Random Politics & Religion #24

Here, sure.

But the media and the liberals/democrats in Congress, it's an impeachable offence to speak to the Russian Ambassador.

Prove it then.

Yeah, we call them "sore losers" or "liberals" for short.

His ties with anyone from Russia only involves business dealings. People are still under the impression that, by releasing his tax returns, they will find the "smoking gun" on Russia ties.

I hate to tell those people that, but that's not how tax returns work. They don't tell you anything other than how much you made for the year.

Reddit? Really?

You guys speculate I'm going to reminiscence

the investigation into the ties you are unsure of happening in regards to deals when you aren't clear whether or not any have been made that you have no details about or any credible evidence to indicate that these deals we aren't sure exist but just presume were illegal...

we'll get right on that

right after we find someone who is both non partisan and able to dispell your fears with magic

Already you dismissed every single human being in the entire world.

I agree, again I don't believe everything listed here but it is the most aggregate list of sources that I can easily find on the subject.


I can't and I hope there is no proof. I simply think there is enough information out there to hint at its possibility and its possibility alone is something that is worth investigating. Again this is the US and POTUS we are talking about not two random individuals.


Yea, those people are idiots.

The whole Russia scare thing is weird to me too because hasn't it reversed parties now? Last time we had a red scare it was the conservatives correct?


Not all liberals fall under that category though. I think that is unfair.



Yea I think that the fear is that he will let Russia use him in order to protect his business investments, which is a fair thing to assume - I mean he is a business man and that would be a smart choice for his business.

I don't get why he wouldn't simply release his tax returns though. Hiding it only creates more suspicion. If there is no wrong doing then why not just release them?

I didn't know people were still defending Clinton here.

Isn't fear Trumps platform?

"Sessions, could you deacribe what comey mean when he said he was uncomfortable?"

These liberal hacks are a complete disgrace.

Then why are you accusing somebody of ties/collusion that you can't prove?

Again, going by my previous example, you are a rapist, and I don't have to prove anything to put your life under a microscope. Would you like to be convicted for stealing candy from a convenient store when you were 4 also?

Problem is, he has no business assets in Russia. His business dealings with any Russians involve private, one-time business transactions, mainly selling some property in Florida to a Russian. He has no business dealings with the Russian government.

So, there goes that conspiracy theory....

and with these eight words began the neverending endless investigation into everything that ever could have possibly happened ever which bankrupted all the countries.... and everyone died.

however in trump's case, using your own logic, he should be scot free and clear already because there is no possibility that the original accusation that russians conspired with trump to hack our election booths and vote for trump so that hillary would lose is false because....

it's impossible.

not just unlikely, not just improbable

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE

the election booths aren't tied to WAN so they can't be hacked remotely, so the russians couldn't possibly hack them, nor colude with anyone on the trump team to do so because, as anyone with a sixth grade education knows or could figure out by now it isn't possible

you're wandering further and further away from the original accusation which was stupid but at least meritted some consideration and explanation to the stupid people to an imaginary world where he may or may not have 'did some deals' that you suspect aren't in the best interest of trump because of what other deal did trump ever make that didn't benefit him directly again

Isnt that what calling all of Trumps supporters nazis is all about?

It's called deplorables Nausi.

Get with the lingo!

I mean you got people shiuting at the top of heir lungs that ge planet is gonna be inhabitable because trump didnt sign a non-binding do nothing paris accord and TRuMP is the fear monger?

Do you guys even listen to yourselves?

Proofread.....

Proofread is your friend....

Proofread is your ally....

Proofread is your companion..........

Reading rainbow !

I like him as Geordi.

I wonder what he is hiding in his cheeks.

Technically the investigation is about Russia's meddling in our election. It has nothing to do with Trump or the Trump team because they totally didn't collude with Russia to meddle in the election.

Trump said so and Trump wouldn't ever lie, would he?

In this case, he didn't need Russia to help.

Next time, don't put up such a horrible candidate, mmk?

Horrible candidate? Wow, blasphemy much? You will address She Who Was Chosen by her pre-ordained title of God Empress and pay penance for your insolence.

My guess the tapes Trump may or may not have.

That has nothing to do with anything that I have been saying. Don't bother responding to me if you aren't going to read. NOTHING I have said has anything to do with the Russians hacking into anything.

I AGREE that there is no one they could have altered the election at all. IF you would have read what I said you would know that this isn't what I'm talking about. Please go back and read though. You sound like a Clinton supporter now, you don't listen and don't have a sense of context.

You are arguing against a point I never made, against a point that I actually agree with you on. You are then using that argument as some extension of my real argument? Then you continue to assume that I am operating under absolutes when I am not.


Am I really accusing if I am simply stating there is a possibility? I feel like accusing is speaking in absolutes which I haven't. Which I don't get why that part is so hard to read. Your narrative against me is based off of you reading into my words, which is stupid.


That is great and all but all we have his word on that subject and several sources that state otherwise. Would a businessman ever lie? Again though what probably reasons could Trump have for not releasing his tax returns?




This is a false analogy. You aren't comparing the same situations:

If you thought that I was stealing cookies from the cookie jar and the only evidence you had is that there are cookies missing and I was the only person who came into the house would you not be suspicious that I was indeed the one taking them? You wouldn't accuse me right? Maybe you would install a Camera and check to see if I was stealing it. I'm not guilty though unless you catch me in the act.

That is a more accurate analogy to what I am saying. Again though, You, Rav and now Niko are all incapable of understanding conversations that aren't absolutes.

If you want the absolute: I DO NOT THINK TRUMP IS GUILTY.

If you want the nuanced statement: I do not think that there is hard evidence that Trump is guilty, I do however acknowledge, given the information available to me, that there is a possibility that Trump has Russian ties.

But you see this is how even the court of law works. No one is guilty until proven, correct? Then if they aren't guilty why put them on trial? By your logic we shouldn't hold trials then unless the defendant pleads guilty.

Holy ***I haven't used that last argument since Clinton.

I feel like I'm in a conversation with Shiroi and Vicc about Clinton now.

Proofreading?

Just needed Chaffetz to leak that Comey was re-opening the investigation really. I think that is when the polling numbers took a huge shift. I remember having a good time watching everyone panic.

I find the hypocrisy in these arguments glaring. I could easily change Trump to Hillary and get the same stupid conversation out of one of her blind followers who think she was a good fit for president.

The argument only makes sense if it doesn't implicate the your party.

Thats such horseshit!

Hillary actually broke the law by trafficking in classified information!
Hillary actually did collude with the Russians (to secure us uranium reserves)!
Hillary actually did rig an election with the DNC (the democratic primary)!

I don't disagree with you, but at the same time you have about as much proof as anyone has on Trump.

Uh, that's not true at all. We have the DNC's emails. We have Hillary's emails. What do we have on Trump? Oh yeah, nothing.

Actually, Comey already stated that:

A) Clinton broke the law by holding classified information on her private server. And, by his most previous testimony, it looks like he was coerced into recommending no charges due to political pressure from above (Lynch and/or Obama).
B) Wikileaks already shown their evidence that Clinton colluded with Russians on this case. If an investigation was done, she would probably be found guilty of abusing her office for such acts.
C) Again, wikileaks. The evidence has already been presented. Doesn't matter if some people, like the reality deniers, don't like it and automatically dismiss it because, you know, agendas.