What's that saying..."Everything said before the word, 'but'"?
I play one on the forum.
It's not a matter whether I'm OK with it or not....it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. But to frame this as some kind of conclusive "proof" that collusion indeed took place is moronic and irrational as hell imo.I can only imagine the shits you would be having if Hillary used the exact same words in the exact same forum regarding Trump.
If you say you would be OK with Her doing that you are not being honest.
It's not a matter whether I'm OK with it or not....it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. But to frame this as some kind of conclusive "proof" that collusion indeed took place is moronic and irrational as hell imo.
Sure...but I'm much more interested in the "proof" you dig up.We'll see what Mueller digs up
DSF: Just here to troll.Sure...but I'm much more interested in the "proof" you dig up.
Sure...but I'm much more interested in the "proof" you dig up.
Well there you go. That's proof enough for me!I mean we obviously don't know where this will all end but let's look at what we do know:
1) The Russians attempted to assist Trump in winning the election.
2) Trump and his associates have told an incredible number of lies about their relationships with Russia.
3) Mueller has already uncovered significant criminal activity by Trump associates
4) Trump has repeatedly tried to limit or shut down the investigation.
Considering all of that the most likely answer is that Trump is attempting to cover up something bad. If he's not guilty then he's doing himself no favors as he's acting very, very guilty. Maybe it all turns out to be nothing but I don't think that's very likely.
Do you take any stock in the Fox/Hannity conspiracies they support?Well there you go. That's proof enough for me!
He would never. He's better than all of us. Just look how he stares from atop his perch!Do you take any stock in the Fox/Hannity conspiracies they support?
So, uhh, why is the GOP message & the Russian message the same? Is it for the MAGA?
We saw that in 2016 and again with #releasethememo.
As good as the Russians are, maybe the GOP should just farm out the messaging & the PR to the FSB. They'd probably get more bang for the buck than from their usual American propagandists...
So you are connecting dots. What does this mean. Oh, he was only a stooge, just like your buddy.Russians held a Trump is not my President rally. Moore was there, where you Jhhnn?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...mp-rally-allegedly-organized-by-russians.html
"Michael Moore, the polemical filmmaker who has long accused President Trump of colluding with Russians, posted videos and pictures of himself participating in a protest in Manhattan that was allegedly organized by Russians in November 2016."
I believe everything you imagine me to believe....who am I to argue with your simplistic stereotypes?Do you take any stock in the Fox/Hannity conspiracies they support?
Because by your rules anyone who isn't here to agree with you is a troll.DSF: Just here to troll.
His point is lost on you it seems.So you are connecting dots. What does this mean. Oh, he was only a stooge, just like your buddy.
Moore is a stooge and Jhhnn isn't my buddy.So you are connecting dots. What does this mean. Oh, he was only a stooge, just like your buddy.
Well there you go. That's proof enough for me!
Well there you go. That's proof enough for me!
I acknowledge that Trump is generally a BS artist, but who in TV or politics isn't? I'm not a Trump fan but the country had bottom of the barrel candidates and Trump was the better of the two, unfortunately. The part I dislike is people using blatant lies and mistruths to undermine Trump because Hillary was suppose to win and everyone else is a racist deplorable.
There's not a smidgen of corruption! Right?What do you think about the rest? Do you agree that the most likely answer is he's covering something up?
I'll know it when I see it. But a 10 second sound bite from a stump speech just doesn't cut it for me.Specifically what would be proof to you Doc, I'm not talking about a jury conviction. I am asking what specific action or actions would need to be proven for you to say "yup he's guilty"
I don't know if he's covering up something. But I do know that you grossly oversimplified your first talking point. At the core of every conspiracy theory there is at least one flimsy premise.What do you think about the rest? Do you agree that the most likely answer is he's covering something up?
You guys, DSF is not here to discuss anything in good faith. You should really resist engaging.
I don't know if he's covering up something. But I do know that you grossly oversimplified your first talking point. At the core of every conspiracy theory there is at least one flimsy premise.