• 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

Just curious, were you going to vote for Hillary?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

If you're talking about the 2016 election
As an anti Trump vote I had no choice. Any third party vote would have been a vote for Trump

But you're using "were you" leaves me scratching my head as to which election you are talking about
 
Last edited:
If you're talking about the 2016 election
As an anti Trump vote I had no choice. Any third party vote would have been a vote for Trump

But you're using "were you" leaves me scratching my head as to which election you are talking about
So that's a yes. Thanks, that tells us all we need to know about your chastisement.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
So that's a yes. Thanks, that tells us all we need to know about your chastisement.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Incompetent reply
 
Cant stand constructive criticism, can you?

How can your criticism be at all constructive if you admit that you didn't make it past the first sentence?

Was that your excuse to your teachers when you wrote your book reports too?

"I stopped at 'Call me Ishmael,' and you gave me an 'F'. I guess you don't know what constructive criticism looks like."
 
Last edited:
Its funny you talk about "critical thinking" as you whine about "concrete evidence". there was ample evidence to open an investigation. there was ample evidence to put numerous trump aides in jail. There was not "ample evidence" to open an investigation into President Obama's birthplace, religion or tan suit. But the good news is you've come along way from the obedient lying conservative narrative of "wah wah witchhunt"



and trump attacking Nato exactly as predicted by the Steele Dossier seems pretty concrete to me.

Sorry, but I am not compelled to alter my beliefs because you don't like them.
 
Given the ultra-liberal looniness of academia you're probably correct - they'll all participate in a giant circle jerk about it - even though it's never been proved.





So what? That's common with Presidents elect - making contact with foreign governments is part of preparing to assume the job.

Heck, they'll probably burn the books that show there was no Trump collusion and teach the kids that Trump was a traitor.
We know what the present day loons are capable of...

It was different when Hillary showed the reset button... They didn't even bat an eyelash when their anointed one had hot mic moment with one of Vlad's boys.
The double standard rears its ugly head...
 
If I have to guess a trump supporter response to this, it will either be

a)It was none of our business so it was okay to lie about those contacts, or
b)Obama said that if we liked our doctor we could keep our doctor

I just want to know, if this is about facts, truth, justice, lies, etc. and not a partisan orgy or to get Trump out of office, then why is Bill Clinton a Democratic hero? :confused:
 
I just want to know, if this is about facts, truth, justice, lies, etc. and not a partisan orgy or to get Trump out of office, then why is Bill Clinton a Democratic hero? :confused:

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?
 
Heck, they'll probably burn the books that show there was no Trump collusion and teach the kids that Trump was a traitor.
We know what the present day loons are capable of...

It was different when Hillary showed the reset button... They didn't even bat an eyelash when their anointed one had hot mic moment with one of Vlad's boys.
The double standard rears its ugly head...

And there it is...the ubiquitous stoking the fires post that Trix makes in encouragement to the Trump defenders. Did you rally the troops by PM this time?

Name calls opposition to Trump loons...
makes up phony notions about burning books...
and the tried and true"But Hillary".

Meanwhile, completely unable to answer Cardinals simple, pointed questions on the topic of this thread.
WWJD?
 
Sorry, but I am not compelled to alter my beliefs because you don't like them.

oh trix, thanks for the laughs. I have to point out its funny for too reasons. First, I was simply showing the flaws in your "critical thinking". "Concrete proof" is not required to start an investigation. And there must be some "concrete proof" somewhere because several of trump's inner circle have plead guilty. And the second reason is especially funny. As you whine about me trying to "alter your beliefs" I've shown that you've already "altered your beliefs". You changed it from "wah wah witchhunt" to "wah wah no concrete proof". Yep, facts tend to force conservatives (or conservative like posters) to "alter" their obedient and false conservative narratives.

and not for nothing, you and yours weren't really concerned about "concrete proof" when you said President Obama was born in Kenya, his BC a forgery, he wants to kill old people and of course the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies.
 
oh trix, thanks for the laughs. I have to point out its funny for too reasons. First, I was simply showing the flaws in your "critical thinking". "Concrete proof" is not required to start an investigation. And there must be some "concrete proof" somewhere because several of trump's inner circle have plead guilty. And the second reason is especially funny. As you whine about me trying to "alter your beliefs" I've shown that you've already "altered your beliefs". You changed it from "wah wah witchhunt" to "wah wah no concrete proof". Yep, facts tend to force conservatives (or conservative like posters) to "alter" their obedient and false conservative narratives.

and not for nothing, you and yours weren't really concerned about "concrete proof" when you said President Obama was born in Kenya, his BC a forgery, he wants to kill old people and of course the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies.

You lecture me about concrete proof and in the same post accuse me of "saying" President Obama was born in Kenya, something I've never thought, let alone put in writing?
What do you do for encores?
 
You lecture me about concrete proof and in the same post accuse me of "saying" President Obama was born in Kenya, something I've never thought, let alone put in writing?
What do you do for encores?

oh trix, I wasn't trying to lecture you. I was simply pointing out the falsehoods in your cowardly deflection. Again, I pointed out the flaw in your "critical thinking" and I pointed out the hypocrisy of you "altering your beliefs". and I didn't accuse you of anything other than the lack of critical thinking and hypocrisy. I simply pointed out that you and yours weren't really concerned about "concrete proof" when you said President Obama was born in Kenya, his BC a forgery, he wants to kill old people and of course the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies. Which of course is just more hypocrisy on your part. And I can "you and yours" because a large percentage if not majority of conservatives believed those lying conservative narratives.

Hey I know, instead of looking for ways to cowardly deflect, why not respond in an honest and intelligent fashion. Start with you "altering your beliefs".
 
Dx13C8MWsAAueiy.jpg
 
When future American history professors tell their students that the 45th President was an agent for Russia, all of the students will say in unison, "Yeah, no ****, Sherlock." The professor will silently nod until the students are quiet again, and will launch into a lecture on how populism and the electoral college allowed for a Russian asset to be made President in the first place.





https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

I would only point out that the graph is slightly confusing in that it distinguishes between "had contact" and "denied contact" as though the "had contact" incidents were not denied. Those incidents marked as "had contact" only mean that the person having contact with Russians didn't directly deny those contact, just that those contacts probably weren't disclosed.

A gentle suggestion - I suggest Trump supporters and Russians get a room so the rest of us don't have to continue seeing them make love to each other in public. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom