This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

For all the MAGA Trumpeteers and Lie-brul Commies to post their wearisome screeds.
User avatar
Wut
Denmarkian Citizen
Posts: 3175
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:11 pm
Location: On a rock

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#26

Post by Wut » Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:13 pm

necronomous wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:35 pm
Wut wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:39 pm
necronomous wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:28 pm
Wut wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:30 pm
Charliesheen wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:03 pm
necronomous wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:28 am


Did you read it
Clearly no.

And it destroys the Perfessors narrative as well. So obvious. As with Flynn, the original accusation was bullshit. Once you know that, set a perjury trap and throw the federal government at him.
No one has ever mentioned perjury traps until republicans elected a pathological liar, then it was panic because poor little Trump would somehow get snookered into lying by the evil Democrats who, I guess, would have been smarter than the stable genius.
Did you read it?
I was responding to his concern about a perjury trap, did you read my post?
Yes. I was asking if you read the article
Yes, I appreciate the rehash on the Steele dossier.
wut?

User avatar
necronomous
The Doctor Is In
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#27

Post by necronomous » Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:16 pm

Wut wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:13 pm
necronomous wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:35 pm
Wut wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:39 pm
necronomous wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:28 pm
Wut wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:30 pm
Charliesheen wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:03 pm


Clearly no.

And it destroys the Perfessors narrative as well. So obvious. As with Flynn, the original accusation was bullshit. Once you know that, set a perjury trap and throw the federal government at him.
No one has ever mentioned perjury traps until republicans elected a pathological liar, then it was panic because poor little Trump would somehow get snookered into lying by the evil Democrats who, I guess, would have been smarter than the stable genius.
Did you read it?
I was responding to his concern about a perjury trap, did you read my post?
Yes. I was asking if you read the article
Yes, I appreciate the rehash on the Steele dossier.
It's not all it was but ok.

User avatar
necronomous
The Doctor Is In
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#28

Post by necronomous » Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:24 pm

AnalHamster wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:01 pm
necronomous wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:39 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:31 pm
You know the drill by now, you poor fool. If you want me to school you on the russian collusion you already conceded is very likely, you need to start by answering the question 'is it collusion to collude with the Russians.' You simply cannot pretend you can look at or acknowledge anything at all when you have to evade the question is it collusion to collude. That is just ridiculous. And then you need to get back to the point you were already at, admitting based on point 1 that it was already very likely, and then we can move forward.
I've pretended nothing. Everything in that paragraph is an assumption of stupidity made on your behalf because you are a coward to just point out the proof you supposedly have. I've evaded no questions as I am still waiting for my question to be answered that you have clearly failed to answer. You know the drill by now, that if you have proof, it should stand regardless of anything I have to say. Thus we all know you have no proof. Because you're a moron. Your parents are ashamed of you. We all are.
I was pointing out the proof I have, you conceded on the first part it showed a high probability trump colluded, then you backtracked and started to, and continue to, evade the question "is it collusion to collude with the Russians." Don't you understand that refusing to answer that question means you are simply a joke? How can anyone communicate with someone who can't answer is 2+2 4? Poor fool.
I backtracked nothing except as a joke because you're a condescending blowhard. Why do I need to acknowledge 2+2 is 4 for you to continue to present evidence. It doesn't. At all. The only reason you won't go forward is because of an assumption. A wrong assumption. One that makes you condescending and an asshole for no reason other than to be an asshole. I have a process, you have a process. Mine is to listen to all the evidence before I make a judgement about the info I'm hearing. Yours is to make sure you condescend, prove that you're smart. Make sure they agree with you or else, and then deny further conversation until baby gets his way. You can claim it how ever you want, but that's all it is. And by the way, just because a is true and b is true doesn't always mean c is true and that's what you're trying to do, so you can say see I'm backtracking or moving the goal post or any other bullshit you make up so you can think you win. Just because other people fall for your bullshit doesnt mean everyone will.
Last edited by necronomous on Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Charliesheen
Snarky Fucker
Posts: 2958
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:49 am
Location: Almost as Nice as Bermuda

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#29

Post by Charliesheen » Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:35 pm

What a maroon.

