(02-02-2021 12:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 09:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Oh... I thought you were accusing me of that given your response to my post. I don't know... for the 500th time I don't take responsiblity for every single thing that anybody on the left side says.

I don't know the details of the RRR theory. I never really dug into it even at the time.

C'mon, you cannot plead ignorance. The RRR is the same as the Russia-Trump collusion theory by another name.

Yes or no, do you think Trump colluded with Russia? Mueller investigated this for three years, using 15 biased lawyers and some ethically challenged tactics, and came up with nothing. Yet we keep hearing about it from the left.

Once again, for your benefit, here is the conspiracy theory that your side clings to: At some point, Trump needed a hacker to steal Hillary's emails, and unable to find anybody of that ability in the USA, he turned to Putin to do it for him, and thus incurred a debt he could only repay with American secrets. The publication of Hillary's yoga schedules turned the tide in the Blue Wall states, and thus stole the election.

Yes or no, is that what you think????? Sure a lot of leftists who think so. Some of those are in Congress. Some are in the DNC. Some are here.

It is a ridiculous theory,, and doesn't merit a sneeze, much less a three year investigation. Agree?

Based on their inability to come up with anything concrete I don't believe in this theory. From what I understood at the time there was enough problematic information to warrant further investigation. I honestly never got that into it even when things were going crazy. Like... I don't really understand who Carter Page is and how he was involved.

He was involved because they needed a patsy to justify a larger investigation of Trump and make headlines that Trump was colluding with Russia and should be removed from office.

This was some of the "problematic information" you refer to. Another word for problematic information is lies..

Another lie was the Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

Since you seem to be uninformed of the events of the last 5 years, try looking up Strzok, Page, or ask Lad. He still believes.

Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.

Don’t let OO try and spin this too far. From the article he linked to, to try and say that Page was a patsy:

Quote: "It is not at all clear to me the FISA warrant would not have been signed but for this error," said Judge James Boasberg, explaining the sentence of probation instead of incarceration. "Even if Mr. Clinesmith had been accurate about Dr. Page's relationship with another government agency, the warrant may well have been signed and the surveillance authorized."

Finding that there wasn’t direct evidence of collusion does not mean that the suspicion and investigation wasn’t justified, yet that is what OO is selling.

The Trump Tower meeting is sufficient evidence to investigate the campaign. Manafort providing internal polling data to a Russian contact is sufficient evidence to investigate the campaign.

The gaslighting is strong here.

(02-02-2021 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 09:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  C'mon, you cannot plead ignorance. The RRR is the same as the Russia-Trump collusion theory by another name.

Yes or no, do you think Trump colluded with Russia? Mueller investigated this for three years, using 15 biased lawyers and some ethically challenged tactics, and came up with nothing. Yet we keep hearing about it from the left.

Once again, for your benefit, here is the conspiracy theory that your side clings to: At some point, Trump needed a hacker to steal Hillary's emails, and unable to find anybody of that ability in the USA, he turned to Putin to do it for him, and thus incurred a debt he could only repay with American secrets. The publication of Hillary's yoga schedules turned the tide in the Blue Wall states, and thus stole the election.

Yes or no, is that what you think????? Sure a lot of leftists who think so. Some of those are in Congress. Some are in the DNC. Some are here.

It is a ridiculous theory,, and doesn't merit a sneeze, much less a three year investigation. Agree?

Based on their inability to come up with anything concrete I don't believe in this theory. From what I understood at the time there was enough problematic information to warrant further investigation. I honestly never got that into it even when things were going crazy. Like... I don't really understand who Carter Page is and how he was involved.

He was involved because they needed a patsy to justify a larger investigation of Trump and make headlines that Trump was colluding with Russia and should be removed from office.

This was some of the "problematic information" you refer to. Another word for problematic information is lies..

Another lie was the Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

Since you seem to be uninformed of the events of the last 5 years, try looking up Strzok, Page, or ask Lad. He still believes.

Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.

Don’t let OO try and spin this too far. From the article he linked to, to try and say that Page was a patsy:

Quote: "It is not at all clear to me the FISA warrant would not have been signed but for this error," said Judge James Boasberg, explaining the sentence of probation instead of incarceration. "Even if Mr. Clinesmith had been accurate about Dr. Page's relationship with another government agency, the warrant may well have been signed and the surveillance authorized."

Finding that there wasn’t direct evidence of collusion does not mean that the suspicion and investigation wasn’t justified, yet that is what OO is selling.

The Trump Tower meeting is sufficient evidence to investigate the campaign. Manafort providing internal polling data to a Russian contact is sufficient evidence to investigate the campaign.

The gaslighting is strong here.

The sticking one's head in the sand is strong here.

(02-02-2021 12:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 09:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Oh... I thought you were accusing me of that given your response to my post. I don't know... for the 500th time I don't take responsiblity for every single thing that anybody on the left side says.

I don't know the details of the RRR theory. I never really dug into it even at the time.

C'mon, you cannot plead ignorance. The RRR is the same as the Russia-Trump collusion theory by another name.

Yes or no, do you think Trump colluded with Russia? Mueller investigated this for three years, using 15 biased lawyers and some ethically challenged tactics, and came up with nothing. Yet we keep hearing about it from the left.

Once again, for your benefit, here is the conspiracy theory that your side clings to: At some point, Trump needed a hacker to steal Hillary's emails, and unable to find anybody of that ability in the USA, he turned to Putin to do it for him, and thus incurred a debt he could only repay with American secrets. The publication of Hillary's yoga schedules turned the tide in the Blue Wall states, and thus stole the election.

Yes or no, is that what you think????? Sure a lot of leftists who think so. Some of those are in Congress. Some are in the DNC. Some are here.

It is a ridiculous theory,, and doesn't merit a sneeze, much less a three year investigation. Agree?

Based on their inability to come up with anything concrete I don't believe in this theory. From what I understood at the time there was enough problematic information to warrant further investigation. I honestly never got that into it even when things were going crazy. Like... I don't really understand who Carter Page is and how he was involved.

