Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Topic: Did Trump conspire with Russia to win the 2016 election.


My team: DDM, Silent Master, Myself

Opposition: Speak up amid you with to participate

Judges: Will be asking Bada, Backfire and Imp to judge, Alternate will be PR

Rules. Each team will be allowed one post collaborated as there opening statement.

One collaborated rebuttal for each team

One collaborated final conclusion for each team

So a total of 6 posts. Once all posts are made judges will be asked to render there decision.

Ramifications: the losing team has to wear the winning teams choice of signature for 3 years and concede that there was never any Russian conspiracy and that they were misguided. If the other side wins, the losing team has to wear a sig of their choosing for 3 years and has to conceded that Trump conspired with Russia.

https://i.imgur.com/eVNrdel.gif

Lol I knew he was going to say that line

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Topic: Did Trump conspire with Russia to win the 2016 election.


My team: DDM, Silent Master, Myself

Opposition: Speak up amid you with to participate

Judges: Will be asking Bada, Backfire and Imp to judge, Alternate will be PR

Rules. Each team will be allowed one post collaborated as there opening statement.

One collaborated rebuttal for each team

One collaborated final conclusion for each team

So a total of 6 posts. Once all posts are made judges will be asked to render there decision.

Ramifications: the losing team has to wear the winning teams choice of signature for 3 years and concede that there was never any Russian conspiracy and that they were misguided. If the other side wins, the losing team has to wear a sig of their choosing for 3 years and has to conceded that Trump conspired with Russia.


Leftists hate themselves and constantly try to change their identity.

If they lost, they'd create a new account.

Three years is too much.

Weeks?

Its not fair to expect ddm to face a team by himself. U should give him some help.

The other side argues that Trump conspired for ever three years. How about 3 months

Originally posted by Raptor22
Its not fair to expect ddm to face a team by himself. U should give him some help.

Noted douche

Originally posted by Impediment
Three years is too much.

Weeks?

Backfire and Bada have agreed to judge. Will you?

If yes then all we need is opposing counsel. I was thinking Adam, Rob and Bash

Originally posted by Raptor22
Its not fair to expect ddm to face a team by himself. U should give him some help.

haermm


I'm not as good as Quan. estahuh

Quan thinks that Thanos can defeat Morgan Freeman/God from Bruce Almighty.

Ok so we have our judges and one team.

Who will participate on the the other team.

I was hoping it would be Rob, Bash and Adam

Am i to understand that there's a hole to be filled on the side that thinks trump did conspire?

Trump didnt necessarily consciously collude, but he was obviously a key useful idiot in a larger cycle of ideological subversion, so to my mind despite trump's intent,or lack thereof, it doesn't matter because the end result is still helping the world wide march of communism. If that counts as a pro collusion view i would be willing to participate.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
The other side argues that Trump conspired for ever three years. How about 3 months

No, it is not. You either do not understand the argument you oppose, or you are misrepresenting to make it easier to defeat. Either way, it is not a fair scenario to ascribe a position to someone else and then demand they defend it. That is a Surtur tactic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
B-but...I already brought it out n'everything.


This is cawkward.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Am i to understand that there's a hole to be filled on the side that thinks trump did conspire?

Trump didnt necessarily consciously collude, but he was obviously a key useful idiot in a larger cycle of ideological subversion, so to my mind despite trump's intent,or lack thereof, it doesn't matter because the end result is still helping the world wide march of communism. If that counts as a pro collusion view i would be willing to participate.

The narrative from most on the left wasn't merely that Russians were trying to help Trump. Rather it was that Trump was actively colluding with the Russians and that their aide was responsible for him winning the election.

Except neither of those things have been proven to be true.

The topic from the outset was pretty simple if you read it

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
https://i.imgur.com/eVNrdel.gif

That's strange. Think I just heard that sound a chicken makes and I don't even have any chickens lol.

It'd probably be easier to just have the judges take a vote of what they believe about this issue right now and declare the winner based on that...

Originally posted by Surtur
The narrative from most on the left wasn't merely that Russians were trying to help Trump. Rather it was that Trump was actively colluding with the Russians and that their aide was responsible for him winning the election.

Except neither of those things have been proven to be true.


