Posts made by Frederick

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/north-korea-says-a-nuclear-war-may-break-out-any-moment/ar-AAtBlcX?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

North Korea also says they won't negotiate with the USA..  and have previously said that they won't negotiate with any country OTHER than the USA.

Add one more to the ever growing list of people to blame for Hillary's loss:
Julian Assange!  Earlier today it was Nigel Farage.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-brands-wikileaks-boss-tool-of-russian-intelligence/ar-AAtysCv?ocid=spartanntp

@cteavin:

Somewhere between fake news and bias is the knowledge that illegal immigrants vote. It's an easy fix. Require ID. To make it easy for all Americans to vote create a voting day that's not midweek, a national holiday.

Thoughts?

When I went to vote, they required an ID.. BUT they didn't really look at it.  
Also, in California.. they GIVE IDs to illegal immigrants!

The media have lost their credibility, propagate "fake news", and are despicable.  That won't change.  They are after ratings, ratings, RATINGS. 
They are so desperate for ratings, that they can no longer come up with enough material, even fake material to fill their broadcasts with garbage to keep viewers interested.  It's kind of like the Evening News has become E! News or some tabloid fodder. 
They won't give up on the "Fake News", and won't return to actual journalism - reporting the news… BUT they are going to tap into the sea of corruption and fraud that they have been ignoring and neglecting.. on the LEFT!    Watch them cannibalize their own leftist moonbats just to get some ratings.

Why wasn't President Obama impeached for colluding with Russia?  That is treason. 
He said this in a whisper, not realizing that a microphone picked it up.

Youtube Video

Clumsy Hillary supposedly broke her toe, so she was late to an interview.  Bullshit.  She didn't injure anything.  She played the injury card to gain sympathy AND get a delay in that interview.  She knew they were going to try and ream her ass for her previous stupid comments in the UK, so she was doing damage control.  Didn't work bitch.

Maybe now she will start walking like a penguin since she injured her toe.  Oh wait, she already DOES walk like a penguin!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/16/hillary-clinton-book-tour-stumbles-after-ex-candidate-falls-and-hurts-foot.html

Now Hillary is blaming former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage for her loss!    :afr:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5612670021001/?#sp=show-clips

Hillary Clinton needs to be locked up in a mental institution.
However, she is now a LIABILITY to the left.  She is so nuts that she is making democrats look foolish.

Her latest is to defend the NFL kneelers, calls for more resistance against the government, and says the Russian's alleged cyber attacks are as bad as 9/11!

Just what did these supposed cyber attacks entail?  I read yesterday that the Russians supposedly spread misinformation about Hillary that hurt her.  WHAT misinformation?  There is so much real information about Hillary that it is a miracle she didn't get prosecuted (yet).

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton-defends-kneeling-nfl-players-says-thats-not-against-our-anthem-or-flag/ar-AAty8yp?ocid=spartanntp

On CNN's website, this is their top story:
It says if Trump loses the House in 2018, he will be impeached.
Uh, no.  To impeach a president requires the president to do something quite criminal. 
In the entire history of the country, only two Presidents of the United States have been impeached by the House of Representatives, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Neither was convicted by the Senate, so both completed their terms.
150 years ago is so long ago, it's fairly irrelevant.  As for Bill Clinton, if they couldn't successfully impeach him after blatantly and emphatically lying directly to Congress, it makes one wonder what it does take to successfully impeach a president.

The people at CNN must snort a lot of coke by reporting such nonsense.  There are 435 members of the House of Representatives, and 100 more members of the Senate.  Out of those 535 congressman, I would estimate that less than 1% of them are insane enough to even entertain the thought of impeaching the president.  There is lunatic crazy Auntie Maxine Waters and whacko Al Green, WHO ELSE?

Why would CNN even report such garbage?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/16/politics/democrats-house-midterm-elections/index.html

Comedian George Lopez booed off the stage after Trump jokes

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/16/george-lopez-booed-off-stage-for-repeated-trump-jokes.html

He probably wasn't booed off the stage because they were Trump jokes though.. he was probably booed off he stage because he is an awful comedian with no talent.

Hillary Clinton is KEEPING the $250,000 that Harvey Weinstein gave her!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/16/clinton-foundation-to-keep-harvey-weinsteins-250000-donation.html

Youtube Video – [00:26..]