He was involved because they needed a patsy to justify a larger investigation of Trump and make headlines that Trump was colluding with Russia and should be removed from office.

This was some of the "problematic information" you refer to. Another word for problematic information is lies..

Another lie was the Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

Since you seem to be uninformed of the events of the last 5 years, try looking up Strzok, Page, or ask Lad. He still believes.

Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.

We suffered through three years of front page investigation on the flimsiest of excuses, coupled with lies, and fabrications. Now it appears the same people - your people - want to construct another conspiracy theory based on the old opinions ofr a single Congresswoman.

I asked everybody for a narrative that made this make sense. Lad, to his credit, was the only one to respond, and his summary was basically "where there is smoke, there may be fire". There wasn't fire, and the smoke was fabricated and arranged.

Lad think the Trump Tower meeting justifies the lies and innuendo. What happened there? The Russian lady was sent packing. Ooooh, the conspiracy. let's test the logic - if Trump was already in collusion with Russia, what would have been the necessity of the meeting? Why not just pick up the info from a dead drop or a phone call from Putin? In any case, the surveillance was already underway BEFORE that meeting, so using it as an excuse doesn't fly.

I am not giddy. I am pissed. the three years of this witch hunt led directly to Jan. 6, IMO. When the Dems had spent 3 years and $25M on attempting to prove that their lies were truth, all the time trumpeting it in the MSM, no wonder Trump was suspicious of the outcome of the elections. And no wonder many of his supporters were suspicious. After all, if they would hang their hats on something so illogical, what else might they try?

I am tired of the leftist Dems trying to paint every sneeze as treason. I don't agree with greene or what she said, but the left has a plethora of idiots too, and they actually did try to make their fever dreams come true, and now yall want to paint the whole conservative movement with the broad brush after trying to paint the Trump election with a broad brush based on left side lies, it just boggles my mind that you, of all people, could look up blinking and say "What happened? I was busy".

This seems to be the essence of the democratic party - hypocrisy and bias.

(02-02-2021 08:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 09:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Based on their inability to come up with anything concrete I don't believe in this theory. From what I understood at the time there was enough problematic information to warrant further investigation. I honestly never got that into it even when things were going crazy. Like... I don't really understand who Carter Page is and how he was involved.

He was involved because they needed a patsy to justify a larger investigation of Trump and make headlines that Trump was colluding with Russia and should be removed from office.

This was some of the "problematic information" you refer to. Another word for problematic information is lies..

Another lie was the Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

Since you seem to be uninformed of the events of the last 5 years, try looking up Strzok, Page, or ask Lad. He still believes.

Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.

Don’t let OO try and spin this too far. From the article he linked to, to try and say that Page was a patsy:

Quote: "It is not at all clear to me the FISA warrant would not have been signed but for this error," said Judge James Boasberg, explaining the sentence of probation instead of incarceration. "Even if Mr. Clinesmith had been accurate about Dr. Page's relationship with another government agency, the warrant may well have been signed and the surveillance authorized."

Finding that there wasn’t direct evidence of collusion does not mean that the suspicion and investigation wasn’t justified, yet that is what OO is selling.

The Trump Tower meeting is sufficient evidence to investigate the campaign. Manafort providing internal polling data to a Russian contact is sufficient evidence to investigate the campaign.

The gaslighting is strong here.

The sticking one's head in the sand is strong here.

I know, it's impressive how far your down your head is.

(02-02-2021 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 08:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 07:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He was involved because they needed a patsy to justify a larger investigation of Trump and make headlines that Trump was colluding with Russia and should be removed from office.

This was some of the "problematic information" you refer to. Another word for problematic information is lies..

Another lie was the Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

Since you seem to be uninformed of the events of the last 5 years, try looking up Strzok, Page, or ask Lad. He still believes.

Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.

Don’t let OO try and spin this too far. From the article he linked to, to try and say that Page was a patsy:

Quote: "It is not at all clear to me the FISA warrant would not have been signed but for this error," said Judge James Boasberg, explaining the sentence of probation instead of incarceration. "Even if Mr. Clinesmith had been accurate about Dr. Page's relationship with another government agency, the warrant may well have been signed and the surveillance authorized."

Finding that there wasn’t direct evidence of collusion does not mean that the suspicion and investigation wasn’t justified, yet that is what OO is selling.

The Trump Tower meeting is sufficient evidence to investigate the campaign. Manafort providing internal polling data to a Russian contact is sufficient evidence to investigate the campaign.

The gaslighting is strong here.

The sticking one's head in the sand is strong here.

I know, it's impressive how far your down your head is.

Well, if my head is down, then yours is up, and it's very dark in there.

I guess it is a Democratic tenet that expressing opinions contrary to the Democratic Party line is "gaslighting". Y'all seem to be very consistent in that.

Give me the narrative again, Obi-Wan. When did the nefarious activities of the Trump Campaign come to the attention of the FBI watchdogs? Was it when Flynn shook a Russian's hand at a state dinner? Was it the TT meeting? Was it when they set up Page? Or was it when the Clinton Campaign paid for the fake Steele Dossier and then presented it to the FISA court as evidence?

I admire your persistence in defending the faith. Reminds me of the loyal wife defending her husband's innocence even after the guilty verdict. Carry on, soldier.

I prefer to use logic and reason. Or, as you call it, gaslighting.

(02-02-2021 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 09:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  C'mon, you cannot plead ignorance. The RRR is the same as the Russia-Trump collusion theory by another name.

Yes or no, do you think Trump colluded with Russia? Mueller investigated this for three years, using 15 biased lawyers and some ethically challenged tactics, and came up with nothing. Yet we keep hearing about it from the left.

Once again, for your benefit, here is the conspiracy theory that your side clings to: At some point, Trump needed a hacker to steal Hillary's emails, and unable to find anybody of that ability in the USA, he turned to Putin to do it for him, and thus incurred a debt he could only repay with American secrets. The publication of Hillary's yoga schedules turned the tide in the Blue Wall states, and thus stole the election.

Yes or no, is that what you think????? Sure a lot of leftists who think so. Some of those are in Congress. Some are in the DNC. Some are here.

