Are "collusioners" the next "birthers"? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 03, 2024, 01:22:16 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Are "collusioners" the next "birthers"? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Are "collusioners" the next "birthers"?  (Read 1702 times)
T'Chenka
King TChenka
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,210
Canada


« on: March 24, 2019, 06:35:02 PM »

One group has LOTS of circumstancial evidence, logic, reasoning and based on all of those things, came to a conclusion about the likeliness of collusion.

The other group are mindless pre-Trump MAGA-brained snowflakes who get EXTREMELY offended by facts and logic when it contradicts their precious feelings.
Logged
T'Chenka
King TChenka
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,210
Canada


« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2019, 11:55:02 PM »

You know, push too hard on an issue and end up looking like fools when proven wrong?

Why don't your learn to get your facts straight before you start a thread.  We DO NOT know that the Mueller report found "no evidence" of "collusion" with Russia.  All we know is that not enough was found for a criminal charge--that Mueller "did not establish" that there was collusion.  This could mean anything from "no evidence found" to "almost enough evidence found for a criminal charge, but not quite."  Not proving something happened is not the same as proving it didn't happen.
This.

That poater seems to HATE nuance and prefers simplified half-truth arguments, and yet they somehow support AOC and not Trump. How bizarre.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.