Verified Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Grumps last won the day on February 20

Grumps had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

154 Sterling

About Grumps

  • Rank
    Hard Fightin' Soldier

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

738 profile views
  1. I think that the term "hacking the election" was a deliberate phrase by the left wing media to imply that Russian had a greater involvement in the election than they actually had. I don't think that the right disputes that the DNC computers were hacked. I agree with you that ridiculing you for now admitting that the election was not hacked is a way to distract from other issues.
  2. Is there ANY evidence that this occurred?
  3. I am sure that the outrage from women's groups will be enormous! Right?
  4. So now you are admitting that the Russians didn't hack the election! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
  5. But do we care what the conversations with the Russians were? Maybe they were just talking about their grandkids like Ms. Lynch and Mr. Clinton were. Where is the evidence that Sessions said ANYTHING worrisome? So, is there really a difference? Either way, I like PT's idea. Let's get a special prosecutor for the Russia situation to explore ALL of congress's visits/discussion. Let's investigate Obama and wiretaps. Let's investigate EVERYBODY! Drain the swamp, right?
  6. It was really only a curiosity question. I agree that we need the AG to be trustworthy no matter how they have been in the past.
  7. Based upon your knowledge of the two men, do think that Eric Holder or Jeff Sessions would make a better AG?
  8. I think we will find out that everyone who is buying into Russiagate is a chump. But, hey, maybe I am the chump. I look forward to seeing this play out. So far what we have proposed is that Trump and his minions have this YUGE conspiracy to conspire. Not conspire about anything in particular...just to conspire in general. Scary isn't it?
  9. This topic is still one of the most confusing things I have seen on this forum. "Trump talked to Russians and denied it." What if you have 100% proof? Sessions said he did not talk to Russians (even he knew 100% that it could be proven otherwise) and was shown to have actually talked to Russians. What if you have 100% proof? WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS THE REASON FOR ALL OF THESE SECRET DISCUSSIONS? The worst that I can come up with is that the Trump campaign wanted to know what info Russia had on Mrs. Clinton and when said info might be released. His campaign might even want to know if Russia had anything on him. If so, then so what? Has anyone come up with an end game for all of the Russian discussions? I still think this is 100% democrat smoke and mirrors. If so, then the democrat party may be in for a further comeuppance.
  10. And then you post something like this.
  11. I think the Trump administration is intentionally distracting the media. From what? That is the question!
  12. Here is #1: White House press secretary Sean Spicer falsely claimed the crowd on the National Mall was “largest audience to ever witness an inauguration.” (Jan. 21) Does your post above confirm #1?
  13. I agree with Tex on this one. The right trying to make a big deal out of Obama and others not using the term "radical Islamic terrorism"' is complete nonsense.
  14. #1 is simply not true. According to the link provided Sean Spicer did not say anything about the # at the National Mall. If #1 is not true, then I won't waster my time looking up the others. I wish that some here could see why people call it "fake news."
  15. Okay. Thanks anyway. I will try to read it again later when I am less emotional.