It is a ridiculous theory,, and doesn't merit a sneeze, much less a three year investigation. Agree?

Based on their inability to come up with anything concrete I don't believe in this theory. From what I understood at the time there was enough problematic information to warrant further investigation. I honestly never got that into it even when things were going crazy. Like... I don't really understand who Carter Page is and how he was involved.

He was involved because they needed a patsy to justify a larger investigation of Trump and make headlines that Trump was colluding with Russia and should be removed from office.

This was some of the "problematic information" you refer to. Another word for problematic information is lies..

Another lie was the Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

Since you seem to be uninformed of the events of the last 5 years, try looking up Strzok, Page, or ask Lad. He still believes.

Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.

We suffered through three years of front page investigation on the flimsiest of excuses, coupled with lies, and fabrications. Now it appears the same people - your people - want to construct another conspiracy theory based on the old opinions ofr a single Congresswoman.

Huh? We're not "constructing a conspiracy theory". Qanon is clearly a real thing. Or are you denying the existence of Qanon like Greene denies the existence of a school shooting at Parkland?

Quote:I asked everybody for a narrative that made this make sense. Lad, to his credit, was the only one to respond, and his summary was basically "where there is smoke, there may be fire". There wasn't fire, and the smoke was fabricated and arranged.

Lad think the Trump Tower meeting justifies the lies and innuendo. What happened there? The Russian lady was sent packing. Ooooh, the conspiracy. let's test the logic - if Trump was already in collusion with Russia, what would have been the necessity of the meeting? Why not just pick up the info from a dead drop or a phone call from Putin? In any case, the surveillance was already underway BEFORE that meeting, so using it as an excuse doesn't fly.

I am not giddy. I am pissed. the three years of this witch hunt led directly to Jan. 6, IMO. When the Dems had spent 3 years and $25M on attempting to prove that their lies were truth, all the time trumpeting it in the MSM, no wonder Trump was suspicious of the outcome of the elections. And no wonder many of his supporters were suspicious. After all, if they would hang their hats on something so illogical, what else might they try?

I am tired of the leftist Dems trying to paint every sneeze as treason.

Because we brought up Greene? OK.

Quote:I don't agree with greene or what she said, but the left has a plethora of idiots too, and they actually did try to make their fever dreams come true, and now yall want to paint the whole conservative movement with the broad brush after trying to paint the Trump election with a broad brush based on left side lies, it just boggles my mind that you, of all people, could look up blinking and say "What happened? I was busy".

I'm not painting the conservative movement with a broad brush regarding Greene or have you continually missed the quote that I posted like three times now?

I didn't say that I was busy. I said that I didn't choose to dig into it at the time. It seemed like something that could be a big deal or something that could be a big nothing. It's not like I was super into at the time gobbling up information on Page, Strzok, etc. I still don't really know who those people are. If I wasn't diving into the details of it back then I am certainly not going to spend my time doing so now.

Quote:[quote]
This seems to be the essence of the democratic party - hypocrisy and bias.

What does? That I didn't choose to go crazy in-depth on the details of the Mueller investigation? I'm confused.

(02-02-2021 09:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [quote='Rice93' pid='17253227' dateline='1612232151']

Based on their inability to come up with anything concrete I don't believe in this theory. From what I understood at the time there was enough problematic information to warrant further investigation. I honestly never got that into it even when things were going crazy. Like... I don't really understand who Carter Page is and how he was involved.

He was involved because they needed a patsy to justify a larger investigation of Trump and make headlines that Trump was colluding with Russia and should be removed from office.

This was some of the "problematic information" you refer to. Another word for problematic information is lies..

Another lie was the Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

Since you seem to be uninformed of the events of the last 5 years, try looking up Strzok, Page, or ask Lad. He still believes.

Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.

We suffered through three years of front page investigation on the flimsiest of excuses, coupled with lies, and fabrications. Now it appears the same people - your people - want to construct another conspiracy theory based on the old opinions ofr a single Congresswoman.

Huh? We're not "constructing a conspiracy theory". Qanon is clearly a real thing. Or are you denying the existence of Qanon like Greene denies the existence of a school shooting at Parkland?

Sure it is a real thing, just as it is real that there are some people who think the moon landing is faked. What is not real is that it is a mover and shaker in the GOP, despite the fearful cries from the MSM.

Quote:I asked everybody for a narrative that made this make sense. Lad, to his credit, was the only one to respond, and his summary was basically "where there is smoke, there may be fire". There wasn't fire, and the smoke was fabricated and arranged.

Lad think the Trump Tower meeting justifies the lies and innuendo. What happened there? The Russian lady was sent packing. Ooooh, the conspiracy. let's test the logic - if Trump was already in collusion with Russia, what would have been the necessity of the meeting? Why not just pick up the info from a dead drop or a phone call from Putin? In any case, the surveillance was already underway BEFORE that meeting, so using it as an excuse doesn't fly.

I am not giddy. I am pissed. the three years of this witch hunt led directly to Jan. 6, IMO. When the Dems had spent 3 years and $25M on attempting to prove that their lies were truth, all the time trumpeting it in the MSM, no wonder Trump was suspicious of the outcome of the elections. And no wonder many of his supporters were suspicious. After all, if they would hang their hats on something so illogical, what else might they try?

I am tired of the leftist Dems trying to paint every sneeze as treason.

Because we brought up Greene? OK.
No, because you are making an emphasis on greene. OK?

Quote:I don't agree with greene or what she said, but the left has a plethora of idiots too, and they actually did try to make their fever dreams come true, and now yall want to paint the whole conservative movement with the broad brush after trying to paint the Trump election with a broad brush based on left side lies, it just boggles my mind that you, of all people, could look up blinking and say "What happened? I was busy".

I'm not painting the conservative movement with a broad brush regarding Greene or have you continually missed the quote that I posted like three times now?

I didn't say that I was busy. I said that I didn't choose to dig into it at the time. It seemed like something that could be a big deal or something that could be a big nothing. It's not like I was super into at the time gobbling up information on Page, Strzok, etc. I still don't really know who those people are. If I wasn't diving into the details of it back then I am certainly not going to spend my time doing so now.

