Fake News Awards - page 3

So does this mean NYT won first? Or are they all equally fake? Kind of like everyone gets a participation trophy. https://gop.com/the-highly-anticipated-2017-fake-news-awards/... Read More

  1. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    The video show Abe tossing in the food from his box at 0:32 of the video and Trump doing so at 0:35. Where are you getting that 35 seconds comes before 32 seconds?
    If you could read and follow directions, I directly said the video in the Twitter post. The twitter post that made that specific video linked to the tweet, go viral because it tried to portray Trump as doing something that he wasn't suppose to.
  2. by   BCgradnurse
    Quote from itsybitsy
    If you could read and follow directions, I directly said the video in the Twitter post. The twitter post that made that specific video linked to the tweet, go viral because it tried to portray Trump as doing something that he wasn't suppose to.
    Who really gives a flying flock about fish feeding and who went first? Seriously, some people need to get a life.
  3. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from elkpark
    The Whitewater investigation went on for five years, until Clinton was eventually impeached for something that had absolutely nothing to do with the original focus of the investigation. Just sayin' ...
    So are you "just sayin'" that that is the whole intent of the Russia investigation? To continually investigate everything, with an excuse (Russia election interference), to try and find something on Trump to try and impeach him? Well no **** sherlock. That's why it's called a nothing burger.

    But thanks for pointing out that the end game isn't if there was really any collusion with Russia, because you know it's a sham, just if Trump can be impeached any way, any how.

    The difference is, is the the Clintons were just as guilty of the original purpose of the investigations, but bought themselves out of the charges.
  4. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from BCgradnurse
    Who really gives a flying flock about fish feeding and who went first? Seriously, some people need to get a life.
    Exactly, why be deceptive about that?
  5. by   BCgradnurse
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Exactly, why be deceptive about that?
    You seem to be quite worked up about it. As you say, it's a nothingburger.
  6. by   elkpark
    Quote from itsybitsy
    So are you "just sayin'" that that is the whole intent of the Russia investigation? To continually investigate everything, with an excuse (Russia election interference), to try and find something on Trump to try and impeach him? Well no **** sherlock. That's why it's called a nothing burger.

    But thanks for pointing out that the end game isn't if there was really any collusion with Russia, because you know it's a sham, just if Trump can be impeached any way, any how.

    The difference is, is the the Clintons were just as guilty of the original purpose of the investigations, but bought themselves out of the charges.
    Hey, the Republicans are the ones who invented the concept of the never-ending investigation, and kept funding Ken Starr indefinitely until he finally came up with something, anything he could use against Clinton. And my point was not that that's the point of the Trump investigation, or that it is a "sham" -- simply that some investigations have lasted significantly longer than the two year window you referenced, and that investigations have the capability of going in different directions than originally expected. You're the one who read all the rest of that into my comment. And nobody I know is calling it "a nothing burger."
  7. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from BCgradnurse
    You seem to be quite worked up about it. As you say, it's a nothingburger.
    Not worked up, I am showing the truth in the matter. If people want to purposely avoid looking at the reasoning, then just say that. Then I wouldn't run in circles trying to get you to look at what I'm talking about, when you don't care to begin with.
  8. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from elkpark
    Hey, the Republicans are the ones who invented the concept of the never-ending investigation, and kept funding Ken Starr indefinitely until he finally came up with something, anything he could use against Clinton. And my point was not that that's the point of the Trump investigation, or that it is a "sham" -- simply that some investigations have lasted significantly longer than the two year window you referenced, and that investigations have the capability of going in different directions than originally expected. You're the one who read all the rest of that into my comment. And nobody I know is calling it "a nothing burger."
    You act as if I side with Republicans. I don't think it's right, nor an efficient means to an end. But let's be honest, Starr went pretty easy on Clinton, basically only impeaching upon lying and telling ML to lie.

    I didn't read into it, I knew what you were saying, but by the looks of it, that's what it's turning into, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. At what point, of not finding anything, do we stop wasting money on it?
  9. by   elkpark
    Quote from itsybitsy
    So are you "just sayin'" that that is the whole intent of the Russia investigation? To continually investigate everything, with an excuse (Russia election interference), to try and find something on Trump to try and impeach him? Well no **** sherlock. That's why it's called a nothing burger.

    But thanks for pointing out that the end game isn't if there was really any collusion with Russia, because you know it's a sham, just if Trump can be impeached any way, any how.

    The difference is, is the the Clintons were just as guilty of the original purpose of the investigations, but bought themselves out of the charges.
    Quote from itsybitsy
    I didn't read into it, I knew what you were saying, but by the looks of it, that's what it's turning into, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. At what point, of not finding anything, do we stop wasting money on it?
    You did read quite a lot into it, because none of what you posted was what I was saying. As I said. But suit yourself.

    As for when we stop wasting money on an investigation that isn't finding anything, again, I suggest you ask the Republicans. They are the ones who were willing to fund Ken Starr for as many years as it took to come up with anything he could use against Bill Clinton. Of course, it's an entirely different matter when it's their guy who is being investigated. I suggest we give Mueller as long as they gave Ken Starr. Turn about is fair play, as they say.
  10. by   nursej22
    How many years and how many dollars were spent on Benghazi? And which party led those investigations?
  11. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from elkpark
    You did read quite a lot into it, because none of what you posted was what I was saying. As I said. But suit yourself.

    As for when we stop wasting money on an investigation that isn't finding anything, again, I suggest you ask the Republicans. They are the ones who were willing to fund Ken Starr for as many years as it took to come up with anything he could use against Bill Clinton. Of course, it's an entirely different matter when it's their guy who is being investigated. I suggest we give Mueller as long as they gave Ken Starr. Turn about is fair play, as they say.
    I actually just thought it was humorous. I know you didn't mean it that way, because that wouldn't help your point - that's not a dig at you, but just common sense. If you have a point, which you did - 5 years - you wouldn't boast that your side is doing the same - prolonging an investigation to find anything plausible enough to impeach. But as you pointed out, they DID do the same thing to Clinton. What is stopping them now?

    I don't care about the Republicans. I already denounced that. It's our money, why are we letting them waste it? If something real on Trump comes up, by all means, go for it. But don't just aimlessly wander forever. That isn't doing anyone justice. If I had to guess, Russia will forever be a thing. It won't go away, no matter what, even if they find nothing. That's what is sad about the whole thing.
  12. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from nursej22
    How many years and how many dollars were spent on Benghazi? And which party led those investigations?
    Soldiers died. And there was mounting evidence there was negligence by Clinton, as she was in charge. Have people died because of Russia? Is there mounting evidence of Trump collusion? What is it?!

    If you can't use the internet, the Benghazi investigation ranged from Sept 2012-Oct 2015. So about 3 years. We might have had a clearer answer, sooner, had evidence not been destroyed.
  13. by   nursej22
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Soldiers died. And there was mounting evidence there was negligence by Clinton, as she was in charge. Have people died because of Russia? Is there mounting evidence of Trump collusion? What is it?!

    If you can't use the internet, the Benghazi investigation ranged from Sept 2012-Oct 2015. So about 3 years. We might have had a clearer answer, sooner, had evidence not been destroyed.
    3 years and more than $7 million dollars. It revealed the use of a private email server, which set off another round of investigations. In fact, some Republicans are calling for more investigations.
    I am thinking they won't give up until they "lock her up."

    Or they get locked up.

close