Special Counsel John Durham Exonerates Donald Trump of “Russiagate”

[scombrid]

Yes the twoofers and anti vaxxers and chemtrailers etc… that were anti bush are now firmly mainstream GOP. But most of us know that they were never actual libertarian or liberal or peaceful.

 

[RVonse]

Just list the alleged fucking lies. I'm seriously done clicking on your videos. What have you been lied to about in your opinion?

I just think its hilarious that the video features Gabbard. Nope. Nothing to this whole Russia thing. Just ask Tulsi!

But isn't Gabbard a liberal?

I would not know what more to present or cite if you can not even listen to someone from your own democrat party.

No. Gabbard is not a liberal. She is also no longer a Democrat.

I mean, the other day Russian state TV was singing her praises and calling her their "friend." But nope. Nothing to see here. Move along...

She opposed the Clinton faction within the Democratic Party. That is an unforgivable sin. She cannot be a "liberal" or a "Democrat" after doing that.

Now she is (as she always was) anti-war, another unforgivable sin. Everyone knows that the party that claims to advocate for the poor and oppressed loves dropping bombs on poor and oppressed people in other countries.

Gabbard may claim to be anti-war but she served in the US in the Army National guard and in 2020 left the guard to join the US Army Reserve in a unit based in CA, with the rank of Lt. Col. and has served 2 tours in the mid-East.

She has strong ties to Hindu Nationalists and the Hinduvta Party which seeks to establish a Hindu state making Christians and Muslims second class citizens.

Her military career is well known and is what gives her so much credibility with followers. Who knows better than military personal and/or Smedley Butler the dangers of the military complex?

Religion is one of many side issues the deep state would love for you to be distracted so that they can pull their war strings with both parties.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just list the alleged fucking lies. I'm seriously done clicking on your videos. What have you been lied to about in your opinion?

I just think its hilarious that the video features Gabbard. Nope. Nothing to this whole Russia thing. Just ask Tulsi!

But isn't Gabbard a liberal?

I would not know what more to present or cite if you can not even listen to someone from your own democrat party.

No. Gabbard is not a liberal. She is also no longer a Democrat.

I mean, the other day Russian state TV was singing her praises and calling her their "friend." But nope. Nothing to see here. Move along...

She opposed the Clinton faction within the Democratic Party. That is an unforgivable sin. She cannot be a "liberal" or a "Democrat" after doing that.

Now she is (as she always was) anti-war, another unforgivable sin. Everyone knows that the party that claims to advocate for the poor and oppressed loves dropping bombs on poor and oppressed people in other countries.

Gabbard may claim to be anti-war but she served in the US in the Army National guard and in 2020 left the guard to join the US Army Reserve in a unit based in CA, with the rank of Lt. Col. and has served 2 tours in the mid-East.

She has strong ties to Hindu Nationalists and the Hinduvta Party which seeks to establish a Hindu state making Christians and Muslims second class citizens.

Her military career is well known and is what gives her so much credibility with followers.

Gabbard has followers? Like Ron Paul?

Who knows better than military personal and/or Smedley Butler the dangers of the military complex?

Isn't this source bias? You are saying her complaints are legit because she was in the military, but I bet we could get a lot of military to say it ain't a problem. So her opinion only matters to you because it agress with your opinion.

Religion is one of many side issues the deep state would love for you to be distracted so that they can pull their war strings with both parties.

An odd comment to raise among atheists. We weren't riled into a frenzy to force women to give birth to babies.

 

[RVonse]

I can't thing of a time when you've condemned the right for all the wars and military action that they have started.

Wow. It is almost as if I wasn't condemning the war on terror (tm) back when Bush was in office.

But you and Tulsi are very similar in one aspect: you claim to be anti war. Fine. Great deal! I'm anti-war also.

Even when a Democrat is in office? I was so disappointed when the anti-war left disappeared completely off the face of the Earth in January 2009. It is almost as if something significant happened in January 2009. Can you think of anything significant that happened in January 2009? I saw people who agreed with me suddenly disagree with me, even though my position hadn't changed. It was strange. Something important must have happened in January 2009.

Can you name any significant events in January 2009?

