candide

What a dumbass! 🤣 “Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was. The Battle of Gettysburg,” the former president said at a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday. “What an unbelievable, I mean it was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways.” Trump continued: “Gettysburg. Wow. I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to look and to watch. And the statement of Robert E. Lee ― who’s no longer in favor, did you ever notice that? No longer in favor ― ‘Never fight uphill, me boys, never fight uphill.’ They were fighting uphill. He said, ‘Wow, that was a big mistake.’ He lost his great general, and they were fighting. ‘Never fight uphill, me boys!’ But it was too late.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/dimbulb-trump-torched-rambling-attempt-042438659.html

Names starting with P? 😁

I don't think she cares about Trump having affairs. However, It's a good argument in order to extort more money from her husban!d 😃

As far as I know, not by Stevenl.

It could also be added that the comparison is not really relevant, as heart attacks are not contagious.

And the ones who are not dead.

It depends in which country. In the U.S. it's mainly by white guys. In Europe it's mainly by Islamic terrorists (with some notable exceptions).

He was partly right. There was a MotherJones article mentioning the existence of the reports (among other information) and a few indications of the content. However, there wasn't much about it in the media before January 2017.

It has already been established in Cohen's trial that it was considered as a campaign expense (for the part of its conviction which was about it). So it can easily be argued that it has to do with the election.

Why? Opposition research is legal. PS if you are not trying to make a false equivalence (or a false 'worse' equivalence) then why introduce this subject in a thread which is not about Clinton's campaign?

I just wrote how it was disclosed in MotherJones. How does it support the false equivalence you are trying to make between Clinton's campaign and Trump's case?

Thank you for this useful timeline. So MotherJones disclosed that Steele sent the reports to the FBI, reports being the result of an opposition research project. And also discloses some elements of it. How does that support the false equivalence you are trying to make between the Clinton campaign and Trump's case?

And as usual, you have evidence of these media leaks..... 😁

So not leaked to the public, right? So no influence on elections.....

Posting over and over what your Internet friends have sent you, won't make it true! 😁

After the election, so it couldn't have influenced the election. It's my position that you are trolling.

When was it published?

No. Hillary did not conspire with Christopher Steele to influence the election. When you make such an accusation, you need first to back it with relevant quotes from reliable sources, instead of trolling. BTW, when was the Steele dossier published?

B.S. again. The campaign was not fined for conspiracy. Not tired of trolling?

B.S. Her campaign was fined, not Hillary, as you already know.

No. She wasn't

The condition attached was to support the Big Lie, which he did! From the full article: Johnson appeared alongside Trump for a press conference in Palm Beach, Fla., where the GOP leaders unveiled a bill that would ban non-U.S. citizens from voting, which is already illegal. Trump is currently claiming that Biden won because millions of foreigners voted for him in 2020 GOP, the party of liars!

They have settled there illegally and their presence has been imposed by force. Additionally, they will never accept to be ruled by Palestinians. Be realistic, there is no practical way it can work on short-term or even middle-term. Both Israeli settlers remaining inside a Palestinian State, and Palestinian refugees returning to Israel are completely illusory options It could be that on a longer term (like 50 years) the two States may make a reciprocal agreement, but not on short-term. Of course, there will be some border adjustments in case of a two-State solution, to include some settlements located near the border.

And as I already replied, it's a false equivalence. Palestinian people living in Israel were already living there before the creation of Israel. They are not settlers imposed by force like Israeli settlers in the West Bank. If Israel refuses that Palestinians can settle in Israel (for understandable reasons from their side), there is no reason to accept that Israelis may have a right to settle in the West Bank. One of the basic principle of fair international law is reciprocity.

Anyone understands what he's trying to say?