Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
November 21, 2017, 07:06:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory  (Read 13301 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52037

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #225 on: October 10, 2017, 04:48:40 PM »

I didn't say the adds proved a Russian/Trump conspiracy.

I hope you are not suggesting that this kind of interference is okay because the U.S. and other countries (mainly Russia) have been doing it for years. It is wrong, no matter who does it or how long it has gone on.

Bruh, this entire discussion is about whether Trump conspired with Putin to get elected president so he could become a Russian puppet.  

I'm not suggesting "interference" is ok.  I'm saying it isn't relevant to this wacky conspiracy theory.  And it didn't dictate the outcome of the election.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6754


In God We Trust !


« Reply #226 on: October 10, 2017, 05:01:23 PM »

Misrepresenting something as being "news" makes it look like they failed to warn us of something they claim is very important.

What's up with that?
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6754


In God We Trust !


« Reply #227 on: October 10, 2017, 05:11:50 PM »

Pretty lousy feeling, knowing media cannot be trusted.
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17259


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #228 on: October 10, 2017, 06:32:08 PM »

hillary spent a billion dollars and yet 100k from Russian hackers swayed the election?   LMFAO
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52037

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #229 on: October 27, 2017, 08:48:01 PM »

MSNBC, NYT Won’t Let Go Of Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative
By Chris Reeves | October 27, 2017

On Friday’s broadcast of Deadline: White House, host Nicolle Wallace and MSNBC national security analyst Jeremy Bash were stoked to inflate the latest reporting from The New York Times “proving” that Trump’s campaign colluded with the Kremlin to “hack” last year’s presidential election.

What was NYT’s evidence? Reportedly, Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. in Trump Tower last June, told Russia’s prosecutor general about her Magnitsky Act talking points before the June meeting.

Yup.

That’s it.

If you were expecting something more substantive, sorry, I’ve got nothing for you.

So how did Wallace and Bash get to the conclusion that Trump colluded with the Russians? Well, here’s how they put the pieces together:

WALLACE: Donald Trump started his day today by tweeting this: “It is now commonly agreed, after many months of COSTLY looking, that there was NO collusion between Russia and Trump. Was collusion with HC!” It turns out that Donald Trump often tweets the opposite of what is true. In this case, not five hours after he sent that tweet this morning, The New York Times is reporting that the Russian lawyer Natallia Veselnitskaya, who found herself in a conference room deep inside Trump Tower sitting across from the President's son, his son-in-law, and his campaign chairman was closely tied to the Kremlin.

(...)

WALLACE: According to The New York Times, quote: “The coordination between the Trump Tower visitor and the Russian prosecutor general undercuts Ms. Veselnitskaya’s account that she was a purely independent actor when she sat down with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, and Paul Manafort, then [...] campaign chairman. It also suggests that emails from an intermediary to the younger Mr. Trump promising that Ms. Veselnitskaya would arrive with information from Russian prosecutors were rooted at least partly in fact.”

(...)

WALLACE: What is the significance of The New York Times confirming in a report today, essentially the opposite of what Donald Trump rolled over and pounded out with his thumbs, I have to guess, on Twitter? He says that there was no collusion while The New York Times offers yet another fact pattern to prove that there was indeed collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

BASH: Yeah, let's go through precisely, Nicolle, where this new piece of information fits in the collusion question. So, first of all, there are a number of circumstantial pieces of evidence that demonstrate collusion: the longstanding financial ties between the Trump organization and Russia; candidate Trump and President Trump's fawning over Putin and his pro-Putin policies; and, of course, all the back-door discussions, private secret discussions between Jared Kushner and the Russians and Mike Flynn, then National Security Adviser, and the Russians. But those are circumstantial. Now on the direct evidence side on the ledger, you have the June meeting in which it was set up with an e-mail from a representative of a Russian oligarch saying: this is part of the Russian government’s support for the Trump campaign. And now comes this piece of evidence which directly corroborates that other piece of direct evidence. It, in a sense, states that the Kremlin knew that this delegation was going to Trump Tower, they authorized it, and they greenlighted the talking points. That is direct evidence of collusion.

Apparently, Russians discussing things with other Russians is now Trump directly “colluding” with Russians.