Wow. It's almost as if you were silent when the MAGA crowd wanted a war with Iran during Trump's presidency and was fine with exporting billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia so long as Jared made a cool buck from it.

Love your consistent anti-war stance. You know, considering those examples I just gave are a little more recent than a decade ago. I'm sure you can provide links that suggest that I am wrong. Posts you've made condemning such actions and all that.

Its fair to say that both parties are pretty guilty being war hawks. According to the US constitution, the executive branch should not even be allowed to declare a war. Congress is supposed to do that.

Would you be in favor of following the constitution (regardless of executive branch party)?

 

[RVonse]

Just list the alleged fucking lies. I'm seriously done clicking on your videos. What have you been lied to about in your opinion?

I just think its hilarious that the video features Gabbard. Nope. Nothing to this whole Russia thing. Just ask Tulsi!

But isn't Gabbard a liberal?

I would not know what more to present or cite if you can not even listen to someone from your own democrat party.

No. Gabbard is not a liberal. She is also no longer a Democrat.

I mean, the other day Russian state TV was singing her praises and calling her their "friend." But nope. Nothing to see here. Move along...

She opposed the Clinton faction within the Democratic Party. That is an unforgivable sin. She cannot be a "liberal" or a "Democrat" after doing that.

Now she is (as she always was) anti-war, another unforgivable sin. Everyone knows that the party that claims to advocate for the poor and oppressed loves dropping bombs on poor and oppressed people in other countries.

Gabbard may claim to be anti-war but she served in the US in the Army National guard and in 2020 left the guard to join the US Army Reserve in a unit based in CA, with the rank of Lt. Col. and has served 2 tours in the mid-East.

She has strong ties to Hindu Nationalists and the Hinduvta Party which seeks to establish a Hindu state making Christians and Muslims second class citizens.

Her military career is well known and is what gives her so much credibility with followers.

Gabbard has followers? Like Ron Paul?

Who knows better than military personal and/or Smedley Butler the dangers of the military complex?

Isn't this source bias? You are saying her complaints are legit because she was in the military, but I bet we could get a lot of military to say it ain't a problem. So her opinion only matters to you because it agress with your opinion.

Religion is one of many side issues the deep state would love for you to be distracted so that they can pull their war strings with both parties.

An odd comment to raise among atheists. We weren't riled into a frenzy to force women to give birth to babies.

I would ask you the same question as Patooka. Would you be in favor of following our Constitution requiring Congress (not the executive branch) to declare all wars?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

An odd comment to raise among atheists. We weren't riled into a frenzy to force women to give birth to babies.

I would ask you the same question as Patooka. Would you be in favor of following our Constitution requiring Congress (not the executive branch) to declare all wars?

Congress approves every single dime spent to wage a war. So while Congress no longer declares wars, they have every capability to prevent funding of one. Iraq as technically authorized by Congress as well, though not a formal declaration.

 

[Patooka]

Its fair to say that both parties are pretty guilty being war hawks.

No, it's not. To quote someone you are a fan of, don't be obtuse.

 

[bilby]

Would you be in favor of following our Constitution requiring Congress (not the executive branch) to declare all wars?

Nobody declares war anymore. It's not the nineteenth century.

These days, if you want a nation to know you are at war with them, they find out because there's a bunch of soldiers in your country's uniforms running around shooting people.

Congress is the only body that can declare war, but that doesn't say anything about who can start one.

It needn't even be someone in America. Nobody was running around at Pearl Harbor shouting "Don't shoot back, Congress hasn't yet declared war!". The war between Japan and the USA was started by the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Although the Japanese did make a half-arsed attempt to declare war before the attack began. They certainly weren't planning to wait for the US Congress to green-light their surprise attack.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd need to look it up to confirm, but Congress declaring war might have been about separation of powers to ensure the President is not a King. As I noted, Congress holds the purse. The US President can not wage a long war without Congress's approval.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I share your sense of disbelief that the right wing seems to be embracing Putin and Russia/Soviet Union. It’s like we’re in the upside down.

Manchurian Candidate perhaps?