Youtube Video

In 2011, Lex Luthor look-a-like Brad Melzter, who produces fake HISTORY for the History channel including garbage about bigfoot, the loch ness monster, and other tantalizing fiction did an episode on Mt. Rushmore.  Here is a synopsis:

History Channel′s ′Brad Meltzer′s Decoded′, the team investigated rumors that Mount Rushmore may be a symbol of white supremacy. That the sculptor, Gutzon Borglum was a racist
The Decoded Team next spoke with long-time resident, Martin Luschei, who grew up watching the monument′s construction. Started in 1927, it took 14 years to complete. Luschei raised the issue of Borglum being Anti-Semitic, as well as a member of the Klu Klux Klan. Borglum had previously worked on another major sculpture project, Stone Mountain, celebrating the Confederacy with the likenesses of Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Stonewall Jackson and President Jefferson Davis carved into the side of the Georgia mountain. The KKK were major financial backers of this monument.

Some moonbat saw a re-run of that schlock, and is now calling for the removal of Mt. Rushmore and Stone Mountain.

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@raphjd:

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign.

If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence.

When I lived in New Orleans / Metairie, I once walked into a lobby of a hotel AS it was being robbed by 6 guys in masks - carrying the the hotel safe out.  I was within arms reach of them.  (They were all caught after "someone" gave a thorough description of them and I gave the pigs the tag number, vehicle make and model and direction they took off in too).  On another day, I was attacked by two short mexican laborers who leaped out of their pickup truck.  I assume they were trying to mug me but failed to knock me off my feet.  In both of these incidents.. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had a gun on me.  They could have taken the gun and shot me, or they might have had a weapon of their own and not hesitated to use it before I used the gun, or I might have used it on them and permanently injured or killed them.  None of those 3 outcomes were worth just letting them go without a fight.  They didn't want to fight me (well, the Mexicans TRIED but gave up) and I didn't want to fight them.  
Today I was in a Walmart and this guy in a vest, tie, dress shirt, etc.  is in the sporting goods department buying a two big boxes of bullets.. two different kinds.  I was thinking "someone owns a gun.. fine.. but why would they need to buy bullets unless they were shooting the gun?  and what were they shooting?"

Frederick, I'm very sorry those situations happened to you. You're absolutely right, in those instances a gun would have escalated the situation and it's better to let authorities handle it. However, what if someone breaks into your home while you're in your kitchen cooking and they start shooting at you? Wouldn't you rather have a gun to shoot them with before they killed you? How else are you going to protect yourself? I could understand not wanting to escalate a situation, but what if it is already on that level and they've shot at you or have even shot you?

That's an EXCELLENT scenario you pointed out.  Obviously the person who broke in has the upper hand in that they have the weapon and are quite prepared to use it..  What am I supposed to do?  Tell the person "Oh, would you be a doll and wait here while I go get my gun from the other room, make sure it is loaded, take the safety off, and come back to shoot you?"    I've heard of people that keep a loaded gun with the safety off in every drawer in the house.   Even in that case, is the person who broke in going to allow you to open a drawer and pull out a gun?   Far more likely is for a kid to find the gun and go out playing with it, and shoot themselves with it or cause some other mischief.. or a burglar come in without a gun.. open a drawer and find your gun.. and if you interrupted him he would use your gun to shoot YOU!   I really can't think of a scenario where a gun would be an effective DEFENSE.   I would suggest someone get a dog, or a recording of a dog, or an alarm system instead of a gun.  Again, I can't come up with a good reason to have a gun, I can come up with a LOT of bad reasons to have a gun.

By the way, very few people know this.. but of all the police that get shot.. 25% of them get shot with their OWN weapon!   They are supposed to be highly trained and experts, etc.  Those are not very good odds!   Police are quite a bit like Barney Fife.

Youtube Video

Good point. I believe the laws in place can stop a ton of gun violence if they were actually enforced. The loopholes can be closed by Republicans passing careful legislation, so careful that Democrats can't exploit it. Other than that, I don't think much can be done without addressing the gun lobbyists and other special interests on both sides. Would it be right to do a buyback program to take legal, sane gun owners' guns?

Also, you're absolutely right about the cops. There are many cop stories where they accidentally shot themselves and gave the description of black men who did it ;D

In regards to cop shootings.. often not only are cops shot with their OWN weapons, but the cops get injured from the bullets fired by OTHER cops.  There have been recent cases where one cop shoots at a suspect through a window.. only to find out the suspect they just killed was another cop.

Obama had 8 years to do something, anything about cops.. but did absolutely NOTHING!   No excuse for that.

