Hodad

No, deflected and dodged. You can't bring yourself to say the words, to acknowledge the plain facts. Look, it's easy. Bob Menendez accepted bribes. Hunter Biden lied on his gun paperwork. Paul Manafort colluded with Russian intelligence. All three are plain facts. But as a rabid partisan you simply cannot acknowledge the third. Bizarre.

Sensitive campaign polling and strategy. Read the reports. And yes, we all know your theory that "well, yeah, he did it, but no big deal." If Manafort wasn't doing anything wrong, why the elaborate tradecraft to hide it? Why lie to the FBI? What's very evident is that Manafort gave Russian Intelligence the information the Russians needed to align to the Trump campaign.

You won't even acknowledge the basic facts of what Manafort did, so who else knew or participated is miles beyond you. It's more important to you to be partisan than to be honest about a basic matter of public record. So weird and hacky.

Can you acknowledge that as a matter of public record, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort colluded with Russian Intelligence Services? Again, super easy question. You're avoiding it like crazy, moving on to defending Trump. Can you do it? Can you acknowledge the basic, farking facts of this situation?

So you are prepared to admit that Manafort, on Trump's campaign, colluded with Russian intelligence? Again, easy question.

I have no idea what User says. He's on ignore for being fundamentally dishonest and generally useless. Does this mean you can't answer for yourself? Easy questions. Well, be easy for any honest person.

As we discussed in the other thread, you're a bit of a chickenshit afraid to publicly answer basic questions about matters of public record.

Again, do you dispute any of those "tidbits" (your pet name for facts that are a matter of public record?) or not? Because the evidence against Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, is utterly damning. If you don't dispute those facts, the only refuge for Trump is that he didn't know what his campaign manager was doing with Russia to help him win. Is that what you'd like to claim? Oh, and as a bonus can I assume that you'd like to claim that he didn't know what Roger Stone was doing either?

Trump wins on substance? Lol. I'm not sure he made a correct claim all night. You may be on some sort of substance...

What's the premise? I asked if you disputed any of those facts identified in our official government reports on the subject. But apparently you didn't have the cajones to answer. And it's pretty plain to see why. If you can't dispute the facts it makes it hard to pretend that collusion didn't happen without looking like gullible fool. So you dodge and dodge again.

I've yet to see a MAGA Republican who knows anything or has the juice to argue his way out of a paper bag (that's how one becomes a MAGA Republican after all)but boy are they confident and loud! Just like their Messiah. Alex Jones is frequently mentioned on this board. You've posted about him several times. You sound like Trump suddenly not knowing David Duke, Nick Fuentes or the Proud Boys, lol. But for the folks playing along at home, Jones recently lost everything (even more than Fox, about $1.5B IIRC) for leading a conservative conspiracy that the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax and leading an online mob to harass those grieving parents.

In that case you should probably update it to read "KSU afraid to answer basic questions."

Fast of mouth and slow of thought as you are, not surprised that you can't track your own post, but yes, feeding strategic information to the foreign intelligence service that is using such information in an operation intended to help you win an election is exactly what collusion is. Now, you could argue that Manafort didn't know, but that would make him even dumber than you. Improbable.

Deflect, dodge, duck and weave, but whatever you do, don't answer basic questions. And be sure not to trip over that tucked tail. Do you dispute that Manafort was Trump's campaign manager? Do you dispute that regularly had clandestine meetings and communications with Kilimnik? Do you dispute that at those meetings he gave Kilimnik "sensitive" internal polling and strategy from the Trump campaign? Do you dispute that Kilimnik in turn relayed that information to Russian intelligence services? Do you dispute that Russian intelligence services was running an active election interference and disinformation campaign against US voters with the express aim of helping Trump win?

A. The articles do NOT say that. They report that someone else said that. B. You are clearly ignorant of the contents of the reports, or you wouldn't have any trouble answering these basic questions. I'm going to do some spoon feeding here: From the Senate Intelligence Committee report, The Committee report also stated: By 2021 intelligence had confirmed the link and new sanctions were announced against Kilimnik Konstantin Kilimnik (Kilimnik) is a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant and known Russian Intelligence Services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy. __________ Now that you have the information right in front of your face, do you dispute any of those points? It's a simple question. You don't have to deflect or post old articles. You have the reports.

I "never" cite their conclusions? Several posts above I saw you quote the partisan spin section of the Senate Intelligence Committee report. I don't think you know how to read the reports. So perhaps stick to the facts of the report rather than the spin. Again, do you dispute any of those facts that are a matter of record?

I know we're now on page 2 of this thread (and that's a long time to remember) but you know the Mueller report was just the first of at lest 3 relevant reports, right? I'm trying to figure out how any remotely rational person still disputes the fact of collusion. Do you dispute that Manafort was Trump's campaign manager? Do you dispute that regularly had clandestine meetings and communications with Kilimnik? Do you dispute that at those meetings he gave Kilimnik "sensitive" internal polling and strategy from the Trump campaign? Do you dispute that Kilimnik in turn relayed that information to Russian intelligence services? Do you dispute that Russian intelligence services was running an active election interference and disinformation campaign against US voters with the express aim of helping Trump win? Those are all facts of historical record at this point. Do you have secret information that indicates that any of them are incorrect? If not, then you must acknowledge collusion.

Beyond any doubt, and as a matter of government record, the Trump campaign (his campaign manager, no less) colluded with Russia. You can pretend that Trump didn't know about it, but his commentary and his response say otherwise. Rather than condemning them for the betrayal, he pardoned for them or their crimes.

I would guess that Democrats definitely think Trump is a bad person with bad ideas. And they're right.

Yes, folks. The Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News Daily Caller, Newsmax, Conservapedia, Truth Social, Bildenberg, Illuminati, New World Order, 9-11 Truther, Birther, Q-Anon, election fraud, immigrants-eating-pets, MAGA republicans are the new "rational majority." You heard it here first.

They've pumped the chumps. Let the dump begin! Trump Media co-founder and former ‘Apprentice’ contestant dumps about $100 million worth of stock Yes, anybody who trusts Trump with their investment deserves what they get. (This was never a remotely plausible business.) But it's also a real shame that Mom and Pop investors are going to get hurt because they fell for a classic con from a known con man.

Don't be silly. Nobody was sacrificing their state economies to "hurt Trump." That's conspiracy kook stuff. Consider rational explanations instead for whatever it is you think you observed. Epidemiology in urban vs rural settings etc.

You're rewriting history here. Loughner was not "far left" in any way. He was a registered independent, but outspokenly anti-government, anti-school, and attached to the right-wing conspiracies of the day regarding the New World Order, government mind control, 9-11 truther etc. Bottom line though, nutty as a fruit cake. Have to be to take those conspiracy theories seriously enough to act on them.

I'm sure we can clear this up with a letter to his senior campaign staff. Oh, wait, they resigned en masse when they discovered that their guy was a creep and a self-proclaimed nazi.

The idea that you "think for yourself" is honestly the craziest thing you've ever said. At best, you're a poor parrot of the nonsense you mainline from Fox. Masks are not unhealthy. Used properly and of appropriate quality, they work. And nice try spinning on Warp Speed. The fact remains that Pfizer did it first, and arguably better, without any assistance from Trump. Turns out a multi-billion dollar business opportunity is its own motivator. 🎓