OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[SunSpace]

How is Trump going to be impeached when you have ZERO evidence of collusion, and that after almost a year of digging?

Even that partisan hack Nancy Pelosi says it's not happening.

Pelosi moves to muzzle Trump impeachment talk (Nov 1, 2017)
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-pelosi-244336

Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer oppose Trump impeachment resolution offered by House Democrat (Dec 6, 2017)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/na...rticle/2642717

When even your team's big name players are saying it's not happening, you superfans are really making yourselves look more stupid than usual.

There's a lot of evidence for collusion. It's pretty clear it happened. Are you going to answer my question? Oh, and I don't have a team.

[1bad65]

There's a lot of evidence for collusion.

Interesting.

Please cite it.

And before you make yourself look really stupid, remember all the Democrats and law enforcement people on record saying none exists. People such as Nancy Pelosi, Sally Yates, James Comey, and Diane Feinstein.

Are you going to answer my question?

Your question was nonsense and based on conjecture.

Let's stick to facts please, not bog down discussing speculation and conjecture.

You're getting your second chance. Don't blow it like Siablo did.

[SunSpace]

Interesting.

Please cite it.

And before you make yourself look really stupid, remember all the Democrats and law enforcement people on record saying none exists. People such as Nancy Pelosi, Sally Yates, James Comey, and Diane Feinstein.



Your question was nonsense and based on conjecture.

Let's stick to facts please, not bog down discussing speculation and conjecture.

You're getting your second chance. Don't blow it like Siablo did.

Well, even if you disagree with how I see events unfolding, there's nothing stopping you from answering it from a hypothetical standpoint. As to collusion, it's all right there in the Trump tower meeting. What was it? 'Part of the Russian government's support for Mr. Trump?' And that's without taking into account that Steele listed the dossier as 70-90 percent accurate, even under scrutiny. If practically anything is accurate in that dossier, you've got collusion. Dude, it's over. Trump isn't lasting his full term, and you know it. So answer my 'What would you do?' or don't, but don't bother trying to create a debate on something that I don't even find debatable at this point >.>

[1bad65]

Well, even if you disagree with how I see events unfolding, there's nothing stopping you from answering it from a hypothetical standpoint.

Again, it's minutiae I'm not getting bogged down into.

I've told you this three times now. Let it go.

As to collusion, it's all right there in the Trump tower meeting. What was it?

A meeting alone is not collusion.

If it were, Hillary would be more guilty than Trump. FYI, Trump hadn't met Putin before being elected, while Hillary met him many times.

I know you're grasping at straws here, but at least try.

'Part of the Russian government's support for Mr. Trump?'

Do what??

The Russians gave the Clintons millions of dollars, and paid Bill $500k for one speech in Moscow.

They gave no donations to Trump, nor paid him for speeches.

Explain that.

And that's without taking into account that Steele listed the dossier as 70-90 percent accurate, even under scrutiny.

Of course he said it was accurate, he was getting paid for it!!!

You're not this stupid, are you??

If practically anything is accurate in that dossier, you've got collusion.

There's that 'if' word, again.

That means conjecture/speculation.

Dude, it's over. Trump isn't lasting his full term, and you know it.

Don't try and say you're a mind-reader. Others claim that here too, and they are as wrong as you.

I'm taking ban bets that Trump is going to last his entire term without being impeached, and so far have found one (sadly, only one has the stones) to bet with.

Please, keep up better.

So answer my 'What would you do?' or don't, but don't bother trying to create a debate on something that I don't even find debatable at this point >.>

Conjecture is conjecture, no matter how much you dig in and say it isn't.

If you have a questions(s) based on fact, ask away.

But don't bother with conjecture.

As I said earlier, you've asked three times and you're on your second chance.

Siablo blew his in one day. You're on the very same path. Go figure.....

[SunSpace]

Again, it's minutiae I'm not getting bogged down into.

I've told you this three times now. Let it go.



A meeting alone is not collusion.

If it were, Hillary would be more guilty than Trump. FYI, Trump hadn't met Putin before being elected, while Hillary met him many times.

I know you're grasping at straws here, but at least try.



Do what??

The Russians gave the Clintons millions of dollars, and paid Bill $500k for one speech in Moscow.

They gave no donations to Trump, nor paid him for speeches.

Explain that.



Of course he said it was accurate, he was getting paid for it!!!

You're not this stupid, are you??



There's that 'if' word, again.

That means conjecture/speculation.



Don't try and say you're a mind-reader. Others claim that here too, and they are as wrong as you.

I'm taking ban bets that Trump is going to last his entire term without being impeached, and so far have found one (sadly, only one has the stones) to bet with.

