• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

After Donald Jr. Emails Still No Evidence of Russia Collusion

Fenton Lum said:
Interesting how Russian billionaires are referred to as "oligarchs" while american billionaires are referred to as "successful".
Click to expand...

We have our Oligarchs. Not all American billionaires fit that description.
 
Excon said:
And?2. Opposition research is not collusion.
Click to expand...

Exhibit one: talking point, found directly at the scene of the POTUS' twitter account. Talking point is fabricated, meeting with Russians connected with Putin to receive "highly sensitive information" is not opposition research. What research was Trump Jr. going to do? Read what was handed to him? Do you think that's what opposition research is? Was your research in college having your term paper written for you and then you read it before handing it in? Shameful.

We have no idea what really happened. But this stinks, and there is lie after lie after lie that has turned this into something pretty unfortunate for those of us who need Trump in office to ensure that Americans know who the GOP in Washington really is.
 
volsrock said:
Thats what a judge would do:lamo.. you call that proof
Click to expand...

What about Trump Jr.'s own words in his email he wro...Oh, right. That's like Trump Sr.'s tweets, made up by the left wing media just to make the Trumps look bad. How dare they publish the Trump's own words without filtering them past the Trumpeteers to tell us what they really meant by the words they wrote.
 
Mustachio said:
Exhibit one: talking point, found directly at the scene of the POTUS' twitter account. Talking point is fabricated, meeting with Russians connected with Putin to receive "highly sensitive information" is not opposition research.
Click to expand...
Yes, responding to and meeting to possibly obtain "highly sensitive information" that may "incriminate" is still conducting opposition research.


Mustachio said:
What research was Trump Jr. going to do? Read what was handed to him? Do you think that's what opposition research is?
Click to expand...
Wtf? Are you saying that if they had received something they would not have attempted to look into it to see if the information was accurate?
Or that had they received actually incriminating information they would not have turned it over to the FBI?


Mustachio said:
We have no idea what really happened.
Click to expand...
Yes we do. It was a nothing burger. No such information was given.
 
Excon said:
Yes we do. It was a nothing burger. No such information was given.
Click to expand...

Wait. How do we know no information was given? Are you taking Donald Jr.'s word? The same guy who repeatedly lied about this? If you have a meeting about dirt on Hillary Clinton the rational assumption is that information was exchanged. The meeting attendees have every reason to lie and deny information was exchanged.

Opposition research involves hiring someone like a private detective or firm to do research. Russians offering you information to help your campaign is collusion. They help you, you help them. If you have a meeting with them with senior members of your campaign you're working with them--colluding. Moreover, they admit that the Magnisky Act was discussed. In other words, we give you dirt on Hillary and you get rid of the Magnisky Act. That's a betrayal of America.

Moreover, there is evidence of the Trump campaign talking about sanctions relief with the Russians.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
If not for all the pinheads wanting it to be true the absurdity of this collusion narrative would be completely obvious.

The Democrats have their plans for impeachment all ready to go if only they can get some evidence. What a pathetic bunch of putzes!

Meanwhile, we can rely on almost nothing reported about Trump in the media these days. There's no point in commenting on news that's likely to be false. We can let the usual suspects speculated and bandy these false narratives about to their heart's content.

POLLAK: After Donald Trump Jr. Emails, Still No Evidence of Russia 'Collusion' - Breitbart
Click to expand...


You're quoting Breitbart dude? Seriously?
 
Excon said:
Yes, responding to and meeting to possibly obtain "highly sensitive information" that may "incriminate" is still conducting opposition research.


Wtf? Are you saying that if they had received something they would not have attempted to look into it to see if the information was accurate?
Or that had they received actually incriminating information they would not have turned it over to the FBI?


Yes we do. It was a nothing burger. No such information was given.
Click to expand...

You misread my mocking of the "research" defense and then you lob it off the backboard to yourself for the "nothing-burger" dunk. It's a Trump twitter pass to a Trump twitter score. Now if the liberals had some maniacal morons to spread incredibly stupid sounding memes to their minions, we could have a fair game. But "just opposition research" and "nothing burger" are real winners. Did you copy and paste this stuff or are you wasting your time writing it?

It's the same story every day.

"The media is lying"
Media is correct
"The leaks are the real story"
The story is the real story
"There's no evidence"
Evidence turns up
"Hillary did the same thing!"
Hillary isn't president
"This is a nothing burger"
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Wait. How do we know no information was given?
Click to expand...
You go with the evidence you have, and no evidence is available that suggests otherwise.


SonOfDaedalus said:
The same guy who repeatedly lied about this?
Click to expand...
That is spin, and when you have to resort to such it exposes your position as being irrational.


SonOfDaedalus said:
If you have a meeting about dirt on Hillary Clinton the rational assumption is that information was exchanged.
Click to expand...
iLOL No.


SonOfDaedalus said:
The meeting attendees have every reason to lie and deny information was exchanged.
Click to expand...
iLOL No.



SonOfDaedalus said:
Opposition research involves hiring someone like a private detective or firm to do research.
Click to expand...
iLOL
That can be opposition research, just as collecting information someone else provides to you can be.



SonOfDaedalus said:
Russians offering you information to help your campaign is collusion.
Click to expand...
No it is not.
Try looking up the definition.


SonOfDaedalus said:
Moreover, they admit that the Magnisky Act was discussed. In other words, we give you dirt on Hillary and you get rid of the Magnisky Act. That's a betrayal of America.
Click to expand...
iLOL No. You sure do like making things up to believe.