It’s been widely speculated that a number of politicians are bought and paid for by Putin, among others. Trump is hardly the only one.
In fact, much of the crazy right wing has embraced Putin so soundly that there must be money involved. And a lot of it.

I don't think His Flatulence is under Moscow's thumb--he's too stupid for Putin to dare approach. To learn that somebody very close to him is under Moscow's thumb, though, would be no surprise. No idea beyond that, though--how much of it is actually Moscow control vs simply liking the authoritarian approach?

I also think Moscow is more skilled than that--trying to exercise control could backfire spectacularly if someone had a recorder and a conscience attack. Rather, I think Moscow will manipulate from behind the scenes. We used to see this a lot with the left--they didn't agree with Moscow but an awful lot of leftist positions didn't make sense in terms of what they claimed to be for--but almost always matched what would benefit Russia.

I think he's so stupid he gives away info he should not whenever he's among 'friends.' He's a useful idiot.

That I will definitely agree with.

 

[barbos]

Whole lot of projection here.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Can you name any significant events in January 2009?

I can't think of any off the top of my head.

How about January 20th in particular ... did anything significant happen on that day?

She opposed the Clinton faction within the Democratic Party. That is an unforgivable sin. She cannot be a "liberal" or a "Democrat" after doing that.

Now she is (as she always was) anti-war, another unforgivable sin. Everyone knows that the party that claims to advocate for the poor and oppressed loves dropping bombs on poor and oppressed people in other countries.

Gabbard may claim to be anti-war but she served in the US in the Army National guard and in 2020 left the guard to join the US Army Reserve in a unit based in CA, with the rank of Lt. Col. and has served 2 tours in the mid-East.

She has strong ties to Hindu Nationalists and the Hinduvta Party which seeks to establish a Hindu state making Christians and Muslims second class citizens.

It is funny that a LOT of people who have worn the uniform don't support sending the troops out on purely political missions. It is only the purely political people who think the troops are wrong on their opinion.

She was visitied by a politician from India who was a Hindu nationalist, because she was a Hindu in the House of Representatives at the time. That much is true. Doesn't mean she supports him in return, but since she opposed her majesty Hillary it must be true.

Yeah, but she criticises Democrats therefore she must be okay. You can be a white supremacist pedophile and all you need to do for libertarians to love you is say, "I'm against getting involved in Ukraine".

It takes more than being a progressive to get libertarian support.

Wow. It's almost as if you were silent when the MAGA crowd wanted a war with Iran during Trump's presidency and was fine with exporting billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia so long as Jared made a cool buck from it.

Wow. It's almost as if you made that up. Forget the "almost".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How about January 20th in particular ... did anything significant happen on that day?

A bunch of old white guys shit their pants.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Can you name any significant events in January 2009?

I can't think of any off the top of my head.

How about January 20th in particular ... did anything significant happen on that day?

She opposed the Clinton faction within the Democratic Party. That is an unforgivable sin. She cannot be a "liberal" or a "Democrat" after doing that.

Now she is (as she always was) anti-war, another unforgivable sin. Everyone knows that the party that claims to advocate for the poor and oppressed loves dropping bombs on poor and oppressed people in other countries.

Gabbard may claim to be anti-war but she served in the US in the Army National guard and in 2020 left the guard to join the US Army Reserve in a unit based in CA, with the rank of Lt. Col. and has served 2 tours in the mid-East.

She has strong ties to Hindu Nationalists and the Hinduvta Party which seeks to establish a Hindu state making Christians and Muslims second class citizens.

It is funny that a LOT of people who have worn the uniform don't support sending the troops out on purely political missions. It is only the purely political people who think the troops are wrong on their opinion.

She was visitied by a politician from India who was a Hindu nationalist, because she was a Hindu in the House of Representatives at the time. That much is true. Doesn't mean she supports him in return, but since she opposed her majesty Hillary it must be true.

Yeah, but she criticises Democrats therefore she must be okay. You can be a white supremacist pedophile and all you need to do for libertarians to love you is say, "I'm against getting involved in Ukraine".

It takes more than being a progressive to get libertarian support.

