During Meeting With Putin Trump Surrenders Humiliating Himself And The Country

[BULLDOG]

From my post, moron.

"NOT A CONSPIRACY".

my words.

Did you catch the part,


"NOT"?

Well make up your mind. The situation you describe is a text book example of a conspiracy.

I wonder is this a lib who has such strong barriers to communication that he can't read what I actually type?

Or is this a lib who plays games with the meanings of words to avoid information they don't like?

Or just a lib who likes to lie to muddle any point a conservative makes that they can't refute honestly?

You seem to wonder about a lot of stuff, and just make shit up when you don't understand it.

Says the man that though I was suggesting a conspiracy when I said, " not a conspiracy".

Got it. You said "not a conspiracy" and then described a textbook example of a conspiracy, but your little disclaimer somehow changed reality. Doesn't work like that Goober.

 

[Papageorgio]

LOL, we get it, you were a Gov puke. Do you really think that if there were (and there is) a "Deep State" it would include every low level secretary like you?

I worked with many Government executives over the years
No, they did not hold secret meetings plotting how they could get even with Republicans

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

Lol! Nutters are having fun!

 

[BULLDOG]

I worked with many Government executives over the years
No, they did not hold secret meetings plotting how they could get even with Republicans

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

Lol! Nutters are having fun!

Correll, the nut bag, is claiming a secret shadow government, operating within the visible government is controlling the country's actions to hurt Trump. If that is not describing a conspiracy, then what is?

 

[Correll]

From my post, moron.

"NOT A CONSPIRACY".

my words.

Did you catch the part,


"NOT"?

Well make up your mind. The situation you describe is a text book example of a conspiracy.

I wonder is this a lib who has such strong barriers to communication that he can't read what I actually type?

Or is this a lib who plays games with the meanings of words to avoid information they don't like?

Or just a lib who likes to lie to muddle any point a conservative makes that they can't refute honestly?

You seem to wonder about a lot of stuff, and just make shit up when you don't understand it.

Says the man that though I was suggesting a conspiracy when I said, " not a conspiracy".

Got it. You said "not a conspiracy" and then described a textbook example of a conspiracy, but your little disclaimer somehow changed reality. Doesn't work like that Goober.

I describe a situation of individual actions with no communication between individuals and you call it a conspiracy.

And you are dumb enough to claim that what I described was a textbook example of a conspiracy.


con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/
noun

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

 

[cnelsen]

That might be the wrong way to describe what happened, but they did steal information, and release it along with coordinated fake news stories in an effort to influence our elections.

Oh my goodness. I don't think you are even allowed to get a driver's license in Israel unless you've already done 200 hours of that in American elections for Israel. Christ, we have whole agencies whose only job is that. And Trump is a "traitor" for not nuking Russia for it?

Foreign governments interfering with our elections is against our laws and threatens our sovereignty

You are right. I wonder why Israel and Mexico both do it with impunity.

 

[skews13]

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

Lol! Nutters are having fun!

Correll, the nut bag, is claiming a secret shadow government, operating within the visible government is controlling the country's actions to hurt Trump. If that is not describing a conspiracy, then what is?

It's a bona fide mental illness.

 

[cnelsen]

LOL, we get it, you were a Gov puke. Do you really think that if there were (and there is) a "Deep State" it would include every low level secretary like you?

I worked with many Government executives over the years
No, they did not hold secret meetings plotting how they could get even with Republicans

Would you leak information damaging to the President, if you were still working?

One mans leaks are another mans whistleblowing

Leaking inside information is as old as time. It is not a conspiracy against republicans

You keep injecting that word, "conspiracy".

It is not a conspiracy when a whole class of people get the asshole notion that they are the rightful rulers of a nation, to the point that they feel more loyalty to their group, than to the duly elected President, and will individually take action to serve what they see as right, ie their personal and group power vs the Will of the People.


Yet is it still anti-democratic and anti-American. (to be clear for the liberal readers, that means WRONG)

And I take your answer as a tacit YES, you would leak information to damage an outsider like Trump.

