The Necro-Hammy Romance - aka Necro's epic dodge

[AnalHamster]

Yes there is, but if you're denying the campaign colluded or, as you both are doing, just refusing to even admit seeing the question did the campaign collude, what would be the point in exploring which members of the campaign were involved? I said clearly and explicitly on page 1 I would prove to any of you delusional trump cucks that the trump campaign colluded. Once we have established you can grasp that reality, I will be happy to take any of you who are interested through the evidence that trump himself was personally involved. If you deny collusion occurred at all in the face of overwhelming evidence there's no point trying to get you to admit who participated in it.

Pussies.

I asked can you prove Trump colluded and you said yes then you proceeded to answer a different question. So walk me down the trump collusion evidence. That's all I've asked for.

I'm trying, but you've been refusing for five pages to admit you can see that collusion actually occurred. You can't bring yourself to deny it either. It's very odd.



Show me Trump's collusion.
No, let me answer this question instead? And on top of that I'm going to refuse to answer the original question because nah nah nah nah nah nah.


Dude, it's totally obvious you just can't admit seeing blatant collusion. Admit it, run away, or face this thread every day until you do. These are your choices, it doesn't matter how many ways you try saying derrr me no reply to your question.

You wanna treat everyone like an idiot and you're smarter blah blah. I can play the game of you're an idiot as long as you want. And no matter how many ways you attempt to dodge the original question, I'm still going ask you to answer the question, what's Trump's collusion.
Just keep going. You were at russia/trump campaign meet. Now what? Just continue. Stop treating people like they are stupid just so you can feel superior on a message board. Just go.

Yes, I am treating you like an idiot. This is because you are behaving like an idiot. Is meeting someone from the russian government offering to help interfere in the election colluding with the election interference? You know it is. Answer 'yes' and we will cover Trump's involvement in that one, then move on to the next example. If you're going to deny any collusion, you can't admit trump's involvement in it.

Just go. Stop stalling. You don't need my confirmation to lay out proof, just do it. If the proof is there, go.

Sure, just confirm for me that you understand collusion occurred, then we'll look at trump's involvement in it. You started by dismissing the whole idea of collusion as a conspiracy theory, you've just dismissed trump on live TV asking for interference as him joking around, despite now knowing he has been doing the same thing over and over, secretly as well as publicly. You're never going to admit anything can be collusion, so why pretend you can look at the evidence? Since you're going to dismiss anything I say, I'm going to dish it out one example at a time and maximise how stupid you look doing it. Or that was the plan if you hadn't gone straight to full retard. I'm happy to keep you at full retard though, so let's get back to it.

So, if someone goes to a meeting with someone claiming to be from the russian government, offering help with the election, does that constitute collusion with the interference? If you can't admit that it does, we cannot proceed. You are just admitting you will deny collusion can have occurred no matter what the evidence.

[CaptQuint]

[VinceBordenIII]

Does everybody not see this?

Dot is just one of my twelve secret trolls, bwahahaha.

Dumbass.

Dot is you, you are dot.

[CaptQuint]

I AM SPARTACUS

[AnalHamster]

Dot was some of my finest work, a troll I created years before I joined the forum just to throw people off

[VinceBordenIII]

Dot was some of my finest work, a troll I created years before I joined the forum just to throw people off

This forum has existed for how long? A year? More? Less?

[AnalHamster]

I think it's time I came clean. Vince is me too.

#metoo

[dot]

Dot is you, you are dot.

This forum has existed for how long? A year? More? Less?

Do you ever get tired of being so woefully wrong?

[AnalHamster]

Dot is you, you are dot.

This forum has existed for how long? A year? More? Less?

Do you ever get tired of being so woefully wrong?

[necronomous]

I asked can you prove Trump colluded and you said yes then you proceeded to answer a different question. So walk me down the trump collusion evidence. That's all I've asked for.

I'm trying, but you've been refusing for five pages to admit you can see that collusion actually occurred. You can't bring yourself to deny it either. It's very odd.



Show me Trump's collusion.
No, let me answer this question instead? And on top of that I'm going to refuse to answer the original question because nah nah nah nah nah nah.


Dude, it's totally obvious you just can't admit seeing blatant collusion. Admit it, run away, or face this thread every day until you do. These are your choices, it doesn't matter how many ways you try saying derrr me no reply to your question.

You wanna treat everyone like an idiot and you're smarter blah blah. I can play the game of you're an idiot as long as you want. And no matter how many ways you attempt to dodge the original question, I'm still going ask you to answer the question, what's Trump's collusion.
Just keep going. You were at russia/trump campaign meet. Now what? Just continue. Stop treating people like they are stupid just so you can feel superior on a message board. Just go.

Yes, I am treating you like an idiot. This is because you are behaving like an idiot. Is meeting someone from the russian government offering to help interfere in the election colluding with the election interference? You know it is. Answer 'yes' and we will cover Trump's involvement in that one, then move on to the next example. If you're going to deny any collusion, you can't admit trump's involvement in it.

Just go. Stop stalling. You don't need my confirmation to lay out proof, just do it. If the proof is there, go.

Sure, just confirm for me that you understand collusion occurred, then we'll look at trump's involvement in it. You started by dismissing the whole idea of collusion as a conspiracy theory, you've just dismissed trump on live TV asking for interference as him joking around, despite now knowing he has been doing the same thing over and over, secretly as well as publicly. You're never going to admit anything can be collusion, so why pretend you can look at the evidence? Since you're going to dismiss anything I say, I'm going to dish it out one example at a time and maximise how stupid you look doing it. Or that was the plan if you hadn't gone straight to full retard. I'm happy to keep you at full retard though, so let's get back to it.

So, if someone goes to a meeting with someone claiming to be from the russian government, offering help with the election, does that constitute collusion with the interference? If you can't admit that it does, we cannot proceed. You are just admitting you will deny collusion can have occurred no matter what the evidence.

We are agreed then. You have no evidence. And, you're fucking stupid. See we can agree on stuff. Have a nice day.

[AnalHamster]

I'm trying, but you've been refusing for five pages to admit you can see that collusion actually occurred. You can't bring yourself to deny it either. It's very odd.



Show me Trump's collusion.
No, let me answer this question instead? And on top of that I'm going to refuse to answer the original question because nah nah nah nah nah nah.


Dude, it's totally obvious you just can't admit seeing blatant collusion. Admit it, run away, or face this thread every day until you do. These are your choices, it doesn't matter how many ways you try saying derrr me no reply to your question.

You wanna treat everyone like an idiot and you're smarter blah blah. I can play the game of you're an idiot as long as you want. And no matter how many ways you attempt to dodge the original question, I'm still going ask you to answer the question, what's Trump's collusion.
Just keep going. You were at russia/trump campaign meet. Now what? Just continue. Stop treating people like they are stupid just so you can feel superior on a message board. Just go.

Yes, I am treating you like an idiot. This is because you are behaving like an idiot. Is meeting someone from the russian government offering to help interfere in the election colluding with the election interference? You know it is. Answer 'yes' and we will cover Trump's involvement in that one, then move on to the next example. If you're going to deny any collusion, you can't admit trump's involvement in it.

Just go. Stop stalling. You don't need my confirmation to lay out proof, just do it. If the proof is there, go.

Sure, just confirm for me that you understand collusion occurred, then we'll look at trump's involvement in it. You started by dismissing the whole idea of collusion as a conspiracy theory, you've just dismissed trump on live TV asking for interference as him joking around, despite now knowing he has been doing the same thing over and over, secretly as well as publicly. You're never going to admit anything can be collusion, so why pretend you can look at the evidence? Since you're going to dismiss anything I say, I'm going to dish it out one example at a time and maximise how stupid you look doing it. Or that was the plan if you hadn't gone straight to full retard. I'm happy to keep you at full retard though, so let's get back to it.

So, if someone goes to a meeting with someone claiming to be from the russian government, offering help with the election, does that constitute collusion with the interference? If you can't admit that it does, we cannot proceed. You are just admitting you will deny collusion can have occurred no matter what the evidence.

We are agreed then. You have no evidence. And, you're fucking stupid. See we can agree on stuff. Have a nice day.

Plenty of evidence, you're just refusing to admit you can see it. If you want to keep doing that indefinitely, I am happy to oblige.

Does going to Putin's office, sucking his cock and asking for orders constitute collusion? You can't admit meeting a russian agent offering russian help with the russian interference could constitute collusion, is there anything at all that could? Physically sucking Putin's cock while receiving his direct orders, would that do it? Let's have a go at establishing that collusion can actually exist. Would that do it for ya?

[necronomous]

You wanna treat everyone like an idiot and you're smarter blah blah. I can play the game of you're an idiot as long as you want. And no matter how many ways you attempt to dodge the original question, I'm still going ask you to answer the question, what's Trump's collusion.
Just keep going. You were at russia/trump campaign meet. Now what? Just continue. Stop treating people like they are stupid just so you can feel superior on a message board. Just go.

Yes, I am treating you like an idiot. This is because you are behaving like an idiot. Is meeting someone from the russian government offering to help interfere in the election colluding with the election interference? You know it is. Answer 'yes' and we will cover Trump's involvement in that one, then move on to the next example. If you're going to deny any collusion, you can't admit trump's involvement in it.

Just go. Stop stalling. You don't need my confirmation to lay out proof, just do it. If the proof is there, go.