@royalcrown89:

@cteavin:

@Frederick:

… or to summarize.. the allegations of collusion are nothing but a nothing burger.  In fact, until Van Jones of CNN said this.. he was a big shot at CNN.. since then, they have muzzled him.    Van Jones called the collusion story a "Nothing Burger"
Youtube Video

But it's a nothing burger that people believe exists. Had Trump not made a big deal out of Obama's birth certificate, I'd be angry about the whole investigation. Seems to me he's getting payback. Also, the Republicans are getting a taste of obstruction aka payback.

I'm hoping that when it's all over both sides can let it go and get to running the country.

If it is a nothing burger once the investigation ends, it would be best for everyone to move on. I also believe if the president is successful with getting tax reform, the amount of extra stabilization it will bring to an already stabilizing market will overshadow anything the left even attempts to throw at him. It would truly change the direction of things. I'm heavily against major tax cuts for the wealthy, but I'll accept them if it means having a robust market that actually does create jobs and raises wages (would need to see immediate results of that). However, there needs to be a starting point with trust and only the president can lead on that front.

No, it's a nothing burger until Mueller comes up with something.. and so far he has not.

I'd like to see someone investigate CNN for giving Hillary the presidential debate questions.. and also investigate Hillary for not revealing that she got the questions for the debate before the debate.

@cteavin:

I only get a little glimpse of what must be near round the clock coverage in the 24-hour news cycle of this.

Me, I'm not a fan of people, mostly women, coming forward to say they were raped. If there's no proof it becomes he said, she said and the current cultural norm is to believe the victim.

Also, there are (petty?) decades-old grievances coming to light. A good example of this is a woman who still holds a grudge that Ben Aflac (whom I despise as a person) grabbed her boob on TV. Let it go. Or, am I wrong?

I wish they media would do more to distinguish incidences of sexual assault.    For instance, there is a  massive difference between someone using a crowbar to break into someone's home and hold a knife to their throat and rape them….  and someone coming onto a movie mogul to get a part in a movie - and when the mogul takes advantage of the situation by patting one's ass or making a suggestive remark, etc.  instead of just walking away or not having the encounter in the first place.  Since supposedly "everyone" knew that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted actresses, why would an actress ever allow themselves to be caught in a compromising position with him?    By the way, it was Harvey's brother BOB that finally exposed Harvey for being a monster.

@royalcrown89:

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

col·lu·sion
[kəˈlo͞oZHən]
NOUN
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

It is illegal to hack into voter data bases and it is illegal to hand over personal voter data in an attempt to increase one's chances of being elected as president. Personal voter data includes, party registration, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and ID or voter card numbers. That level of personal information was used to target individuals and it's possible that Americans helped access and provide that information to a foreign power. That's the allegation being investigated by one part of Mueller's investigation and then there's the matter of trying to cover up the investigation that began prior to Mueller being appointed as special counsel. Are you not aware that two separate grand juries (one in Virginia, one in D.C.) are handling those two parts of the investigation?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/04/russia-special-counsel-robert-mueller-using-multiple-grand-juries/540959001/

Actually, the definition is more complex than what you posted.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/collusion

So what you've been trying to tell me is that someone on Team Trump passed voter info to a Russian agent in order to target small groups with precise advertising through social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Is that correct?

Well, the article you linked to said it best, it's going to take "years" to prove or disprove.

Let me give you a little advice on how to talk about this from someone very far removed. Most people aren't bright, which is why they could be swayed by fake news via social media. Do you really think these people understand the nuances in the word collusion? Use descriptives that are in everyday speech such as conspiracy and fraud. Treason would make you sound biased and collusion calls up partisan reporting.

So let's sum up:

We agree that Muller is investigating Russia for possible conspiracy to commit voter fraud by microtargeting individuals with fake advertisements/information in order to sway people on the fence to not vote Hillary or vote Trump.

People, like me, who find this a non-issue feel so because 1) manipulating election is part o global politics, 2) if a voter is dumb enough to believe a FB post there's nothing more that can be done (you can't fix stupid), 3) the (over) reaction from day one (think pink hats and protest) make this investigation seem like Trump's Birther Issue rather than a clear sign that something illegal happened.

And we simply disagree on whether Muller should release Trump's tax returns. I feel it's not an obligation for Trump to disclose them and you think tradition mandates that he must and Muller is the means.

Are we good?