Please, keep up better.



Conjecture is conjecture, no matter how much you dig in and say it isn't.

If you have a questions(s) based on fact, ask away.

But don't bother with conjecture.

As I said earlier, you've asked three times and you're on your second chance.

Siablo blew his in one day. You're on the very same path. Go figure.....

A meeting with the purpose of releasing dirt on a political rival in the hopes of Russia swaying the election through their cyberwarfare campaign IS collusion, and he agreed to it. Nothing else needs to be said, but keep in mind that Steele was a former elite, British spy who was in the process of making a name for his company in the states, as in the Fifa case. Being paid, first by republicans and then by democrats, doesn't mean his dossier is inaccurate. What's more important, to make a couple bucks (comparatively speaking) or to actually be a reliable intelligence company? I'm sorry, but if the real-life James Bond stands by his work, and openly ran to the FBI out of concern before any of this made headlines, I'm going to strongly consider his evidence, as well. Feel free to disagree, but all I wanted was an answer to my question, not a debate. If you don't wish to answer, then let's stop talking for now, because that's all I'm looking for. As to the full term ban-bet, I'll take you up on it. My only condition is that it counts toward ANY kind of departure from Trump's role as president. Why? Because I could see him screaming 'Fake news! Fake news! Corrupt investigation!' and pardoning himself and/or others before resigning as president, under the mere possibility of impeachment, too. I suppose the only question left is: Do YOU have the courage to accept?

[B.UTLER]

2 from trump team pled guilty to lying to FBI

Ibad - it's nothing . They should have not lied, they didn't anything wrong. So they're just moron lying to FBI even though they didn't commit any crime.

And you have the guts to call us super fan.

[B.UTLER]

Why would anyone with half a brain lie to FBI that could send him to jail if discovered he is lying if he isn't hiding anything criminal?

And 1bad65 calling us super fan hahha

[ChikaPaliza]

Again, it's minutiae I'm not getting bogged down into.

I've told you this three times now. Let it go.



A meeting alone is not collusion.

If it were, Hillary would be more guilty than Trump. FYI, Trump hadn't met Putin before being elected, while Hillary met him many times.

I know you're grasping at straws here, but at least try.



Do what??

The Russians gave the Clintons millions of dollars, and paid Bill $500k for one speech in Moscow.

They gave no donations to Trump, nor paid him for speeches.

Explain that.



Of course he said it was accurate, he was getting paid for it!!!

You're not this stupid, are you??



There's that 'if' word, again.

That means conjecture/speculation.



Don't try and say you're a mind-reader. Others claim that here too, and they are as wrong as you.

I'm taking ban bets that Trump is going to last his entire term without being impeached, and so far have found one (sadly, only one has the stones) to bet with.

Please, keep up better.



Conjecture is conjecture, no matter how much you dig in and say it isn't.

If you have a questions(s) based on fact, ask away.

But don't bother with conjecture.

As I said earlier, you've asked three times and you're on your second chance.

Siablo blew his in one day. You're on the very same path. Go figure.....

can i be on your list too?

[1bad65]

can i be on your list too?

If you annoy me, yes.

[1bad65]

A meeting with the purpose of releasing dirt on a political rival in the hopes of Russia swaying the election through their cyberwarfare campaign IS collusion, and he agreed to it.

That's a claim on your end. Now prove it. Via sourcing, of course.

I'm still waiting for you to source the claims you made yesterday.

Please get to citing sources and not just making new claims.

As to the full term ban-bet, I'll take you up on it. My only condition is that it counts toward ANY kind of departure from Trump's role as president. Why? Because I could see him screaming 'Fake news! Fake news! Corrupt investigation!' and pardoning himself and/or others before resigning as president, under the mere possibility of impeachment, too. I suppose the only question left is: Do YOU have the courage to accept?

The conditions will be the same as my bet with Amazinger.

A resignation in disgrace is a loss on my end.

However, "any" departure is not. Health concerns, or God forbid his death, is a push.

You play semantics, so I have to be clear.

Go dig up the conditions I set with Amazinger, present them here for clarity, and the bet will be on if the final condition below is met....

Now this will include alts on your end, so for you I'll need a mod to pipe in as well promising to ban any new alts of yours. It's pretty foolish of me to bet with a guy like you who creates alts whenever he's banned if a mod doesn't agree to zap the alts you'll no doubt create.

Now I'm the meantime let's make sure you're going to be rational...

You've made specific claims. I addressed them earlier by asking for sources. Prove or retract those claims, please.

Only source or retract. No attrition tactics and obfuscation, please. I'll need sources proving said claims or a retraction. Nothing else.

Get to steppin