ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Face it, folks, like it or not, this is going NOWHERE.

Only because people like you deny, obfuscate, or excuse obscene misconduct. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, mate.

"

=^[.]^=

If you have to explain your smiley in your signature it's a lousy smiley.

Heheh. Ad hominem much?

This video is for you, pal, a montage of lower limb micturation you and your ilk took as weather reports:

"

The Walls Are Closing in (For Real This Time)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT7zGzFVG_U

=^[.]^=

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

definition of collusion is
:secret agreement or cooperation

"

Turtledove wrote:

the investigation could not find any evidence of an agreement

So by default then, you are alleging cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. Considering that the definition of cooperation is much looser than I believed (per MW, the first definition is "the actions of someone who is being helpful by doing what is wanted or asked for"), well, it's actually kind of difficult to argue with that. I guess modern usage has stretched the definition to the point that it covers pretty much anything.

Did Russia want the more russophobic candidate to become President, or the less russophobic one? Check. Did Trump want WikiLeaks to dump a bunch of dirt on Clinton? Also check. Collusion confirmed.

We should all collude with each other more often. All it means is secretly being helpful to people by doing things they want. You can even keep it a secret from the person(s) you're helping, so long as you know what they desire. Colluders are awesome; they're like Secret Santas. I don't get how they've gotten such a bad rap.

Here's the relevant part from Mueller's report:



No conspiracy, no coordination.

Well sheeit, nevermind. No coordination, no collusion.

Oh! I get it now. The MW definition of collusion, as Mueller shows here, is implicitly one-directional. Organization A can secretly help Organization B without B secretly helping A — even if it perceives that B will later help A, such help might not come to pass. Because Russian Instagram ads secretly helped the Trump campaign but the Trump campaign couldn't be shown to have secretly helped the Russians, said Russians colluded with the Trump campaign but the Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians.

These are good definitions. Merriam-Webster puts out a quality product.

"

Xavderion wrote:

I know it's hard to process information when you suffer from such intense cognitive dissonance, but you can still try. Here's the relevant part from Mueller's report:



No conspiracy, no coordination. By the way, cherry picking one word out of a definition is not how definitions work, you have to view them as a whole. There was no secret cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose. Deal with it. Oh and by your "definition", Hillary colluded with Russia since she hired a foreign agent to get Russian disinfo on Trump. Just a fun fact.

Your example is nonsense because collusion requires an agreement or cooperation. The Hillary example you gave had neither. Meriam-Webster is a respected dictionary for the English language. It is not my definition it is the Meriam-Webster definition of collusion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster

Agreed that there was no conspiracy based on the Mueller report. I've said that over and over many times over the past month.

I guess you don't understand what the word "especially" means in the definition of collusion? Especially and exclusively are different words and you seem to be applying the exclusivity property to the word especially. The Russian part of the cooperation was definitely illegal. Russia was doing illegal things to get the emails. Collusion is a reasonable word that can be used to describe the "relationship" that is described in the Mueller report.

My point from the beginning is that you keep using the word "collusion" when a word that better describes what you're talking about is "conspiracy".

Damn, so many articles right now about how the media got it right with their reporting the past 2+ years. The enemy of the people are scared as fuck of the backlash that is coming.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Your example is nonsense because collusion requires an agreement or cooperation. The Hillary example you gave had neither.

You sure about that? She hired a foreign agent to obtain Russian disinfo. That's cooperation with the foreign agent and, by proxy, with the Russians. If that's not cooperation, how is anything Trump did cooperation?

The idea that the investigation was about whether Trump colluded with Russians is fundamentally wrong. The investigation was into Russian interference into our elections. A secondary investigation was started into why Trump was consistently trying to sabotage the first investigations.

This is reflected in the arrangement of the actual report, with the first half detailing Russian interference, and the second half Trump's attempts to derail the investigation.

There is substantial evidence that Russia did in fact interfere in Trump's favor, and that his campaign knew about it and did nothing. There is also substantial evidence of Trump abusing his power repeatedly in trying to end the investigation to protect himself. The first is distasteful, but not illegal. The second is illegal and distasteful.

The position is too important to leave to someone willing to act in that manner, especially if they thought they were innocent. His actions and demeanor indicate that he is aware his conduct is unacceptable as well.

Taxes, redacted reports (for sound reasons like sources and methods you dont want rooskies knowing about), Trump tower it's all a deep sea fishing expedition because dems/communists/MSM and deep state hate the election results.

they be

I told you guys many times- Trump is too dumb/gabby to be an asset of intel not to mention he's harder on Russia than any president since Kennedy. This dog will never hunt and it looks stupid to follow it. But most people are stupid.

If I was a democrat I'd follow leads like he books all foreign dignitaries in his Hotels at exorbitant rates profiting from being president. Or his muslim ban. Or nukes to saudis. Plenty wrong with Trump but this Russia thing aint one.

"

tramshed wrote:

The idea that the investigation was about whether Trump colluded with Russians is fundamentally wrong.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Your example is nonsense because collusion requires an agreement or cooperation. The Hillary example you gave had neither.

You sure about that? She hired a foreign agent to obtain Russian disinfo. That's cooperation with the foreign agent and, by proxy, with the Russians. If that's not cooperation, how is anything Trump did cooperation?

I'm sure. Christopher Steele was British not Russian. Much of the Steele dossier has been proven true. Some things in there that I know of that probably are not true is Cohen going to Prague (IIRC) to meet with the Russians and give them some payoff or something. Another two items being the prostitutes peeing on the bed thing and a quid pro quo arrangement between Russia and Trump.

The items proven true-
* The big one being Russia was assisting the Trump campaign to win the election
* Trump would lift sanctions on Russia, which is exactly what Trump tried to do immediately on taking power.
* Some Carter Page stuff that I forget the details of

The Steele dossier was raw intelligence gathered using the normal spy type word of mouth techniques. From that perspective it turned out to be pretty darn accurate. Remember that when the Steele dossier came out there was no clue that Russia was hacking the DNC, stealing emails, and trying to help get Trump elected.