Black Lives Matter has increased racial tension, 55%

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Dashinka said:

As to Trump being a Russian puppet, still waiting to see the proof on that one.

You know those are two different things, right? Trump campaign engagement with Russian agents actually happened. There's no evidence to support Trump being a Putin puppet.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

I will believe it when I see it, but considering the Biden family's strong financial ties to China, and the Eastern European energy industry, the evidence is already there.  As to Trump being a Russian puppet, still waiting to see the proof on that one.

Supposedly the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee knows it.. and didn't vote to remove Trump later to preserve the integrity of the Presidency and elections. Clearly they are all compromised by Putin too! 

[Dashinka 24,697]

Just now, moxy said:

You know those are two different things, right? Trump campaign engagement with Russian agents actually happened. There's no evidence to support Trump being a Putin puppet.

Yeah, still waiting to see any evidence beyond the illegally obtained FISA warrants.  Talking to anyone in Russia or China during a transition is expected, and I expect Joe's team is doing the same thing, and everyone in Russia or China is by definition and agent of their respective states.

 

Btw, did you call out the Hillary campaign for colluding with foreign agents during the 2016 campaign? 

[moxy 1,051]

10 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

Citation from the committee.. please.  

https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-elections-politics-campaigns-5e833a62e9492f6a66624b7920cc846a

 

And here's the report: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

 

These are not Wordpress blogs that push a narrative supported by facts spun from whole cloth though, so I expect you'll reject it out of hand. It's ok, I understand.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

4 minutes ago, moxy said:

https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-elections-politics-campaigns-5e833a62e9492f6a66624b7920cc846a

 

And here's the report: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

 

These are not Wordpress blogs that push a narrative supported by facts spun from whole cloth though, so I expect you'll reject it out of hand. It's ok, I understand.

Not going to read the entire report, you can cite where it says what you're saying it does. ("Trump campaign was colluding with Russian agents")

[moxy 1,051]

4 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Btw, did you call out the Hillary campaign for colluding with foreign agents during the 2016 campaign? 

Well I was inactive on VJ in 2016, but if you're talking about the Steele dossier then no, I did not call out Hillary Clinton for the Steele dossier.

 

Here's one analysis of the charge that Clinton colluded.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/02/09/did-hillary-clinton-collude-with-the-russians-to-get-dirt-on-trump-to-feed-it-to-the-fbi/

 

If you don't like this source, there are many other sources that conclude the same thing that are a Google search away. But you probably won't want to do that because it doesn't fit the Trumpian narrative. FWIW, I did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Not going to read the entire report, you can cite where it says what you're saying it does. ("Trump campaign was colluding with Russian agents")

Literally why I provided the AP link. Come on man, I can lead you to water but at some point it's your responsibility to drink.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

4 minutes ago, moxy said:

Literally why I provided the AP link. Come on man, I can lead you to water but at some point it's your responsibility to drink.

The AP doesn't cite what you're saying. It describes conversations between people in the Trump admin and Russia but no "collusion", which is a word that infers something criminal. If this was the case, where is it? And why did the special counsel conclude differently (than you) that no Americans conspired with Russia (for who knows what)?

Edited December 1, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The AP doesn't cite what you're saying. It describes conversations between people in the Trump admin and Russia but no "collusion", which is a word that infers something criminal. If this was the case, where is it? And why did the special counsel conclude differently (than you) that no Americans conspired with Russia (for who knows what)?

 

"The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and that other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers."

 

Russia launched an effort to interfere with the election on Trump's behalf. The Trump campaign had "regular contact" with a Russian intelligence officer, "eager to exploit the Kremlin's aid."

 

But ok.

[Dashinka 24,697]

18 minutes ago, moxy said:

Well I was inactive on VJ in 2016, but if you're talking about the Steele dossier then no, I did not call out Hillary Clinton for the Steele dossier.

 

Here's one analysis of the charge that Clinton colluded.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/02/09/did-hillary-clinton-collude-with-the-russians-to-get-dirt-on-trump-to-feed-it-to-the-fbi/

 

If you don't like this source, there are many other sources that conclude the same thing that are a Google search away. But you probably won't want to do that because it doesn't fit the Trumpian narrative. FWIW, I did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

So the Hillary campaign paying a foreign agent to dig up dirt is not an issue?  Got it. 

[moxy 1,051]

3 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So the Hillary campaign paying a foreign agent to dig up dirt is not an issue?  Got it. 

"Finally, there is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele’s reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele."

 

Again, if you don't like WaPo's conclusion, there are others out there. Google is your friend. But there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton paid a foreign agent for the Steele dossier. I get that this does not fit the Trumpian narrative, but facts matter.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

28 minutes ago, moxy said:

 

"The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and that other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers."

 

Russia launched an effort to interfere with the election on Trump's behalf. The Trump campaign had "regular contact" with a Russian intelligence officer, "eager to exploit the Kremlin's aid."

 

But ok.

"They were eager to"

 

Eagerness doesn't describe a crime or criminal intent, they're effectively weasel words. This is why I want it from the report, rather than the MSM's untrustworthy paraphrasing of it.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Burnt Reynolds said:

"They were eager to"

 

Eagerness doesn't describe a crime or criminal intent. This is why I want it from the report, rather than the MSM's untrustworthy analysis of it.

 

LOL

Me: provides report and summary

You: The report is too long, I want a summary

Me: I provided a summary

You: The summary sucks, I want the report

Me: ...

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, moxy said:

 

LOL

Me: provides report and summary

You: The report is too long, I want a summary

Me: I provided a summary

You: The summary sucks, I want the report

Me: ...

 

LOOOOOOOOOL

 

I asked for a "citation from the committee", and when you just pasted two links after five seconds on Google, one being the 1,000 page report (which I'm not going to read), I said to cite where in the report it says what you say it does (which is exactly what I asked for the first time). I never asked for a summary.. at all. This is where reading helps. 😃

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Burnt Reynolds said:

LOOOOOOOOOL

 

I asked for a "citation from the committee", and when you just pasted two links after five seconds on Google, one being the 1,000 page report (which I'm not going to read), I said to cite where in the report it says what you say it does (which is exactly what I asked for the first time). I never asked for a summary.. at all. This is where reading helps. 😃

It's ok. I understand.