• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump and His Associates Had More Than 100 Contacts With Russians Before the Inauguration

Crovax said:
I’m not normalizing anything. Im pointing out it’s wrong and I’m pointing out that I’ll call it out even when it’s my side and you didn’t have the huevos to do it when your side did
Click to expand...

As I said, post #7 applies to you.
 
Cardinal said:
How is pointing out over a hundred contacts with a hostile foreign government, and the fact that everybody in the campaign lied 100% of the time about those contacts, a "smear?"
Click to expand...

It is factual

Anything factual about this guy is a smear
 
Crovax said:
Can’t even bother to come up with a response I see
Click to expand...

Post 7 applies to your comments in this thread. Are you demanding that I reword post 7 to make it look like a new and fresh post...just for you?

Alright, fine. I'm not sure why I'm going through with this, but I like you, Crovax, so here goes...

Well, Crovax, I suppose it would be fair to point out previous administrations and campaigns that had over a hundred contacts with a hostile foreign government and lied about those contacts (and business interests) 100% of the time. Do you have such an example that you could share with us?

I'm not sure how that example could be especially valuable to the discussion at hand, but I can't deny that I'm curious.
 
Cardinal said:
Post 7 applies to your comments in this thread. Are you demanding that I reword post 7 to make it look like a new and fresh post...just for you?

Well, okay. I'm not sure why I'm going through with this, but I like you, Crovax, so here goes...

Well, Crovax, I suppose it would be fair to point out previous administrations and campaigns that had over a hundred contacts with a hostile foreign government and lied about those contacts (and business interests) 100% of the time. Do you have such an example that you could share with us?

I'm not sure how that example could be especially valuable to the discussion at hand, but I can't deny that I'm curious.
Click to expand...

Just copied from your previous post I see.

Lazy, ignorant and partisan is no way to go through life, son
 
Captain Adverse said:
I wonder how many such "contacts" we might see revealed...if the NYT and other "news" sources spent similar time and effort "researching" Democrat and other party "contacts" with "Russians" prior to the 2016 election.

Next up, Chinese "contacts." :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

BUT BUT BUT DEMS, OBAMA, HILLARY'S EMAILS, BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!! Your deflections have gone way past pathetic dude. Trump and his campaign have CONSTANTLY LIED about their Russian contacts. Do you understand that fact and how about you actually address the topic instead of deflections huh? Afraid you can't defend Trump's lies? I think we should seriously think of a new honor called "Captain Deflection".
 
Captain Adverse said:
IMO the "subject" is a smear campaign. Much like a chart one of our foreign Forum members posted elsewhere on "links" to Russia which included the Russian Ambassador and "non-Russian business interests with 'links' to Russian business interests."

That would pretty much cover most high ranking personnel in the State Dept.'s Russia desk, many members of Congress from both Parties, many American businesses, and a whole slew of common citizens from cashiers to coffee shop baristas to name a few. Not to mention all those "Russia bots" on Twitter, Facebook, etc. many common citizens are "linked" to.
Click to expand...

Cardinal said:
How is pointing out over a hundred contacts with a hostile foreign government, and the fact that everybody in the campaign lied 100% of the time about those contacts, a "smear?"
Click to expand...


He won't be explaining his position anytime soon because it's not a position. He doesn't even feel like it's a smear.

It's just his game: blatantly hackish pro-Trump statement, followed by jumping thread.
 
Crovax said:
Just copied from your previous post I see.

Lazy, ignorant and partisan is no way to go through life, son
Click to expand...

You could demonstrate what "not lazy" looks like by actually responding to my post, but I suspect that your real purpose in this thread is to pour gas on it and set it on fire.
 
Mr Person said:
He won't be explaining his position anytime soon because it's not a position. He doesn't even feel like it's a smear.

It's just his game: blatantly hackish pro-Trump statement, followed by jumping thread.
Click to expand...

Trump supporters don't have positions, per se. At least, not within the realm of any discussion that concerns Trump directly. This is why pretty much every response by a trump supporter...on the topic of trump...is a deflection.
 
Crovax said:
There is a literal video of Obama colluding with the Russian president

[video=youtube;0mgQaFlo_p8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mgQaFlo_p

and of course the quid pro quo in return

White House rebuffs Ukraine appeal for weapons
Click to expand...

Let's try this again: can you provide a legitimate reason for why the Trump campaign would have over 100 contacts with a hostile foreign government and then lie about those contacts 100% of the time?
 