Then, since you are ignorant of the events of the last half-decade, maybe you should abstain from discussing it as though nothing of importance happened. Just because you are in the dark does not mean nothing happened. But I, for one, follwed the news, and what happened was a witch hunt, and now the witch hunters are complaining that we aren't sponsoring another witch hunt at their direction.

Quote:

Quote:This seems to be the essence of the democratic party - hypocrisy and bias.

What does? That I didn't choose to go crazy in-depth on the details of the Mueller investigation? I'm confused.

Being confused is easy when you opt to be in the dark. But, no, 93, I am talking about the faux outrage of your Democratic representatives over Greene, the same people who presented faux outrage over a conspiracy theory about Russia. Your party.

(02-02-2021 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 09:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-01-2021 11:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [quote='Rice93' pid='17253227' dateline='1612232151']

Based on their inability to come up with anything concrete I don't believe in this theory. From what I understood at the time there was enough problematic information to warrant further investigation. I honestly never got that into it even when things were going crazy. Like... I don't really understand who Carter Page is and how he was involved.

He was involved because they needed a patsy to justify a larger investigation of Trump and make headlines that Trump was colluding with Russia and should be removed from office.

This was some of the "problematic information" you refer to. Another word for problematic information is lies..

Another lie was the Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

Since you seem to be uninformed of the events of the last 5 years, try looking up Strzok, Page, or ask Lad. He still believes.

Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.

We suffered through three years of front page investigation on the flimsiest of excuses, coupled with lies, and fabrications. Now it appears the same people - your people - want to construct another conspiracy theory based on the old opinions ofr a single Congresswoman.

Huh? We're not "constructing a conspiracy theory". Qanon is clearly a real thing. Or are you denying the existence of Qanon like Greene denies the existence of a school shooting at Parkland?

Sure it is a real thing, just as it is real that there are some people who think the moon landing is faked. What is not real is that it is a mover and shaker in the GOP, despite the fearful cries from the MSM.

Quote:I asked everybody for a narrative that made this make sense. Lad, to his credit, was the only one to respond, and his summary was basically "where there is smoke, there may be fire". There wasn't fire, and the smoke was fabricated and arranged.

Lad think the Trump Tower meeting justifies the lies and innuendo. What happened there? The Russian lady was sent packing. Ooooh, the conspiracy. let's test the logic - if Trump was already in collusion with Russia, what would have been the necessity of the meeting? Why not just pick up the info from a dead drop or a phone call from Putin? In any case, the surveillance was already underway BEFORE that meeting, so using it as an excuse doesn't fly.

I am not giddy. I am pissed. the three years of this witch hunt led directly to Jan. 6, IMO. When the Dems had spent 3 years and $25M on attempting to prove that their lies were truth, all the time trumpeting it in the MSM, no wonder Trump was suspicious of the outcome of the elections. And no wonder many of his supporters were suspicious. After all, if they would hang their hats on something so illogical, what else might they try?

I am tired of the leftist Dems trying to paint every sneeze as treason.

Because we brought up Greene? OK.
No, because you are making an emphasis on greene. OK?

Quote:I don't agree with greene or what she said, but the left has a plethora of idiots too, and they actually did try to make their fever dreams come true, and now yall want to paint the whole conservative movement with the broad brush after trying to paint the Trump election with a broad brush based on left side lies, it just boggles my mind that you, of all people, could look up blinking and say "What happened? I was busy".

I'm not painting the conservative movement with a broad brush regarding Greene or have you continually missed the quote that I posted like three times now?

I didn't say that I was busy. I said that I didn't choose to dig into it at the time. It seemed like something that could be a big deal or something that could be a big nothing. It's not like I was super into at the time gobbling up information on Page, Strzok, etc. I still don't really know who those people are. If I wasn't diving into the details of it back then I am certainly not going to spend my time doing so now.

Then, since you are ignorant of the events of the last half-decade, maybe you should abstain from discussing it as though nothing of importance happened.

Whoa... slow your roll, homie. All I said is that I didn't find the Mueller investigation worthy of spending a ton of energy on. Now you're acting as if I'm not even aware of any world events.

Quote:Just because you are in the dark does not mean nothing happened. But I, for one, follwed the news, and what happened was a witch hunt, and now the witch hunters are complaining that we aren't sponsoring another witch hunt at their direction.

Which witch hunt are we asking to have sponsored? A witch hunt about Greene? That's what you consider a witch hunt?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:This seems to be the essence of the democratic party - hypocrisy and bias.

What does? That I didn't choose to go crazy in-depth on the details of the Mueller investigation? I'm confused.

Being confused is easy when you opt to be in the dark. But, no, 93, I am talking about the faux outrage of your Democratic representatives over Greene, the same people who presented faux outrage over a conspiracy theory about Russia. Your party.

OK... got it. You keep yelling at me about the Democrats and like I've told you a billion times I'm not the customer service representative for Democrats. I have my own views. Some of these align with AOC and some are the polar opposite.

(02-02-2021 10:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 09:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 12:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  He was involved because they needed a patsy to justify a larger investigation of Trump and make headlines that Trump was colluding with Russia and should be removed from office.

This was some of the "problematic information" you refer to. Another word for problematic information is lies..

Another lie was the Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

Since you seem to be uninformed of the events of the last 5 years, try looking up Strzok, Page, or ask Lad. He still believes.

Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.

We suffered through three years of front page investigation on the flimsiest of excuses, coupled with lies, and fabrications. Now it appears the same people - your people - want to construct another conspiracy theory based on the old opinions ofr a single Congresswoman.

Huh? We're not "constructing a conspiracy theory". Qanon is clearly a real thing. Or are you denying the existence of Qanon like Greene denies the existence of a school shooting at Parkland?

Sure it is a real thing, just as it is real that there are some people who think the moon landing is faked. What is not real is that it is a mover and shaker in the GOP, despite the fearful cries from the MSM.