Or as you put it, "Whistleblow".

It is a conspiracy theory if you believe there is a class of people who are secretly conspiring to rule the country without a shred of proof

He said nothing about "conspiring".

 

[cnelsen]

Your response is not serious

It is based on rightwing hysteria and paranoia

Then why not refute it directly rather than name-call motives?

 

[rightwinger]

You have no proof. There have always been leaks in Government. Just ask Nixon
Sorry righty.......nobody is out to get you
There is no Deep State

Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

Leaks are nothing new

Only Conservative Snowflakes whine that it is a vast conspiracy

See how I seriously responded to what you said, and all you did was repeat your previous postion?


1. That's me showing you respect and you being an asshole.

2. That's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and you basically admitted that you can't honestly make your case. You tacitly conceded Logical Argument.

3. My points thus stands as the final answer.


Here they are again, for everyone.


Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

Your response is not serious

It is based on rightwing hysteria and paranoia

You don't get to dismiss questions about the Deep State anymore.

I get to mock those who believe in imaginary bogey men

 

[rightwinger]

Your response is not serious

It is based on rightwing hysteria and paranoia

Then why not refute it directly rather than name-call motives?

Refute something that does not exist?

Burden of proof is on you my little friend

 

[Correll]

Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

Leaks are nothing new

Only Conservative Snowflakes whine that it is a vast conspiracy

See how I seriously responded to what you said, and all you did was repeat your previous postion?


1. That's me showing you respect and you being an asshole.

2. That's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and you basically admitted that you can't honestly make your case. You tacitly conceded Logical Argument.

3. My points thus stands as the final answer.


Here they are again, for everyone.


Motivations matter.

Someone leaks because they think a terrible crime is being committed? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they disagree with a policy? THat's one thing.

Someone leaks because they want to advance their career at the expense of someone else?

Someone leaks because a hot reporter gave them a blowjob?


But if a whole bunch of somebodies, leak because they don't respect the decision of the electorate and want to undermine the Administration? That's a different thing.


And the Deep State Theory takes a big step towards, the Light.

Your response is not serious

It is based on rightwing hysteria and paranoia

You don't get to dismiss questions about the Deep State anymore.

I get to mock those who believe in imaginary bogey men

I made a post addressing why that does not cut it anymore, and you failed to respond.

YOu are engaged in the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

THat makes you wrong, and an ass.

No play on words intended.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well make up your mind. The situation you describe is a text book example of a conspiracy.

I wonder is this a lib who has such strong barriers to communication that he can't read what I actually type?

Or is this a lib who plays games with the meanings of words to avoid information they don't like?

Or just a lib who likes to lie to muddle any point a conservative makes that they can't refute honestly?

You seem to wonder about a lot of stuff, and just make shit up when you don't understand it.

Says the man that though I was suggesting a conspiracy when I said, " not a conspiracy".

Got it. You said "not a conspiracy" and then described a textbook example of a conspiracy, but your little disclaimer somehow changed reality. Doesn't work like that Goober.

I describe a situation of individual actions with no communication between individuals and you call it a conspiracy.

And you are dumb enough to claim that what I described was a textbook example of a conspiracy.


con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/
noun

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

When you make accusations of a so called "deep state" and an entire class of people involved in your silly accusations, that is a conspiracy. You're just another conspiracy nut. Your tinfoil hat and certificate will be delivered in the next few days.

 

[BULLDOG]

That might be the wrong way to describe what happened, but they did steal information, and release it along with coordinated fake news stories in an effort to influence our elections.

Oh my goodness. I don't think you are even allowed to get a driver's license in Israel unless you've already done 200 hours of that in American elections for Israel. Christ, we have whole agencies whose only job is that. And Trump is a "traitor" for not nuking Russia for it?

Foreign governments interfering with our elections is against our laws and threatens our sovereignty

You are right. I wonder why Israel and Mexico both do it with impunity.

If you have evidence of that, you should notify Mueller.

