Social Trump says he "can't work with democrats"

Contrary to popular belief, Trump can definitely work with Pelosi, she's an opportunist.

Schumer on the other hand, pure slimeball, no better than gutter trash.
 
WAT

so you got nothin', try to diminish QUOTES FROM THE SOURCE MATERIAL (herp derp!), and then accuse me of being someone else?! i noticed you still haven't cited ONE THING to support your claim.

yeah, you're doing a great job!

<{outtahere}>

Did you read any of the report, by chance? Did you actually go through the table of contents and go from there?
 
Lol. So why didnt Trump have them investigated? He can only do what they talk about on CNN now?

Here you go, two "reputable" left leaning outlets reporting on Hillary's Russian collusion.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/06/19/is-russiagate-really-hillarygate/amp/

Go do some research before you open your mouth bot. Better yet, let's leave sherdog for mma.
 
Last edited:
Did you read any of the report, by chance? Did you actually go through the table of contents and go from there?

no, i read nothing. that's how i knew what was relevant to copy and paste here. by not reading it. you're smart.
 
no, i read nothing. that's how i knew what was relevant to copy and paste here. by not reading it. you're smart.

I refer you to sections II, III, and IV of the report, which are quite extensive, and detail the Russian activity in attacking our election.

In your post "proving" your assertion, or whatever the hell you think you did, you copy pasted the stuff about Trump conspiracy, which was not what I was talking about at all. Good job.

Secondly, you cherry picked two examples of Russian interference out of the litany of instances detailed within the report you insist you have read, and go "Nothin! 2 things?! Really?!"

Again
<Huh2>
 
I refer you to sections II, III, and IV of the report, which are quite extensive, and detail the Russian activity in attacking our election.

In your post "proving" your assertion, or whatever the hell you think you did, you copy pasted the stuff about Trump conspiracy, which was not what I was talking about at all. Good job.

Secondly, you cherry picked two examples of Russian interference out of the litany of instances detailed within the report you insist you have read, and go "Nothin! 2 things?! Really?!"

Again
<Huh2>

ie: the EXACT SAME THINGS i mentioned twice, now?

STILL waiting for you to show anything more than what was mentioned. there's a reason why you never cited one thing. there's nothing to cite. hence, "you got nothin'"

AGAIN:

i literally just referenced that. or do you believe the "systematic attack" was something much more grander than social media garbage/phishing podesta? if so, enlighten. hint: you won't. because that's all it was.
 
Lol. So no government investigation? It's been years.

Politicians don't usually pursue each other, for fear of retribution. By the way, it's not President Trumps job to investigate, it's the DOJs.
 
ie: the EXACT SAME THINGS i mentioned twice, now?

STILL waiting for you to show anything more than what was mentioned. there's a reason why you never cited one thing. there's nothing to cite. hence, "you got nothin'"

AGAIN:

You've been linked the Mueller report. Even so much as reading the table of contents shows you dozens of instances of interference utilizing numerous methods.

What is it with you guys expecting everyone to read for you?
 
You've been linked the Mueller report. Even so much as reading the table of contents shows you dozens of instances of interference utilizing numerous methods.

What is it with you guys expecting everyone to read for you?

"dozens."

can't name ONE that isn't social media shitposting or the podesta phishing, that i mentioned pages ago.

edit: and yet AGAIN:


i literally just referenced that. or do you believe the "systematic attack" was something much more grander than social media garbage/phishing podesta? if so, enlighten. hint: you won't. because that's all it was.
 
Politicians don't usually pursue each other, for fear of retribution. By the way, it's not President Trumps job to investigate, it's the DOJs.

Trump certainly has made sure to stay out of the operation of the DOJ lol.
 