Quote:I asked everybody for a narrative that made this make sense. Lad, to his credit, was the only one to respond, and his summary was basically "where there is smoke, there may be fire". There wasn't fire, and the smoke was fabricated and arranged.

Lad think the Trump Tower meeting justifies the lies and innuendo. What happened there? The Russian lady was sent packing. Ooooh, the conspiracy. let's test the logic - if Trump was already in collusion with Russia, what would have been the necessity of the meeting? Why not just pick up the info from a dead drop or a phone call from Putin? In any case, the surveillance was already underway BEFORE that meeting, so using it as an excuse doesn't fly.

I am not giddy. I am pissed. the three years of this witch hunt led directly to Jan. 6, IMO. When the Dems had spent 3 years and $25M on attempting to prove that their lies were truth, all the time trumpeting it in the MSM, no wonder Trump was suspicious of the outcome of the elections. And no wonder many of his supporters were suspicious. After all, if they would hang their hats on something so illogical, what else might they try?

I am tired of the leftist Dems trying to paint every sneeze as treason.

Because we brought up Greene? OK.
No, because you are making an emphasis on greene. OK?

Quote:I don't agree with greene or what she said, but the left has a plethora of idiots too, and they actually did try to make their fever dreams come true, and now yall want to paint the whole conservative movement with the broad brush after trying to paint the Trump election with a broad brush based on left side lies, it just boggles my mind that you, of all people, could look up blinking and say "What happened? I was busy".

I'm not painting the conservative movement with a broad brush regarding Greene or have you continually missed the quote that I posted like three times now?

I didn't say that I was busy. I said that I didn't choose to dig into it at the time. It seemed like something that could be a big deal or something that could be a big nothing. It's not like I was super into at the time gobbling up information on Page, Strzok, etc. I still don't really know who those people are. If I wasn't diving into the details of it back then I am certainly not going to spend my time doing so now.

Then, since you are ignorant of the events of the last half-decade, maybe you should abstain from discussing it as though nothing of importance happened.

Whoa... slow your roll, homie. All I said is that I didn't find the Mueller investigation worthy of spending a ton of energy on. Now you're acting as if I'm not even aware of any world events.

Quote:Just because you are in the dark does not mean nothing happened. But I, for one, follwed the news, and what happened was a witch hunt, and now the witch hunters are complaining that we aren't sponsoring another witch hunt at their direction.

Which witch hunt are we asking to have sponsored? A witch hunt about Greene? That's what you consider a witch hunt?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:This seems to be the essence of the democratic party - hypocrisy and bias.

What does? That I didn't choose to go crazy in-depth on the details of the Mueller investigation? I'm confused.

Being confused is easy when you opt to be in the dark. But, no, 93, I am talking about the faux outrage of your Democratic representatives over Greene, the same people who presented faux outrage over a conspiracy theory about Russia. Your party.

OK... got it. You keep yelling at me about the Democrats and like I've told you a billion times I'm not the customer service representative for Democrats. I have my own views. Some of these align with AOC and some are the polar opposite.

Yes, and who is the customer representative for the GOP? Go back to post #1.

(02-02-2021 10:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 09:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.

We suffered through three years of front page investigation on the flimsiest of excuses, coupled with lies, and fabrications. Now it appears the same people - your people - want to construct another conspiracy theory based on the old opinions ofr a single Congresswoman.

Huh? We're not "constructing a conspiracy theory". Qanon is clearly a real thing. Or are you denying the existence of Qanon like Greene denies the existence of a school shooting at Parkland?

Sure it is a real thing, just as it is real that there are some people who think the moon landing is faked. What is not real is that it is a mover and shaker in the GOP, despite the fearful cries from the MSM.

Quote:I asked everybody for a narrative that made this make sense. Lad, to his credit, was the only one to respond, and his summary was basically "where there is smoke, there may be fire". There wasn't fire, and the smoke was fabricated and arranged.

Lad think the Trump Tower meeting justifies the lies and innuendo. What happened there? The Russian lady was sent packing. Ooooh, the conspiracy. let's test the logic - if Trump was already in collusion with Russia, what would have been the necessity of the meeting? Why not just pick up the info from a dead drop or a phone call from Putin? In any case, the surveillance was already underway BEFORE that meeting, so using it as an excuse doesn't fly.

I am not giddy. I am pissed. the three years of this witch hunt led directly to Jan. 6, IMO. When the Dems had spent 3 years and $25M on attempting to prove that their lies were truth, all the time trumpeting it in the MSM, no wonder Trump was suspicious of the outcome of the elections. And no wonder many of his supporters were suspicious. After all, if they would hang their hats on something so illogical, what else might they try?

I am tired of the leftist Dems trying to paint every sneeze as treason.

Because we brought up Greene? OK.
No, because you are making an emphasis on greene. OK?

Quote:I don't agree with greene or what she said, but the left has a plethora of idiots too, and they actually did try to make their fever dreams come true, and now yall want to paint the whole conservative movement with the broad brush after trying to paint the Trump election with a broad brush based on left side lies, it just boggles my mind that you, of all people, could look up blinking and say "What happened? I was busy".

I'm not painting the conservative movement with a broad brush regarding Greene or have you continually missed the quote that I posted like three times now?

I didn't say that I was busy. I said that I didn't choose to dig into it at the time. It seemed like something that could be a big deal or something that could be a big nothing. It's not like I was super into at the time gobbling up information on Page, Strzok, etc. I still don't really know who those people are. If I wasn't diving into the details of it back then I am certainly not going to spend my time doing so now.

Then, since you are ignorant of the events of the last half-decade, maybe you should abstain from discussing it as though nothing of importance happened.

Whoa... slow your roll, homie. All I said is that I didn't find the Mueller investigation worthy of spending a ton of energy on. Now you're acting as if I'm not even aware of any world events.

Quote:Just because you are in the dark does not mean nothing happened. But I, for one, follwed the news, and what happened was a witch hunt, and now the witch hunters are complaining that we aren't sponsoring another witch hunt at their direction.

Which witch hunt are we asking to have sponsored? A witch hunt about Greene? That's what you consider a witch hunt?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:This seems to be the essence of the democratic party - hypocrisy and bias.

What does? That I didn't choose to go crazy in-depth on the details of the Mueller investigation? I'm confused.

Being confused is easy when you opt to be in the dark. But, no, 93, I am talking about the faux outrage of your Democratic representatives over Greene, the same people who presented faux outrage over a conspiracy theory about Russia. Your party.

OK... got it. You keep yelling at me about the Democrats and like I've told you a billion times I'm not the customer service representative for Democrats. I have my own views. Some of these align with AOC and some are the polar opposite.

Yes, and who is the customer representative for the GOP? Go back to post #1.

Lol. I did.

Big asked "I am curious about what people around here (across the political and ideological spectrum) think of them."

He also did a bang up job of saying that he was not speaking for anyone on this board when stating his thoughts and opinions on the matter.

(02-02-2021 10:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 09:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why would I spend my time becoming informed about this if it's not a theory that I believe holds water and none of you seem to either? Even at the time I did not decide to spend a lot of time digging into it because I decided that they would either find something or they would not. I am not sure why we are even discussing it at this point other than it is right-wingers response to literally anything that is brought up regarding issues on their side. You should be positively giddy about this "RRR". It gives you opportunities for whataboutism that I'm sure will last for years.

We suffered through three years of front page investigation on the flimsiest of excuses, coupled with lies, and fabrications. Now it appears the same people - your people - want to construct another conspiracy theory based on the old opinions ofr a single Congresswoman.

Huh? We're not "constructing a conspiracy theory". Qanon is clearly a real thing. Or are you denying the existence of Qanon like Greene denies the existence of a school shooting at Parkland?

Sure it is a real thing, just as it is real that there are some people who think the moon landing is faked. What is not real is that it is a mover and shaker in the GOP, despite the fearful cries from the MSM.

Quote:I asked everybody for a narrative that made this make sense. Lad, to his credit, was the only one to respond, and his summary was basically "where there is smoke, there may be fire". There wasn't fire, and the smoke was fabricated and arranged.

Lad think the Trump Tower meeting justifies the lies and innuendo. What happened there? The Russian lady was sent packing. Ooooh, the conspiracy. let's test the logic - if Trump was already in collusion with Russia, what would have been the necessity of the meeting? Why not just pick up the info from a dead drop or a phone call from Putin? In any case, the surveillance was already underway BEFORE that meeting, so using it as an excuse doesn't fly.

I am not giddy. I am pissed. the three years of this witch hunt led directly to Jan. 6, IMO. When the Dems had spent 3 years and $25M on attempting to prove that their lies were truth, all the time trumpeting it in the MSM, no wonder Trump was suspicious of the outcome of the elections. And no wonder many of his supporters were suspicious. After all, if they would hang their hats on something so illogical, what else might they try?

I am tired of the leftist Dems trying to paint every sneeze as treason.

Because we brought up Greene? OK.
No, because you are making an emphasis on greene. OK?

Quote:I don't agree with greene or what she said, but the left has a plethora of idiots too, and they actually did try to make their fever dreams come true, and now yall want to paint the whole conservative movement with the broad brush after trying to paint the Trump election with a broad brush based on left side lies, it just boggles my mind that you, of all people, could look up blinking and say "What happened? I was busy".

I'm not painting the conservative movement with a broad brush regarding Greene or have you continually missed the quote that I posted like three times now?

I didn't say that I was busy. I said that I didn't choose to dig into it at the time. It seemed like something that could be a big deal or something that could be a big nothing. It's not like I was super into at the time gobbling up information on Page, Strzok, etc. I still don't really know who those people are. If I wasn't diving into the details of it back then I am certainly not going to spend my time doing so now.

Then, since you are ignorant of the events of the last half-decade, maybe you should abstain from discussing it as though nothing of importance happened.

Whoa... slow your roll, homie. All I said is that I didn't find the Mueller investigation worthy of spending a ton of energy on. Now you're acting as if I'm not even aware of any world events.

Quote:Just because you are in the dark does not mean nothing happened. But I, for one, follwed the news, and what happened was a witch hunt, and now the witch hunters are complaining that we aren't sponsoring another witch hunt at their direction.

Which witch hunt are we asking to have sponsored? A witch hunt about Greene? That's what you consider a witch hunt?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:This seems to be the essence of the democratic party - hypocrisy and bias.

What does? That I didn't choose to go crazy in-depth on the details of the Mueller investigation? I'm confused.

Being confused is easy when you opt to be in the dark. But, no, 93, I am talking about the faux outrage of your Democratic representatives over Greene, the same people who presented faux outrage over a conspiracy theory about Russia. Your party.

OK... got it. You keep yelling at me about the Democrats and like I've told you a billion times I'm not the customer service representative for Democrats. I have my own views. Some of these align with AOC and some are the polar opposite.

Yes, and who is the customer representative for the GOP? Go back to post #1.

In post #1 Big simply asked you guys if you had an opinion on the subject.

You, OTOH, are continuously barking at me about things that piss you off about Democrats.

Big difference.

(02-02-2021 10:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 09:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  We suffered through three years of front page investigation on the flimsiest of excuses, coupled with lies, and fabrications. Now it appears the same people - your people - want to construct another conspiracy theory based on the old opinions ofr a single Congresswoman.

Huh? We're not "constructing a conspiracy theory". Qanon is clearly a real thing. Or are you denying the existence of Qanon like Greene denies the existence of a school shooting at Parkland?

Sure it is a real thing, just as it is real that there are some people who think the moon landing is faked. What is not real is that it is a mover and shaker in the GOP, despite the fearful cries from the MSM.

Quote:I asked everybody for a narrative that made this make sense. Lad, to his credit, was the only one to respond, and his summary was basically "where there is smoke, there may be fire". There wasn't fire, and the smoke was fabricated and arranged.

Lad think the Trump Tower meeting justifies the lies and innuendo. What happened there? The Russian lady was sent packing. Ooooh, the conspiracy. let's test the logic - if Trump was already in collusion with Russia, what would have been the necessity of the meeting? Why not just pick up the info from a dead drop or a phone call from Putin? In any case, the surveillance was already underway BEFORE that meeting, so using it as an excuse doesn't fly.