Cardinal said:
Let's try this again: can you provide a legitimate reason for why the Trump campaign would have over 100 contacts with a hostile foreign government and then lie about those contacts 100% of the time?
Click to expand...

Again, had you bothered to actually read any of my posts(assuming you have the ability), I have and are continuing to call Trumps actions wrong.
 
Crovax said:
Again, had you bothered to actually read any of my posts(assuming you have the ability), I have and are continuing to call Trumps actions wrong.
Click to expand...

Wrong in what way? Wrong that he had contacts with them? Wrong that he lied to the American people about those contacts? Wrong that he didn't shake their hands correctly? What does "wrong" mean to Crovax?
 
Cardinal said:
Let's try this again: can you provide a legitimate reason for why the Trump campaign would have over 100 contacts with a hostile foreign government and then lie about those contacts 100% of the time?
Click to expand...

:rofl: Time to pivot now that you got proved wrong
 
Crovax said:
:rofl: Time to pivot now that you got proved wrong
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that I was doing any pivoting or that you proved me wrong. That must have happened in another thread. Care to answer the question in post 38?
 
Cardinal said:
Wrong in what way? Wrong that he had contacts with them? Wrong that he lied to the American people about those contacts? Wrong that he didn't shake their hands correctly? What does "wrong" mean to Crovax?
Click to expand...

Corrupt or incompetent. Im not sure if Trump is smart enough to be corrupt.
 
Crovax said:
Corrupt or incompetent. Im not sure if Trump is smart enough to be corrupt.
Click to expand...

Incompetence suggests innocence (even if it's stupid innocence). Do you think it's a possibility that he and his campaign interacted with a hostile foreign government over a hundred times and then lied about it 100% of the time...by accident?
 
Cardinal said:
I wasn't aware that I was doing any pivoting or that you proved me wrong. That must have happened in another thread. Care to answer the question in post 38?
Click to expand...

You asked me to show how other administrations colluded with Russia which quickly blew up in your face and then pivoted to you quixotic attempt to get me to defend Trumps actions not realizing that you are such a blind partisan you couldnt be bothered to notice that im not a Trump supporter
 
Cardinal said:
Incompetence suggests innocence (even if it's stupid innocence). Do you think it's a possibility that he and his campaign interacted with a hostile foreign government over a hundred times and then lied about it 100% of the time...by accident?
Click to expand...

His campaign no, but with Trump himself anything possible.
 
Crovax said:
You asked me to show how other administrations colluded with Russia which quickly blew up in your face and then pivoted to you quixotic attempt to get me to defend Trumps actions not realizing that you are such a blind partisan you couldnt be bothered to notice that im not a Trump supporter
Click to expand...

Or maybe your example was idiotic, because you've opened up the definition of "collude" so broadly that literally any kind of interaction at all can be placed into the "collusion" folder. Which was your point, of course: to dilute the meaning of "collude" until it's meaningless.
 
Crovax said:
His campaign no, but with Trump himself anything possible.
Click to expand...

So you think it's possible that he "accidentally" lied to the people about his business interests with Russia for a straight year, then "accidentally" dictated to his son his response to the Trump Tower meeting story?
 
Cardinal said:
Let's try this again: can you provide a legitimate reason for why the Trump campaign would have over 100 contacts with a hostile foreign government and then lie about those contacts 100% of the time?
Click to expand...

Can't access the NY TIMES until Feb 1. I have no idea who and the nature of the contact the paper is referring to.

But we all know that Mueller has indicted NOBODY from the Trump campaign for contacting Russians. Not Manafort, or PapaD, or Flynn, or even Stone.

Nor these 100 people in the TIMES article.
One ought wonder why Mueller has passed on such a target rich environment. One ought wonder why the TIMES hasn't been able to pry the 'goods' from one of these guys.
 
Cardinal said:
Or maybe your example was idiotic, because you've opened up the definition of "collude" so broadly that literally any kind of interaction at all can be placed into the "collusion" folder. Which was your point, of course: to dilute the meaning of "collude" until it's meaningless.
Click to expand...

The only thing in relation to collusion you need to open up is a dictionary
 
Cardinal said:
So you think it's possible that he "accidentally" lied to the people about his business interests with Russia for a straight year, then "accidentally" dictated to his son his response to the Trump Tower meeting story?
Click to expand...

No not accidentally but I can easily see a scenario where Trump's team tell him they arent pursing business interests in Russia and he is stupid enough to believe him despite all evidence to the contrary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom