Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wiki, really? The open source site that ANYONE can go edit articles in? I do appreciate the link and actually did read the entire thing. And yet...not one actual piece of evidence. Lots of accusations. Innuendo. Speculation. But no actual evidence or proof.
I'd suggest anyone using that particular Wikipedia source to be sure they read the "talk" section.
After 9 months or more of these stories from Democrats and the highly respected news media of the United States...I actually assume that there was at least one piece of evidence.
If you won't accept what was offered, then why did you ask for it in the first place?
I think its crazy how the DNC is rabid over the "Russia Connections," but fails to point out that what was exposed was the corruption of their own candidate. I can't stand Trump, but look at it like this: Let's say that everything they say is true. Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to hack the DNC's emails and release information showing that the DNC screwed over Bernie Sanders. That doesn't change the fact that the DNC and the Clinton campaign screwed over Bernie Sanders. In fact, I'd rather know that than not.
Just fake news invented out of thin air by the liberal media for months on end.
Serious question: Do you think you're reaching anyone when you use the talking points? Like "fake news" and "liberal media?" I probably tend to agree with you on a lot of political issues, but those words just scream parrot to me. It takes literally no thought to just hammer that out, and makes people think that that is exactly how much thought you put into your political positions.
Waiting for the DNC Debbie Washerwoman Schultz investigation. Now THAT will be really interesting. If she commits suicide or dies in an accident or house break in we will know for sure Hillary was involved and didn't want her talking.
Serious question: Do you think you're reaching anyone when you use the talking points? Like "fake news" and "liberal media?" I probably tend to agree with you on a lot of political issues, but those words just scream parrot to me. It takes literally no thought to just hammer that out, and makes people think that that is exactly how much thought you put into your political positions.
That's exactly it though, it's parroting 110%.
You can watch something on FOX, and within the matter of a few minutes, you see threads pop up here saying the exact same thing, sometimes verbatim. Especially with the catchphrases and buzzwords.
You can watch something on FOX, and within the matter of a few minutes, you see threads pop up here saying the exact same thing, sometimes verbatim. Especially with the catchphrases and buzzwords.
To be fair the other side does the exact same thing with their news outlets. The whole Russia thing should exemplify that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
