[Finfinder]

[/quote]@anna You're moving the goalposts. You said "pro Hillary and anti-Trump people wouldn't want to watch the videos, it would validate their rival’s observations of hypocrisy" because apparently you didn't realize those weren't pro-Trump sites.

Now that you realize they aren't pro-Trump sites, you've moved on to saying, in effect, "well, we need niche sites yada yada yada..."

The fact remains that the same people who are complaining about Clinton being 'in their face' all the time are likely the same ones seeing their "niche" sites post article after article after article about her. This has been going on since the inception of Drudge and the blue dress and Watergate. Nothing new here at all.[/quote]

On Breitbart's front page right now:

IT’S ON: FBI INFORMANT AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK WITH CONGRESS ON CLINTON AND URANIUM

Clinton Campaign Still Paying Top Aides $300,000+

NYT Reporter: Team Hillary ‘Lied… with Sanctimony, for a Year’ About Hiring Firm Behind ‘Pee Pee’ Dossier

Former Clinton Spokesman Brian Fallon Calls Trump Dossier ‘Money Well Spent’

Report: Hillary Clinton, DNC — and One Republican — Paid for ‘Pee Pee’ Dossier

CNN Gives Four Minutes of Airtime to Clinton Uranium Deal Since Scandal Broke

First off I was replying to your prior post to the one I quoted. I'm not moving goal post I'm just trying to get you to stop moon walking the real issue. Which is the clear denial of the Hillary supporters as evidence of your reply.

I asked you before if you think the uranium story is a real news story and that does beg the question why the media giant CNN spent only 4 minutes reporting on it as you posted. Especially since it is so important for our country to get to the bottom of Russia meddling in the USA's business. We all know the answer to the question, it’s just that the liberal media and the Hillary supporters just can't bare the truth because they are too invested in a fake news narrative. The best part is you’d have to admit Trumps was correct this whole time. I can see how devastating that would be.

[Godstud]

I can't believe you could consider Hillary Clinton as being cold and creepy.



Er.... OK let me rephrase that.

[anna]

First off I was replying to your prior post to the one I quoted.

Your quote isn't clear, you've made it difficult to tell which are my words and which are yours.

Having said that:

I'm not moving goal post I'm just trying to get you to stop moon walking the real issue. Which is the clear denial of the Hillary supporters as evidence of your reply.

Yes, you actually did move the goalposts since you originally tried to make the point that I wouldn't watch them for fear of validating Trumpian observations, but I'm not going to argue about it. It is what it is.

I asked you before if you think the uranium story is a real news story and that does beg the question why the media giant CNN spent only 4 minutes reporting on it as you posted. Especially since it is so important for our country to get to the bottom of Russia meddling in the USA's business. We all know the answer to the question, it’s just that the liberal media and the Hillary supporters just can't bare the truth because they are too invested in a fake news narrative. The best part is you’d have to admit Trumps was correct this whole time. I can see how devastating that would be.

1. This story is being pushed by pro-Trump sites in a desperate effort to deflect attention from Trump's Russia problem.

2. There's no indication that Clinton even knew of the FBI investigation at the time, not to mention the FBI report wouldn't be completed for four more years. Even the Republican chair of the Intelligence Committee at the time, Mike Rogers, didn't know about the investigation. Additionally, there's no reason to think she would have been involved in the entire process.

[Finfinder]

Your quote isn't clear, you've made it difficult to tell which are my words and which are yours.

Having said that:



Yes, you actually did move the goalposts since you originally tried to make the point that I wouldn't watch them for fear of validating Trumpian observations, but I'm not going to argue about it. It is what it is.



1. This story is being pushed by pro-Trump sites in a desperate effort to deflect attention from Trump's Russia problem.

2. There's no indication that Clinton even knew of the FBI investigation at the time, not to mention the FBI report wouldn't be completed for four more years. Even the Republican chair of the Intelligence Committee at the time, Mike Rogers, didn't know about the investigation. Additionally, there's no reason to think she would have been involved in the entire process.

