Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crossbow said:
If you can ever figure out what it is that you are bitching about, then please let the rest of us know.
Click to expand...


It seems like you are trapped in some strange loop. There isn't a "rest of us", it's only you. And you seem to have forgotten how to parse basic English. For your orientation, I would guess it is the 11th time you used that confused return on me now.
 
Childlike Empress said:
It seems like you are trapped in some strange loop. There isn't a "rest of us", it's only you. And you seem to have forgotten how to parse basic English. For your orientation, I would guess it is the 11th time you used that confused return on me now.
Click to expand...

In case you have not noticed, your postings can be seen by literally everyone who has access to the Forum. Therefore, there is an "us".

In any event, you have bitching about a subject where you get your information from crap sources of information. And now you are bitching about a book that you have not even read.

So if you can ever figure out just what it is that you are bitching about, then please let the rest of us know.
 
^ makes the dozen full, which is when Trump will be brought down by pre$$titutes as Killary announced in Russian language in a cave under a pizza booth in DC two years to the day ago.
 
Childlike Empress said:
you seem to have forgotten how to parse basic English.
Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
^ makes the dozen full, which is when Trump will be brought down by pre$$titutes as Killary announced in Russian language in a cave under a pizza booth in DC two years to the day ago.
Click to expand...

Any chance of you using basic English in your posts?

calling people stupid names, 'edgily' altering names by switching letters for $¥m&õ£$ and using portmanteau just makes you look childish.

I'd also recommend looking into some better quality source material if you'd prefer to be taken seriously.
 
Ambrosia said:
Any chance of you using basic English in your posts?

calling people stupid names, 'edgily' altering names by switching letters for $¥m&õ£$ and using portmanteau just makes you look childish.

I'd also recommend looking into some better quality source material if you'd prefer to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Translation of CE's posts: Russia is always right and good, Western press is always lying (and well paid for it, too), and Western leaders are always criminals and murderers unless they suck Putin's ****.
 
Childlike Empress said:
^ makes the dozen full, which is when Trump will be brought down by pre$$titutes as Killary announced in Russian language in a cave under a pizza booth in DC two years to the day ago.
Click to expand...

Instead of posting gibberish try making sense.

Or as I have said before:

If you can ever figure out what it is that you are bitching about, then please let the rest of us know.
 
Ambrosia said:
Any chance of you using basic English in your posts?

calling people stupid names, 'edgily' altering names by switching letters for $¥m&õ£$ and using portmanteau just makes you look childish.

I'd also recommend looking into some better quality source material if you'd prefer to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I have two words to.assist in interpretation.

"No planer"

For further research into this peculiar world view, please consult the 9/11 Conspiracy sub-forum
 
Childlike Empress said:
No, he stole material from the subversive English-language Moscow-based eXile magazine back in the days when he was The Guardian's Moscow correspondent and published it there under his name. It was so obvious that the propaganda rag even apologized. Harding then fled Moscow in a hilarious nervous breakdown (he wasn't "kicked out" like he claims in the video).
Click to expand...
You didn't wtiness that "hilarious nervous breakdown", did you? You just read about it and clutched it to your breast. Not just because it denigrates the author, and so, by your lights, discredits the book, but because it actually gives you pleasure to hear and believe it. Be honest, it does, doesn't it?
 
Ambrosia said:
Any chance of you using basic English in your posts?

calling people stupid names, 'edgily' altering names by switching letters for $¥m&õ£$ and using portmanteau just makes you look childish.

I'd also recommend looking into some better quality source material if you'd prefer to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your concern. If you are unable to decipher my humour in response to the parrots, I recommend you stick to my "source material" to learn something, as the "source material" of the parrots is what has apparently deceived you in the first place and constantly emerges from every medium you likely use in addition to these fine threads.
 