Sure, just confirm for me that you understand collusion occurred, then we'll look at trump's involvement in it. You started by dismissing the whole idea of collusion as a conspiracy theory, you've just dismissed trump on live TV asking for interference as him joking around, despite now knowing he has been doing the same thing over and over, secretly as well as publicly. You're never going to admit anything can be collusion, so why pretend you can look at the evidence? Since you're going to dismiss anything I say, I'm going to dish it out one example at a time and maximise how stupid you look doing it. Or that was the plan if you hadn't gone straight to full retard. I'm happy to keep you at full retard though, so let's get back to it.

So, if someone goes to a meeting with someone claiming to be from the russian government, offering help with the election, does that constitute collusion with the interference? If you can't admit that it does, we cannot proceed. You are just admitting you will deny collusion can have occurred no matter what the evidence.

We are agreed then. You have no evidence. And, you're fucking stupid. See we can agree on stuff. Have a nice day.

Plenty of evidence, you're just refusing to admit you can see it. If you want to keep doing that indefinitely, I am happy to oblige.

Does going to Putin's office, sucking his cock and asking for orders constitute collusion?

You've not presented "plenty of evidence."
Let me attempt to explain it this way. Let's say you're in a court of law and you're trying to prosecute a man for murder. You lay claim that you have evidence of his crime, but you, before presenting it, demand the jury say that first he is capable of murder. And that the case should not move forward until they admit he is capable of murder. This is a way to control the narrative of his crime. If you can convince the jury he is capable of murder, then he most certainly must be guilty of murder because,.in your line of logic, if a =b then b must =c and there is no other alternative. And you have convinced the jury that this is true.

So you're an idiot, or your are purposely trying to control the narrative with this faulty logic.

I don't just get one piece of evidence and go this is right so everything after must be right. That's not how burden of proof works. I take all the evidence, judge all it's merit, and make a conclusion based on the evidence presented.

I can see how with your line of thinking, it would constantly lead you to the person you don't like always doing wrong. In fact, that's the way 95% of liberals work. Isn't that right CQ? You don't need to look at the rest of the evidence subjectively or with any thought. You immediately conclude, he was guilty here, so therefore they must be guilty everywhere.

You have great ideas. You're very smart. You're an obvious, shitty debater. Also you're judgemental as fuck with a small understanding of the psyche and believe you can "predict" how people will think with no evidence, on a message board.

This also is good time to mention that though you are smart, your logic and knowledge about the military is shitty and because you are smart, you think you can convince everyone you are right about everything, when clearly you don't know shit. You know just enough and only step in it when someone who knows more, calls you out. Then you're so stubborn and narcissistic, you can't admit you're wrong because that would ruin your board rep.

I don't think dot is you. But he is the new stymie and has bought into the idea that you know all and he is at your test like a starving baby with a lactating mother.

The burden of proof is in you. I will listen to ALL your evidence, that if true, should stand on its own regardless of admitting bits by bits, piece by piece. Because even if you prove the guy is capable of murder. Even if you put him at the scene. Even if you find his dna on shit, it doesn't mean he committed the murder. It looks bad, and yes he would probably get convicted, but there are a lot of people who have been convicted with such evidence that was totally innocent. And that's what you are trying to do. See I've proved bit by bit, but no real evidence that he did it. But aren't liberals trying to stop such things from happening? To stop wrongfully accusing innocent people until there is actual proof? Oh wait, no they don't because most people are tore apart online when something occurs, damning that person to hell essentially, when it then turns out it never happened that way. Ferguson, most cop incidents actually, accusations of racism, rape..etc are constantly being judge without full evidence by the left. So I can see how you follow this line of reasoning.

And I have admitted, that there is a lot of damning evidence against Trump, but most of it circumstantial at best. Slanderous in most cases due to third party heresay. Where is that actual part that says he is guilty, because that is what it's going to take to convict him. And I don't think it's there. I'm asking you to prove that.

And if all this is not the way you think, then understand, I'm only using your logic of knowing people on a message board and how they will absolutely think, the same way you are. See were the same.

So, where is the evidence that Trump is guilty? Because if he is, he needs to go. Otherwise, your words are hollow and you think you know, but like everyone on this board, they only know what the media they listen to tells them and/or their own confirmation bias. Which means we don't know shit.

[AnalHamster]

Yes, I am treating you like an idiot. This is because you are behaving like an idiot. Is meeting someone from the russian government offering to help interfere in the election colluding with the election interference? You know it is. Answer 'yes' and we will cover Trump's involvement in that one, then move on to the next example. If you're going to deny any collusion, you can't admit trump's involvement in it.

Just go. Stop stalling. You don't need my confirmation to lay out proof, just do it. If the proof is there, go.

Sure, just confirm for me that you understand collusion occurred, then we'll look at trump's involvement in it. You started by dismissing the whole idea of collusion as a conspiracy theory, you've just dismissed trump on live TV asking for interference as him joking around, despite now knowing he has been doing the same thing over and over, secretly as well as publicly. You're never going to admit anything can be collusion, so why pretend you can look at the evidence? Since you're going to dismiss anything I say, I'm going to dish it out one example at a time and maximise how stupid you look doing it. Or that was the plan if you hadn't gone straight to full retard. I'm happy to keep you at full retard though, so let's get back to it.

So, if someone goes to a meeting with someone claiming to be from the russian government, offering help with the election, does that constitute collusion with the interference? If you can't admit that it does, we cannot proceed. You are just admitting you will deny collusion can have occurred no matter what the evidence.

We are agreed then. You have no evidence. And, you're fucking stupid. See we can agree on stuff. Have a nice day.

Plenty of evidence, you're just refusing to admit you can see it. If you want to keep doing that indefinitely, I am happy to oblige.

Does going to Putin's office, sucking his cock and asking for orders constitute collusion?

You've not presented "plenty of evidence."
Let me attempt to explain it this way. Let's say you're in a court of law and you're trying to prosecute a man for murder. You lay claim that you have evidence of his crime, but you, before presenting it, demand the jury say that first he is capable of murder. And that the case should not move forward until they admit he is capable of murder. This is a way to control the narrative of his crime. If you can convince the jury he is capable of murder, then he most certainly must be guilty of murder because,.in your line of logic, if a =b then b must =c and there is no other alternative. And you have convinced the jury that this is true.

So you're an idiot, or your are purposely trying to control the narrative with this faulty logic.

I don't just get one piece of evidence and go this is right so everything after must be right. That's not how burden of proof works. I take all the evidence, judge all it's merit, and make a conclusion based on the evidence presented.

I can see how with your line of thinking, it would constantly lead you to the person you don't like always doing wrong. In fact, that's the way 95% of liberals work. Isn't that right CQ? You don't need to look at the rest of the evidence subjectively or with any thought. You immediately conclude, he was guilty here, so therefore they must be guilty everywhere.

You have great ideas. You're very smart. You're an obvious, shitty debater. Also you're judgemental as fuck with a small understanding of the psyche and believe you can "predict" how people will think with no evidence, on a message board.

This also is good time to mention that though you are smart, your logic and knowledge about the military is shitty and because you are smart, you think you can convince everyone you are right about everything, when clearly you don't know shit. You know just enough and only step in it when someone who knows more, calls you out. Then you're so stubborn and narcissistic, you can't admit you're wrong because that would ruin your board rep.

I don't think dot is you. But he is the new stymie and has bought into the idea that you know all and he is at your test like a starving baby with a lactating mother.

The burden of proof is in you. I will listen to ALL your evidence, that if true, should stand on its own regardless of admitting bits by bits, piece by piece. Because even if you prove the guy is capable of murder. Even if you put him at the scene. Even if you find his dna on shit, it doesn't mean he committed the murder. It looks bad, and yes he would probably get convicted, but there are a lot of people who have been convicted with such evidence that was totally innocent. And that's what you are trying to do. See I've proved bit by bit, but no real evidence that he did it. But aren't liberals trying to stop such things from happening? To stop wrongfully accusing innocent people until there is actual proof? Oh wait, no they don't because most people are tore apart online when something occurs, damning that person to hell essentially, when it then turns out it never happened that way. Ferguson, most cop incidents actually, accusations of racism, rape..etc are constantly being judge without full evidence by the left. So I can see how you follow this line of reasoning.

And I have admitted, that there is a lot of damning evidence against Trump, but most of it circumstantial at best. Slanderous in most cases due to third party heresay. Where is that actual part that says he is guilty, because that is what it's going to take to convict him. And I don't think it's there. I'm asking you to prove that.

And if all this is not the way you think, then understand, I'm only using your logic of knowing people on a message board and how they will absolutely think, the same way you are. See were the same.

So, where is the evidence that Trump is guilty? Because if he is, he needs to go. Otherwise, your words are hollow and you think you know, but like everyone on this board, they only know what the media they listen to tells them and/or their own confirmation bias. Which means we don't know shit.

In a court of law you follow precisely the route I'm trying to encourage you to walk down, you establish the elements and facts of the crime. Establishing the crime occurred is not a distraction or evasion, it's a basic part of the case. The defense lawyer doesn't get to say waaaah and run away. You're denying the possibility that the crime occurred at all while demanding I go into the details of who committed it. If you cannot admit collusion is possible at all, then you cannot consider who was involved in it. If a jury member in the selection process is asked 'if he murdered someone, could you convict him of murder' and says 'I will neither confirm nor deny that I am capable of recognising the crime of murder exists', that juror isn't getting selected. That juror isn't even being released, due to being imprisoned for contempt of court.

