Trump: Only stupid people don't want relationship with Russia

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, he's totally a sockpuppet of Putin.

[Sparko]

Yeah, he's totally a sockpuppet of Putin.

Obviously! Look at his name: T r u m p.

You already have P u t in there. Then notice how the lowercase "r" really looks like an "i"? and the "m" looks like an "n"?

Trump = Putrm. it's staring your right in the face!

[elam]

Obviously! Look at his name: T r u m p.

You already have P u t in there. Then notice how the lowercase "r" really looks like an "i"? and the "m" looks like an "n"?

Trump = Putrm. it's staring your right in the face!

You have it backwards...

In the Democrat & Republican "fake" dirt files on Donald it is revealed that a 21yo Margaret Thatcher seduced the almost six year old Donald and they produced an unwanted child they named Fred, who they sold to a passing circus on its way to St. Petersburg.

In St. Petersburg, Maria Ivanovna Putina saw the baby crying in a basket and deciding it was neglected, she absconded with the child (not long before she had lost two of her youngest children).

She took the child home and begged her spouse (Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin) to let her keep him. After a lot of nagging he relented and they named the child Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. The rest is history...

It has always plagued Donald's conscience that he had let Margaret convince him to sell Fred to the gypsies. Psychoanalysts in the know say this is why he has always sought children of his own, and why he wants a relationship with Putin (better late than never)

Also the same psychoanalysts, suggest that Donald's tryst with MT is why Donald has had such a turbulent association with women.

It must be true, because I heard the intelligence was deduced by a USA private investigator who specialised in gathering dirt on people, who was paid separately by both by the Democrats & anti-Trump Republicans to get dirt on Trump. This PI paid a British ex-Ambassador to Russia to find a source for dirt on Trump. The BxAR paid an ex-MI6 agent to get dirt on Trump, who paid sub-contractors in Russia to get dirt on Trump. These reported back that they paid the 5th cousin, of their aunty's best friend, who knew a taxi driver who was considered a reliable source.

I also heard that the Kremlin on hearing about the "fake dozier" arrested the taxi driver and under interrogation he admitted, he complained to the fellow about his bunions. They never discussed Putin or Trump...The taxi driver also recalled that on that night there was a lite drizzle of rain and the street lights gave it a golden sheen...

[Tassman]

You have it backwards...

In the Democrat & Republican "fake" dirt files on Donald it is revealed that a 21yo Margaret Thatcher seduced the almost six year old Donald and they produced an unwanted child they named Fred, who they sold to a passing circus on its way to St. Petersburg.

In St. Petersburg, Maria Ivanovna Putina saw the baby crying in a basket and deciding it was neglected and decided to abscond with the child (not long before she had lost two of her youngest children).

She took the child home and begged her spouse (Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin) to let her keep him. After a lot of nagging he relented and they named the child Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. The rest is history...

It has always plagued Donald's conscience that he had let Margaret convince him to sell Fred to the gypsies. Psychoanalysts in the know say this is why he has always sought children of his own, and why he wants a relationship with Putin (better late than never)

Also the same psychoanalysts, suggest that Donald's tryst with MT is why Donald has had such a turbulent association with women.

It must be true, because I heard the intelligence was deduced by a USA private investigator who specialised in gathering dirt on people, who was paid separately by both by the Democrats & anti-Trump Republicans to get dirt on Trump. This PI paid a British ex-Ambassador to Russia to find a source for dirt on Trump. The BxAR paid an ex-MI6 agent to get dirt on Trump, who paid sub-contractors in Russia to get dirt on Trump. These reported back that they paid the 5th cousin, of their aunty's best friend, who knew a taxi driver who was considered a reliable source.

The Kremlin on hearing about the "fage news" arrested the taxi driver and under interrogation he admitted, he complained to fellow about his bunions.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/13/po...blicans-split/

[elam]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/13/po...blicans-split/

You really should start reading the international press portals. The dosiers have made the USA one big joke. No one believes the accusations - not even the FBI. They can't be substantiated, and everyone (even CNN & the Washington Post) agrees there are so many holes & contradictions in the dosier that there is only one conclusion - they are a transparent fabrication...

[Tassman]

You really should start reading the international press portals. The dosiers have made the USA one big joke. No one believes the accusations - not even the FBI. They can't be substantiated, and everyone (even CNN & the Washington Post) agrees there are so many holes & contradictions in the dosier that there is only one conclusion - they are a transparent fabrication...

[MaxVel]

Given your proclivity for ignoring evidence that doesn't fit with your pet beliefs, and your eagerness to believe the worst of those you disagree with, it is credible that taking these 'allegations' at all seriously is just a manifestation of your anti-Trump neurosis. Far-fetched? I don't think so.

[elam]

Not so fast. The allegations have been deemed credible...

Credible to whom? Not even McCain could evaluate the content of the dossier, which is why he says he turned it over to the FBI to evaluate them...Thats short hand for either he knew the doc was fake or he deduced it didn't ring true...