I am not giddy. I am pissed. the three years of this witch hunt led directly to Jan. 6, IMO. When the Dems had spent 3 years and $25M on attempting to prove that their lies were truth, all the time trumpeting it in the MSM, no wonder Trump was suspicious of the outcome of the elections. And no wonder many of his supporters were suspicious. After all, if they would hang their hats on something so illogical, what else might they try?

I am tired of the leftist Dems trying to paint every sneeze as treason.

Because we brought up Greene? OK.
No, because you are making an emphasis on greene. OK?

Quote:I don't agree with greene or what she said, but the left has a plethora of idiots too, and they actually did try to make their fever dreams come true, and now yall want to paint the whole conservative movement with the broad brush after trying to paint the Trump election with a broad brush based on left side lies, it just boggles my mind that you, of all people, could look up blinking and say "What happened? I was busy".

I'm not painting the conservative movement with a broad brush regarding Greene or have you continually missed the quote that I posted like three times now?

I didn't say that I was busy. I said that I didn't choose to dig into it at the time. It seemed like something that could be a big deal or something that could be a big nothing. It's not like I was super into at the time gobbling up information on Page, Strzok, etc. I still don't really know who those people are. If I wasn't diving into the details of it back then I am certainly not going to spend my time doing so now.

Then, since you are ignorant of the events of the last half-decade, maybe you should abstain from discussing it as though nothing of importance happened.

Whoa... slow your roll, homie. All I said is that I didn't find the Mueller investigation worthy of spending a ton of energy on. Now you're acting as if I'm not even aware of any world events.

Quote:Just because you are in the dark does not mean nothing happened. But I, for one, follwed the news, and what happened was a witch hunt, and now the witch hunters are complaining that we aren't sponsoring another witch hunt at their direction.

Which witch hunt are we asking to have sponsored? A witch hunt about Greene? That's what you consider a witch hunt?

Quote:

Quote:What does? That I didn't choose to go crazy in-depth on the details of the Mueller investigation? I'm confused.

Being confused is easy when you opt to be in the dark. But, no, 93, I am talking about the faux outrage of your Democratic representatives over Greene, the same people who presented faux outrage over a conspiracy theory about Russia. Your party.

OK... got it. You keep yelling at me about the Democrats and like I've told you a billion times I'm not the customer service representative for Democrats. I have my own views. Some of these align with AOC and some are the polar opposite.

Yes, and who is the customer representative for the GOP? Go back to post #1.

In post #1 Big simply asked you guys if you had an opinion on the subject.

You, OTOH, are continuously barking at me about things that piss you off about Democrats.

Big difference.

Mostly just the hypocrisy, bias, and policies.

(02-02-2021 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Huh? We're not "constructing a conspiracy theory". Qanon is clearly a real thing. Or are you denying the existence of Qanon like Greene denies the existence of a school shooting at Parkland?

Sure it is a real thing, just as it is real that there are some people who think the moon landing is faked. What is not real is that it is a mover and shaker in the GOP, despite the fearful cries from the MSM.




Because we brought up Greene? OK.
No, because you are making an emphasis on greene. OK?


I'm not painting the conservative movement with a broad brush regarding Greene or have you continually missed the quote that I posted like three times now?

I didn't say that I was busy. I said that I didn't choose to dig into it at the time. It seemed like something that could be a big deal or something that could be a big nothing. It's not like I was super into at the time gobbling up information on Page, Strzok, etc. I still don't really know who those people are. If I wasn't diving into the details of it back then I am certainly not going to spend my time doing so now.

Then, since you are ignorant of the events of the last half-decade, maybe you should abstain from discussing it as though nothing of importance happened.

Whoa... slow your roll, homie. All I said is that I didn't find the Mueller investigation worthy of spending a ton of energy on. Now you're acting as if I'm not even aware of any world events.

Quote:Just because you are in the dark does not mean nothing happened. But I, for one, follwed the news, and what happened was a witch hunt, and now the witch hunters are complaining that we aren't sponsoring another witch hunt at their direction.

Which witch hunt are we asking to have sponsored? A witch hunt about Greene? That's what you consider a witch hunt?

Quote: Being confused is easy when you opt to be in the dark. But, no, 93, I am talking about the faux outrage of your Democratic representatives over Greene, the same people who presented faux outrage over a conspiracy theory about Russia. Your party.

OK... got it. You keep yelling at me about the Democrats and like I've told you a billion times I'm not the customer service representative for Democrats. I have my own views. Some of these align with AOC and some are the polar opposite.

Yes, and who is the customer representative for the GOP? Go back to post #1.

In post #1 Big simply asked you guys if you had an opinion on the subject.

You, OTOH, are continuously barking at me about things that piss you off about Democrats.

Big difference.

Mostly just the hypocrisy, bias, and policies.

Got it... you have massive issues with them. Cool. Again... I'm not the customer service rep. You don't get to yell at me about every Democrat policy you don't like. I know that you aren't into discriminating against homosexuals like some Republicans so I wouldn't yell at you about that issue.

(02-01-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  C'mon, you cannot plead ignorance. The RRR is the same as the Russia-Trump collusion theory by another name.

Yes or no, do you think Trump colluded with Russia? Mueller investigated this for three years, using 15 biased lawyers and some ethically challenged tactics, and came up with nothing. Yet we keep hearing about it from the left.

Once again, for your benefit, here is the conspiracy theory that your side clings to: At some point, Trump needed a hacker to steal Hillary's emails, and unable to find anybody of that ability in the USA, he turned to Putin to do it for him, and thus incurred a debt he could only repay with American secrets. The publication of Hillary's yoga schedules turned the tide in the Blue Wall states, and thus stole the election.

Yes or no, is that what you think????? Sure a lot of leftists who think so. Some of those are in Congress. Some are in the DNC. Some are here.

It is a ridiculous theory,, and doesn't merit a sneeze, much less a three year investigation. Agree?

