sound like this clueless chump who used to post here called âDiTurnoâ who actually believes the Clinton Foundation is a ânon profitâ and has nothing to do with political favors for sale. Where do you people get your wacky ideas?
You have yet to begin to explain why it is curious at all - so your attempts donât even qualify as weak.
You think itâs curious, then?
Well, lay out your reasoning - you must have a reason to believe it, no?
Letâs hear it.
Imperiously waving your hand and declaring 'this is improper!!1!!!" does not mean fuck-all.
By all means, feel free to try to obfuscate further.
While youâre at it, maybe youâd like to try explaining why unmasking and leaks are more important than the content of the conversations of the people who are freaking out about being unmasked and trying desperately to change the subject.
Speakinâ a chumps, what can one say about a person who denies that a registered 501c(3) organization, which is subject of an annual external audit and subject to criminal sanction for self-dealing, is a non-profit?
You mean what else can one say, besides all the big donors heading for the doorway the minute she lost the election? Fact is, ânon profitâ has a bit more to do with being an accurate term than just a 501c designation. It has to do with selling out the office of Secretary of State like a cheap trinket at a flea market. Incidentally, thereâs fresh news just out about the subject â hot off the press!
Newly Released Huma Abedin Emails Show Classified Info on Private Server, Possible Clinton Pay-to-Play
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/newly-released-huma-abedin-emails-show-classified-info-on-private-server-possible-clinton-pay-to-play/ar-AApjJga
Ditto.