Your answer to anything I say is a foregone conclusion, this pathetic childish refusal to admit that meeting a rep from the russian government offering help with the election would be collusion with the interference is the reason you have to be made to identify each example of collusion one by one. Of course you are going to deny trump's involvement every time, you can't even admit it happened at all.

[necronomous]

Just go. Stop stalling. You don't need my confirmation to lay out proof, just do it. If the proof is there, go.

Sure, just confirm for me that you understand collusion occurred, then we'll look at trump's involvement in it. You started by dismissing the whole idea of collusion as a conspiracy theory, you've just dismissed trump on live TV asking for interference as him joking around, despite now knowing he has been doing the same thing over and over, secretly as well as publicly. You're never going to admit anything can be collusion, so why pretend you can look at the evidence? Since you're going to dismiss anything I say, I'm going to dish it out one example at a time and maximise how stupid you look doing it. Or that was the plan if you hadn't gone straight to full retard. I'm happy to keep you at full retard though, so let's get back to it.

So, if someone goes to a meeting with someone claiming to be from the russian government, offering help with the election, does that constitute collusion with the interference? If you can't admit that it does, we cannot proceed. You are just admitting you will deny collusion can have occurred no matter what the evidence.

We are agreed then. You have no evidence. And, you're fucking stupid. See we can agree on stuff. Have a nice day.

Plenty of evidence, you're just refusing to admit you can see it. If you want to keep doing that indefinitely, I am happy to oblige.

Does going to Putin's office, sucking his cock and asking for orders constitute collusion?

You've not presented "plenty of evidence."
Let me attempt to explain it this way. Let's say you're in a court of law and you're trying to prosecute a man for murder. You lay claim that you have evidence of his crime, but you, before presenting it, demand the jury say that first he is capable of murder. And that the case should not move forward until they admit he is capable of murder. This is a way to control the narrative of his crime. If you can convince the jury he is capable of murder, then he most certainly must be guilty of murder because,.in your line of logic, if a =b then b must =c and there is no other alternative. And you have convinced the jury that this is true.

So you're an idiot, or your are purposely trying to control the narrative with this faulty logic.

I don't just get one piece of evidence and go this is right so everything after must be right. That's not how burden of proof works. I take all the evidence, judge all it's merit, and make a conclusion based on the evidence presented.

I can see how with your line of thinking, it would constantly lead you to the person you don't like always doing wrong. In fact, that's the way 95% of liberals work. Isn't that right CQ? You don't need to look at the rest of the evidence subjectively or with any thought. You immediately conclude, he was guilty here, so therefore they must be guilty everywhere.

You have great ideas. You're very smart. You're an obvious, shitty debater. Also you're judgemental as fuck with a small understanding of the psyche and believe you can "predict" how people will think with no evidence, on a message board.

This also is good time to mention that though you are smart, your logic and knowledge about the military is shitty and because you are smart, you think you can convince everyone you are right about everything, when clearly you don't know shit. You know just enough and only step in it when someone who knows more, calls you out. Then you're so stubborn and narcissistic, you can't admit you're wrong because that would ruin your board rep.

I don't think dot is you. But he is the new stymie and has bought into the idea that you know all and he is at your test like a starving baby with a lactating mother.

The burden of proof is in you. I will listen to ALL your evidence, that if true, should stand on its own regardless of admitting bits by bits, piece by piece. Because even if you prove the guy is capable of murder. Even if you put him at the scene. Even if you find his dna on shit, it doesn't mean he committed the murder. It looks bad, and yes he would probably get convicted, but there are a lot of people who have been convicted with such evidence that was totally innocent. And that's what you are trying to do. See I've proved bit by bit, but no real evidence that he did it. But aren't liberals trying to stop such things from happening? To stop wrongfully accusing innocent people until there is actual proof? Oh wait, no they don't because most people are tore apart online when something occurs, damning that person to hell essentially, when it then turns out it never happened that way. Ferguson, most cop incidents actually, accusations of racism, rape..etc are constantly being judge without full evidence by the left. So I can see how you follow this line of reasoning.

And I have admitted, that there is a lot of damning evidence against Trump, but most of it circumstantial at best. Slanderous in most cases due to third party heresay. Where is that actual part that says he is guilty, because that is what it's going to take to convict him. And I don't think it's there. I'm asking you to prove that.

And if all this is not the way you think, then understand, I'm only using your logic of knowing people on a message board and how they will absolutely think, the same way you are. See were the same.

So, where is the evidence that Trump is guilty? Because if he is, he needs to go. Otherwise, your words are hollow and you think you know, but like everyone on this board, they only know what the media they listen to tells them and/or their own confirmation bias. Which means we don't know shit.

In a court of law you follow precisely the route I'm trying to encourage you to walk down, you establish the elements and facts of the crime. Establishing the crime occurred is not a distraction or evasion, it's a basic part of the case. The defense lawyer doesn't get to say waaaah and run away. You're denying the possibility that the crime occurred at all while demanding I go into the details of who committed it. If you cannot admit collusion is possible at all, then you cannot consider who was involved in it. If a jury member in the selection process is asked 'if he murdered someone, could you convict him of murder' and says 'I will neither confirm nor deny that I am capable of recognising the crime of murder exists', that juror isn't getting selected. That juror isn't even being released, due to being imprisoned for contempt of court.

Your answer to anything I say is a foregone conclusion, this pathetic childish refusal to admit that meeting a rep from the russian government offering help with the election would be collusion with the interference is the reason you have to be made to identify each example of collusion one by one. Of course you are going to deny trump's involvement every time, you can't even admit it happened at all.

Except that all what you just said there, is not what you're doing. You're not asking if trump is capable of collision, you're asking if the campaign is. So you're not even focusing on the correct party. And your question that you are asking the jury in this scenario, is not actually what's being asked by you. Here, your presented narrative is just plain wrong. The question is, is murder in your mind possible for anyone to commit. The answer is yes. Your question is, you see that guy over there, is he capable of murder based on evidence that they shouldn't even hear yet, and is not fully connected to the defendant, and if you don't answer in the affirmative, this proceeding will not continue.

Two you aren't just saying the crime is a possibility, you're demanding the jury say, the person is guilty at each juncture of presented evidence.

Also I haven't once stated that no collusion occured. You have put it in my mouth that I have. I'm not preventing you from establishing collusion occured, I'm just listening to you and you've stalled. For whatever reason you falsely have is on you, not me. However, it makes it seem as though you have none.

You want people to listen according to your rules, which, as proved, would not work anywhere else and it's delusional.

[AnalHamster]

Sure, just confirm for me that you understand collusion occurred, then we'll look at trump's involvement in it. You started by dismissing the whole idea of collusion as a conspiracy theory, you've just dismissed trump on live TV asking for interference as him joking around, despite now knowing he has been doing the same thing over and over, secretly as well as publicly. You're never going to admit anything can be collusion, so why pretend you can look at the evidence? Since you're going to dismiss anything I say, I'm going to dish it out one example at a time and maximise how stupid you look doing it. Or that was the plan if you hadn't gone straight to full retard. I'm happy to keep you at full retard though, so let's get back to it.

So, if someone goes to a meeting with someone claiming to be from the russian government, offering help with the election, does that constitute collusion with the interference? If you can't admit that it does, we cannot proceed. You are just admitting you will deny collusion can have occurred no matter what the evidence.

We are agreed then. You have no evidence. And, you're fucking stupid. See we can agree on stuff. Have a nice day.

Plenty of evidence, you're just refusing to admit you can see it. If you want to keep doing that indefinitely, I am happy to oblige.

Does going to Putin's office, sucking his cock and asking for orders constitute collusion?

You've not presented "plenty of evidence."
Let me attempt to explain it this way. Let's say you're in a court of law and you're trying to prosecute a man for murder. You lay claim that you have evidence of his crime, but you, before presenting it, demand the jury say that first he is capable of murder. And that the case should not move forward until they admit he is capable of murder. This is a way to control the narrative of his crime. If you can convince the jury he is capable of murder, then he most certainly must be guilty of murder because,.in your line of logic, if a =b then b must =c and there is no other alternative. And you have convinced the jury that this is true.

So you're an idiot, or your are purposely trying to control the narrative with this faulty logic.

I don't just get one piece of evidence and go this is right so everything after must be right. That's not how burden of proof works. I take all the evidence, judge all it's merit, and make a conclusion based on the evidence presented.

I can see how with your line of thinking, it would constantly lead you to the person you don't like always doing wrong. In fact, that's the way 95% of liberals work. Isn't that right CQ? You don't need to look at the rest of the evidence subjectively or with any thought. You immediately conclude, he was guilty here, so therefore they must be guilty everywhere.

You have great ideas. You're very smart. You're an obvious, shitty debater. Also you're judgemental as fuck with a small understanding of the psyche and believe you can "predict" how people will think with no evidence, on a message board.

This also is good time to mention that though you are smart, your logic and knowledge about the military is shitty and because you are smart, you think you can convince everyone you are right about everything, when clearly you don't know shit. You know just enough and only step in it when someone who knows more, calls you out. Then you're so stubborn and narcissistic, you can't admit you're wrong because that would ruin your board rep.

I don't think dot is you. But he is the new stymie and has bought into the idea that you know all and he is at your test like a starving baby with a lactating mother.