CapelDodger said:
You didn't wtiness that "hilarious nervous breakdown", did you? You just read about it and clutched it to your breast. Not just because it denigrates the author, and so, by your lights, discredits the book, but because it actually gives you pleasure to hear and believe it. Be honest, it does, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


I witnessed it as it is still on the Guardian website in all its "enemy of the state" glory. And I wouldn't enjoy it if I would take it seriously and wouldn't know what he was up to before (including stealing Ames and Taibbi's work). He's a "hack in the purest sense" as I think Assange called him. Or "story teller" as he called himself in the video interview I posted.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
I witnessed it as it is still on the Guardian website in all its "enemy of the state" glory. And I wouldn't enjoy it if I would take it seriously and wouldn't know what he was up to before (including stealing Ames and Taibbi's work). He's a "hack in the purest sense" as I think Assange called him. Or "story teller" as he called himself in the video interview I posted.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you read that and inferred, all by your lonesome, a hilarious nervous breakdown rather than what the article explicitly said.

Which makes your clinging to this description even more pathetic than had you read it elsewhere and wanted to believe.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Thanks for your concern. If you are unable to decipher my humour in response to the parrots, I recommend you stick to my "source material" to learn something, as the "source material" of the parrots is what has apparently deceived you in the first place and constantly emerges from every medium you likely use in addition to these fine threads.
Click to expand...

Do yourself a favor by writing posts that that actually make sense as opposed to posting stupid crap that you find to be amusing.
 
phiwum said:
Ah, so you read that and inferred, all by your lonesome, a hilarious nervous breakdown rather than what the article explicitly said.
Click to expand...


Rule of so. Ever heard of eXile? I read his breakdown in context when it happened. And you are mouthing off about something you never heard of before, just because you feel insecure about the boomerang. I'm here for you to feel better.
 
Crossbow said:
Do yourself a favor by writing posts that that actually make sense as opposed to posting stupid crap that you find to be amusing.
Click to expand...


Don't tell me what to do, buddy. Why would that do me a favour (forgot about that English thing already?) anyway? Writing posts that make sense to you? And I don't find amusing? Sound like a crappy plan to me.
 
Perhaps you could explain what you think the significance of your latest line of posting is, Empress? So far you linked to an interview with the author of a book that says things you disagree with, then you've said that the author is a plagiarist, and that he had a mental break down in the past. Okay, so what? Nobody had mentioned him before you brought him up. If everything in that book is plagiarised or is something he invented, what significance would that have to anything that's going on?

It seems to me that the only real take away, if we take every post of yours at face value and accept all the arguments therein, is not to cite this particular author as a cite. Okay, nobody will going forwards, just as nobody did before you brought him up. So what?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Don't tell me what to do, buddy. Why would that do me a favour (forgot about that English thing already?) anyway? Writing posts that make sense to you? And I don't find amusing? Sound like a crappy plan to me.
Click to expand...

In the first place, I did not tell you what to do. Instead, I gave you some advice on how to avoid writing crap postings.

There is a substantial difference between these two concepts.

In the second place, you can expect me to continue to call out crap when I see it.
 
With the holidays, I've fallen behind in my lurking.

I take it there are folks who don't believe that the Trump campaign was working with the Russians, but are any still denying that there was contact between the two? Is anyone denying that the Russians were actively helping the Trump campaign and the GOP in general?
 
Upchurch said:
With the holidays, I've fallen behind in my lurking.

I take it there are folks who don't believe that the Trump campaign was working with the Russians, but are any still denying that there was contact between the two? Is anyone denying that the Russians were actively helping the Trump campaign and the GOP in general?
Click to expand...

The primary groups making those arguments (intelligence agencies) do not present all their evidence in an open and honest way. So I dismiss their argument until they do.
 
Upchurch said:
With the holidays, I've fallen behind in my lurking.

I take it there are folks who don't believe that the Trump campaign was working with the Russians, but are any still denying that there was contact between the two? Is anyone denying that the Russians were actively helping the Trump campaign and the GOP in general?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, even the ardent Trump supporters have conceded the now obvious fact that there were at least a few highly placed people in the Trump campaign who were in collusion with the Russians in order to help Trump win the election.

However, since there is no 'smoking gun' (as least one has not been discovered thus far) which shows that Trump himself was in collusion with the Russians, therefore the ardent Trump supporters like to claim that there was not any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

I know that the logic of the Trump supporters is rather odd, but that is the best sense that I can make of it.
 
Crossbow said:
As far as I can tell, even the ardent Trump supporters have conceded the now obvious fact that there were at least a few highly placed people in the Trump campaign who were in collusion with the Russians in order to help Trump win the election.

