Now it's 'dangerous,' we are told, to stop Dems from overthrowing the American people

[artichoke]

No, it's more controversial because it means Trump and his campaign were indebted to private individuals who are not accountable to any government.

Also, it is completely illegal to accept campaign contributions of value (like a troll army or disinfo campaign) from unregistered and unlicensed foreign agents.

Nope, setting up normal connections with foreign governments like every other presidential candidate is absolutely standard practice, no matter how much the dishonest scumbags of the left try to twist it into something controversial only for someone they hate. You don't just get to make up whatever you feel like and suddenly magically transform standard protocols into something scandalous simply because "orange man bad."

You have to actually think more than that.

Also, y'all lied about it from the beginning; you denied this even happened for years.

Show us. Because no one would ever need to lie about setting up normal connections. That doesn't even make sense. Not that your myriad of other Russia collusion lies wouldn't fully warrant suspicions that you would be caught lying about this as well, but still. It's like saying we lied about President Trump having a transition team. There's nothing even controversial about it, so why would anyone lie?

So by all means, show us where we lied for no reason about something we had no need to even defend.

Now you're reversing course and it's making you look bad.

Translation: If I just keep CALLING it backtracking to change nothing about their point, that will mean they're backtracking.

 

[artichoke]

Hold on! You just moved the bar with the bolded.

Before, you said it was OK to reach out to foreign governments...now you shifted the goalpost to include "major players".

Or, they are both normal for people to establish contact with, and you're hyperventilating over more imagined conspiracies and paranoia again.

Also, why lie about it for four years? Remember, you've been saying there was no contact with Russia at all. Turns out that wasn't true.

As I said the first time you posted this lie, show us. Go ahead. Again, we will wait.

It is not legal to accept campaign contributions from unlicensed and unregistered foreign agents.

Which no one but Democrats actually did and no one is talking about. Try to keep up.

That's why Flynn was canned, dipshit.

The FBI illegally leaked routine but classified conversations between Flynn and Russian officials to create the appearance of collusion. They framed him with blatantly made-up misinformation even after having already acknowledged that he did nothing wrong and after officially clearing him of any wrongdoing. They are on the record devising ways to “get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

They hid critical evidence that proved his innocence, blackmailed him by threatening to destroy his family, and invented a phony violation of an obscure 1799 law called the Logan Act (which we now have proof didn’t even happen), to falsely railroad him to prison. Discredited Mueller hack Peter “insurance policy” Strzok, who was demoted over his humiliating misconduct and openly unprofessional partisanship, oversaw this travesty of justice.

Care to get caught ignorantly misstating any other facts, or are you good for now, actual dipshit?

 

[artichoke]

The same DC you were too chickenshit to go to on 1/6, despite pretending for months that the election was stolen.

Some patriot you are. LOL.

Why were you not in DC on 1/6? Don't you believe the election was stolen? I don't believe you actually do.

I believe you believe the election was legit, and all these posts from you to the contrary are just attempts to make friends with Nazis because no one wants to be your friend IRL.

Ah, and we're back to the Neanderthal trolling attempt of insisting that becoming domestic terrorists like Democrats is the only way anyone could ever possibly object to the theft of the presidency.



Weak as HELL.

 

[artichoke]

It's funny when you read the headline vs the body of the text. The headline claims BLM and then the list of groups he coordinated with don't include BLM. So which is it?

Or they were just counting on people to be operating at an adult level IQ and to comprehend that "End Police Brutality," "Marching for Racial Equality," "Insurgence," "Solidarity for Justice," "Salt Lake Equal Rights Movement" and the "Salt Lake Antifascist Coalition" were the BLM and Antifa groups being referred to, but clearly they overestimated Democrat intelligence and did not account for your persistent ability to get confused and make absurd accusations about the most obvious, simple things.

Then the second just recites RW internet posts. Talk about circular reasoning.

It literally posts first-hand accounts of what happened, pictures that were taken at the events in question, and of the person in question. This "circular reasoning" you're ignorantly falsely accusing them of is called primary source inclusion and analysis...something every journalist is supposed to be in the practice of doing on a regular basis.

Would it be more valid for you Democrats if they instead told us to take their word for it on everything with anonymously sourced stories that constantly turn out to be deliberate lies, like your sources?

 

[AProudLefty]

LOL. The butthurt is strong in this one.

Here:

 

[artichoke]

AProudLefty

Black Kitty Ain't Happy
This message is hidden because AProudLefty is on your ignore list.

Still following me around crying and lashing out at everything I say like a triggered little stalker.

