Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 18, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 18, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: I can see where highmark is headed with this bet already. had a similar bet been made about Russian involvement at all, he'd be running around "where's the proof? just because the fbi and 5800 other agencies say it's true doesn't mean it's true" pretty fucking simple really - if evidence is found that one of the mentioned people (working for or in the Trump Campaign) were caught working with the Russians to damage Hillary, and help trump, that is collusion. it can be a memo, a recording, a money trail, etc. so do we have a deal or not? broski, maybe you should stay the fuck out of this? I can accept that even though it still pretty broad. Edited May 18, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 42 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: no, I'm making the bet very clear. I know how you fucking clowns operate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: I can see where highmark is headed with this bet already. had a similar bet been made about Russian involvement at all, he'd be running around "where's the proof? just because the fbi and 5800 other agencies say it's true doesn't mean it's true" pretty fucking simple really - if evidence is found that one of the mentioned people were caught working with the Russians to damage Hillary, and help trump, that is collusion. it can be a memo, a recording, a money trail, etc. so do we have a deal or not? broski, maybe you should stay the fuck out of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 46 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: i'll take the $100 bet. if collusion is found with either trump, his admin, or former aides, you pay a charity of my choice. none, i'll pay yours. don't try pulling any BS either, like claiming the collusion didn't have any effect on the election, therefore it doesn't matter. do we need to make things any more clear? this highmark, nice try Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: this highmark, nice try It was about Trump not anyone but nice try Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Skidooski Posted May 18, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 18, 2017 How many pages will it take for Slinger to accept the terms for a bet? You go girl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Just stop Slinger....I've already pissed twice. Highmark: "Wanna Bet?" Slinger: "Yep" Highmark: "Ok then," Slinger: "...wait....." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 18, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: this highmark, nice try Nice try? Its the same thing sno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Snoslinger said: I wouldn't get too excited over all this. after all, the doj set this up, and who runs it? I'm thinking this case was very close to being blown wide open and to buy more time, and think of ways to cover up, the trump admin decided to throw a wrench into things. the only good news, imo, is that comey and others in the fbi despise trump and will eventually get it all out in the open. Hahahaha. Keep dreaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s pump Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Puh Thetik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, Highmark said: Nice try? Its the same thing sno. just wanted to clarify that former aides are included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 18, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 18, 2017 Just now, Snoslinger said: just wanted to clarify that former aides are included. Well I would assume these aides worked for the campaign but I'll accept them even if they didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Just now, Highmark said: Well I would assume these aides worked for the campaign but I'll accept them even if they didn't. just wondering why you threw your addition comment into my statement. no big deal. we are in agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 18, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: just wondering why you threw your addition comment into my statement. no big deal. we are in agreement. To make sure they had some direct connection to Trump or the campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: just wondering why you threw your addition comment into my statement. no big deal. we are in agreement. When you lose will you finally STFU about Russiagate? Serious question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T1R9sledder Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 8 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said: When you lose will you finally STFU about Russiagate? Serious question. A hundred nickels says no..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 14 minutes ago, Highmark said: To make sure they had some direct connection to Trump or the campaign. That's a fools bet cuz these guys need an indictment to legitimize all the money and time they spent so they will find a Judas goat no matter if they have to fabricate evidence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 18, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 18, 2017 53 minutes ago, Momorider said: That's a fools bet cuz these guys need an indictment to legitimize all the money and time they spent so they will find a Judas goat no matter if they have to fabricate evidence Collusion will be clear. Trump side: Release this Russians: Ok. OR Russians: We have this on Hillary. Trump Side: Give it to Wiki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) trumpy starts laying the ground work..... Donald Trump denied any collusion with Russia in the 2016 election but said on Thursday "I can only speak for myself", leaving open for the first time the possibility that some of his staff may have been involved. Edited May 19, 2017 by Snoslinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: trumpy starts laying the ground work..... Donald Trump denied any collusion with Russia in the 2016 election but said on Thursday "I can only speak for myself", leaving open for the first time the possibility that some of his staff may have been involved. Keep on grasping sweetheart. Gonna end up with a big fat goose egg on your scorecard (again). But not to worry....you don't have to accept it. A new conspiracy is already in the works in the Dem garage. OH BOY!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 On 5/18/2017 at 7:58 AM, highmarketrider said: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far" I guess if you don't make it to the 8th fucking paragraph, you'd never know.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 On 5/18/2017 at 8:54 PM, Snoslinger said: trumpy starts laying the ground work..... Donald Trump denied any collusion with Russia in the 2016 election but said on Thursday "I can only speak for myself", leaving open for the first time the possibility that some of his staff may have been involved. “What I did was allowed by the State Department but it wasn’t the best choice,” And I’ve been as transparent as I know to be depending on what your interpretation of the word “is” means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted May 21, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Snake said: “What I did was allowed by the State Department but it wasn’t the best choice,” And I’ve been as transparent as I know to be depending on what your interpretation of the word “is” means. Look at your manly man Donald go Edited May 21, 2017 by SnowRider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.