fredtoast

An article based on absolutely zero evidence of anything other than wild speculation. The fact that the indictments in this case remained secret for so long proves that guy is full of shit. Anyone who has ever learned anything about how to determine "what is truth" would laugh at this story.

An entire article based on a strawman argument. "In other words, a Russian “cut out” (or fifth columnist) can be defined as those “activists, academics, journalists, [or] web operators” who dissent from the shared ideology of the 14 signatories of the amicus brief. " The brief does not stigmatize everyone who disagrees with their political ideology. All it stigmatizes is people who have placed Russian interests above US interests. No one with a formal training in logic could possibly fall for this.

I am not a troll, but right now I am 100% controlling how you respond. Just look at how many posts you have devoted to me that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So it is up to you. Do you want to keep playing this game of "I only respond to people who play by my made up rules" or do you want to debate the merits of the posts you have made regarding the actual topic of this thread?

Ah, I see, still no proof at all to back up your claim that I am a troll. Still not discussion of the topic of the thread. Just more personal attacks and avoiding the subject. Tell me again, what is your definition of troll behavior? *HINT* If you brag about your post being a "substitue for logic" instead of commiting a logical fallacy you might be a troll.

And you accuse me of dodging debate? Ad hominum argument in French is still a logical fallicy. So you got any proof or any arguments that actually contain some sort of logic? Or are you just going to keep doing nothing but throwing insults at me and running from an actual debate on the subject of this thread?

I have never avoided or dodged your allegation. All I have done is directly address it by requesting proof of your claim. Was is Aristotle or Plato who said "The truth is what I say and no proof is needed"?

Research is great. I think everyone should do it. The only difference between the two of us is that I am willing to engage with someone who disagrees with me. When research is used just to support what you already believe it is useless.

Feeding people endless rhetoric while adamently refusing to even address any disention is not educational. It is brainwashing.

I believe most people here are capable of using "google". I guess it might take some search skills to just find the rhetoric that supports your own position, but these threads are not search engines. They are intended to be for discussion.

So what exactly is this guy saying? Trump is playing right along with the establishment in Washington, yet the establishment is Washington is executing a huge conspiracy to have him removed or restrict his power? The Democrats have control over the entire mainstream media and can control the thoughts of Americans yet they can not get a majority of their candidates elected across the country? I challenge people to go back and read this article and pay attention to these two points. Any national intelligence organization either here or abroad that has anything to say that supports his position is cited as an authority, but any intelligence agency that disagrees with his position is cast a puppet of the shadow government. Any "elected official" that makes any statement that supports his position is cited as an authority, yet any "elected official" that disagrees with him is in on the conspiracy. anyone with an unbiased eye can see this as nothing but rhetorical opinion. They may never uncover a smoking gun that ties Trump to colluding with the Russians to effect the election. But it is naive to act like there is no basis for an investigation when people all around Trump have lied repeatedly about contacts with the Russians.

I agree 100%. But only one side is willing to actually discuss the subject matter posted.

I am not going to admit I am a troll when I am not. You can not point to a single post in this thread that is troll like behavior I have made several valid points and you just don't have any answers. Even if I was trolling you could address my points without getting into a pissing contest. That is what I do when I encounter a troll. I would never let a troll make it look like I was clueless or afraid to address his points. That would be letting the troll win.

Ah, Homer thinks the only rebel forces in Syria were Al Queda. How cute. If he ever gets brave enough to stick his head out of the echo chamber where he lives I'd like to educate him on the actual conflict between the different rebel forces. I'd also like to find out why he thinks the monarchies of the Persian gulf that sided with the United States are all just "foot soldiers for imperialism" while Iran and Russia were just acting out of noblesse oblige. I guess it is because he knows how honest and self sacrificing the regimes in Russia and Iran have been over the years.

Summary. -Trump advisors lying their asses off about contacts with Russia can't possibly have anything to do with Trump collusion with Russia. -Dossier that has been proven to be mostly factual is "largely bogus". -Nuclear limitation agreement with Iran negotiated by Untied States was actually the work of the Russians.

Here is a tip about negotiating terms with your sworn enemy. It is a good idea to get things in writing. I have a hunch, don't know why, but I believe that there have been some prior examples of sworn enemies breaking promises they made to each other that were not in writing. BTW how many of you saw the link to the video that would destroy Obama and expose him as murderer of millions of those American senior citizens that he hated so much? You all need to check that out. It is a classic.