STILL failed to provide ONE, let alone "dozens."
<LikeReally5>
giphy.gif
 
Yes, the Democrats need the burden of proof, but they have none. Just look at the Mueller report, it came clean of Russian interference, but it’s not good enough for the sore losers of the left. Get a life already

Holy stupid. Not only do you not know what burden of proof means (parties don't need a burden of proof: a burden of proof is set against a party's interest in making a claim), but you think the Mueller report "came clean of Russian interference"? Are you serious? It detailed rampant Russian interference and led to the indictment of several Russian nationals, you boob. What you were meaning to say is that it exonerate Trump of coordinating the interference, which is also not true but at least a more understandable mistake/lie given that the report didn't authoritatively conclude that he did coordinate with them personally.

The people that are compassionate and independent conservatives like myself are the ones that actually use their brain in thinking of all these matters. Not the left wing, progressive liberal democrats. Like the ones that want no boarders so illegal aliens can suck up all the well fare, kill babies that are 9 months old ready for birth, whine and bitch when they lose the electoral college and want to change it to the popular vote when importing immigrants illegally etc etc etc. These people can’t use their brain for common sense thinking. These people have serious mental disorders

I'm going to choose to believe you're just trolling, but I realize the stupidity and misinformation of this post (thinking Democrats want "no boarders" despite escalating deportations to all-time highs and having an official party position that is the general position of the American public, thinking that literally any Democrat-sponsored law or initiative permits the killing of full-term fetuses, let alone nine month-old toddlers, etc.) is depressingly typical of conservatives who somehow think they are intelligent because they're using the entirety of their intellectual bandwidth.
 
Holy stupid. Not only do you not know what burden of proof means (parties don't need a burden of proof: a burden of proof is set against a party's interest in making a claim), but you think the Mueller report "came clean of Russian interference"? Are you serious? It detailed rampant Russian interference and led to the indictment of several Russian nationals, you boob. What you were meaning to say is that it exonerate Trump of coordinating the interference, which is also not true but at least a more understandable mistake/lie given that the report didn't authoritatively conclude that he did coordinate with them personally.



I'm going to choose to believe you're just trolling, but I realize the stupidity and misinformation of this post (thinking Democrats want "no boarders" despite escalating deportations to all-time highs and having an official party position that is the general position of the American public, thinking that literally any Democrat-sponsored law or initiative permits the killing of full-term fetuses, let alone nine month-old toddlers, etc.) is depressingly typical of conservatives who somehow think they are intelligent because they're using the entirety of their intellectual bandwidth.
Russian nationals that will NEVER see the inside of a courtroom. Side note there on the Russians. Deportations at all time highs doesn’t mean squat, they’re coming right back in after you deport them. If the Dems did want their to be controlled immigration then they would would put the wall up in a blink of an eye, but they don’t because they want their voter fraud votes and to stay in power; without those faulty votes the dems wouldn’t control squat.

Excuse me! Burden of proof is when the accuser has to prove what they’re alleging about the other party.
 
hes been a democrat his entire life until he ran for president, which he would of ran as a democrat if Hillary wasnt running.
he has not a single conservative view and hes a lifelong atheist. He does conservative things because thats whos supporting him.

as a life long republican I hate him and would hit him with a rock, though I do think hes doing a better job than most will admit



<45><45><45> Great post man.
 
Holy stupid. Not only do you not know what burden of proof means (parties don't need a burden of proof: a burden of proof is set against a party's interest in making a claim), but you think the Mueller report "came clean of Russian interference"? Are you serious? It detailed rampant Russian interference and led to the indictment of several Russian nationals, you boob. What you were meaning to say is that it exonerate Trump of coordinating the interference, which is also not true but at least a more understandable mistake/lie given that the report didn't authoritatively conclude that he did coordinate with them personally.



I'm going to choose to believe you're just trolling, but I realize the stupidity and misinformation of this post (thinking Democrats want "no boarders" despite escalating deportations to all-time highs and having an official party position that is the general position of the American public, thinking that literally any Democrat-sponsored law or initiative permits the killing of full-term fetuses, let alone nine month-old toddlers, etc.) is depressingly typical of conservatives who somehow think they are intelligent because they're using the entirety of their intellectual bandwidth.
Im assuming with that avatar, you are pulling for Bernie Sanders in 2020? Why? I’m curious
 
Back
Top