This came from the page of the link you posted:

{n. where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating. Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends. It can range from small-town shopkeepers or heirs to a grandma's estate, to gigantic electronics companies or big league baseball team owners.}

"…pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends," specifically applies to some of what could have happened during the election. How many times did we all hear Russia say, "we had nothing to do with anything," and #45 claimed it could have been a 400-pound person on a bed somewhere; meanwhile our intelligence agencies found otherwise?

He is investigating the attempts at voter fraud and the possibility that they were helped by Americans who wanted one candidate to win the election. I've stated that this whole thing could very well be a security screw up by the Obama administration. Hell, it could even be Hillary Clinton who caused all of this knowing that she'd lose the election because for the past few election cycles we've gone from Republican to Democrat, Democrat to Republican. It is possible that she obtained and handed over voter data to Russians and President Obama and his friends have been leaving breadcrumbs behind to frame this current president. Nothing is off the table here. Still, all of this is alleged and you are absolutely right, it could take years. No matter how long it takes, the truth will come out.

We disagree on what should happen with the taxes. He should release them because the deeper this goes, the more suspicious he will look. There were many people who assumed nothing would come of Watergate and Nixon spent much of his time claiming "fake news" and that the media "was after him." Look how well that turned out. Are there people that look at this as #45's birther issue? Yes, I have no doubt about it. For me, it's all about the truth. It will never sit right with me that he is the only president in modern history not to release his taxes because he's also the only president in modern history to come in with so many conflicts of interests and so many ties to the foreign power accused of working with him to attack our democracy.

… or to summarize.. the allegations of collusion are nothing but a nothing burger.  In fact, until Van Jones of CNN said this.. he was a big shot at CNN.. since then, they have muzzled him.    Van Jones called the collusion story a "Nothing Burger"
Youtube Video

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

col·lu·sion
[kəˈlo͞oZHən]
NOUN
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

It is illegal to hack into voter data bases and it is illegal to hand over personal voter data in an attempt to increase one's chances of being elected as president. Personal voter data includes, party registration, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and ID or voter card numbers. That level of personal information was used to target individuals and it's possible that Americans helped access and provide that information to a foreign power. That's the allegation being investigated by one part of Mueller's investigation and then there's the matter of trying to cover up the investigation that began prior to Mueller being appointed as special counsel. Are you not aware that two separate grand juries (one in Virginia, one in D.C.) are handling those two parts of the investigation?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/04/russia-special-counsel-robert-mueller-using-multiple-grand-juries/540959001/

Actually, the definition is more complex than what you posted.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/collusion

So what you've been trying to tell me is that someone on Team Trump passed voter info to a Russian agent in order to target small groups with precise advertising through social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Is that correct?

Well, the article you linked to said it best, it's going to take "years" to prove or disprove.

Let me give you a little advice on how to talk about this from someone very far removed. Most people aren't bright, which is why they could be swayed by fake news via social media. Do you really think these people understand the nuances in the word collusion? Use descriptives that are in everyday speech such as conspiracy and fraud. Treason would make you sound biased and collusion calls up partisan reporting.

So let's sum up:

We agree that Muller is investigating Russia for possible conspiracy to commit voter fraud by microtargeting individuals with fake advertisements/information in order to sway people on the fence to not vote Hillary or vote Trump.

People, like me, who find this a non-issue feel so because 1) manipulating election is part o global politics, 2) if a voter is dumb enough to believe a FB post there's nothing more that can be done (you can't fix stupid), 3) the (over) reaction from day one (think pink hats and protest) make this investigation seem like Trump's Birther Issue rather than a clear sign that something illegal happened.

And we simply disagree on whether Muller should release Trump's tax returns. I feel it's not an obligation for Trump to disclose them and you think tradition mandates that he must and Muller is the means.

Are we good?

It should be noted that in all the instances where voter fraud has been examined.. the vast number of incidents of fraud were on HILLARY'S side, not Trumps.  Even if there was fraud, there is a time limit to challenge the veracity of the votes, and that deadline has passed.  Furthermore, even if we assume that there was fraud.. there is no way there was enough fraud to change the outcome of he election.