The burden of proof is in you. I will listen to ALL your evidence, that if true, should stand on its own regardless of admitting bits by bits, piece by piece. Because even if you prove the guy is capable of murder. Even if you put him at the scene. Even if you find his dna on shit, it doesn't mean he committed the murder. It looks bad, and yes he would probably get convicted, but there are a lot of people who have been convicted with such evidence that was totally innocent. And that's what you are trying to do. See I've proved bit by bit, but no real evidence that he did it. But aren't liberals trying to stop such things from happening? To stop wrongfully accusing innocent people until there is actual proof? Oh wait, no they don't because most people are tore apart online when something occurs, damning that person to hell essentially, when it then turns out it never happened that way. Ferguson, most cop incidents actually, accusations of racism, rape..etc are constantly being judge without full evidence by the left. So I can see how you follow this line of reasoning.

And I have admitted, that there is a lot of damning evidence against Trump, but most of it circumstantial at best. Slanderous in most cases due to third party heresay. Where is that actual part that says he is guilty, because that is what it's going to take to convict him. And I don't think it's there. I'm asking you to prove that.

And if all this is not the way you think, then understand, I'm only using your logic of knowing people on a message board and how they will absolutely think, the same way you are. See were the same.

So, where is the evidence that Trump is guilty? Because if he is, he needs to go. Otherwise, your words are hollow and you think you know, but like everyone on this board, they only know what the media they listen to tells them and/or their own confirmation bias. Which means we don't know shit.

In a court of law you follow precisely the route I'm trying to encourage you to walk down, you establish the elements and facts of the crime. Establishing the crime occurred is not a distraction or evasion, it's a basic part of the case. The defense lawyer doesn't get to say waaaah and run away. You're denying the possibility that the crime occurred at all while demanding I go into the details of who committed it. If you cannot admit collusion is possible at all, then you cannot consider who was involved in it. If a jury member in the selection process is asked 'if he murdered someone, could you convict him of murder' and says 'I will neither confirm nor deny that I am capable of recognising the crime of murder exists', that juror isn't getting selected. That juror isn't even being released, due to being imprisoned for contempt of court.

Your answer to anything I say is a foregone conclusion, this pathetic childish refusal to admit that meeting a rep from the russian government offering help with the election would be collusion with the interference is the reason you have to be made to identify each example of collusion one by one. Of course you are going to deny trump's involvement every time, you can't even admit it happened at all.

Except that all what you just said there, is not what you're doing. You're not asking if trump is capable of collision, you're asking if the campaign is. So you're not even focusing on the correct party. And your question that you are asking the jury in this scenario, is not actually what's being asked by you. Here, your presented narrative is just plain wrong. The question is, is murder in your mind possible for anyone to commit. The answer is yes. Your question is, you see that guy over there, is he capable of murder based on evidence that they shouldn't even hear yet, and is not fully connected to the defendant, and if you don't answer in the affirmative, this proceeding will not continue.

Two you aren't just saying the crime is a possibility, you're demanding the jury say, the person is guilty at each juncture of presented evidence.

Also I haven't once stated that no collusion occured. You have put it in my mouth that I have. I'm not preventing you from establishing collusion occured, I'm just listening to you and you've stalled. For whatever reason you falsely have is on you, not me. However, it makes it seem as though you have none.

You want people to listen according to your rules, which, as proved, would not work anywhere else and it's delusional.

Trump isn't capable of committing a crime that didn't occur, no one is.

How can you possibly consider whether trump was involved in the collusion when you are incapable of admitting collusion occurred at all? Don't you understand that you being such a quivering cowardly pussy that you can't admit that accepting russian help is colluding with them in offering help just makes you look like what you are? I haven't gotten to asking you if trump did anything, because you cannot admit anything actually happened. Obviously you were always going to deny trump's involvement, but you can't even admit there was anything to be involved in.

You're trying to claim the judicial process is to prove someone committed a crime without bothering to establish a crime occurred.

Even if I were trying to do whatever your retarded claim is supposed to be, why on earth would anyone ever be incapable of answering the question is it murder to murder someone? The answer is yes. If you can't come up with that answer, it's not because you don't know what the answer is. It's because you are terrified of the followup questions. Who was murdered and who was involved. Keeping running, you sad fucking pussy, I'm not dropping it.

[necronomous]

We are agreed then. You have no evidence. And, you're fucking stupid. See we can agree on stuff. Have a nice day.

Plenty of evidence, you're just refusing to admit you can see it. If you want to keep doing that indefinitely, I am happy to oblige.

Does going to Putin's office, sucking his cock and asking for orders constitute collusion?

You've not presented "plenty of evidence."
Let me attempt to explain it this way. Let's say you're in a court of law and you're trying to prosecute a man for murder. You lay claim that you have evidence of his crime, but you, before presenting it, demand the jury say that first he is capable of murder. And that the case should not move forward until they admit he is capable of murder. This is a way to control the narrative of his crime. If you can convince the jury he is capable of murder, then he most certainly must be guilty of murder because,.in your line of logic, if a =b then b must =c and there is no other alternative. And you have convinced the jury that this is true.

So you're an idiot, or your are purposely trying to control the narrative with this faulty logic.

I don't just get one piece of evidence and go this is right so everything after must be right. That's not how burden of proof works. I take all the evidence, judge all it's merit, and make a conclusion based on the evidence presented.

I can see how with your line of thinking, it would constantly lead you to the person you don't like always doing wrong. In fact, that's the way 95% of liberals work. Isn't that right CQ? You don't need to look at the rest of the evidence subjectively or with any thought. You immediately conclude, he was guilty here, so therefore they must be guilty everywhere.

You have great ideas. You're very smart. You're an obvious, shitty debater. Also you're judgemental as fuck with a small understanding of the psyche and believe you can "predict" how people will think with no evidence, on a message board.

This also is good time to mention that though you are smart, your logic and knowledge about the military is shitty and because you are smart, you think you can convince everyone you are right about everything, when clearly you don't know shit. You know just enough and only step in it when someone who knows more, calls you out. Then you're so stubborn and narcissistic, you can't admit you're wrong because that would ruin your board rep.

I don't think dot is you. But he is the new stymie and has bought into the idea that you know all and he is at your test like a starving baby with a lactating mother.

The burden of proof is in you. I will listen to ALL your evidence, that if true, should stand on its own regardless of admitting bits by bits, piece by piece. Because even if you prove the guy is capable of murder. Even if you put him at the scene. Even if you find his dna on shit, it doesn't mean he committed the murder. It looks bad, and yes he would probably get convicted, but there are a lot of people who have been convicted with such evidence that was totally innocent. And that's what you are trying to do. See I've proved bit by bit, but no real evidence that he did it. But aren't liberals trying to stop such things from happening? To stop wrongfully accusing innocent people until there is actual proof? Oh wait, no they don't because most people are tore apart online when something occurs, damning that person to hell essentially, when it then turns out it never happened that way. Ferguson, most cop incidents actually, accusations of racism, rape..etc are constantly being judge without full evidence by the left. So I can see how you follow this line of reasoning.

And I have admitted, that there is a lot of damning evidence against Trump, but most of it circumstantial at best. Slanderous in most cases due to third party heresay. Where is that actual part that says he is guilty, because that is what it's going to take to convict him. And I don't think it's there. I'm asking you to prove that.

And if all this is not the way you think, then understand, I'm only using your logic of knowing people on a message board and how they will absolutely think, the same way you are. See were the same.

So, where is the evidence that Trump is guilty? Because if he is, he needs to go. Otherwise, your words are hollow and you think you know, but like everyone on this board, they only know what the media they listen to tells them and/or their own confirmation bias. Which means we don't know shit.

In a court of law you follow precisely the route I'm trying to encourage you to walk down, you establish the elements and facts of the crime. Establishing the crime occurred is not a distraction or evasion, it's a basic part of the case. The defense lawyer doesn't get to say waaaah and run away. You're denying the possibility that the crime occurred at all while demanding I go into the details of who committed it. If you cannot admit collusion is possible at all, then you cannot consider who was involved in it. If a jury member in the selection process is asked 'if he murdered someone, could you convict him of murder' and says 'I will neither confirm nor deny that I am capable of recognising the crime of murder exists', that juror isn't getting selected. That juror isn't even being released, due to being imprisoned for contempt of court.

Your answer to anything I say is a foregone conclusion, this pathetic childish refusal to admit that meeting a rep from the russian government offering help with the election would be collusion with the interference is the reason you have to be made to identify each example of collusion one by one. Of course you are going to deny trump's involvement every time, you can't even admit it happened at all.

Except that all what you just said there, is not what you're doing. You're not asking if trump is capable of collision, you're asking if the campaign is. So you're not even focusing on the correct party. And your question that you are asking the jury in this scenario, is not actually what's being asked by you. Here, your presented narrative is just plain wrong. The question is, is murder in your mind possible for anyone to commit. The answer is yes. Your question is, you see that guy over there, is he capable of murder based on evidence that they shouldn't even hear yet, and is not fully connected to the defendant, and if you don't answer in the affirmative, this proceeding will not continue.

Two you aren't just saying the crime is a possibility, you're demanding the jury say, the person is guilty at each juncture of presented evidence.

Also I haven't once stated that no collusion occured. You have put it in my mouth that I have. I'm not preventing you from establishing collusion occured, I'm just listening to you and you've stalled. For whatever reason you falsely have is on you, not me. However, it makes it seem as though you have none.

You want people to listen according to your rules, which, as proved, would not work anywhere else and it's delusional.

Trump isn't capable of committing a crime that didn't occur, no one is.