User avatar
necronomous
The Doctor Is In
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#30

Post by necronomous » Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:40 pm

Charliesheen wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:35 pm
What a maroon.
And horribly so

User avatar
AnalHamster
Gives Head Moderator
Posts: 4358
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#31

Post by AnalHamster » Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:45 am

necronomous wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:24 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:01 pm
necronomous wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:39 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:31 pm
You know the drill by now, you poor fool. If you want me to school you on the russian collusion you already conceded is very likely, you need to start by answering the question 'is it collusion to collude with the Russians.' You simply cannot pretend you can look at or acknowledge anything at all when you have to evade the question is it collusion to collude. That is just ridiculous. And then you need to get back to the point you were already at, admitting based on point 1 that it was already very likely, and then we can move forward.
I've pretended nothing. Everything in that paragraph is an assumption of stupidity made on your behalf because you are a coward to just point out the proof you supposedly have. I've evaded no questions as I am still waiting for my question to be answered that you have clearly failed to answer. You know the drill by now, that if you have proof, it should stand regardless of anything I have to say. Thus we all know you have no proof. Because you're a moron. Your parents are ashamed of you. We all are.
I was pointing out the proof I have, you conceded on the first part it showed a high probability trump colluded, then you backtracked and started to, and continue to, evade the question "is it collusion to collude with the Russians." Don't you understand that refusing to answer that question means you are simply a joke? How can anyone communicate with someone who can't answer is 2+2 4? Poor fool.
I backtracked nothing except as a joke because you're a condescending blowhard. Why do I need to acknowledge 2+2 is 4 for you to continue to present evidence. It doesn't. At all. The only reason you won't go forward is because of an assumption. A wrong assumption. One that makes you condescending and an asshole for no reason other than to be an asshole. I have a process, you have a process. Mine is to listen to all the evidence before I make a judgement about the info I'm hearing. Yours is to make sure you condescend, prove that you're smart. Make sure they agree with you or else, and then deny further conversation until baby gets his way. You can claim it how ever you want, but that's all it is. And by the way, just because a is true and b is true doesn't always mean c is true and that's what you're trying to do, so you can say see I'm backtracking or moving the goal post or any other bullshit you make up so you can think you win. Just because other people fall for your bullshit doesnt mean everyone will.
We can go forward when you can admit it is collusion to collude with the russians. Write all the derps you like, there's no defending your refusal to do that.

User avatar
necronomous
The Doctor Is In
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#32

Post by necronomous » Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:44 am

AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 7:45 am
necronomous wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:24 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 8:01 pm
necronomous wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:39 pm
AnalHamster wrote:
Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:31 pm
You know the drill by now, you poor fool. If you want me to school you on the russian collusion you already conceded is very likely, you need to start by answering the question 'is it collusion to collude with the Russians.' You simply cannot pretend you can look at or acknowledge anything at all when you have to evade the question is it collusion to collude. That is just ridiculous. And then you need to get back to the point you were already at, admitting based on point 1 that it was already very likely, and then we can move forward.
I've pretended nothing. Everything in that paragraph is an assumption of stupidity made on your behalf because you are a coward to just point out the proof you supposedly have. I've evaded no questions as I am still waiting for my question to be answered that you have clearly failed to answer. You know the drill by now, that if you have proof, it should stand regardless of anything I have to say. Thus we all know you have no proof. Because you're a moron. Your parents are ashamed of you. We all are.
I was pointing out the proof I have, you conceded on the first part it showed a high probability trump colluded, then you backtracked and started to, and continue to, evade the question "is it collusion to collude with the Russians." Don't you understand that refusing to answer that question means you are simply a joke? How can anyone communicate with someone who can't answer is 2+2 4? Poor fool.
I backtracked nothing except as a joke because you're a condescending blowhard. Why do I need to acknowledge 2+2 is 4 for you to continue to present evidence. It doesn't. At all. The only reason you won't go forward is because of an assumption. A wrong assumption. One that makes you condescending and an asshole for no reason other than to be an asshole. I have a process, you have a process. Mine is to listen to all the evidence before I make a judgement about the info I'm hearing. Yours is to make sure you condescend, prove that you're smart. Make sure they agree with you or else, and then deny further conversation until baby gets his way. You can claim it how ever you want, but that's all it is. And by the way, just because a is true and b is true doesn't always mean c is true and that's what you're trying to do, so you can say see I'm backtracking or moving the goal post or any other bullshit you make up so you can think you win. Just because other people fall for your bullshit doesnt mean everyone will.
We can go forward when you can admit it is collusion to collude with the russians. Write all the derps you like, there's no defending your refusal to do that.
You can go forward whenever you like. I'm not stopping you. Your ego is. You can defend your arrogance all you want, but that is all it is. You. Just you.