 

[Correll]

I wonder is this a lib who has such strong barriers to communication that he can't read what I actually type?

Or is this a lib who plays games with the meanings of words to avoid information they don't like?

Or just a lib who likes to lie to muddle any point a conservative makes that they can't refute honestly?

You seem to wonder about a lot of stuff, and just make shit up when you don't understand it.

Says the man that though I was suggesting a conspiracy when I said, " not a conspiracy".

Got it. You said "not a conspiracy" and then described a textbook example of a conspiracy, but your little disclaimer somehow changed reality. Doesn't work like that Goober.

I describe a situation of individual actions with no communication between individuals and you call it a conspiracy.

And you are dumb enough to claim that what I described was a textbook example of a conspiracy.


con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/
noun

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

When you make accusations of a so called "deep state" and an entire class of people involved in your silly accusations, that is a conspiracy. You're just another conspiracy nut. Your tinfoil hat and certificate will be delivered in the next few days.

I have repeatedly explained, in the simple terms one would use with a slow witted child, how your claim is incorrect.


I cannot dumb it down any more for you.

YOu are being as asshole.

 

[BULLDOG]

You seem to wonder about a lot of stuff, and just make shit up when you don't understand it.

Says the man that though I was suggesting a conspiracy when I said, " not a conspiracy".

Got it. You said "not a conspiracy" and then described a textbook example of a conspiracy, but your little disclaimer somehow changed reality. Doesn't work like that Goober.

I describe a situation of individual actions with no communication between individuals and you call it a conspiracy.

And you are dumb enough to claim that what I described was a textbook example of a conspiracy.


con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/
noun

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

When you make accusations of a so called "deep state" and an entire class of people involved in your silly accusations, that is a conspiracy. You're just another conspiracy nut. Your tinfoil hat and certificate will be delivered in the next few days.

I have repeatedly explained, in the simple terms one would use with a slow witted child, how your claim is incorrect.


I cannot dumb it down any more for you.

YOu are being as asshole.

No. you are just embarrassed to realize you really are just another conspiracy nut. You can't have it both ways. A so called deep state including an entire class of people (your words) is a conspiracy by definition.

 

[Correll]

Says the man that though I was suggesting a conspiracy when I said, " not a conspiracy".

Got it. You said "not a conspiracy" and then described a textbook example of a conspiracy, but your little disclaimer somehow changed reality. Doesn't work like that Goober.

I describe a situation of individual actions with no communication between individuals and you call it a conspiracy.

And you are dumb enough to claim that what I described was a textbook example of a conspiracy.


con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/
noun

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

When you make accusations of a so called "deep state" and an entire class of people involved in your silly accusations, that is a conspiracy. You're just another conspiracy nut. Your tinfoil hat and certificate will be delivered in the next few days.

I have repeatedly explained, in the simple terms one would use with a slow witted child, how your claim is incorrect.


I cannot dumb it down any more for you.

YOu are being as asshole.

No. you are just embarrassed to realize you really are just another conspiracy nut. You can't have it both ways. A so called deep state including an entire class of people (your words) is a conspiracy by definition.

I have posted the definition of conspiracy for you and anyone that can read english can see that it is not.


The actions of the intelligence agencies have given real strong support to the Deep State theory and it is not something that anyone not a dishonest asshole can just dismiss anymore.

 

[BULLDOG]

Got it. You said "not a conspiracy" and then described a textbook example of a conspiracy, but your little disclaimer somehow changed reality. Doesn't work like that Goober.

I describe a situation of individual actions with no communication between individuals and you call it a conspiracy.

And you are dumb enough to claim that what I described was a textbook example of a conspiracy.


con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/
noun

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

When you make accusations of a so called "deep state" and an entire class of people involved in your silly accusations, that is a conspiracy. You're just another conspiracy nut. Your tinfoil hat and certificate will be delivered in the next few days.

I have repeatedly explained, in the simple terms one would use with a slow witted child, how your claim is incorrect.


I cannot dumb it down any more for you.

YOu are being as asshole.

No. you are just embarrassed to realize you really are just another conspiracy nut. You can't have it both ways. A so called deep state including an entire class of people (your words) is a conspiracy by definition.

I have posted the definition of conspiracy for you and anyone that can read english can see that it is not.


The actions of the intelligence agencies have given real strong support to the Deep State theory and it is not something that anyone not a dishonest asshole can just dismiss anymore.

A claim like that begs for a credible link. Breitbart, or Alex Jones links on't be acceptably credible.

 

[Correll]

I describe a situation of individual actions with no communication between individuals and you call it a conspiracy.

And you are dumb enough to claim that what I described was a textbook example of a conspiracy.


con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/
noun

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

When you make accusations of a so called "deep state" and an entire class of people involved in your silly accusations, that is a conspiracy. You're just another conspiracy nut. Your tinfoil hat and certificate will be delivered in the next few days.

I have repeatedly explained, in the simple terms one would use with a slow witted child, how your claim is incorrect.


I cannot dumb it down any more for you.

YOu are being as asshole.

No. you are just embarrassed to realize you really are just another conspiracy nut. You can't have it both ways. A so called deep state including an entire class of people (your words) is a conspiracy by definition.

I have posted the definition of conspiracy for you and anyone that can read english can see that it is not.


The actions of the intelligence agencies have given real strong support to the Deep State theory and it is not something that anyone not a dishonest asshole can just dismiss anymore.

A claim like that begs for a credible link. Breitbart, or Alex Jones links on't be acceptably credible.

So, you've missed all the leaks and the testimony of Comey?

 

[BULLDOG]

When you make accusations of a so called "deep state" and an entire class of people involved in your silly accusations, that is a conspiracy. You're just another conspiracy nut. Your tinfoil hat and certificate will be delivered in the next few days.

I have repeatedly explained, in the simple terms one would use with a slow witted child, how your claim is incorrect.


I cannot dumb it down any more for you.

YOu are being as asshole.

No. you are just embarrassed to realize you really are just another conspiracy nut. You can't have it both ways. A so called deep state including an entire class of people (your words) is a conspiracy by definition.

I have posted the definition of conspiracy for you and anyone that can read english can see that it is not.


The actions of the intelligence agencies have given real strong support to the Deep State theory and it is not something that anyone not a dishonest asshole can just dismiss anymore.

A claim like that begs for a credible link. Breitbart, or Alex Jones links on't be acceptably credible.

So, you've missed all the leaks and the testimony of Comey?

Then it should be easy to come up with a link. Comey didn't leak anything. He had every right to release anything he released.

 

[cnelsen]

I wonder is this a lib who has such strong barriers to communication that he can't read what I actually type?

Or is this a lib who plays games with the meanings of words to avoid information they don't like?

Or just a lib who likes to lie to muddle any point a conservative makes that they can't refute honestly?

You seem to wonder about a lot of stuff, and just make shit up when you don't understand it.

Says the man that though I was suggesting a conspiracy when I said, " not a conspiracy".

Got it. You said "not a conspiracy" and then described a textbook example of a conspiracy, but your little disclaimer somehow changed reality. Doesn't work like that Goober.

I describe a situation of individual actions with no communication between individuals and you call it a conspiracy.

And you are dumb enough to claim that what I described was a textbook example of a conspiracy.


con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/
noun

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

When you make accusations of a so called "deep state" and an entire class of people involved in your silly accusations, that is a conspiracy. You're just another conspiracy nut. Your tinfoil hat and certificate will be delivered in the next few days.

No, because if the phenomenon exists, it just makes him right. During the McCarthy era, McCarthy claimed there was a group in Hollywood who were communist sympathizers working to undermine US resistance to communism (which remains the most lethal and vile system the world has ever seen). For this he was called a conspiracy nut. But, as it turned out, there really was a group in Hollywood who were communist sympathizers and hostile to the interests of the American people. The conspiracy nut turned out to be right.