Ok your not going to answer the question yes or no. Can we agree then, given your parameters above, the Trump Russian news narrative is in fact fake and the left is obsessing over Trump.

[anna]

Ok your not going to answer the question yes or no.

You're not going to address the information I gave you.

Can we agree then, given your parameters above, the Trump Russian news narrative is in fact fake and the left is obsessing over Trump.

You mean the ongoing Mueller investigation problem, or the Trump/Assange problem (which they seem to be madly attempting to deflect with the non-bombshell uranium issue)?

[Finfinder]

You're not going to address the information I gave you.



You mean the ongoing Mueller investigation problem, or the Trump/Assange problem (which they seem to be madly attempting to deflect with the non-bombshell uranium issue)?

Wait according to you and many on this thread and others that is old news why are we discussing this again are you all obsessed with Trump? Please post up some evidence, it should be easy if its not a completely a fake news story and narrative, its been a year.

I understand you/ they have so much invested in this completely false hypocritical stance it will be devastating to finally admit the obvious.

[anna]

Wait according to you and many on this thread and others that is old news why are we discussing this again are you all obsessed with Trump? Please post up some evidence, it should be easy if its not a completely a fake news story and narrative, its been a year.

I understand you/ they have so much invested in this completely false hypocritical stance it will be devastating to finally admit the obvious.

What are you going on about? The fact that the dossier investigation was started by a Republican?

Please be more clear.

[foxdemon]

Does this mean your manic episode has subsided, at least for the short term?

Hey, you started it.

I'm not a Dem, but from I've read, it's partly the idea of a man (even if the man is Bernie) speaking at a women's political convention, and partly the lingering resentment regarding Bernieites who chose not to vote for Hillary in the general after Bernie's loss in the primary. Their non-votes quite possibly gave us the orange weebil so the resentment seems understandable, although just as understandable is the Bernieites' contention that Bernie was being actively undermined by his temporarily adoptive party.

I think you should just be honest and admit that Hillary and her femonazis have been very cruel to poor old Bernie. And, what’s more, you should be honest enough to admit that he is a genuine and honourable woman supporting dude, unlike those vile man-feminists/molesters like Mr Weinstein and Mr Clinton.

Why do you insist on defending the wrong sort of people?

[anna]

Hey, you started it.

Um.... no.

I think you should just be honest and admit that Hillary and her femonazis have been very cruel to poor old Bernie. And, what’s more, you should be honest enough to admit that he is a genuine and honourable woman supporting dude, unlike those vile man-feminists/molesters like Mr Weinstein and Mr Clinton.

Why do you insist on defending the wrong sort of people?

My, what a vivid imagination you have.

[foxdemon]

Um.... no.

Umm....yes you did.

My, what a vivid imagination you have.

Stop be evasive.

The right wing of the Democrats are nasty, woman abusers who like to drop bombs on people to make a quick buck.

Why are you defending them?

[anna]

Umm....yes you did.

Lying again? Here you are:

Yes that’s right. Yin and yang. Alt-right misogynists and liberal left misandrists. Looking back at your other posts, you mention ‘stalkers’. So are you sexualising alt-right misogynists? Do you think they desire you?

Democrats do seem to have issues with their sexuality. What with Weinstien, Bill Clinton and now rich girl’s fastasies of being stalked by scary alt-right misogynistic males. What a twisted party.

Stop be evasive.

The right wing of the Democrats are nasty, woman abusers who like to drop bombs on people to make a quick buck.

Why are you defending them?

Stop projecting, you're making yourself look worse.

Buzz off, I'm not interested in your bizarre discussion.

[Finfinder]

What are you going on about? The fact that the dossier investigation was started by a Republican?

Please be more clear.

Your a smart women you know that I know exactly what you are doing here. Which is confusing that you keep digging a deeper hole with every reply.

( insert picture of ostrich deliberately inserting head in sand )

Maybe when they have the hearings or one of the Clinton's are in jail you comb to grips with reality.