Wow. It's almost as if you were silent when the MAGA crowd wanted a war with Iran during Trump's presidency and was fine with exporting billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia so long as Jared made a cool buck from it.

Wow. It's almost as if you made that up. Forget the "almost".

Amigo! I totally forgot! Yes, January 20 is when our favorite President, Obama was elected! That was a great day. Regarding Tulsi: stop with the people who wore a uniform have a greater stage when talking about "sending out the troops". I was in the military also. But I don't use my service as a sanctimonious prop to make myself an expert on military matters! She supports larger countries invading smaller ones and stealing their land. How anti-peace is that?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Amigo! I totally forgot! Yes, January 20 is when our favorite President, Obama was elected! That was a great day. Regarding Tulsi: stop with the people who wore a uniform have a greater stage when talking about "sending out the troops". I was in the military also. But I don't use my service as a sanctimonious prop to make myself an expert on military matters! She supports larger countries invading smaller ones and stealing their land. How anti-peace is that?

Hm, and why do you think the anti-war left disappeared on that day?

It isn't just Tulsi. Just about everyone who has worn a uniform is less pro-war than those who haven't. It is a trend that many people have noticed.

Please expand on "larger countries invading smaller ones".

 

[Harry Bosch]

Amigo! I totally forgot! Yes, January 20 is when our favorite President, Obama was elected! That was a great day. Regarding Tulsi: stop with the people who wore a uniform have a greater stage when talking about "sending out the troops". I was in the military also. But I don't use my service as a sanctimonious prop to make myself an expert on military matters! She supports larger countries invading smaller ones and stealing their land. How anti-peace is that?

Hm, and why do you think the anti-war left disappeared on that day?

It isn't just Tulsi. Just about everyone who has worn a uniform is less pro-war than those who haven't. It is a trend that many people have noticed.

Please expand on "larger countries invading smaller ones".

Again, as a veteran, I ask that you stop assuming that veterans have a special insight into acheiving peace. We do not. Tulsi is not whom you think she is. Below is a great article on her from Reason Magazine from another hindu person:

Tulsi Gabbard Is Anti-War but Not Pro-Peace

Her chumming around with the worst dictators is troubling.

reason.com

She has no problem with Russia stealing land in Ukraine, directly attacking civilians, and kidnapping children.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Amigo! I totally forgot! Yes, January 20 is when our favorite President, Obama was elected! That was a great day. Regarding Tulsi: stop with the people who wore a uniform have a greater stage when talking about "sending out the troops". I was in the military also. But I don't use my service as a sanctimonious prop to make myself an expert on military matters! She supports larger countries invading smaller ones and stealing their land. How anti-peace is that?

Hm, and why do you think the anti-war left disappeared on that day?

It isn't just Tulsi. Just about everyone who has worn a uniform is less pro-war than those who haven't. It is a trend that many people have noticed.

Please expand on "larger countries invading smaller ones".

Again, as a veteran, I ask that you stop assuming that veterans have a special insight into acheiving peace. We do not. Tulsi is not whom you think she is. Below is a great article on her from Reason Magazine from another hindu person:

Tulsi Gabbard Is Anti-War but Not Pro-Peace

Her chumming around with the worst dictators is troubling.

reason.com

She has no problem with Russia stealing land in Ukraine, directly attacking civilians, and kidnapping children.

Ah yes. I thought you would post that, but was hoping you had something better.

You equate "the US should stay out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict" with "the US should support Russia". The two are not the same, and your post fails to demonstrate that she supports "larger countries invading smaller ones".

The biggest failure of US foreign policy is that every time the North Elbonians get in a slap fight with the South Elbonians, the US must decide which side are the "good guys" and which side are the "bad guys" and then support the "good guys". It is forgotten that sometimes you stay out, and idiots think staying out is the same thing as supporting the bad guys. That is simply not true. Staying out is staying out, not supporting either side. The other problem with the US position is that sometimes there are no "good guys".

Nazi Symbols on Ukraine’s Front Lines Highlight Thorny Issues of History

Last time it was Nazis versus Russia, the US supported Russia. Interesting.

 

[bilby]

You equate "the US should stay out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict" with "the US should support Russia". The two are not the same

Yeah, they really are.