 

[AProudLefty]

There it is again

 

[artichoke]

Can't hear you, stalker.

 

[AProudLefty]

 

[artichoke]

Still can't hear you.

 

[AProudLefty]

Heh. I love it!

 

[artichoke]

Still can't hear you.

 

[LV426]

Still can't hear you.

Maybe take them off ignore, then, you big baby.

 

[LV426]

Ah, and we're back to the Neanderthal trolling attempt of insisting that becoming domestic terrorists like Democrats is the only way anyone could ever possibly object to the theft of the presidency.

You said for months the election was stolen, but then on 1/6, you didn't do anything about it.

How come?

 

[artichoke]

Maybe take them off ignore, then, you big baby.

Then I'll have to suffer another childish moron who gets trounced with loads of devastating evidence and responds with 50 pages of denial, make believe, and false accusations, like you.

 

[artichoke]

You said for months the election was stolen, but then on 1/6, you didn't do anything about it.

How come?

Pathological LV426 Lunacy #1

Problems with the moronic fallacy you are relentlessly spamming this site with about how only domestic terrorists can object to election theft:

-It is invalid logic. It is an ad hominem fallacy (trying to shift the debate to attacking the debater personally instead of attacking their argument) as well as a non-sequiter fallacy (the logic simply does not follow).

-You don't get to arbitrarily invent rules about how people are allowed to respond to a given problem and then psychotically harass them about it for 50 pages straight on a thread that has nothing to do with your absurd fallacy in the first place. Different people can have different solutions to the same problem. Not that it is any of your business how anyone chooses to respond to election theft.

-But even playing along with the obviously stupid and invalid "logic" that if you didn't attack the Capitol Building, then you cannot possibly disagree with the election being stolen, what about poor people, people who live far away, injured people, sick people, people who just had a death in the family, people who had jury duty or who were in jail? Can THEY not have attacked the Capitol Building and still have some random online idiot's permission to disagree?

-It is an idiotic attempt to taunt, goad, and troll anyone who disagrees with election theft. No one is ever going to think this ridiculous line of reasoning is compelling. It is completely ineffective and makes you look childish, obnoxious, and dense.

-By this garbage logic, every Democrat is a coward for peddling the most hysterical conspiracy theories about President Trump being a secret Russian agent and them not responding by invading the White House. Even addressing something so clearly ludicrous seems beneath anything to which any member of this site should ever be expected to subject themselves.

 

[LV426]

Then I'll have to suffer another childish moron who gets trounced with loads of devastating evidence and responds with 50 pages of denial, make believe, and false accusations, like you.

You don't actually trounce anyone.

Your strategy here is to spam the board with the same junk in the hopes that it fatigues the conversation and you never have to be held to account for the stupid shit you say.

Like how you say the election was stolen...weird that you didn't do anything about the greatest theft in American history other than shitpost on JPP.

Your actions don't really match the magnitude of what you're alleging.

If I believed the election was stolen, I'd do a lot more than talk shit to strangers on JPP...

 

[LV426]

Pathological LV426 Lunacy #1

Problems with the moronic fallacy you are relentlessly spamming this site with about how only domestic terrorists can object to election theft:

-It is invalid logic. It is an ad hominem fallacy (trying to shift the debate to attacking the debater personally instead of attacking their argument) as well as a non-sequiter fallacy (the logic simply does not follow).

-You don't get to arbitrarily invent rules about how people are allowed to respond to a given problem and then psychotically harass them about it for 50 pages straight on a thread that has nothing to do with your absurd fallacy in the first place. Different people can have different solutions to the same problem. Not that it is any of your business how anyone chooses to respond to election theft.

-But even playing along with the obviously stupid and invalid "logic" that if you didn't attack the Capitol Building, then you cannot possibly disagree with the election being stolen, what about poor people, people who live far away, injured people, sick people, people who just had a death in the family, people who had jury duty or who were in jail? Can THEY not have attacked the Capitol Building and still have some random online idiot's permission to disagree?

-It is an idiotic attempt to taunt, goad, and troll anyone who disagrees with election theft. No one is ever going to think this ridiculous line of reasoning is compelling. It is completely ineffective and makes you look childish, obnoxious, and dense.

-By this garbage logic, every Democrat is a coward for peddling the most hysterical conspiracy theories about President Trump being a secret Russian agent and them not responding by invading the White House. Even addressing something so clearly ludicrous seems beneath anything to which any member of this site should ever be expected to subject themselves.

See? You just keep repeating the same cut and paste (that you probably stole from someone else), but you don't actually tackle the question at hand:

How come on 1/6 you were on JPP talking shit instead of in DC saving the Republic?

 

[artichoke]

You don't actually trounce anyone.

Says the guy who gets trounced harder than anyone.

You not comprehending how badly you do...doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Your strategy here is to spam the board with the same junk...

Says the guy who posts 50 comments per minute, all billion-time repeats of the same four idiotic fallacies over, and over, and over again.

..in the hopes that it fatigues the conversation and you never have to be held to account for the stupid shit you say.

Exactly what only you RELENTLESSLY do all over this site. Is it hard carrying around such a heavy-duty mega projector.

Pathological LV426 Lunacy #1

Problems with the moronic fallacy you are relentlessly spamming this site with about how only domestic terrorists can object to election theft:

-It is invalid logic. It is an ad hominem fallacy (trying to shift the debate to attacking the debater personally instead of attacking their argument) as well as a non-sequiter fallacy (the logic simply does not follow).

-You don't get to arbitrarily invent rules about how people are allowed to respond to a given problem and then psychotically harass them about it for 50 pages straight on a thread that has nothing to do with your absurd fallacy in the first place. Different people can have different solutions to the same problem. Not that it is any of your business how anyone chooses to respond to election theft.

-But even playing along with the obviously stupid and invalid "logic" that if you didn't attack the Capitol Building, then you cannot possibly disagree with the election being stolen, what about poor people, people who live far away, injured people, sick people, people who just had a death in the family, people who had jury duty or who were in jail? Can THEY not have attacked the Capitol Building and still have some random online idiot's permission to disagree?

-It is an idiotic attempt to taunt, goad, and troll anyone who disagrees with election theft. No one is ever going to think this ridiculous line of reasoning is compelling. It is completely ineffective and makes you look childish, obnoxious, and dense.

-By this garbage logic, every Democrat is a coward for peddling the most hysterical conspiracy theories about President Trump being a secret Russian agent and them not responding by invading the White House. Even addressing something so clearly ludicrous seems beneath anything to which any member of this site should ever be expected to subject themselves.Like how you say the election was stolen...weird that you didn't do anything about the greatest theft in American history other than shitpost on JPP.

Your actions don't really match the magnitude of what you're alleging.

If I believed the election was stolen, I'd do a lot more than talk shit to strangers on JPP...

See? You just keep repeating the same cut and paste (that you probably stole from someone else)

Because you bring up the same four idiotic fallacies non-stop. How better to address them than with the same exact counterpoint over and over and over? Getting sick of it? Find something OTHER than the same four stupid-ass, repeatedly debunked claims to spam people with.

Not rocket science.

but you don't actually tackle the question at hand:

Um...of course I do...you just got done COMPLAINING about be tackling the issue at hand...with the same copy and paste posts over and over, in response to you bringing up the same four stupid-ass fallacies over and over.

Comprehend it yet?

How come on 1/6 you were on JPP talking shit instead of in DC saving the Republic?

Pathological LV426 Lunacy #1

Problems with the moronic fallacy you are relentlessly spamming this site with about how only domestic terrorists can object to election theft:

-It is invalid logic. It is an ad hominem fallacy (trying to shift the debate to attacking the debater personally instead of attacking their argument) as well as a non-sequiter fallacy (the logic simply does not follow).

-You don't get to arbitrarily invent rules about how people are allowed to respond to a given problem and then psychotically harass them about it for 50 pages straight on a thread that has nothing to do with your absurd fallacy in the first place. Different people can have different solutions to the same problem. Not that it is any of your business how anyone chooses to respond to election theft.

-But even playing along with the obviously stupid and invalid "logic" that if you didn't attack the Capitol Building, then you cannot possibly disagree with the election being stolen, what about poor people, people who live far away, injured people, sick people, people who just had a death in the family, people who had jury duty or who were in jail? Can THEY not have attacked the Capitol Building and still have some random online idiot's permission to disagree?

-It is an idiotic attempt to taunt, goad, and troll anyone who disagrees with election theft. No one is ever going to think this ridiculous line of reasoning is compelling. It is completely ineffective and makes you look childish, obnoxious, and dense.

-By this garbage logic, every Democrat is a coward for peddling the most hysterical conspiracy theories about President Trump being a secret Russian agent and them not responding by invading the White House. Even addressing something so clearly ludicrous seems beneath anything to which any member of this site should ever be expected to subject themselves.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Find something OTHER than the same four stupid-ass, repeatedly debunked claims to spam people with.

now he will accuse you of lying because he actually has five........