How A False Conspiracy Theory About The Russian Lawyer Who Met With Don Jr. Spread To Trump

SSgt Gary Andrews - Ah, so it's some outliers "commenting" on a story. Right. That equates with the organized hate speech coming from the Left. Yes, there are some few idiots on all sides of the political spectrum. But the Left has cornered the market on organized hate speech. Now, let's just put an end to this. You are desperately attempting to defend your beloved President Obama and the Left and, as I said before, I'm tired of it.

No the urban folks make up the majority of the population and pay most of the taxes in this country. It obviously that the people overwhelmingly vote for Ms. Clinton by 3 million votes. The people that pay the bulk of the taxes don't live in rural areas. If it was not for urban area the USA would be like must is most of Europe and Russia third world country's.

CPT Jack Durish - When you can turn on the news and see our current POTUS being burned in effigy, or a likeness of him swinging from a rope, then you can talk to me about hate speech. Until then, just reinsert your head and pretend none of that stuff ever happened to the last POTUS.

PO3 Bob McCord - Not really. The simple truth is that the heart of all the hatred being cast in President Trump's direction boils down to this: It is fair to vilify President Trump because President Obama was vilified. Even if everything is based on rumor and innuendo, it's still fair because President Obama was treated unfairly. Why should I wait for proof of that? I think that PO3 Bob McCord and friends should harken back to their mama's warning: "Just because your friends do it, does that mean you should?" Personally, I'm tired of hearing it, all of it. I'm tired of their excuses and justifications as well as the rumors and innuendos. Either we pull together to help America survive until the next election or we tear America apart. If they don't want people like President Trump to get elected, offer us something better than a known criminal.

LTC (Join to see) - Where did you get the not limited to money part? And on the foreign person term, does that refer to someone that does not have American citizenship? I think this all gets muddled because we have a current theme of anyone can come to America and be a citizen. This is definitely interesting. I don't know why Mr. Trump has not removed his entire family from the stage.

I researched this site: https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Soliciting_Accepting_Receiving

MAJ James Woods - Major Woods, Please tell us the crime committed?

LTC (Join to see) - Everyone can come and be a citizen? As an immigration lawyer that's news to me.

LTC (Join to see) - I never said a crime was committed and listening to many lawyers discuss the FEC law under question I'm not convinced they broke that law. It's subject to interpretation that information from a foreign national or government should be considered something of value. I also understand collusion isn't a crime, the charges if any would be conspiracy and that's still debatable. What we do know is members or at least one (Jr.) were willing to commit unethical behavior with the intent to meet and solicit information from a Russian national that was advertised as info with the support of the Russian government. If that doesn't bother you from an unethical standpoint that I clearly stated above, then you fall into the "scoff" category.

MAJ James Woods - I got on a real computer! Now I can see how to reply to you and give you the point credit you deserve! lol
First, your military analogy is only flawed by the fact that when Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, it was because the American public was tired of politicians and he was the closest thing there was to an "anti-politician" in the mix. Do I excuse him for making mistakes? Absolutely! As long as the mistake was honest, not criminal and was done in earnest of working toward the goal of what he was put in the office for in the first place. I would have felt EXACTLY the same way had HRC been elected and she made an honest mistake or lapse in judgment.
You profess me to be hypocritical saying I would not excuse HRC. Of that you are wrong. Considering my professional path (I have been a Police Officer for coming up on 38 years), I don't prejudge anyone. I strongly believe that everyone has every right to stupidity, idiocy and foolishness to a certain point. One of my college professor's favorite sayings was "The Criminal Justice system will only let you be so stupid".
I could care less who is the President of the United States. I vote for the person who shares my beliefs and concerns. Donald Trump met those standards for me. I found him to be more honest that HRC and I found her shortcomings more egregious than Donald Trump's. The difference between me and the "Never Trump" people or liberals who are just shell shocked by him, is that I will give whomever is in the White House my full support for 4 years! I gave President Obama my support for 8 years. I never voted for him but I also never spoke against him or actively tried to obstruct him. He actually did some things that I agreed with. Now I'm hoping that Donald Trump does things I agree with. If all the rest of the Democrats (Pelosi, Schumer and Waters especially) would just listen to what he is offering and stop blocking him just because he isn't HRC!
Finally, the definition of collusion: "Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others". Sounds like Quid Pro Quo does pertain!

SSgt Rob Millard - Lets be clear; it was only 46% of voters that actually wanted a non-politician for president. So as much as you trust Trump more than HRC, there are folks that trusted HRC more than Trump and plenty of non-voters that trusted neither one of them. So that says plenty about the state of our politics. Good for you that Trump meets your standards of politics, morality, and ethics. Good for you that you gave Obama support. Dems and Liberals aren't criticizing him because he's not HRC but because they don't agree with the things he did or says. Criticism isn't obstruction. A 'Nay' vote against a bill you disagree with in principle of what's in it isn't obstruction. So enough about that.
Finally, yeah if I was to agree with you then quid pro quo applies to a lot of things. I illegally gave secrets to an enemy state because they are paying me is quid pro quo; or to WikiLeaks cause I'll be labeled a hero is quid pro quo. Etc. etc. etc. Quid pro quo is an element of many crimes and injustices but it doesn't define them alone. Next!

MAJ James Woods - I really am enjoying our debate but I thought we were done with this topic and I was waiting to meet you at the next discussion. But what the heck... I'll keep going with you here.
First, you take liberties in saying that President Trump "meets my standard" of politics, morality and ethics. I would first argue that the three terms diametrically oppose each other. From what I have seen over the past year, politics is the most amoral and unethical vocation in society! That being said, I am afraid that I cannot yield the high ground to you in this one regarding Democrats. I completely agree that criticism or voting your conscious are not considered "obstruction". But when you listen to such people as Maxine Watters, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer and they OPENLY state they are voting against President Trumps actions simply to oppose and obstruct him. Not my words... Theirs!
As a former military leader of soldiers, how can you oppose President Trump's plan to secure the southern border to protect US Citizens from infiltrators who want to harm US citizens or illegally take advantage of the openness of our society? You can see that the Affordable Care Act is failing radically. Why would you possibly want to continue to support the act saying "we just need to tweak it". It's called putting lipstick on a pig!
In conclusion, I ask you this simple question. You have two candidates to vote for. Realistically, the other two candidates were not even in the race. One is portrayed as a womanizer. The other is portrayed as a person who sells their political position for personal profit. Both are narcissists but it's obvious that is what we expect of our politicians since I can't thing of a single president we have had that wasn't one. Who were some of the greatest Presidents in recent history? The womanizers!!! I hate that every 4 years we have to settle but its the system we created! Not the Constitution. Not the rules of law. WE created it. Through apathy and political identity requirements. We the people allowed and encouraged to become lifetime political operatives for years and years only because it's easier to vote down the "party line" than to find out the truth about a candidate. Rhetorical Question for all: When is the last time you voted for an incumbent for ANY position only because you didn't know either candidate but the person in office didn't do anything wrong for all you know?
Your Turn

SSgt Rob Millard - lmao