How can you possibly consider whether trump was involved in the collusion when you are incapable of admitting collusion occurred at all? Don't you understand that you being such a quivering cowardly pussy that you can't admit that accepting russian help is colluding with them in offering help just makes you look like what you are? I haven't gotten to asking you if trump did anything, because you cannot admit anything actually happened. Obviously you were always going to deny trump's involvement, but you can't even admit there was anything to be involved in.

You're trying to claim the judicial process is to prove someone committed a crime without bothering to establish a crime occurred.

Even if I were trying to do whatever your retarded claim is supposed to be, why on earth would anyone ever be incapable of answering the question is it murder to murder someone? The answer is yes. If you can't come up with that answer, it's not because you don't know what the answer is. It's because you are terrified of the followup questions. Who was murdered and who was involved. Keeping running, you sad fucking pussy, I'm not dropping it.

No one, NO ONE, has denied that possible collusion by trump has occurred. We've established that. That's what he has been accused of. That's regardless of what his campaign has done. Whether I admit to a completely different set of circumstances is irrelevant to what Trump HAS/HASN'T done. It's just a piece of evidence you're presenting as a whole. Now prove Trump did it. What you want is to see if I can agree with you and look at stuff objectively to the situation. I'm telling you I can. Otherwise you're assuming bullshit. Just present your case. I don't need to validate your feelings every time you get butthurt. And I'm not going to. Just answer what I've asked. Don't look for verification every step of the way. Just go. Or don't. Either way, I'm fucking my wife tonight.
Also, do you think I care whether you drop it or not? Speak forever. No shits given.

[AnalHamster]

Plenty of evidence, you're just refusing to admit you can see it. If you want to keep doing that indefinitely, I am happy to oblige.

Does going to Putin's office, sucking his cock and asking for orders constitute collusion?

You've not presented "plenty of evidence."
Let me attempt to explain it this way. Let's say you're in a court of law and you're trying to prosecute a man for murder. You lay claim that you have evidence of his crime, but you, before presenting it, demand the jury say that first he is capable of murder. And that the case should not move forward until they admit he is capable of murder. This is a way to control the narrative of his crime. If you can convince the jury he is capable of murder, then he most certainly must be guilty of murder because,.in your line of logic, if a =b then b must =c and there is no other alternative. And you have convinced the jury that this is true.

So you're an idiot, or your are purposely trying to control the narrative with this faulty logic.

I don't just get one piece of evidence and go this is right so everything after must be right. That's not how burden of proof works. I take all the evidence, judge all it's merit, and make a conclusion based on the evidence presented.

I can see how with your line of thinking, it would constantly lead you to the person you don't like always doing wrong. In fact, that's the way 95% of liberals work. Isn't that right CQ? You don't need to look at the rest of the evidence subjectively or with any thought. You immediately conclude, he was guilty here, so therefore they must be guilty everywhere.

You have great ideas. You're very smart. You're an obvious, shitty debater. Also you're judgemental as fuck with a small understanding of the psyche and believe you can "predict" how people will think with no evidence, on a message board.

This also is good time to mention that though you are smart, your logic and knowledge about the military is shitty and because you are smart, you think you can convince everyone you are right about everything, when clearly you don't know shit. You know just enough and only step in it when someone who knows more, calls you out. Then you're so stubborn and narcissistic, you can't admit you're wrong because that would ruin your board rep.

I don't think dot is you. But he is the new stymie and has bought into the idea that you know all and he is at your test like a starving baby with a lactating mother.

The burden of proof is in you. I will listen to ALL your evidence, that if true, should stand on its own regardless of admitting bits by bits, piece by piece. Because even if you prove the guy is capable of murder. Even if you put him at the scene. Even if you find his dna on shit, it doesn't mean he committed the murder. It looks bad, and yes he would probably get convicted, but there are a lot of people who have been convicted with such evidence that was totally innocent. And that's what you are trying to do. See I've proved bit by bit, but no real evidence that he did it. But aren't liberals trying to stop such things from happening? To stop wrongfully accusing innocent people until there is actual proof? Oh wait, no they don't because most people are tore apart online when something occurs, damning that person to hell essentially, when it then turns out it never happened that way. Ferguson, most cop incidents actually, accusations of racism, rape..etc are constantly being judge without full evidence by the left. So I can see how you follow this line of reasoning.

And I have admitted, that there is a lot of damning evidence against Trump, but most of it circumstantial at best. Slanderous in most cases due to third party heresay. Where is that actual part that says he is guilty, because that is what it's going to take to convict him. And I don't think it's there. I'm asking you to prove that.

And if all this is not the way you think, then understand, I'm only using your logic of knowing people on a message board and how they will absolutely think, the same way you are. See were the same.

So, where is the evidence that Trump is guilty? Because if he is, he needs to go. Otherwise, your words are hollow and you think you know, but like everyone on this board, they only know what the media they listen to tells them and/or their own confirmation bias. Which means we don't know shit.

In a court of law you follow precisely the route I'm trying to encourage you to walk down, you establish the elements and facts of the crime. Establishing the crime occurred is not a distraction or evasion, it's a basic part of the case. The defense lawyer doesn't get to say waaaah and run away. You're denying the possibility that the crime occurred at all while demanding I go into the details of who committed it. If you cannot admit collusion is possible at all, then you cannot consider who was involved in it. If a jury member in the selection process is asked 'if he murdered someone, could you convict him of murder' and says 'I will neither confirm nor deny that I am capable of recognising the crime of murder exists', that juror isn't getting selected. That juror isn't even being released, due to being imprisoned for contempt of court.

Your answer to anything I say is a foregone conclusion, this pathetic childish refusal to admit that meeting a rep from the russian government offering help with the election would be collusion with the interference is the reason you have to be made to identify each example of collusion one by one. Of course you are going to deny trump's involvement every time, you can't even admit it happened at all.

Except that all what you just said there, is not what you're doing. You're not asking if trump is capable of collision, you're asking if the campaign is. So you're not even focusing on the correct party. And your question that you are asking the jury in this scenario, is not actually what's being asked by you. Here, your presented narrative is just plain wrong. The question is, is murder in your mind possible for anyone to commit. The answer is yes. Your question is, you see that guy over there, is he capable of murder based on evidence that they shouldn't even hear yet, and is not fully connected to the defendant, and if you don't answer in the affirmative, this proceeding will not continue.

Two you aren't just saying the crime is a possibility, you're demanding the jury say, the person is guilty at each juncture of presented evidence.

Also I haven't once stated that no collusion occured. You have put it in my mouth that I have. I'm not preventing you from establishing collusion occured, I'm just listening to you and you've stalled. For whatever reason you falsely have is on you, not me. However, it makes it seem as though you have none.

You want people to listen according to your rules, which, as proved, would not work anywhere else and it's delusional.

Trump isn't capable of committing a crime that didn't occur, no one is.

How can you possibly consider whether trump was involved in the collusion when you are incapable of admitting collusion occurred at all? Don't you understand that you being such a quivering cowardly pussy that you can't admit that accepting russian help is colluding with them in offering help just makes you look like what you are? I haven't gotten to asking you if trump did anything, because you cannot admit anything actually happened. Obviously you were always going to deny trump's involvement, but you can't even admit there was anything to be involved in.

You're trying to claim the judicial process is to prove someone committed a crime without bothering to establish a crime occurred.

Even if I were trying to do whatever your retarded claim is supposed to be, why on earth would anyone ever be incapable of answering the question is it murder to murder someone? The answer is yes. If you can't come up with that answer, it's not because you don't know what the answer is. It's because you are terrified of the followup questions. Who was murdered and who was involved. Keeping running, you sad fucking pussy, I'm not dropping it.

No one, NO ONE, has denied that possible collusion by trump has occurred. We've established that. That's what he has been accused of. That's regardless of what his campaign has done. Whether I admit to a completely different set of circumstances is irrelevant to what Trump HAS/HASN'T done. It's just a piece of evidence you're presenting as a whole. Now prove Trump did it. What you want is to see if I can agree with you and look at stuff objectively to the situation. I'm telling you I can. Otherwise you're assuming bullshit. Just present your case. I don't need to validate your feelings every time you get butthurt. And I'm not going to. Just answer what I've asked. Don't look for verification every step of the way. Just go. Or don't. Either way, I'm fucking my wife tonight.
Also, do you think I care whether you drop it or not? Speak forever. No shits given.

So are you admitting that the trump campaign colluded with the russian interference campaign? That's been your running away tactic for the last half dozen pages. Are you now saying you admit it did happen?

[necronomous]

You've not presented "plenty of evidence."
Let me attempt to explain it this way. Let's say you're in a court of law and you're trying to prosecute a man for murder. You lay claim that you have evidence of his crime, but you, before presenting it, demand the jury say that first he is capable of murder. And that the case should not move forward until they admit he is capable of murder. This is a way to control the narrative of his crime. If you can convince the jury he is capable of murder, then he most certainly must be guilty of murder because,.in your line of logic, if a =b then b must =c and there is no other alternative. And you have convinced the jury that this is true.

So you're an idiot, or your are purposely trying to control the narrative with this faulty logic.

I don't just get one piece of evidence and go this is right so everything after must be right. That's not how burden of proof works. I take all the evidence, judge all it's merit, and make a conclusion based on the evidence presented.

I can see how with your line of thinking, it would constantly lead you to the person you don't like always doing wrong. In fact, that's the way 95% of liberals work. Isn't that right CQ? You don't need to look at the rest of the evidence subjectively or with any thought. You immediately conclude, he was guilty here, so therefore they must be guilty everywhere.