.
Click to expand...

I don't think we have that. There is evidence of a willingness to collude, but you don't have the smoking gun of a handshake, either.
 
Upchurch said:
With the holidays, I've fallen behind in my lurking.

I take it there are folks who don't believe that the Trump campaign was working with the Russians, but are any still denying that there was contact between the two? Is anyone denying that the Russians were actively helping the Trump campaign and the GOP in general?
Click to expand...


Nobody is denying that the Russians preferred Trump over Killary, not least because of his campaign promises about trying to fix the relationship that had so much suffered due to the machinations of mostly Obama's State Department and CIA.

As to the "Collusion" conspiracy theory, at the forefront of research is now who did what in the small group which hoaxed that CT. The FBI side is pretty clear, the DoJ side is under increasing open source investigation at the moment.

As a main goal of the hoax dossier was to get a warrant to spy on the political opponent, which was successful and led to the gotcha! moments with Flynn and Papadopoulus, it is totally clear that no surprise revelations are to come from the Mueller investigation. Because if there were a there there, we would know for a long time already, thanks to the surveillance.

The revelations to expect are in the investigation of the conspirators to hoax a conspiracy.

Results due in January.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Nobody is denying that the Russians preferred Trump over Killary, not least because of his campaign promises about trying to fix the relationship that had so much suffered due to the machinations of mostly Obama's State Department and CIA.

As to the "Collusion" conspiracy theory, at the forefront of research is now who did what in the small group which hoaxed that CT. The FBI side is pretty clear, the DoJ side is under increasing open source investigation at the moment.

As a main goal of the hoax dossier was to get a warrant to spy on the political opponent, which was successful and led to the gotcha! moments with Flynn and Papadopoulus, it is totally clear that no surprise revelations are to come from the Mueller investigation. Because if there were a there there, we would know for a long time already, thanks to the surveillance.

The revelations to expect are in the investigation of the conspirators to hoax a conspiracy.

Results due in January.
Click to expand...

The Dossier probably didn't have much to do with the Warrant since it was known Flynn Lied, as did Manafort to the State department.
That along with CIA monitoring of Russian Communications was sufficient for the Warrant The Dossier, is just another distraction.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Because if there were a there there, we would know for a long time already, thanks to the surveillance.
Click to expand...

You're making the same mistake that the Russian propaganda sites you like linking to do - of assuming that the fact that information hasn't been released publicly is the same thing as no information existing. You don't know what colour my eyes are, but that doesn't mean that my eyes are colourless.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It isn't clear that there was collusion. It is clear they wanted to collude.you mentioned smoking guns. There isn't a smoking gun that a successful agreement or understanding was reached.
Click to expand...

Well then, since you insist that torture is constitutional, I guess you have forgotten about the meeting between that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort had with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have documents and incriminating information about Hillary Clinton.

This is just one of several examples of highly placed Trump campaign officials colluding with Russia.
 
Crossbow said:
Well then, since you insist that torture is constitutional, I guess you have forgotten about the meeting between that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort had with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have documents and incriminating information about Hillary Clinton.

This is just one of several examples of highly placed Trump campaign officials colluding with Russia.
Click to expand...

But there is nothing that proves they shook hands on collusion. All parties deny it. You have no recording of the meeting. You have no secret communication after the meeting detailing a plan. It isn't a smoking gun. It is clear willingness to collude (what I said). You really don't have something to prove they are wrong about the proposed scenario that she lied to discuss the adoption law.

Torture, under certain circumstances, is absolutely constitutional.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
But there is nothing that proves they shook hands on collusion. All parties deny it. You have no recording of the meeting. You have no secret communication after the meeting detailing a plan. It isn't a smoking gun. It is clear willingness to collude (what I said). You really don't have something to prove they are wrong about the proposed scenario that she lied to discuss the adoption law.

Torture, under certain circumstances, is absolutely constitutional.
Click to expand...

This is the most nonsensical defense of anything I've ever seen in my entire life. You're basically saying that they had every desire to do it, but didn't because...huh? This "smoking gun" ******** is just that. It's burying ones head in the sand in order to deny the reality happening all over. People have been arrested, emails have come out, there is a consistent trail leading to arrests. Why? Why even bother making such a flaccid argument?
 