Not taking sides when one side is clearly and unequivocally in the wrong, and is acting in an unprovoked and violent manner towards the other, is indistinguishable from supporting the aggressor.

Doubly so when you are one of the most powerful forces available.

With great power comes great responsibility.

 

[bilby]

Last time it was Nazis versus Russia, the US supported Russia. Interesting.

It is interesting. Very much so. But you appear to not be bothered to follow that interesting lead into a study of how that conflict began, how it played out, and how it ended; And so you are left with a simpleton's impression of what occurred, and are incapable of drawing relevant analogies to today's conflict.

Today's Russia isn't your granddad's Russia. And today's Ukraine isn't a Nazi state, despite any historical symbols they might adopt, and despite the propaganda slurs being disseminated by Putin's Russia.

Ukrainian support for the Nazis in WWII was always a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and in that regard not notably different from US and UK support of the USSR. The major difference was that Ukraine was part of the battlefield, while the USA was not, and the UK was only in the peripheral sense of being a target of what today would be called "strategic bombing".

 

[Harry Bosch]

Amigo! I totally forgot! Yes, January 20 is when our favorite President, Obama was elected! That was a great day. Regarding Tulsi: stop with the people who wore a uniform have a greater stage when talking about "sending out the troops". I was in the military also. But I don't use my service as a sanctimonious prop to make myself an expert on military matters! She supports larger countries invading smaller ones and stealing their land. How anti-peace is that?

Hm, and why do you think the anti-war left disappeared on that day?

It isn't just Tulsi. Just about everyone who has worn a uniform is less pro-war than those who haven't. It is a trend that many people have noticed.

Please expand on "larger countries invading smaller ones".

Again, as a veteran, I ask that you stop assuming that veterans have a special insight into acheiving peace. We do not. Tulsi is not whom you think she is. Below is a great article on her from Reason Magazine from another hindu person:

Tulsi Gabbard Is Anti-War but Not Pro-Peace

Her chumming around with the worst dictators is troubling.

reason.com

She has no problem with Russia stealing land in Ukraine, directly attacking civilians, and kidnapping children.

Ah yes. I thought you would post that, but was hoping you had something better.

You equate "the US should stay out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict" with "the US should support Russia". The two are not the same, and your post fails to demonstrate that she supports "larger countries invading smaller ones".

The biggest failure of US foreign policy is that every time the North Elbonians get in a slap fight with the South Elbonians, the US must decide which side are the "good guys" and which side are the "bad guys" and then support the "good guys". It is forgotten that sometimes you stay out, and idiots think staying out is the same thing as supporting the bad guys. That is simply not true. Staying out is staying out, not supporting either side. The other problem with the US position is that sometimes there are no "good guys".

Nazi Symbols on Ukraine’s Front Lines Highlight Thorny Issues of History

Last time it was Nazis versus Russia, the US supported Russia. Interesting.

Jason: I don't think that "the US should stay out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict with "the US should support Russia" is so cut and dry. Would you at least admit that good people could disagree? To you, The Clinton's and Obama were war mongering barbarians needlessly interjecting the US into costly overseas adventures. Well, if you know anything about President Clinton, he was haunted by his inaction in Rwanda. Just after his presidency started, hundreds of thousands of civilians were butchered in a brutal civil war. If he had intervened, we could have saved thousands of lives. Our inaction in Rwanda affected HC, Obama and Biden as well. It sounds like you feel that the US should never intervene. Would you at least consider that perhaps not intervening causes far more harm? If the US had entered WW2 fewer civilians would have died. There's no doubt about that. We could have saved lives in Rwanda. And I think that helping Ukraine defend itself has saved thousands of lives, and probably stopped Russia from invading Nato countries. Did we fuck up in Vietnam and Iraq? Absolutely. Did we screw up in Iran, Afghanistan, south America and other places - fuck ya. No doubt. But I would argue that we can't allow mistakes from the past to hamper future actions to stop war. That's the bottom line for me, we need to find out ways to stop war. And war will never be stopped until we figure out how to stop larger countries from invading smaller ones. If you disagree, would love to hear where I am wrong.

.