You have great ideas. You're very smart. You're an obvious, shitty debater. Also you're judgemental as fuck with a small understanding of the psyche and believe you can "predict" how people will think with no evidence, on a message board.

This also is good time to mention that though you are smart, your logic and knowledge about the military is shitty and because you are smart, you think you can convince everyone you are right about everything, when clearly you don't know shit. You know just enough and only step in it when someone who knows more, calls you out. Then you're so stubborn and narcissistic, you can't admit you're wrong because that would ruin your board rep.

I don't think dot is you. But he is the new stymie and has bought into the idea that you know all and he is at your test like a starving baby with a lactating mother.

The burden of proof is in you. I will listen to ALL your evidence, that if true, should stand on its own regardless of admitting bits by bits, piece by piece. Because even if you prove the guy is capable of murder. Even if you put him at the scene. Even if you find his dna on shit, it doesn't mean he committed the murder. It looks bad, and yes he would probably get convicted, but there are a lot of people who have been convicted with such evidence that was totally innocent. And that's what you are trying to do. See I've proved bit by bit, but no real evidence that he did it. But aren't liberals trying to stop such things from happening? To stop wrongfully accusing innocent people until there is actual proof? Oh wait, no they don't because most people are tore apart online when something occurs, damning that person to hell essentially, when it then turns out it never happened that way. Ferguson, most cop incidents actually, accusations of racism, rape..etc are constantly being judge without full evidence by the left. So I can see how you follow this line of reasoning.

And I have admitted, that there is a lot of damning evidence against Trump, but most of it circumstantial at best. Slanderous in most cases due to third party heresay. Where is that actual part that says he is guilty, because that is what it's going to take to convict him. And I don't think it's there. I'm asking you to prove that.

And if all this is not the way you think, then understand, I'm only using your logic of knowing people on a message board and how they will absolutely think, the same way you are. See were the same.

So, where is the evidence that Trump is guilty? Because if he is, he needs to go. Otherwise, your words are hollow and you think you know, but like everyone on this board, they only know what the media they listen to tells them and/or their own confirmation bias. Which means we don't know shit.

In a court of law you follow precisely the route I'm trying to encourage you to walk down, you establish the elements and facts of the crime. Establishing the crime occurred is not a distraction or evasion, it's a basic part of the case. The defense lawyer doesn't get to say waaaah and run away. You're denying the possibility that the crime occurred at all while demanding I go into the details of who committed it. If you cannot admit collusion is possible at all, then you cannot consider who was involved in it. If a jury member in the selection process is asked 'if he murdered someone, could you convict him of murder' and says 'I will neither confirm nor deny that I am capable of recognising the crime of murder exists', that juror isn't getting selected. That juror isn't even being released, due to being imprisoned for contempt of court.

Your answer to anything I say is a foregone conclusion, this pathetic childish refusal to admit that meeting a rep from the russian government offering help with the election would be collusion with the interference is the reason you have to be made to identify each example of collusion one by one. Of course you are going to deny trump's involvement every time, you can't even admit it happened at all.

Except that all what you just said there, is not what you're doing. You're not asking if trump is capable of collision, you're asking if the campaign is. So you're not even focusing on the correct party. And your question that you are asking the jury in this scenario, is not actually what's being asked by you. Here, your presented narrative is just plain wrong. The question is, is murder in your mind possible for anyone to commit. The answer is yes. Your question is, you see that guy over there, is he capable of murder based on evidence that they shouldn't even hear yet, and is not fully connected to the defendant, and if you don't answer in the affirmative, this proceeding will not continue.

Two you aren't just saying the crime is a possibility, you're demanding the jury say, the person is guilty at each juncture of presented evidence.

Also I haven't once stated that no collusion occured. You have put it in my mouth that I have. I'm not preventing you from establishing collusion occured, I'm just listening to you and you've stalled. For whatever reason you falsely have is on you, not me. However, it makes it seem as though you have none.

You want people to listen according to your rules, which, as proved, would not work anywhere else and it's delusional.

Trump isn't capable of committing a crime that didn't occur, no one is.

How can you possibly consider whether trump was involved in the collusion when you are incapable of admitting collusion occurred at all? Don't you understand that you being such a quivering cowardly pussy that you can't admit that accepting russian help is colluding with them in offering help just makes you look like what you are? I haven't gotten to asking you if trump did anything, because you cannot admit anything actually happened. Obviously you were always going to deny trump's involvement, but you can't even admit there was anything to be involved in.

You're trying to claim the judicial process is to prove someone committed a crime without bothering to establish a crime occurred.

Even if I were trying to do whatever your retarded claim is supposed to be, why on earth would anyone ever be incapable of answering the question is it murder to murder someone? The answer is yes. If you can't come up with that answer, it's not because you don't know what the answer is. It's because you are terrified of the followup questions. Who was murdered and who was involved. Keeping running, you sad fucking pussy, I'm not dropping it.

No one, NO ONE, has denied that possible collusion by trump has occurred. We've established that. That's what he has been accused of. That's regardless of what his campaign has done. Whether I admit to a completely different set of circumstances is irrelevant to what Trump HAS/HASN'T done. It's just a piece of evidence you're presenting as a whole. Now prove Trump did it. What you want is to see if I can agree with you and look at stuff objectively to the situation. I'm telling you I can. Otherwise you're assuming bullshit. Just present your case. I don't need to validate your feelings every time you get butthurt. And I'm not going to. Just answer what I've asked. Don't look for verification every step of the way. Just go. Or don't. Either way, I'm fucking my wife tonight.
Also, do you think I care whether you drop it or not? Speak forever. No shits given.

So are you admitting that the trump campaign colluded with the russian interference campaign? That's been your running away tactic for the last half dozen pages. Are you now saying you admit it did happen?

Where? Where did I admit or deny anything? I stated more or less that of course he's capable. Then I said regardless of what the trump campaign did or didn't do means little to what you're accusing trump of doing. I'm just listening to the evidence. I can see how it relates. I can also see how, just because certain members of his campaign doing something doesn't necessarily prove he did it.
So me admitting they did or didn't do something doesn't prove he did anything. It's just a piece of evidence I'm listening to. Your statement is, that meeting was collusion by his campaign. Got it. I've heard you. Now go on.

[AnalHamster]

In a court of law you follow precisely the route I'm trying to encourage you to walk down, you establish the elements and facts of the crime. Establishing the crime occurred is not a distraction or evasion, it's a basic part of the case. The defense lawyer doesn't get to say waaaah and run away. You're denying the possibility that the crime occurred at all while demanding I go into the details of who committed it. If you cannot admit collusion is possible at all, then you cannot consider who was involved in it. If a jury member in the selection process is asked 'if he murdered someone, could you convict him of murder' and says 'I will neither confirm nor deny that I am capable of recognising the crime of murder exists', that juror isn't getting selected. That juror isn't even being released, due to being imprisoned for contempt of court.

Your answer to anything I say is a foregone conclusion, this pathetic childish refusal to admit that meeting a rep from the russian government offering help with the election would be collusion with the interference is the reason you have to be made to identify each example of collusion one by one. Of course you are going to deny trump's involvement every time, you can't even admit it happened at all.

Except that all what you just said there, is not what you're doing. You're not asking if trump is capable of collision, you're asking if the campaign is. So you're not even focusing on the correct party. And your question that you are asking the jury in this scenario, is not actually what's being asked by you. Here, your presented narrative is just plain wrong. The question is, is murder in your mind possible for anyone to commit. The answer is yes. Your question is, you see that guy over there, is he capable of murder based on evidence that they shouldn't even hear yet, and is not fully connected to the defendant, and if you don't answer in the affirmative, this proceeding will not continue.

Two you aren't just saying the crime is a possibility, you're demanding the jury say, the person is guilty at each juncture of presented evidence.

Also I haven't once stated that no collusion occured. You have put it in my mouth that I have. I'm not preventing you from establishing collusion occured, I'm just listening to you and you've stalled. For whatever reason you falsely have is on you, not me. However, it makes it seem as though you have none.

You want people to listen according to your rules, which, as proved, would not work anywhere else and it's delusional.

Trump isn't capable of committing a crime that didn't occur, no one is.

How can you possibly consider whether trump was involved in the collusion when you are incapable of admitting collusion occurred at all? Don't you understand that you being such a quivering cowardly pussy that you can't admit that accepting russian help is colluding with them in offering help just makes you look like what you are? I haven't gotten to asking you if trump did anything, because you cannot admit anything actually happened. Obviously you were always going to deny trump's involvement, but you can't even admit there was anything to be involved in.

You're trying to claim the judicial process is to prove someone committed a crime without bothering to establish a crime occurred.

Even if I were trying to do whatever your retarded claim is supposed to be, why on earth would anyone ever be incapable of answering the question is it murder to murder someone? The answer is yes. If you can't come up with that answer, it's not because you don't know what the answer is. It's because you are terrified of the followup questions. Who was murdered and who was involved. Keeping running, you sad fucking pussy, I'm not dropping it.

No one, NO ONE, has denied that possible collusion by trump has occurred. We've established that. That's what he has been accused of. That's regardless of what his campaign has done. Whether I admit to a completely different set of circumstances is irrelevant to what Trump HAS/HASN'T done. It's just a piece of evidence you're presenting as a whole. Now prove Trump did it. What you want is to see if I can agree with you and look at stuff objectively to the situation. I'm telling you I can. Otherwise you're assuming bullshit. Just present your case. I don't need to validate your feelings every time you get butthurt. And I'm not going to. Just answer what I've asked. Don't look for verification every step of the way. Just go. Or don't. Either way, I'm fucking my wife tonight.
Also, do you think I care whether you drop it or not? Speak forever. No shits given.

So are you admitting that the trump campaign colluded with the russian interference campaign? That's been your running away tactic for the last half dozen pages. Are you now saying you admit it did happen?

Where? Where did I admit or deny anything? I stated more or less that of course he's capable. Then I said regardless of what the trump campaign did or didn't do means little to what you're accusing trump of doing. I'm just listening to the evidence. I can see how it relates. I can also see how, just because certain members of his campaign doing something doesn't necessarily prove he did it.
So me admitting they did or didn't do something doesn't prove he did anything. It's just a piece of evidence I'm listening to. Your statement is, that meeting was collusion by his campaign. Got it. I've heard you. Now go on.

Refusing to admit or deny anything is your tactic, fucktard. It's why you are humiliating yourself with every post.

Just for a little clarity here, you cannot answer the question 'would sucking putin's cock in the Kremlin while receiving orders to collude' constitute collusion. You are unable to state if that constitutes collusion or not. That is the position you are in now.

[necronomous]

Except that all what you just said there, is not what you're doing. You're not asking if trump is capable of collision, you're asking if the campaign is. So you're not even focusing on the correct party. And your question that you are asking the jury in this scenario, is not actually what's being asked by you. Here, your presented narrative is just plain wrong. The question is, is murder in your mind possible for anyone to commit. The answer is yes. Your question is, you see that guy over there, is he capable of murder based on evidence that they shouldn't even hear yet, and is not fully connected to the defendant, and if you don't answer in the affirmative, this proceeding will not continue.

Two you aren't just saying the crime is a possibility, you're demanding the jury say, the person is guilty at each juncture of presented evidence.

Also I haven't once stated that no collusion occured. You have put it in my mouth that I have. I'm not preventing you from establishing collusion occured, I'm just listening to you and you've stalled. For whatever reason you falsely have is on you, not me. However, it makes it seem as though you have none.

You want people to listen according to your rules, which, as proved, would not work anywhere else and it's delusional.

Trump isn't capable of committing a crime that didn't occur, no one is.

How can you possibly consider whether trump was involved in the collusion when you are incapable of admitting collusion occurred at all? Don't you understand that you being such a quivering cowardly pussy that you can't admit that accepting russian help is colluding with them in offering help just makes you look like what you are? I haven't gotten to asking you if trump did anything, because you cannot admit anything actually happened. Obviously you were always going to deny trump's involvement, but you can't even admit there was anything to be involved in.

You're trying to claim the judicial process is to prove someone committed a crime without bothering to establish a crime occurred.

Even if I were trying to do whatever your retarded claim is supposed to be, why on earth would anyone ever be incapable of answering the question is it murder to murder someone? The answer is yes. If you can't come up with that answer, it's not because you don't know what the answer is. It's because you are terrified of the followup questions. Who was murdered and who was involved. Keeping running, you sad fucking pussy, I'm not dropping it.

No one, NO ONE, has denied that possible collusion by trump has occurred. We've established that. That's what he has been accused of. That's regardless of what his campaign has done. Whether I admit to a completely different set of circumstances is irrelevant to what Trump HAS/HASN'T done. It's just a piece of evidence you're presenting as a whole. Now prove Trump did it. What you want is to see if I can agree with you and look at stuff objectively to the situation. I'm telling you I can. Otherwise you're assuming bullshit. Just present your case. I don't need to validate your feelings every time you get butthurt. And I'm not going to. Just answer what I've asked. Don't look for verification every step of the way. Just go. Or don't. Either way, I'm fucking my wife tonight.
Also, do you think I care whether you drop it or not? Speak forever. No shits given.

So are you admitting that the trump campaign colluded with the russian interference campaign? That's been your running away tactic for the last half dozen pages. Are you now saying you admit it did happen?

Where? Where did I admit or deny anything? I stated more or less that of course he's capable. Then I said regardless of what the trump campaign did or didn't do means little to what you're accusing trump of doing. I'm just listening to the evidence. I can see how it relates. I can also see how, just because certain members of his campaign doing something doesn't necessarily prove he did it.
So me admitting they did or didn't do something doesn't prove he did anything. It's just a piece of evidence I'm listening to. Your statement is, that meeting was collusion by his campaign. Got it. I've heard you. Now go on.

Refusing to admit or deny anything is your tactic, fucktard. It's why you are humiliating yourself with every post.

Just for a little clarity here, you cannot answer the question 'would sucking putin's cock in the Kremlin while receiving orders to collude' constitute collusion. You are unable to state if that constitutes collusion or not. That is the position you are in now.

Of course I can. If you sucked his dick that absolutely does not prove collusion. Maybe you just like Putin's cock. But while receiving orders to collude while you're sucking cock sure. If you can show me the evidence that that was ordered and not hearsay. And it was given by trump and there's proof of it. And not claimed by CNN. It's not a tactic. It's listening without judgement until I'm sure. Either way. Does me saying yes or no change your evidence?

[AnalHamster]

Trump isn't capable of committing a crime that didn't occur, no one is.

How can you possibly consider whether trump was involved in the collusion when you are incapable of admitting collusion occurred at all? Don't you understand that you being such a quivering cowardly pussy that you can't admit that accepting russian help is colluding with them in offering help just makes you look like what you are? I haven't gotten to asking you if trump did anything, because you cannot admit anything actually happened. Obviously you were always going to deny trump's involvement, but you can't even admit there was anything to be involved in.

You're trying to claim the judicial process is to prove someone committed a crime without bothering to establish a crime occurred.

Even if I were trying to do whatever your retarded claim is supposed to be, why on earth would anyone ever be incapable of answering the question is it murder to murder someone? The answer is yes. If you can't come up with that answer, it's not because you don't know what the answer is. It's because you are terrified of the followup questions. Who was murdered and who was involved. Keeping running, you sad fucking pussy, I'm not dropping it.

No one, NO ONE, has denied that possible collusion by trump has occurred. We've established that. That's what he has been accused of. That's regardless of what his campaign has done. Whether I admit to a completely different set of circumstances is irrelevant to what Trump HAS/HASN'T done. It's just a piece of evidence you're presenting as a whole. Now prove Trump did it. What you want is to see if I can agree with you and look at stuff objectively to the situation. I'm telling you I can. Otherwise you're assuming bullshit. Just present your case. I don't need to validate your feelings every time you get butthurt. And I'm not going to. Just answer what I've asked. Don't look for verification every step of the way. Just go. Or don't. Either way, I'm fucking my wife tonight.
Also, do you think I care whether you drop it or not? Speak forever. No shits given.

So are you admitting that the trump campaign colluded with the russian interference campaign? That's been your running away tactic for the last half dozen pages. Are you now saying you admit it did happen?

Where? Where did I admit or deny anything? I stated more or less that of course he's capable. Then I said regardless of what the trump campaign did or didn't do means little to what you're accusing trump of doing. I'm just listening to the evidence. I can see how it relates. I can also see how, just because certain members of his campaign doing something doesn't necessarily prove he did it.
So me admitting they did or didn't do something doesn't prove he did anything. It's just a piece of evidence I'm listening to. Your statement is, that meeting was collusion by his campaign. Got it. I've heard you. Now go on.

Refusing to admit or deny anything is your tactic, fucktard. It's why you are humiliating yourself with every post.

Just for a little clarity here, you cannot answer the question 'would sucking putin's cock in the Kremlin while receiving orders to collude' constitute collusion. You are unable to state if that constitutes collusion or not. That is the position you are in now.

Of course I can. If you sucked his dick that absolutely does not prove collusion. Maybe you just like Putin's cock. But while receiving orders to collude while you're sucking cock sure. If you can show me the evidence that that was ordered and not hearsay. And it was given by trump and there's proof of it. And not claimed by CNN. It's not a tactic. It's listening without judgement until I'm sure. Either way. Does me saying yes or no change your evidence?

Well done, you have progressed to admitting collusion is possible.

Now then, if you were to meet with someone you believed to represent the Russian government, offering to help with the election, would that be colluding with the russian interference in the election? You've been running from this simple question for a half dozen pages, you fucking pussy. Can you answer it now?

[necronomous]

No one, NO ONE, has denied that possible collusion by trump has occurred. We've established that. That's what he has been accused of. That's regardless of what his campaign has done. Whether I admit to a completely different set of circumstances is irrelevant to what Trump HAS/HASN'T done. It's just a piece of evidence you're presenting as a whole. Now prove Trump did it. What you want is to see if I can agree with you and look at stuff objectively to the situation. I'm telling you I can. Otherwise you're assuming bullshit. Just present your case. I don't need to validate your feelings every time you get butthurt. And I'm not going to. Just answer what I've asked. Don't look for verification every step of the way. Just go. Or don't. Either way, I'm fucking my wife tonight.
Also, do you think I care whether you drop it or not? Speak forever. No shits given.

So are you admitting that the trump campaign colluded with the russian interference campaign? That's been your running away tactic for the last half dozen pages. Are you now saying you admit it did happen?

Where? Where did I admit or deny anything? I stated more or less that of course he's capable. Then I said regardless of what the trump campaign did or didn't do means little to what you're accusing trump of doing. I'm just listening to the evidence. I can see how it relates. I can also see how, just because certain members of his campaign doing something doesn't necessarily prove he did it.
So me admitting they did or didn't do something doesn't prove he did anything. It's just a piece of evidence I'm listening to. Your statement is, that meeting was collusion by his campaign. Got it. I've heard you. Now go on.

Refusing to admit or deny anything is your tactic, fucktard. It's why you are humiliating yourself with every post.

Just for a little clarity here, you cannot answer the question 'would sucking putin's cock in the Kremlin while receiving orders to collude' constitute collusion. You are unable to state if that constitutes collusion or not. That is the position you are in now.

Of course I can. If you sucked his dick that absolutely does not prove collusion. Maybe you just like Putin's cock. But while receiving orders to collude while you're sucking cock sure. If you can show me the evidence that that was ordered and not hearsay. And it was given by trump and there's proof of it. And not claimed by CNN. It's not a tactic. It's listening without judgement until I'm sure. Either way. Does me saying yes or no change your evidence?

Well done, you have progressed to admitting collusion is possible.

Now then, if you were to meet with someone you believed to represent the Russian government, offering to help with the election, would that be colluding with the russian interference in the election? You've been running from this simple question for a half dozen pages, you fucking pussy. Can you answer it now?

I admitted it in the beginning. And if I didn't I sure would have if you asked, do you think Trump is capable of collision. Sure he's capable. That has nothing to do with the campaign. So keep going. Nope I wouldn't say I was colluding if I met with someone from the Russian government to help with the campaign. I'm not on the campaign. And it wouldn't matter if I did and it was or wasn't, was it trump meeting with them? No. And what did I ask? What's your proof of Trump's collusion? So go on. You think the meeting was collision. Got it. Now go.

[AnalHamster]

So are you admitting that the trump campaign colluded with the russian interference campaign? That's been your running away tactic for the last half dozen pages. Are you now saying you admit it did happen?

Where? Where did I admit or deny anything? I stated more or less that of course he's capable. Then I said regardless of what the trump campaign did or didn't do means little to what you're accusing trump of doing. I'm just listening to the evidence. I can see how it relates. I can also see how, just because certain members of his campaign doing something doesn't necessarily prove he did it.
So me admitting they did or didn't do something doesn't prove he did anything. It's just a piece of evidence I'm listening to. Your statement is, that meeting was collusion by his campaign. Got it. I've heard you. Now go on.

Refusing to admit or deny anything is your tactic, fucktard. It's why you are humiliating yourself with every post.

Just for a little clarity here, you cannot answer the question 'would sucking putin's cock in the Kremlin while receiving orders to collude' constitute collusion. You are unable to state if that constitutes collusion or not. That is the position you are in now.

Of course I can. If you sucked his dick that absolutely does not prove collusion. Maybe you just like Putin's cock. But while receiving orders to collude while you're sucking cock sure. If you can show me the evidence that that was ordered and not hearsay. And it was given by trump and there's proof of it. And not claimed by CNN. It's not a tactic. It's listening without judgement until I'm sure. Either way. Does me saying yes or no change your evidence?

Well done, you have progressed to admitting collusion is possible.

Now then, if you were to meet with someone you believed to represent the Russian government, offering to help with the election, would that be colluding with the russian interference in the election? You've been running from this simple question for a half dozen pages, you fucking pussy. Can you answer it now?

I admitted it in the beginning. And if I didn't I sure would have if you asked, do you think Trump is capable of collision. Sure he's capable. That has nothing to do with the campaign. So keep going. Nope I wouldn't say I was colluding if I met with someone from the Russian government to help with the campaign. I'm not on the campaign. And it wouldn't matter if I did and it was or wasn't, was it trump meeting with them? No. And what did I ask? What's your proof of Trump's collusion? So go on. You think the meeting was collision. Got it. Now go.

No you didn't, you flat out stated at the beginning that it was a conspiracy theory. Want me to quote you?

So, are you now admitting that the trump tower meeting, going to meet someone claiming to be from the Russian government who wanted to help interfere in the campaign, was colluding with the interference? It's a simp[le question you've been dodging for a long time now, finally going to answer it?

[necronomous]

Where? Where did I admit or deny anything? I stated more or less that of course he's capable. Then I said regardless of what the trump campaign did or didn't do means little to what you're accusing trump of doing. I'm just listening to the evidence. I can see how it relates. I can also see how, just because certain members of his campaign doing something doesn't necessarily prove he did it.
So me admitting they did or didn't do something doesn't prove he did anything. It's just a piece of evidence I'm listening to. Your statement is, that meeting was collusion by his campaign. Got it. I've heard you. Now go on.

Refusing to admit or deny anything is your tactic, fucktard. It's why you are humiliating yourself with every post.

Just for a little clarity here, you cannot answer the question 'would sucking putin's cock in the Kremlin while receiving orders to collude' constitute collusion. You are unable to state if that constitutes collusion or not. That is the position you are in now.

Of course I can. If you sucked his dick that absolutely does not prove collusion. Maybe you just like Putin's cock. But while receiving orders to collude while you're sucking cock sure. If you can show me the evidence that that was ordered and not hearsay. And it was given by trump and there's proof of it. And not claimed by CNN. It's not a tactic. It's listening without judgement until I'm sure. Either way. Does me saying yes or no change your evidence?

Well done, you have progressed to admitting collusion is possible.

Now then, if you were to meet with someone you believed to represent the Russian government, offering to help with the election, would that be colluding with the russian interference in the election? You've been running from this simple question for a half dozen pages, you fucking pussy. Can you answer it now?

I admitted it in the beginning. And if I didn't I sure would have if you asked, do you think Trump is capable of collision. Sure he's capable. That has nothing to do with the campaign. So keep going. Nope I wouldn't say I was colluding if I met with someone from the Russian government to help with the campaign. I'm not on the campaign. And it wouldn't matter if I did and it was or wasn't, was it trump meeting with them? No. And what did I ask? What's your proof of Trump's collusion? So go on. You think the meeting was collision. Got it. Now go.

No you didn't, you flat out stated at the beginning that it was a conspiracy theory. Want me to quote you?

So, are you now admitting that the trump tower meeting, going to meet someone claiming to be from the Russian government who wanted to help interfere in the campaign, was colluding with the interference? It's a simp[le question you've been dodging for a long time now, finally going to answer it?

Sure did. At this moment, that's what has been presented. But that is not the question, do you think Trump is capable of collusion. In which case I would have said sure. You didn't ask that. You said you can prove he did. And I said go for it, and then you didn't. And that's where we are. But me thinking that currently it's a conspiracy, doesn't mean you can't change my mind, it just means I'm not going to agree with you about hearsay (unless it's a credible source, not CNN) and shit that goes orange man bad.
Hell now that I'm thinking about it, could you even admit it's not alternate things, with the same amount of reasoning of course? Honestly, we all know the answer is you couldn't. But you don't have to right cause you are right. You're always right and NO ONE could tell you different.

[AnalHamster]

Refusing to admit or deny anything is your tactic, fucktard. It's why you are humiliating yourself with every post.

Just for a little clarity here, you cannot answer the question 'would sucking putin's cock in the Kremlin while receiving orders to collude' constitute collusion. You are unable to state if that constitutes collusion or not. That is the position you are in now.

Of course I can. If you sucked his dick that absolutely does not prove collusion. Maybe you just like Putin's cock. But while receiving orders to collude while you're sucking cock sure. If you can show me the evidence that that was ordered and not hearsay. And it was given by trump and there's proof of it. And not claimed by CNN. It's not a tactic. It's listening without judgement until I'm sure. Either way. Does me saying yes or no change your evidence?

Well done, you have progressed to admitting collusion is possible.

Now then, if you were to meet with someone you believed to represent the Russian government, offering to help with the election, would that be colluding with the russian interference in the election? You've been running from this simple question for a half dozen pages, you fucking pussy. Can you answer it now?

I admitted it in the beginning. And if I didn't I sure would have if you asked, do you think Trump is capable of collision. Sure he's capable. That has nothing to do with the campaign. So keep going. Nope I wouldn't say I was colluding if I met with someone from the Russian government to help with the campaign. I'm not on the campaign. And it wouldn't matter if I did and it was or wasn't, was it trump meeting with them? No. And what did I ask? What's your proof of Trump's collusion? So go on. You think the meeting was collision. Got it. Now go.

No you didn't, you flat out stated at the beginning that it was a conspiracy theory. Want me to quote you?

So, are you now admitting that the trump tower meeting, going to meet someone claiming to be from the Russian government who wanted to help interfere in the campaign, was colluding with the interference? It's a simp[le question you've been dodging for a long time now, finally going to answer it?

Sure did. At this moment, that's what has been presented. But that is not the question, do you think Trump is capable of collusion. In which case I would have said sure. You didn't ask that. You said you can prove he did. And I said go for it, and then you didn't. And that's where we are. But me thinking that currently it's a conspiracy, doesn't mean you can't change my mind, it just means I'm not going to agree with you about hearsay (unless it's a credible source, not CNN) and shit that goes orange man bad.
Hell now that I'm thinking about it, could you even admit it's not alternate things, with the same amount of reasoning of course? Honestly, we all know the answer is you couldn't. But you don't have to right cause you are right. You're always right and NO ONE could tell you different.

Do you think Trump is capable of collusion? It appears you just said yes, could you confirm that is your asnwer?

While you're at it could you answer the question I've asked you a hundred or so times now? Is going to a meeting with someone claiming to be from the russian government offering help from the russian government colluding with the russian government? What's 1+1?