Even if one takes The New York Times allegations at face value that there was a coordinated effort between Veselnitskaya, the Russian prosecutor, and the Kremlin itself to influence the Trump campaign, are liberal journalists now seriously suggesting that being the target of a disinformation or influence campaign is the same as participating in it? Should we expect to see future nonsensical segments on MSNBC that call for prosecuting thieves or rapists or murderers with their victims?

Frankly, I wouldn’t put anything past them at this point.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/chris-reeves/2017/10/27/msnbc-and-nyt-wont-let-go-trump-russia-collusion-narrative
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52037

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #230 on: October 30, 2017, 06:59:44 PM »

They got how many people working on this nutty conspiracy theory and have spent how much already, and this is what they have to show for it??  Swing and a miss. 

Ex-Trump aide Manafort charged with US tax fraud over Ukraine work

Donald Trump's former presidential campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has been charged with conspiring to defraud the US in his dealings with Ukraine.

The 12 charges brought against Mr Manafort and one of his business associates, Rick Gates, include conspiracy to launder money.
They stem from an inquiry into alleged Russian meddling in the US election.

It has emerged that another adviser to Mr Trump admitted this month to lying about his links to Russia.

George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents about his dealings with an unnamed overseas academic who allegedly informed him that the Russians possessed "dirt" on Mr Trump's presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton.

The charges against Mr Manafort and Mr Gates do not relate to Mr Trump's campaign but to the alleged concealment of payments from the pair's Ukrainian business dealings up to 2016.

Who's who in the Russian drama?
Manafort's short reign on the Trump campaign
An investigation headed by special counsel Robert Mueller is looking into any links between Russia and the Trump campaign. Both sides deny any collusion.
Responding to news of the charges, Mr Trump tweeted to point out that they did not concern his campaign and asked why "the focus" was not on alleged wrongdoing involving Mrs Clinton instead.

Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
 Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?Huh?
4:25 AM - Oct 30, 2017
 67,862 67,862 Replies   30,303 30,303 Retweets   100,766 100,766 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Report
End of Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump

What does this mean for Trump?
For years Paul Manafort operated on the fringes of power, a once-influential Washington player who worked with some less-than-savoury international characters because his services were no longer in high demand domestically, the BBC's Anthony Zurcher writes from Washington.

Then, like many other politicos in Donald Trump's orbit, he was thrust into the spotlight because more established hands wanted nothing to do with the upstart's presidential campaign.

Mr Manafort got his big break but it may end up breaking him. That resulting spotlight has drawn attention to Mr Manafort's past dealings and raised questions about his actions while in at the top of the Trump campaign.

The good news for Mr Trump is these charges stem from Mr Manafort's past business dealings, not his campaign efforts. He is being accused of working for years for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians and laundering millions in subsequent payments.

It certainly makes Mr Trump's decision to cut Mr Manafort loose last August after details emerged of his Ukrainian ties seem a wise one.

The good news has its limits, however. Mr Manafort will be under growing pressure to co-operate with the Mueller investigation. If he offers up useful information about his time during the campaign, this could be just the first domino to fall.

What are the charges against Manafort and Gates?
The indictment looks at their links to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine between 2006 and 2015.

It says they acted as "unregistered agents" of Ukrainian politician Viktor Yanukovych and his party, both in opposition and government.

Mr Yanukovych was deposed as president in 2014 amid mass unrest over his pro-Russian policies.

Mr Manafort is accused of having laundered more than $18m (£14m) through offshore bank accounts, using it to buy property, goods and services in transactions concealed from the US authorities.

He is said to have "used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle" in America.

Altogether, at least $75m in payments from Ukraine flowed through the accounts, the indictment says.

Mr Manafort and his lawyer arrived at an FBI office in Washington on Monday.

Mr Gates is accused of having transferred more than $3m from the offshore accounts to other accounts he controlled. He has been ordered to surrender to authorities, according to US media reports.

No immediate comment from lawyers for Mr Manafort and Mr Gates was reported after the charges were revealed.

What were Manafort's links to Trump?
Mr Manafort, 68, has worked on several Republican presidential campaigns, beginning with Gerald Ford's in 1976.

He resigned as chairman of the Trump campaign in August 2016 after being accused over his dealings with pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. He denies any wrongdoing.

US intelligence agencies believe the Russian government sought to help Mr Trump win the election.