From reports in the USA press, the FBI doesn't find the dossier credible. The FBI reports that there are errors in timing, internal inconsistencies etc That is why no ethical news portal would touch it - well except for CNN who placed a disclaimer in their original article which said none of the contents were verifiable. Then Buzzfeed published the dossier and within a few hours thereafter its editor in chief sent out a memo explaining that even though nothing in the dossier could be substantiated the editorial committee decided to publish for the sake of journalistic transparency. Not even their own staff are buying that one.

...not yet proven, but worth investigating and currently getting top level scrutiny.

Actually, it is getting no attention at any level. As we speak the FBI has bigger problems. They are currently being investigated by Congress for their pursuit of Clinton before the election.

And, given Trump's known genital-grabbing behaviour, are they really so far fetched? I don't think so.

People like you dislike Trump because he is independent of the system. Because he is rich and privileged, he can't be bought off. Therefore he must be debauched (Even if he is, he is a minnow compared to the Clintons).

Democrat supporters are so use to the Clintons, that they need to believe that guys like Trump are as perverse as they have become, and so need to be fed with perception rather than fact.

Who needs substantiation when you have innuendo. The press needs scandal to get customers and thus advertising revenue - the truth just gets in the way of a good story...

For instance: Way back when they plagued Rita Hayworth, once billed as the most beautiful woman in the world, saying she was constantly drunk, when in fact she had Parkinson's...

[Tassman]

Given your proclivity for ignoring evidence that doesn't fit with your pet beliefs, and your eagerness to believe the worst of those you disagree with, it is credible that taking these 'allegations' at all seriously is just a manifestation of your anti-Trump neurosis. Far-fetched? I don't think so.

"The allegations were only recently deemed crediblehttp://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/10/1...mail-trump-cnn

[Tassman]

Credible to whom? Not even McCain could evaluate the content of the dossier, which is why he says he turned it over to the FBI to evaluate them...Thats short hand for either he knew the doc was fake or he deduced it didn't ring true...

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/10/1...mail-trump-cnn

One of many such sources if you'd taken the time to Google.

From reports in the USA press, the FBI doesn't find the dossier credible. The FBI reports that there are errors in timing, internal inconsistencies etc That is why no ethical news portal would touch it - well except for CNN who placed a disclaimer in their original article which said none of the contents were verifiable. Then Buzzfeed published the dossier and within a few hours thereafter its editor in chief sent out a memo explaining that even though nothing in the dossier could be substantiated the editorial committee decided to publish for the sake of journalistic transparency. Not even their own staff are buying that one.

The FBI and other agencies find the dossier sufficiently credible to investigate further.

Actually, it is getting no attention at any level. As we speak the FBI has bigger problems. They are currently being investigated by Congress for their pursuit of Clinton before the election.

Dream on.......

People like you dislike Trump because he is independent of the system. Because he is rich and privileged, he can't be bought off. Therefore he must be debauched (Even if he is, he is a minnow compared to the Clintons).

People like me dislike Trump because he's a thin-skinned, narcissistic, lying scumbag who treats women like dirt and whose teeny weeny little fingers should not be within twitching distance of the nuclear codes...to paraphrase JK Rowling.

Democrat supporters are so use to the Clintons, that they need to believe that guys like Trump are as perverse as they have become, and so need to be fed with perception rather than fact.

None of the hysterical anti-Clinton rhetoric has held up under scrutiny...unlike the anti trump rhetoric as we are seeing.

Who needs substantiation when you have innuendo. The press needs scandal to get customers and thus advertising revenue - the truth just gets in the way of a good story...

Well the anti-Clinton brigade know all about "innuendo".

For instance: Way back when they plagued Rita Hayworth, once billed as the most beautiful woman in the world, saying she was constantly drunk, when in fact she had Parkinson's...

Unlike Rita, there's nothing beautiful about Donald Trump, he's an orange buffoon.

[Mountain Man]

Gee, why won't Tassmoron visit the following thread where the fake story has been thoroughly discussed?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rump-to-Russia

[Cow Poke]

Gee, why won't Tassmoron visit the following thread where the fake story has been thoroughly discussed?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rump-to-Russia

Cause he already knows what he thinks and doesn't want to be confused with the facts.

[Mountain Man]

When even MSNBC blasted BuzzFeed for publishing fake news then you know it's as fake as fake can be.

[Cow Poke]

When even MSNBC blasted BuzzFeed for publishing fake news then you know it's as fake as fake can be.

But, what did Rachel Maddow say? She's the only True Journalist on the planet.

[JimL]

I am curious to see what Starlight thinks about whether the USA should try to have good relations with Russia or not. He is the super pacifist who complains about how evil America is, sending troops everywhere and pushing everyone around with our military power.

Its very difficult to have good diplomatic relations with a foriegn country if that country is trying to undermine the validity of the other by installing a puppet of their own as its leader. For all we know Russia has serious compromising information on Trump and forced him to run for President with the threat of releasing it. After all, Trump doesn't want to reliquish his business which he knows is standard practice for a President, so, knowing that to be the case, why would he run. Should the plan not succeed no big deal, but should it succeed, what a coup on Russia's behalf.