Here is the problem, and the reason I try not to engage with you. I don't know anyone on the left that believes the version of Trump-Russia that you describe. It is like you take elements of what some on the left believe or suspect based on the objective facts that are known, then warp things to a degree that is barely recognizable. So I agree that what you describe is a little nuts ... you just seem to be the only one who describes it as you do. Which is (of course) why I asked for descriptions or citations from someone other that you, preferably news sources. The reason you can't provide links from BBC or WSJ or anyone else describing the "conspiracy" is that no one believes the "conspiracy" as you describe it. When something does not have adherents, no one bothers to write it up. Other than some guy on a message board.

edit: please note that I am not denying that some on the left believe the connections between the Trump campaign, Trump administration, and Trump himself are stronger than was uncovered in the Mueller report. I just haven't really seen anyone going as far as you go with it. To me, your description of Trump-Russia is a straw man unless you can provide something objective that there are actually people who subjectively believe what you describe. And since this thread was started to discuss a few members of the House of Representatives, preferably you would describe something that a member of the House believes.

edit2: To summarize, I think there is a large gap between what you think people on the left believe and what people on the left actually believe. I have made this point to you numerous times and you don't seem to have internalized it. Many of things you believe that "leftists" believe are not what "leftists" actually believe.

(02-02-2021 04:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And since this thread was started to discuss a few members of the House of Representatives, preferably you would describe something that a member of the House believes.

See post# 262

(02-02-2021 05:11 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 04:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And since this thread was started to discuss a few members of the House of Representatives, preferably you would describe something that a member of the House believes.

See post# 262

Sorry, I inadvertently skipped ~10 posts in annoyance after reading part of one of Tanq's posts.

I don't consider something from the WSJ editorial board to be objective or news. I would still accept it at least of a description of the Trump-Russia "conspiracy" if that is what it described. But what you posted just seems to describe why the WSJ editorial board doesn't like Adam Schiff.

And like Lad mentioned above, the Mueller Report is a lot more thorough on Trump-Russia than what I could read of this WSJ editorial board post. It also doesn't really describe what OO seems to believe that "leftists" believe about Trump-Russia.

But I do apologize for missing your post. It was an oversight on my part.

(02-02-2021 05:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:11 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 04:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And since this thread was started to discuss a few members of the House of Representatives, preferably you would describe something that a member of the House believes.

See post# 262

Sorry, I inadvertently skipped ~10 posts in annoyance after reading part of one of Tanq's posts.

I don't consider something from the WSJ editorial board to be objective or news. I would still accept it at least of a description of the Trump-Russia "conspiracy" if that is what it described. But what you posted just seems to describe why the WSJ editorial board doesn't like Adam Schiff.

And like Lad mentioned above, the Mueller Report is a lot more thorough on Trump-Russia than what I could read of this WSJ editorial board post. It also doesn't really describe what OO seems to believe that "leftists" believe about Trump-Russia.

But I do apologize for missing your post. It was an oversight on my part.

Reaching a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean an investigation wasn't warranted, and it's frustrating that this argument continues to be made despite some really damning evidence that has never been refuted.

Jr alone replying how he would love to get some dirt on Hillary released, then meeting with a Russian lobbyist and former counterintelligence officer, then lying about the purpose of the meeting, should be enough to raise alarm bells and warrant an investigation. So this talking point about how it was all an illusion is bunk.

I agree that some of the more salacious ideas parroted by talking heads, liberals, etc. were unfounded and crazy (paging Louise Mensch and the espionage tweet). But the crazy conspiracies of those from some on the left don't invalidate the very real activities that raised alarm bells in the intelligence community.

(02-02-2021 05:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:11 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 04:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And since this thread was started to discuss a few members of the House of Representatives, preferably you would describe something that a member of the House believes.

See post# 262

Sorry, I inadvertently skipped ~10 posts in annoyance after reading part of one of Tanq's posts.

I don't consider something from the WSJ editorial board to be objective or news. I would still accept it at least of a description of the Trump-Russia "conspiracy" if that is what it described. But what you posted just seems to describe why the WSJ editorial board doesn't like Adam Schiff.

And like Lad mentioned above, the Mueller Report is a lot more thorough on Trump-Russia than what I could read of this WSJ editorial board post. It also doesn't really describe what OO seems to believe that "leftists" believe about Trump-Russia.

But I do apologize for missing your post. It was an oversight on my part.

Editorial or not, the WSJ link does a good job of describing what Schiff believes about the Russia conspiracy, including multiple Schiff quotes, IMO.

But I appreciate and accept your apology.

(02-02-2021 06:36 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Editorial or not, the WSJ link does a good job of describing what Schiff believes about the Russia conspiracy, including multiple Schiff quotes, IMO.

But I appreciate and accept your apology.

I only read the part you quoted, as I do not have a WSJ subscription and apparently whatever number of free articles I can read have been used up!

(02-02-2021 02:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 01:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Whoa... slow your roll, homie. All I said is that I didn't find the Mueller investigation worthy of spending a ton of energy on. Now you're acting as if I'm not even aware of any world events.


Which witch hunt are we asking to have sponsored? A witch hunt about Greene? That's what you consider a witch hunt?


OK... got it. You keep yelling at me about the Democrats and like I've told you a billion times I'm not the customer service representative for Democrats. I have my own views. Some of these align with AOC and some are the polar opposite.

Yes, and who is the customer representative for the GOP? Go back to post #1.

In post #1 Big simply asked you guys if you had an opinion on the subject.

You, OTOH, are continuously barking at me about things that piss you off about Democrats.

Big difference.

Mostly just the hypocrisy, bias, and policies.

Got it... you have massive issues with them. Cool. Again... I'm not the customer service rep. You don't get to yell at me about every Democrat policy you don't like. I know that you aren't into discriminating against homosexuals like some Republicans so I wouldn't yell at you about that issue.

I know you arent into confiscating all private property like some Democrats so I wont yell at you about that issue. Sound like a fair trade? How about a fair trade of stupid rhetoric?