How does the Papadopoulos case affect Trump?
The justice department statement on Mr Trump's former foreign policy adviser has the potential to damage the US leader because it relates directly to his election campaign.

When Mr Papadopoulos was interviewed by the FBI this January, he told them that his interactions with the foreign professor, who is said to have "substantial connections to Russian government officials", had taken place before he joined the Trump campaign in March 2016.

But according to the US justice department, his meetings with the professor actually took place after he became an adviser to Mr Trump. The professor only took interest in him because of his new status within the Trump campaign, it is alleged.

Mr Papadopoulos admitted having sought to arrange a meeting "between the Campaign and Russian government officials".

The alleged Russian "dirt" on Mrs Clinton took the form of "thousands of emails". No further details were given.

Why did Trump bring up Clinton?
On Friday, Mr Trump accused Mrs Clinton of links with Moscow.

Republican lawmakers have alleged that a uranium deal with a Russian company in 2010, when Mrs Clinton was secretary of state, was sealed in exchange for donations to her husband's charity.

A Congressional investigation has been opened into the case. Democrats say it is an attempt to divert attention from the alleged ties between Russia and Mr Trump.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41804740
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52037

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #231 on: October 30, 2017, 07:08:33 PM »

Ed Klein: Mueller's Russia Probe 'Pretty Pathetic'
Monday, 30 Oct 2017

Special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation has proved "pretty pathetic," failing to probe all aspects of supposed collusion with Russia during the 2016 election, writer Ed Klein said Monday.

In an interview on Newsmax TV's "The Howie Carr Show," Klein said if Mueller did what he was supposed to,"he would look at the Democrats and Hillary [Clinton]," including their funding of opposition research that led to a notorious dossier on then-candidate Donald Trump — and alleged links between a 2010 uranium deal with Russia and the Clinton Foundation.

"The clear need [is] for somebody to take a look at the Clintons, not [President] Donald Trump," declared Klein, the author of "All Out War: The Plot To Destroy Trump."

He said Monday's indictment of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort "reminds me of what happened in the 1920s when the FBI went after Al Capone."

"They couldn't find anything and they got him on tax evasion," he said. "And it's the same thing with Manafort."

"It's pretty pathetic, because the Mueller special counsel group is up for refinancing by Congress and I think he puts this out in order to show them he was doing something," Klein added. "But he's certainly not doing what he was supposed to do, which is look into Russian collusion."

"It seems to me that it's pretty darn clear from this dossier story that the Democrats were closer to the Russians than any Republicans were during the campaign," Klein added.

"Certainly the Clinton campaign was, we know it now because they paid for that dossier which was based on Russian misinformation."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/ed-klein-robert-mueller-paul-manafort-russia-investigation/2017/10/30/id/823004/
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52037

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #232 on: October 30, 2017, 07:13:08 PM »

Good read.

The Manafort Indictment: Not Much There, and a Boon for Trump
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY   October 30, 2017
@ANDREWCMCCARTHY
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453244/manafort-indictment-no-signs-trump-russia-collusion
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31776


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #233 on: October 30, 2017, 07:15:14 PM »

They got how many people working on this nutty conspiracy theory and have spent how much already, and this is what they have to show for it??  Swing and a miss. 

Damn Bum, too bad George Papadopoulos didn't have a smart guy like you for his attorney

Poor bastard pled guilty for nothing
Report to moderator   Logged
Yamcha
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11011


"Probably a Gimmick" - Fitness Frenzy


« Reply #234 on: October 30, 2017, 07:16:28 PM »

Damn Bum, too bad George Papadopoulos didn't have a smart guy like you for his attorney

Poor bastard pled guilty for nothing

They expect one of us in the wreckage brother.


* 1509413075607.jpg (104.07 KB, 640x768 - viewed 122 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

a
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31776


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #235 on: October 30, 2017, 07:20:57 PM »

They expect one of us in the wreckage brother.

I've already said that if Podesta broke the law I hope he gets caught and fully prosecuted

That's the way you should feel about anyone don't you agree ?
Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 38781


Obama is a coke sniffing ball washing homo


WWW
« Reply #236 on: October 30, 2017, 07:23:18 PM »

I wonder if Mueller would ever concede after finding nothing on Trump that next to Reagan he’s one of the most honest Presidents this country has ever had.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31776


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #237 on: October 30, 2017, 07:32:49 PM »

I wonder if Mueller would ever concede after finding nothing on Trump that next to Reagan he’s one of the most honest Presidents this country has ever had.