User avatar
AnalHamster
Gives Head Moderator
Posts: 4358
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#33

Post by AnalHamster » Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:19 pm

Uh huh, it's my ego rather than yours that makes you unable to admit that colluding with the Russians constitutes collusion :lol:

Very convincing.

User avatar
necronomous
The Doctor Is In
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#34

Post by necronomous » Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:15 pm

AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:19 pm
Uh huh, it's my ego rather than yours that makes you unable to admit that colluding with the Russians constitutes collusion :lol:

Very convincing.
No it stops you from presenting your "evidence". Your.

User avatar
AnalHamster
Gives Head Moderator
Posts: 4358
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#35

Post by AnalHamster » Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:20 pm

Your inability to admit you can see any evidence renders it rather pointless to show you any. Pretty simple. You are too scared to discuss it because you know you don't have the smarts. We're on a discussion forum, not an essay judging forum, and you are too afraid to have a discussion.

Is it collusion to collude with the Russians. That is what you are unable to answer. Nothing else you say can change that.

User avatar
necronomous
The Doctor Is In
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#36

Post by necronomous » Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:27 pm

AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:20 pm
Your inability to admit you can see any evidence renders it rather pointless to show you any. Pretty simple. You are too scared to discuss it because you know you don't have the smarts. We're on a discussion forum, not an essay judging forum, and you are too afraid to have a discussion.

Is it collusion to collude with the Russians. That is what you are unable to answer. Nothing else you say can change that.
Assumptions, assumption, assumption.
Does it change your evidence if I do or don't? No. Then it's on you. Coward.

User avatar
AnalHamster
Gives Head Moderator
Posts: 4358
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#37

Post by AnalHamster » Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:31 pm

There's no assumption here, I proved you incapable of discussion and incapable of admitting you can see evidence. You're asking me to write you an essay summarising the Mueller report and a bunch of other stuff you loony, while maintaining you can't even state whether it is colluding to collude. Retard :lol:

User avatar
necronomous
The Doctor Is In
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#38

Post by necronomous » Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:52 pm

AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:31 pm
There's no assumption here, I proved you incapable of discussion and incapable of admitting you can see evidence. You're asking me to write you an essay summarising the Mueller report and a bunch of other stuff you loony, while maintaining you can't even state whether it is colluding to collude. Retard :lol:
You proved nothing. On both accounts. There was no discussion, just assumption. Ball licker

User avatar
necronomous
The Doctor Is In
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#39

Post by necronomous » Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:01 pm

AnalHamster wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:31 pm
There's no assumption here, I proved you incapable of discussion and incapable of admitting you can see evidence. You're asking me to write you an essay summarising the Mueller report and a bunch of other stuff you loony, while maintaining you can't even state whether it is colluding to collude. Retard :lol:
And the Mueller report? Why didn't you just say you have no evidence and save us some time. Jesus. What a waste of time this turned out to be. Don't do that again. Shame on you.

User avatar
Biker
Not really a democrat
Posts: 7619
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:22 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#40

Post by Biker » Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:05 pm

Im surprised Hammy isn't still arguing about hanging chads :lol:

User avatar
necronomous
The Doctor Is In
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#41

Post by necronomous » Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:44 pm

Biker wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:05 pm
Im surprised Hammy isn't still arguing about hanging chads :lol:
:lol:

User avatar
necronomous
The Doctor Is In
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: This article states it was known from the beginning Russian collusion was bunk

#42

Post by necronomous » Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:12 pm

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com ... 22774.html

Translator says collusion wasn't collusion.

Post Reply