With that said, anybody who knows history knows that in the 1960 election between Kennedy and Nixon, the only reason Kennedy won was because of mafia orchestrated voter fraud in Illinois.  If not for that fraud, Nixon would have won Illinois - and the election.  The mafia expected JFK to get senator Robert Kennedy off their ass in exchange for getting him elected.  Instead, JFK made Bobby his attorney general - who then attacked the mafia - even resorting to violating the law to crush the mafia.  Many people suggest that because of this, the mafia decided to send both JFK and RFK to sleep with the fishes.  Many people also say that because of the known democratic fraud in the 1960 election, president Nixon authorized an illegal investigation into the democrats - called "Watergate".  So essentially, the democrats committed a massive crime, and Nixon got destroyed for authorizing an illegal investigation into their crime.  Bobby Kennedy never got into trouble for his illegal methods in investigating the mafia.. why?  Because at the time, Bobby was the Attorney General of the USA!  What was Bobby going to do?  Give himself a spanking?  I would further point out that the FBI is under the control of the Attorney General.  How convenient?  That fraud and corruption worked perfectly for JFK and RFK.. except for the fact that both of them got assassinated.

Youtube Video

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@raphjd:

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign.

If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence.

When I lived in New Orleans / Metairie, I once walked into a lobby of a hotel AS it was being robbed by 6 guys in masks - carrying the the hotel safe out.  I was within arms reach of them.  (They were all caught after "someone" gave a thorough description of them and I gave the pigs the tag number, vehicle make and model and direction they took off in too).  On another day, I was attacked by two short mexican laborers who leaped out of their pickup truck.  I assume they were trying to mug me but failed to knock me off my feet.  In both of these incidents.. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had a gun on me.  They could have taken the gun and shot me, or they might have had a weapon of their own and not hesitated to use it before I used the gun, or I might have used it on them and permanently injured or killed them.  None of those 3 outcomes were worth just letting them go without a fight.  They didn't want to fight me (well, the Mexicans TRIED but gave up) and I didn't want to fight them. 
Today I was in a Walmart and this guy in a vest, tie, dress shirt, etc.  is in the sporting goods department buying a two big boxes of bullets.. two different kinds.  I was thinking "someone owns a gun.. fine.. but why would they need to buy bullets unless they were shooting the gun?  and what were they shooting?"

Frederick, I'm very sorry those situations happened to you. You're absolutely right, in those instances a gun would have escalated the situation and it's better to let authorities handle it. However, what if someone breaks into your home while you're in your kitchen cooking and they start shooting at you? Wouldn't you rather have a gun to shoot them with before they killed you? How else are you going to protect yourself? I could understand not wanting to escalate a situation, but what if it is already on that level and they've shot at you or have even shot you?

That's an EXCELLENT scenario you pointed out.  Obviously the person who broke in has the upper hand in that they have the weapon and are quite prepared to use it..  What am I supposed to do?  Tell the person "Oh, would you be a doll and wait here while I go get my gun from the other room, make sure it is loaded, take the safety off, and come back to shoot you?"    I've heard of people that keep a loaded gun with the safety off in every drawer in the house.  Even in that case, is the person who broke in going to allow you to open a drawer and pull out a gun?  Far more likely is for a kid to find the gun and go out playing with it, and shoot themselves with it or cause some other mischief.. or a burglar come in without a gun.. open a drawer and find your gun.. and if you interrupted him he would use your gun to shoot YOU!  I really can't think of a scenario where a gun would be an effective DEFENSE.  I would suggest someone get a dog, or a recording of a dog, or an alarm system instead of a gun.  Again, I can't come up with a good reason to have a gun, I can come up with a LOT of bad reasons to have a gun.

By the way, very few people know this.. but of all the police that get shot.. 25% of them get shot with their OWN weapon!  They are supposed to be highly trained and experts, etc.  Those are not very good odds!  Police are quite a bit like Barney Fife.

Youtube Video

@royalcrown89:

@raphjd:

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign.

If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence.

When I lived in New Orleans / Metairie, I once walked into a lobby of a hotel AS it was being robbed by 6 guys in masks - carrying the the hotel safe out.  I was within arms reach of them.  (They were all caught after "someone" gave a thorough description of them and I gave the pigs the tag number, vehicle make and model and direction they took off in too).  On another day, I was attacked by two short mexican laborers who leaped out of their pickup truck.  I assume they were trying to mug me but failed to knock me off my feet.  In both of these incidents.. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had a gun on me.  They could have taken the gun and shot me, or they might have had a weapon of their own and not hesitated to use it before I used the gun, or I might have used it on them and permanently injured or killed them.  None of those 3 outcomes were worth just letting them go without a fight.  They didn't want to fight me (well, the Mexicans TRIED but gave up) and I didn't want to fight them. 
Today I was in a Walmart and this guy in a vest, tie, dress shirt, etc.  is in the sporting goods department buying a two big boxes of bullets.. two different kinds.  I was thinking "someone owns a gun.. fine.. but why would they need to buy bullets unless they were shooting the gun?  and what were they shooting?"