If you truly believe this you need to check yourself into the nearest hospital for a brain scan

It's hard to imagine you're actually this stupid without some kind of underlying neurological disorders or maybe a brain tumor

Even the Trumpiest Trumptard concedes that he is lies constantly



* laughing bastards.jpg (39.36 KB, 642x480 - viewed 118 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 18533


Be honest...


« Reply #238 on: October 30, 2017, 11:47:51 PM »

I wonder if Mueller would ever concede after finding nothing on Trump that next to Reagan he’s one of the most honest Presidents this country has ever had.

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 18533


Be honest...


« Reply #239 on: October 30, 2017, 11:59:33 PM »

Interesting that no one posted anything about the two indictments issued today. One for Manafort and one for Gates. George Papadopoulos, plead guilty to lying to the FBI and in now cooperating with them on their investigating. No surprise, Trump is now trying to shut down the Muller lead investigation.
Report to moderator   Logged
Top Poodle
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2728


No trannies allowed.


« Reply #240 on: October 31, 2017, 12:41:11 AM »

Interesting that no one posted anything about the two indictments issued today. One for Manafort and one for Gates. George Papadopoulos, plead guilty to lying to the FBI and in now cooperating with them on their investigating. No surprise, Trump is now trying to shut down the Muller lead investigation.

heuheuheu

kiddo manafort was working for podesta and the indictment is from there

papadopoulous was known by fbi to be collaborating with ukraine etc for years.  why didn't they stop him when he got on the trump campaign?

you're not seeing the bigger picture Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Yamcha
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11011


"Probably a Gimmick" - Fitness Frenzy


« Reply #241 on: October 31, 2017, 04:24:57 AM »

Interesting that no one posted anything about the two indictments issued today. One for Manafort and one for Gates. George Papadopoulos, plead guilty to lying to the FBI and in now cooperating with them on their investigating. No surprise, Trump is now trying to shut down the Muller lead investigation.

How do you even manage to remember to breathe on a regular basis?
Report to moderator   Logged

a
Top Poodle
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2728


No trannies allowed.


« Reply #242 on: October 31, 2017, 04:36:34 AM »

even stupid needs brains

hey look buddy it's your folk

(the second line)

Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 18533


Be honest...


« Reply #243 on: October 31, 2017, 11:16:16 AM »

How do you even manage to remember to breathe on a regular basis?

Meaning?
Report to moderator   Logged
Yamcha
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11011


"Probably a Gimmick" - Fitness Frenzy


« Reply #244 on: October 31, 2017, 11:28:08 AM »

They expect one of us in the wreckage brother.

Careful there Jake Tapper...


* 1509474374383m.jpg (89.03 KB, 921x1024 - viewed 74 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

a
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52037

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #245 on: October 31, 2017, 01:17:59 PM »

Interesting that no one posted anything about the two indictments issued today. One for Manafort and one for Gates. George Papadopoulos, plead guilty to lying to the FBI and in now cooperating with them on their investigating. No surprise, Trump is now trying to shut down the Muller lead investigation.

You mean like the three posts I made earlier in this thread? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 18533


Be honest...


« Reply #246 on: October 31, 2017, 02:12:19 PM »

You mean like the three posts I made earlier in this thread? 

Good on you.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52037

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #247 on: October 31, 2017, 02:45:55 PM »

Good on you.

Interesting that no one posted anything about the two indictments issued today.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52037

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #248 on: November 08, 2017, 01:26:49 PM »

New York Times’ coverage of Mueller is peak liberal bias
By Michael Goodwin November 5, 2017

A friend likens The New York Times to a 1960s adolescent who refuses to grow up.  In a perpetual state of outrage, it is a newspaper of college snowflakes who embrace all forms of diversity except thought.

It sees its liberal politics not as a point of view, but as received wisdom that cannot be legitimately disputed.

The fixation on conformity reached a new low last week when the paper rolled out a coordinated attack on those of us who believe special counsel Robert Mueller ought to resign. I say coordinated because the newsroom and the opinion page produced similar pieces on the same day, showing again how Executive Editor Dean Baquet has erased the barrier between news and opinion and turned every page into an opinion page.

In the Times’ view, there are only two reasons to question Mueller’s credibility: insanity or treason. And so we detractors stand accused of engaging in a conspiracy that will embolden adversaries like Russia and produce a “constitutional crisis.”

The animating impulse for the assault is obvious — the Times is locked into its mission of destroying President Trump, and, like Hillary Clinton, still cannot accept Trump’s election as legitimate.

Consider that the paper’s dozen Op-Ed columnists are all Never-Trumpers. That’s either a remarkable coincidence or a litmus test for hiring.

But the paper, following a bad habit it developed during Barack Obama’s presidency, is not content with advocating its positions. Behaving like a party propaganda outlet, it takes a coercive approach to anyone with a different view. Objections are demonized as heretical.

The reactionary tone of both pieces last week, and following ones by columnists Nicholas Kristof and Bret Stephens, carries the unavoidable assumption that Trump is guilty of colluding with Russia, and so critics of Mueller are subversives with unpatriotic aims.

The spear carrier for the Times’ newsroom opinion, media reporter Jim Rutenberg, singled me out for making a “dubious argument” that Mueller has too many conflicts of interest. Rutenberg, who assumed the role of Baquet’s apologist for its biased coverage of Trump, flatly declared doubts about Mueller unwarranted because “there is no evidence to support the assertion that the Democrats hired Fusion GPS with the purpose of getting Russians to spread ‘wild allegations’ about Mr. Trump.”

His straw man is a diversion and his logic turns the concept of evidence on its head, making it required before an investigation can start. Isn’t the point of investigations to find evidence?

Besides, if the lack of evidence is sufficient to avoid investigation, why is Mueller still investigating Trump, since more than a year of FBI probes has turned up no evidence of Trump wrongdoing.

The editorial page was even more venomous, calling criticism of the special counsel “crazy talk.” Incredibly, it also equated us with those who were silent in the face of Nazis by opening the editorial with, “And then they came for Robert Mueller.”

The zeal to protect Mueller from any criticism raises the question of why the Times cares so much. With the mainstream media in lockstep with its jihad against Trump,
why bother to smear a handful of skeptics?

My great sin was to argue that Mueller’s close relationship with his successor at the FBI, James Comey, was always a problem and that recent developments created a situation that was fixable only by resignation.

Those added conflicts include the revelation that Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party paid for the Russian dossier against Trump, with some of its paid sources linked to the Kremlin.

Because the FBI reportedly used the dossier to launch its probe of Trump and considered hiring its author, any probe faithful to Mueller’s assignment would include an examination of the FBI’s role in 2016.

That would put Mueller in the untenable position of investigating the agency he led for 12 years.

Moreover, as questions grow about whether the Obama White House used the dossier as justification for unmasking Trump associates picked up in wiretaps in an attempt to swing the election to Clinton, Mueller’s probe must also examine the previous administration. But that, too, is an impossible task for him because he spent more than four years working for Obama, where he was a colleague of ­Clinton’s.

Resignation under these circumstances is not a radical idea, especially because I did not call for the Russia probe to end. I merely stated an obvious fact about how serious conflicts of interest are routinely resolved in the criminal-justice ­system.

For example, a judge with Mueller’s relationships and history would almost certainly be recused from overseeing those cases, so why should a special counsel investigating the president be held to a lesser standard? And if Justice Department rules required Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from anything related to the 2016 campaign because he was a Trump surrogate, those same rules should apply to Mueller’s relationship with Clinton, Obama and Comey.

In the end, the Times’ rabid ­defense of Mueller resembles the debacle of its 2016 campaign coverage. It never saw Trump’s victory coming because it was blinded by its hatred for him and contempt for his 63 million voters.

A year later, the Gray Lady has learned nothing.

http://nypost.com/2017/11/05/new-york-times-coverage-of-mueller-is-peak-liberal-bias/
Report to moderator   Logged
LittleJ
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3735


« Reply #249 on: November 08, 2017, 01:43:01 PM »

I wonder if Mueller would ever concede after finding nothing on Trump that next to Reagan he’s one of the most honest Presidents this country has ever had.

You need to become a comedian.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!