BobTheCoward said:
But there is nothing that proves they shook hands on collusion. All parties deny it. You have no recording of the meeting. You have no secret communication after the meeting detailing a plan. It isn't a smoking gun. It is clear willingness to collude (what I said). You really don't have something to prove they are wrong about the proposed scenario that she lied to discuss the adoption law.

Torture, under certain circumstances, is absolutely constitutional.
Click to expand...

True, I do not have a recording of this meeting. But as I said, this was just one case of many which show high Trump officials colluding with the Russians.

Further, this may be news to an incredibly smart person like yourself, but criminals often deny that they did something criminal. Just like many people who have used torture deny that they did anything illegal by using torture.

Therefore, one needs to be quite careful about using statements from people doing criminal acts in order to serve justice.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You're making the same mistake that the Russian propaganda sites you like linking to do - of assuming that the fact that information hasn't been released publicly is the same thing as no information existing. You don't know what colour my eyes are, but that doesn't mean that my eyes are colourless.
Click to expand...


It is almost 2018, Squeegee. You have been waiting faithfully all the time, and I told you all the time it is in vain. Saint Mueller isn't coming. You've been fooled. To the extent that everybody who hasn't is a "Russian agent" in your mind. That's embarrassing.
 
plague311 said:
This is the most nonsensical defense of anything I've ever seen in my entire life. You're basically saying that they had every desire to do it, but didn't because...huh? This "smoking gun" ******** is just that. It's burying ones head in the sand in order to deny the reality happening all over. People have been arrested, emails have come out, there is a consistent trail leading to arrests. Why? Why even bother making such a flaccid argument?
Click to expand...

I don't invoke "smoking gun." Crossbow did in post 220. I pointed out that if part of the denial was that there is no smoking gun linking trump to collusion (what crossbow said in the second para) then there is also no smoking gun for what he alleged in his first paragraph.
 
Childlike Empress said:
It is almost 2018, Squeegee. You have been waiting faithfully all the time, and I told you all the time it is in vain. Saint Mueller isn't coming. You've been fooled. To the extent that everybody who hasn't is a "Russian agent" in your mind. That's embarrassing.
Click to expand...

With your exceptional skills at determining future events, then you must one of those incredibly wealthy people who built their fortune by only buying winning lottery tickets.
 
Crossbow said:
True, I do not have a recording of this meeting. But as I said, this was just one case of many which show high Trump officials colluding with the Russians.

Further, this may be news to an incredibly smart person like yourself, but criminals often deny that they did something criminal. Just like many people who have used torture deny that they did anything illegal by using torture.

Therefore, one needs to be quite careful about using statements from people doing criminal acts in order to serve justice.
Click to expand...

We were talking about "smoking gun." I don't think you have any smoking guns in any of this. Is there stuff other than smoking guns? Sure. But you are the one who brought up the term.
 
Crossbow said:
With your exceptional skills at determining future events, then you must one of those incredibly wealthy people who built their fortune by only buying winning lottery tickets.
Click to expand...


Ever wondered why I and my "Russian propaganda sites" make these predictions if we know that there is something to cover up and had to fear your magnificent checks and balances would finally uncover it and wash away our puppet president?

Didn't think so.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Even wondered why I and my "Russian propaganda sites" make these predictions if we know that there is something to cover up and had to fear your magnificent checks and balances would finally uncover it and wash away our puppet president?

Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Still accusing people of relations that don't exist.
 
BobTheCoward said:
We were talking about "smoking gun." I don't think you have any smoking guns in any of this. Is there stuff other than smoking guns? Sure. But you are the one who brought up the term.
Click to expand...

There may be smoking bus that are for now hidden in the fog of the Investigation.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Even wondered why I and my "Russian propaganda sites" make these predictions if we know that there is something to cover up and had to fear your magnificent checks and balances would finally uncover it and wash away our puppet president?
Click to expand...

Same reason those people were dumb enough to do it in the first place? They thought they could get away with it? Are you implying that the Russian government doesn't cover anything up? That they never lie and say they haven't done something that they have? Oh man *insert laughing dog*

Go ahead, CE. Pull the other one.

Childlike Empress said:
Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom