- Joined
- Aug 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,995
- Reaction score
- 1,261
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Interesting how Russian billionaires are referred to as "oligarchs" while american billionaires are referred to as "successful".
:lamo
Awesome rebuttal.
And?2. Opposition research is not collusion.
Thats what a judge would do:lamo.. you call that proof
Yes, responding to and meeting to possibly obtain "highly sensitive information" that may "incriminate" is still conducting opposition research.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.
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?What research was Trump Jr. going to do? Read what was handed to him? Do you think that's what opposition research is?
Yes we do. It was a nothing burger. No such information was given.We have no idea what really happened.
Yes we do. It was a nothing burger. No such information was given.
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
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.
You go with the evidence you have, and no evidence is available that suggests otherwise.Wait. How do we know no information was given?
That is spin, and when you have to resort to such it exposes your position as being irrational.The same guy who repeatedly lied about this?
iLOL No.If you have a meeting about dirt on Hillary Clinton the rational assumption is that information was exchanged.
iLOL No.The meeting attendees have every reason to lie and deny information was exchanged.
iLOLOpposition research involves hiring someone like a private detective or firm to do research.
No it is not.Russians offering you information to help your campaign is collusion.
iLOL No. You sure do like making things up to believe.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.
No connection and you can not show any connection, so irrelevant.Moreover, there is evidence of the Trump campaign talking about sanctions relief with the Russians.
Your deflection is noted.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?
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.
That is your opinion which of course is wrong.You have a very long history of deciding you know everything even in situations where it is literally impossible for everything to be known.
Wrong as usual.This is just a continuation of your bias toward yourself.
What do you not understand about the following?Sure, you know what happened in that room.
That is reality. Speculation in opposition, with no evidence to support it, is not.We were told what happened so we know (do you know how ...
1. That is what the person involved said it was.Opposition research is what you say it is.
Nothing but deflection from the person who has been unable to refute what I presented. Figures.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.
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.
This is your irrational bias on display again, as you are wrong as usual and have been unable to refute what was presented.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."
An irrational reply 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.