SonOfDaedalus said:
Moreover, there is evidence of the Trump campaign talking about sanctions relief with the Russians.
Click to expand...
No connection and you can not show any connection, so irrelevant.
 
Mustachio said:
You misread my mocking of the "research" defense and then you lob it off the backboard to yourself for the "nothing-burger" dunk. It's a Trump twitter pass to a Trump twitter score. Now if the liberals had some maniacal morons to spread incredibly stupid sounding memes to their minions, we could have a fair game. But "just opposition research" and "nothing burger" are real winners. Did you copy and paste this stuff or are you wasting your time writing it?
Click to expand...
Your deflection is noted.

You claimed; "We have no idea what really happened."
Yet we were told what happened. It amounts to a nothing burger.

If you have actual information to show it doesn't amount to a nothing burger, provide it, if not, push on as you are attempting to dispute reality.


Unless the information we have changes, it is a nothing burger.
 
Excon said:
Your deflection is noted.

You claimed; "We have no idea what really happened."
Yet we were told what happened. It amounts to a nothing burger.

If you have actual information to show it doesn't amount to a nothing burger, provide it, if not, push on as you are attempting to dispute reality.


Unless the information we have changes, it is a nothing burger.
Click to expand...

You have a very long history of deciding you know everything even in situations where it is literally impossible for everything to be known. This is just a continuation of your bias toward yourself. Sure, you know what happened in that room. Nobody did anything wrong. We were told what happened so we know (do you know how stupid that sounds?). Opposition research is what you say it is. There's no point trying to debate a person who believes they are right 100% of the time. It's the "nothing burger" repetition of talking points and memes that make the whole argument even more vapid and thoughtless.
 
Mustachio said:
You have a very long history of deciding you know everything even in situations where it is literally impossible for everything to be known.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion which of course is wrong.
But way to deflect. :thumbs:


Mustachio said:
This is just a continuation of your bias toward yourself.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual.


Mustachio said:
Sure, you know what happened in that room.
Click to expand...
What do you not understand about the following?
We were told what occurred.
There is no evidence to suggest anything else other than that occurred.​

If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, please, present it, if not, push on with your bs.


Mustachio said:
We were told what happened so we know (do you know how ...
Click to expand...
That is reality. Speculation in opposition, with no evidence to support it, is not.
Do try to learn the difference.


Mustachio said:
Opposition research is what you say it is.
Click to expand...
1. That is what the person involved said it was.
Who are you to say otherwise?
2. Obtaining information that opposes the candidate you are running against, is by definition, opposition research.
It is sad that you do not understand that.


Mustachio said:
There's no point trying to debate a person who believes they are right 100% of the time. It's the "nothing burger" repetition of talking points and memes that make the whole argument even more vapid and thoughtless.
Click to expand...
Nothing but deflection from the person who has been unable to refute what I presented. Figures.
 
Excon said:
That is your opinion which of course is wrong.
But way to deflect. :thumbs:


Wrong as usual.


What do you not understand about the following?
We were told what occurred.
There is no evidence to suggest anything else other than that occurred.​

If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, please, present it, if not, push on with your bs.



That is reality. Speculation in opposition, with no evidence to support it, is not.
Do try to learn the difference.


1. That is what the person involved said it was.
Who are you to say otherwise?
2. Obtaining information that opposes the candidate you are running against, is by definition, opposition research.
It is sad that you do not understand that.


Nothing but deflection from the person who has been unable to refute what I presented. Figures.
Click to expand...

Every single post you have is a variation of:
"wrong as usual.
Irrational bias being displayed again.
you have been unable to refute the points.
LOL. Wrong.
iLOL
Irrelevant nonsense. As usual."

If, before the election, Jon Podesta and a group of lawyers met with an Iranian who emailed them promising damaging information from high levels of the Iranian government 9 days before Wikileaks - via Iran - came out with hacks of the GOP and Paul Manafort's emails, you think you'd be calling this a "nothing burger"? No. And to anybody who said it was no big deal you'd respond to with "iLOL. Wrong as usual."

I have no idea what happened at the meeting. But this is smoke whether or not there is fire, and "iLOL wrong as usual" doesn't change that. Your responses are boring and you are hopelessly biased.
 
Mustachio said:
Every single post you have is a variation of:
"wrong as usual.
Irrational bias being displayed again.
you have been unable to refute the points.
LOL. Wrong.
iLOL
Irrelevant nonsense. As usual."
Click to expand...
This is your irrational bias on display again, as you are wrong as usual and have been unable to refute what was presented.



Mustachio said:
If, before the election, Jon Podesta and a group of lawyers met with an Iranian who emailed them promising damaging information from high levels of the Iranian government 9 days before Wikileaks - via Iran - came out with hacks of the GOP and Paul Manafort's emails, you think you'd be calling this a "nothing burger"? No. And to anybody who said it was no big deal you'd respond to with "iLOL. Wrong as usual."
I have no idea what happened at the meeting. But this is smoke whether or not there is fire, and "iLOL wrong as usual" doesn't change that. Your responses are boring and you are hopelessly biased.
Click to expand...
An irrational reply as usual.
This is not about anyone else and your made up scenario. This is about this incident and the available information we have about it.

If you can not confine yourself to the reality of that information you should not be attempting to discuss it.

Based on the information we have about it, it is a "nothing burger". Your denial will not change that.

As for boring? iLOL Just like the rest of what you said, that is your irrelevant irrational bias speaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom