Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 382
  1. #301
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    25,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Pierzynski4Prez View Post
    Clearly you can't. Otherwise you would be more suited to ask a simple Yes/No question.

    Did you yourself read the transcripts? Or do you only take the word of biased media and their representation of them? Can you formulate your own opinion?
    yes, I read some of the transcripts.

    don't get your panties in a bunch because you don't like what I'm posting.
    \_(ツ)_/

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,390
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    you keep saying this but have yet to provide anything to support this. if what I said in there being no collusion is wrong, then counter that with something to show there was collusion. but you wont, because you can't.

    along with Clapper's quote, I provided quotes from Republicans and Trump officials.



    they investigated for collusion and found no evidence.
    if these was some collusion or conspiracy then they would have found something.
    I can't show you what is not there. You said it was there and it's not. All I can do is send you your link and say it's not there.

    None of the quotes you keep using say there was no collusion.

    You are assuming that their investigation was perfect, and there is no basis for that assumption.

    The transcripts don't show that there was no collusion. You were wrong. Admit it.

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,390
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    The phrasing of that quote is key. "Direct empirical evidence " being the choice of words indicates there was collusion. Just not specifically "direct empirical " evidence.

    Why use that phrasing ? If there was no evidence, it would say there was no evidence. Period. Without any qualifiers.
    He took it further than that ... he claimed that there was in fact no collusion, not just no evidence of collusion, direct or otherwise.

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,390
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    yes, I read some of the transcripts.
    Can you point to the part where they show there was no collusion?

  5. #305
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    25,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I can't show you what is not there. You said it was there and it's not. All I can do is send you your link and say it's not there.

    None of the quotes you keep using say there was no collusion.

    You are assuming that their investigation was perfect, and there is no basis for that assumption.

    The transcripts don't show that there was no collusion. You were wrong. Admit it.

    what does the bold say?

    Trump officials all testified they had seen no collusion on the campaign.

    don't get your panties in a bunch because you don't like what I'm posting.
    \_(ツ)_/

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,631
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    what does the bold say?
    The relevant info isnt bolded.

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,390
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    what does the bold say?
    The bold says "no collusion". Was that a trick question?

    What is the word before the bolded? I'll answer for you "seen". Do you believe it is possible for things to happen that you don't see?

  8. #308
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    25,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The bold says "no collusion". Was that a trick question?

    What is the word before the bolded? I'll answer for you "seen". Do you believe it is possible for things to happen that you don't see?
    lengthy investigation, but even though they didn't see collusion, couldn't find collusion, maybe just maybe there was still collusion?

    this could be said about any investigation that couldn't provide evidence. this is a flawed way to go.

    don't get your panties in a bunch because you don't like what I'm posting.
    \_(ツ)_/

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,390
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    lengthy investigation, but even though they didn't see collusion, couldn't find collusion, maybe just maybe there was still collusion?

    this could be said about any investigation that couldn't provide evidence. this is a flawed way to go.
    Yes, you are correct. That is why they don't say there was no collusion, they say things like "no direct evidence of collusion".

    See they knew they couldn't prove collusion, but they also couldn't prove that there was no collusion. That was your erroneous assumption that the lack of proof of collusion meant that there was no collusion.

    Now, careful here, we are so close ... do you agree that the transcripts say there was no evidence of collusion, but does NOT say that there was in fact no collusion at all?

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    92,739
    Yep they just had a nice friendly chat with a few Russians connected to the Kremlin in June 2016 to talk about the weather. A campaign chairman, the candidate's son and son-in-law were all meeting that nice Russian lawyer and her colleagues to discuss the weather...and Russian adoption.
    Prior to 11/1/19: if you were on my ignore list, I was sticking to ignoring you thanks to great advise.
    From 11/1/19 on: I will no longer be responding to comments back to people on my ignore list.
    _____

    Think long and hard about why you respond to nonsense. Please!


  11. #311
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,390
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Yep they just had a nice friendly chat with a few Russians connected to the Kremlin in June 2016 to talk about the weather. A campaign chairman, the candidate's son and son-in-law were all meeting that nice Russian lawyer and her colleagues to discuss the weather...and Russian adoption.
    Don't distract. We are soooo close.

  12. #312
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    48,356
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    what does the bold say?
    You are so bad at this.

    PSD: Where the moderators consistently cave to crybaby tattletales and it's a lot safer to be openly racist, hateful, and ignorant than to be a little rude to the racist, hateful, and ignorant

  13. #313
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    48,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Don't distract. We are soooo close.
    Such a productive conversation!

    PSD: Where the moderators consistently cave to crybaby tattletales and it's a lot safer to be openly racist, hateful, and ignorant than to be a little rude to the racist, hateful, and ignorant

  14. #314
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    25,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Yes, you are correct. That is why they don't say there was no collusion, they say things like "no direct evidence of collusion".

    See they knew they couldn't prove collusion, but they also couldn't prove that there was no collusion. That was your erroneous assumption that the lack of proof of collusion meant that there was no collusion.

    Now, careful here, we are so close ... do you agree that the transcripts say there was no evidence of collusion, but does NOT say that there was in fact no collusion at all?
    I'm going to stick with what I quoted. if you want to keep arguing something else, go ahead.

    don't get your panties in a bunch because you don't like what I'm posting.
    \_(ツ)_/

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,390
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I'm going to stick with what I quoted. if you want to keep arguing something else, go ahead.
    See, the issue isn't with the quote, it's what you said outside of the quote. The transcript doesn't show there was no collusion. You were mistaken when you said so. You agree right?

Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •