4 ms·

>You are completely ignoring the high level of coordination that has been proven, between the Trump campaign and the Russians. No high level of co-ordination t

by ksk 6y ago

>You are completely ignoring the high level of coordination that has been proven, between the Trump campaign and the Russians. No high level of co-ordination to steal the election was "proven". I don't know what kind of "news" you read. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill... >It's impossible to know what the effect was, but we know for sure they tried, which is illegal. If you don't know what the effect was, what is your point again? >It only "goes both ways" when you are blatantly lying and discounting reality. Childish name-calling? Nice.. >Many of the states in question are run by Republicans. Are you saying that Republicans conspired to steal the election from Trump? Actually, I'm claiming both sides are in their own bubble clutching their little (R) and (D) flags and waving them frantically.

chillwaves 6y ago
To claim something false is lying. To point out lying is not "name calling". > No high level of co-ordination to steal the election was "proven". I don't know what kind of "news" you read. Here, try this: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... Ctrl+F "manafort" if you are having trouble finding it. > Actually, I'm claiming both sides are in their own bubble clutching their little (R) and (D) flags and waving them frantically. Bro, is this not name calling? At least I am actually offering evidence. All you is your sense of superiority. Also, the whole cover of partisanship is just so intellectually lazy. You can literally dismiss any evidence or reality just by claiming partisanship. I am sure partisanship is involved, but that is not a rebuttal to the evidence presented. What a poor use of time to have a conversation with you.
- ksk 6y ago
  So you keep posting the same old tired link claiming its "evidence". I don't think you understand what that document actually says. I don't rebut evidence, I accept it, if courts accept it when used as evidence in a case. I don't know what rebutting evidence means, or what that would accomplish. After four years of nonsense investigations there were no indictments on this so called "collusion". This fact alone makes anyone involved in making those allegations look completely nutty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment No indictment = no charges = no case = no conviction = innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of this report, if Dems had solid evidence to bring criminal charges, I'd bet my life savings that they'd have brought cases by now, and we'd know about it.

by ksk 6y ago

chillwaves 6y ago

To claim something false is lying. To point out lying is not "name calling". > No high level of co-ordination to steal the election was "proven". I don't know what kind of "news" you read. Here, try this: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... Ctrl+F "manafort" if you are having trouble finding it. > Actually, I'm claiming both sides are in their own bubble clutching their little (R) and (D) flags and waving them frantically. Bro, is this not name calling? At least I am actually offering evidence. All you is your sense of superiority. Also, the whole cover of partisanship is just so intellectually lazy. You can literally dismiss any evidence or reality just by claiming partisanship. I am sure partisanship is involved, but that is not a rebuttal to the evidence presented. What a poor use of time to have a conversation with you.

ksk 6y ago
So you keep posting the same old tired link claiming its "evidence". I don't think you understand what that document actually says. I don't rebut evidence, I accept it, if courts accept it when used as evidence in a case. I don't know what rebutting evidence means, or what that would accomplish. After four years of nonsense investigations there were no indictments on this so called "collusion". This fact alone makes anyone involved in making those allegations look completely nutty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment No indictment = no charges = no case = no conviction = innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of this report, if Dems had solid evidence to bring criminal charges, I'd bet my life savings that they'd have brought cases by now, and we'd know about it.