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

Working with a foreign government to misinform the American people is one thing, but giving that foreign government access to private voter information would be a serious crime, that's what's meant when people allege there was some collusion. Do you understand that a foreign power knew highly detailed information about American citizens and it's not clear how they were able to access that information?….Mueller could find that the Obama administration made a serious error and caused detailed voter information to get in the hands of that foreign government for all we know.

...How did a foreign power get personal voter data? Were they helped? Was it something caused by the previous administration? If so, will someone from that administration be held responsible? I find it ridiculous that people are so dead set on looking over the fact that serious attempts at actually hacking into voting machines were made and that securing our elections is some kind of joke. It's not a joke; which is why both parties came together and called it out and passed new sanctions against that foreign government. It's why there has been hearing after hearing on this. This is an American problem, not a left vs. right problem.

Let's break this into several manageable chunks.

1. Collusion vs conspiracy. You keep mentioning Muller. He is not interested in collusion but conspiracy, cover up, and if there was anything criminal done during the election that people on the Right were part of. Every time you misuse collusion you send a signal that you're paying attention to a partisan press.

If you want to understand what real collusion looks like check out what happens when a US senator steps out of bounds to influence Nicaragua.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/20/us/congress-letter-to-nicaragua-dear-comandante.html

Or think back to the collusion between Stalin and Roosevelt on the post-WWII world.

There's even the alleged collusion between then Senator Kennedy and the KGB to undermine Regan (unproven).

Collusion is not what Muller is actively investigating – Russia and Trump did not set out to divide the US for Russia to rule by proxy. Muller is investigating whether or not Team Trump actively sought out help to undermine Hillary AND if there would be any legal statues broken vis a vie whatever proof they might find.

2. Your phrasing in, "[d]o you understand that a foreign power knew highly detailed information about American citizens" gives me the impression that Russian intelligence was directly targeting individual US citizens. To be honest, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I did a few Google searches and found nothing to hint at what you're implying.

3. Why aren't people more interested in this alleged story? Because the US has actively interfered with foreign governments, foreign government actively do this as well, and when you step back, the whole story looks like revenge for the Birther issue.

Every iteration of the US government actively tries to alter world politics. What do you think sanctions have been in Cuba, North Korea, Iran but a means to make the public rise against their leaders to pursue an agenda our elites prefer. Do and did Russia and China try to influence our elections? Absolutely. Did they? Sure, to a point. But they can only create fake news stories on Facebook. If the public has been conditioned over time to be believe everything they read and hear, that's neither collusion or conspiracy; it's stupidity, a wake-up call to teach people how to think critically.

From where I sit, people rallying around this idea of collusion are no different than those who maintained the birther (non) issue. And if you're a foreign person whose country has been affected by the US, you'd see a layer of irony on top of that.

For the sake of finding some common ground on this and moving on (since it's clear there's no intention to take a serious investigation seriously) I'll just say in conclusion, we will see what happens once the investigation ends. I've stated in my responses that nothing has yet been proven; therefore, I'm only going off of how guilty to president has been acting. I've also stated that if Mueller does not recommend charges, I believe everyone should let this go and move on. I've noticed for the past couple of months this has not been the main topic of news; healthcare and Hurricane relief have been, so the premise that this is all the left and MSM talks about is false anyway.

My only problem, like many others on the left, has been people like yourself dismissing a serious investigation that was launched almost unanimously by our elected officials of all parties and backed up by our intelligence agencies all to believe one president and his administration. If this administration knowingly aided a foreign power in obtaining personal voter data then they will be labeled as traitors. If this president has been involved in trying to cover up or obstruct any parts of the investigation, he should be held accountable. One thing's for sure, my "Lock Him Up" signature will remain until the investigation is over and no charges are recommended.

No, you are wrong.   You have been pounding on this nothing burger of tax returns for over a year now.  Trump did nothing wrong.  There is no obligation to publish one's tax returns.  Rachel Madcow did a much advertised special in which she ILLEGALLYbroadcast selected Trump tax returns (and didn't get punished for it).   Your asinine photos on all of your messages shows Trump in prison.  He hasn't even been CHARGED with anything.  You haven't even suggested that Trump did anything that would put him in jail, yet you continue to do so.  What you are doing falls under the category of libel / slander / defamation

Thank you for your input Frederick, I really appreciate it. :hug:

I'm so glad you approve!  :thx: