Is the Eccie political forum the last stand for the no-life Trumptards?

[matchingmole]

I know how you Trumptards appreciate repetition

[oeb11]

Was "What U Know" learned in a Liberal teacher's Union school????
Must have been.

[matchingmole]

Who knows?
Who cares?
Why bother?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Such a cogent and constructive contribution - what happened - did 9500 run out of bandwidth for the foolish memes of dead individuals with no relevance to the DPST party/socialist movement????

Aw, man! And I missed it having him on ignore because I just couldn't take seeing one more of those insufferable memes, well, that and a few other reasons. I did see that somebody quoted him so I had to view his post before I could avert my eyes and he is for Schiff being Joe Bidens VP. Isn't that amusing for a guy who rails against "Trump the liar", picks the biggest liar in the Democrat party to be VP.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the...ts-11589326164


All the Adam Schiff Transcripts

Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion.

Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence.


https://nypost.com/2020/05/08/adam-schiff-lied-about-the-trump-probe-and-the-media-let-him/

Adam Schiff lied about the Trump investigation — and the media and 9500 let him



As the grand impresario of collusion, Schiff has filled print and broadcast media since January 2017 claiming that he has seen “more than circumstantial evidence” of a Trump-Putin conspiracy. Obviously there was none in the transcripts, or he’d have pulled back the curtain years ago. But Schiff didn’t want to hand control of the narrative to one of Trump’s most effective deputies, so on Thursday they finally went live.
They show exactly what you’d expect them to show: None of the former Obama administration officials who took to the airwaves immediately after Trump’s election to claim collusion had any evidence of it.


Here’s Obama’s director of national intelligence, and CNN analyst, James Clapper: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”


Former Pentagon official and now candidate for New York’s 17th Congressional District Evelyn Farkas claimed in a notorious 2017 MSNBC segment that she advised her colleagues to disseminate intelligence so that Trump could not destroy evidence of collusion. Under oath, however, she testified she “didn’t know anything” about Trump staff dealing with Russians.


But what makes the transcripts significant is not what’s contained in them. Rather, it’s what they represent.
Grenell’s deputy at DNI is Kash Patel. He was lead investigator in the Russia probe conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, when it was chaired by Republican Congressman Devin Nunes. He told me for my book “The Plot Against the President” that he and GOP colleagues asked every former Obama official they interviewed if they had any evidence of collusion.


“I’m not asking if you thought it happened or if you heard it happened,” Patel told them all, from Attorney General Loretta Lynch to FBI Director James Comey. “I said, ‘Do you have information that exactly addresses this issue?’ ”
It was when Patel and Nunes saw no Obama official had any that their inquiry changed course. If there was no evidence of the Trump team’s ties to Russia, why was the FBI investigating Trump’s 2016 campaign?


And thus began what Patel called “Objective Medusa,” the Nunes team’s investigation of the FBI team that targeted the Trump campaign. Their efforts not only unraveled the collusion myth but also first illuminated the FBI’s crimes and abuses. Their groundwork led, among other things, to Attorney General William Barr’s decision, also Thursday, to drop the DOJ’s case against Gen. Michael Flynn.


The transcripts also represent yet another blow to the media’s credibility. The Obama officials interviewed were among the many sources, like Schiff, the press tapped for its prize-winning collusion reporting. They lied for years about Trump and Russia and the press peddled their narrative without question.
No matter what evidence surfaced to prove the collusion story wrong, the media continued to credential the destructive conspiracy theory. It didn’t matter when Objective Medusa showed that former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s reports were paid for by the Clinton campaign. Or when the Nunes memo explained that the FBI used the Steele dossier to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. It didn’t even matter when resistance messiah Robert Mueller concluded there was no evidence of collusion.


After Mueller filed his report last spring, CNN’s Jake Tapper said that “I don’t know anybody who got anything wrong.” Don’t expect anyone in the mainstream media to admit gross journalistic malpractice this time either. The tragic fact is that once-prestigious press organizations, including CNN as well as MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, weren’t fooled by the collusion hoax. They were an essential part of it.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...5qq-story.html

Horowitz report finally unmasks Adam Schiff. Who’s going to call him out on his lies?

Obviously not 9500

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

It didn’t even matter when resistance messiah Robert Mueller concluded there was no evidence of collusion.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT=proxima-nova]



Horowitz report finally unmasks Adam Schiff. Who’s going to call him out on his lies?

Obviously not 9500

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

1,000

Originally Posted by matchingmole

How much do the tickets cost for the Trump traveling circus?

I meant 1,000 people., not $1,000.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Thought they were still free. But there might be a math problem. Stadium holds about 19,000 at full capacity. Ticket requests are about 900,000 and rising. So it's running about 47 times the max capacity. If we apply that same ration to those attending a Joe "Hairy Legs" Biden rally, it would mean they could hold his rally in the back of a 2 seater MiniCooper.

19,000 seats?


I guess they plan on bringing those 200" Jumbo tvs to rally.

[oeb11]

HF - Thanks for a nice post - particularly on the Schiff and DPST Lies. They are Far past even Joe McCarthy from wisconsin at this point.

judging from 9500's response post - i'd say it was far Too Much Information for 9500 to understand.



Far too embedded in the DPST narrative to ever be able to think for Onself.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by oeb11

HF - Thanks for a nice post - particularly on the Schiff and DPST Lies. They are Far past even Joe McCarthy from wisconsin at this point.

judging from 9500's response post - i'd say it was far Too Much Information for 9500 to understand.

Far too embedded in the DPST narrative to ever be able to think for Onself.

YES TMI!!!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by oeb11

HF - Thanks for a nice post - particularly on the Schiff and DPST Lies. They are Far past even Joe McCarthy from wisconsin at this point.

judging from 9500's response post - i'd say it was far Too Much Information for 9500 to understand.



Far too embedded in the DPST narrative to ever be able to think for Onself.

I'll have to take your word for it since I didn't read it and thank you for not quoting it in your response.

[oeb11]

HF - i will try to remember - i do dislike quoting and reproducing all the foolish memes of dead folks who have no connection at all to the 9500 LibDPST narrative.

i am on his/her "Ignore" - except it is clear there is peeking at posts going on - and not by me or thee.

There will be a response of "righteous indignation" and more foolish memes.

[eccielover]

This whole ignore and playing holier than thou on both sides is starting to really get childish and annoying.

HF had a good observation in that you end up seeing some of their posts via quotes, but really, grow the fuck up and don't read on as soon as you see the user name.

So Please, if you are going to ignore someone just do it.

Stop with the back and forth's of I'm so glad he/she is on ignore when you "supposedly" don't know what they even posted. And also stop with the automatic responses of vitriol that have nothing to do with what was even posted. You all know who you are doing this and I think not reading what they post and knowing they posted gets under you skin more than it would have had you just read it. And seriously talking about peeking? So let's step out of Kindergarten and make adult decisions on whether you want to consume someone's content or not.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccielover

This whole ignore and playing holier than thou on both sides is starting to really get childish and annoying.

HF had a good observation in that you end up seeing some of their posts via quotes, but really, grow the fuck up and don't read on as soon as you see the user name.

So Please, if you are going to ignore someone just do it.

Stop with the back and forth's of I'm so glad he/she is on ignore when you "supposedly" don't know what they even posted. And also stop with the automatic responses of vitriol that have nothing to do with what was even posted. You all know who you are doing this and I think not reading what they post and knowing they posted gets under you skin more than it would have had you just read it. So let's step out of Kindergarten and make adult decisions on whether you want to consume someone's content or not.

Yes sir!

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Yes sir!

LOL...It was in no way an order, just my opinion(from observation) and a polite suggestion.

[PillowPilot]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Thank u for the compliment, CT.
why not try some debate about how to keep America from becoming another Venezuela...???

Great! Let's do it! Have a real debate where each side presents an idea backed by facts that the other side can then dispute. BUT here are the REAL issues:
For the debate to be worth the effort, each side must be willing to listen to the other's without hurling personal insults.
Each side, somehow has to agree at least partially on a subset of facts to be assumed indisputable.
Each side must see engaging in the debate as beneficial. Maybe for themselves, personally. Maybe for their country. Maybe for their religion, etc.

How the hell do we even begin such a debate when the person implying we should have one uses insulting language?