Annnnnd, the Russians put out just as much pro-Bernie/pro-Hillary/anti-Trump propaganda as they did Pro-Trump/anti-Hillary. And, the few ads that they did put out had literally zero effect on changing any votes. Anyone who doesn't admit this isn't to be taken seriously.


Also, Obama knew in the middle of 2016 campaign that the Russians were doing these things but yet he said and did nothing. He expected Hillary to win and didn't want to cast doubt on her victory if she did in fact win.


If she had won (as scary as that thought is) we would've never heard anything about "Russian interference", guaranteed.

Originally posted by Artol
It'd probably be easier to just have the judges take a vote of what they believe about this issue right now and declare the winner based on that...

Thats one way to do it

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Annnnnd, the Russians put out just as much pro-Bernie/pro-Hillary/anti-Trump propaganda as they did Pro-Trump/anti-Hillary. And, the few ads that they did put out had literally zero effect on changing any votes. Anyone who doesn't admit this isn't to be taken seriously.


Also, Obama knew in the middle of 2016 campaign that the Russians were doing these things but yet he said and did nothing. He expected Hillary to win and didn't want to cast doubt on her victory if she did in fact win.


If she had won (as scary as that thought is) we would've never heard anything about "Russian interference", guaranteed.

Yup, even some within our own intelligence communities pushed back on the idea Russia specifically wanted Trump to win. Some thought they did, some weren't convinced.

Remember the "but 17 intelligence agencies say so!" lie?

Yeah, the same "17 intelligence agencies" that told us all they were certain Saddam Hussein had WoMD which caused us to go to war which put us even further in debt and cost us many innocent American lives.

Need opposing counsel still

At this point you're basically saying "2+2=4, prove me wrong". It's not possible to do. They can't show Trump working with Putin. Nor can they show Russia is responsible for Trump winning.

Originally posted by Surtur
At this point you're basically saying "2+2=4, prove me wrong". It's not possible to do. They can't show Trump working with Putin. Nor can they show Russia is responsible for Trump winning.


"Bingo."-- Robtard

Even Whirly wouldn't be dumb enough to try to come argue they had evidence of Trump working with Putin and that Russia won him the election.

Originally posted by Surtur
At this point you're basically saying "2+2=4, prove me wrong". It's not possible to do. They can't show Trump working with Putin. Nor can they show Russia is responsible for Trump winning.

If they tried to do that they would undermine their news system, so hilariously they won't step up because it would literally undermine our democracy as well

So when are we doing this BZ.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
So when are we doing this BZ.

None of them will agree to it cuz they know they can't ever prove their claims lol.

The silver lining: their lack of having a sac to come argue this is more or less an admission they can't prove collusion.

But we still should have a definitively the BZ because there seems to still be some doubt.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
But we still should have a definitively the BZ because there seems to still be some doubt.

You just highlighted why they never will do it. If they avoid it they can still always cast doubt instead of facing reality.

Can we agree on russian military/espionage strategy ? That only 15-20% of their total defense budget is spent on traditional warfare, the rest is spent on propaganda/misinformation efforts, this has been true since the 80s and as a policy reenforced by putin, beginning in 2012, after a corrupt power switching tactic with medvedev.

Another thing we can agree on is that one of the cornerstones of russian military strategy is the works of alex dugin, who wrote of using particular geopolitical strategies, in his 1993 book the foundations of geopolitics, to position russia as a world power, and to do this in america would involve using extremist poltical groups, with opposing ideologies, against themselves. This can be seen being executed in the example of maria butina, a russian spy, honey potting the head of the nra, one of America's biggest most powerful political lobbiest groups, and with the political separatism and divsionism stoked through social media via the internet research agency, a russian troll farm which had 35 million dollars of state money, although it was probably not marked as such and funneled through a russian oligarch, pumped into it, as an escalating pace between 2016 and 2017.

Putin has without a doubt said trump winning the prsidency is good for him.

Another way to confirm the foundations of geopolitics line of logic is to look at russias goal with the uk, which is to cut them off from the u.n. for a divide and conquer style defeat, this was accomplished through brexit, and it has now come to surface that the election of johnson was interfered in by the russians.

Intelligence agencies disagreed on if he wanted Trump or not.

I think he wanted chaos. And yes Russia is shady all that, I can't disagree.

I just don't think Trump was working hand in hand with them.

Originally posted by Surtur
Intelligence agencies disagreed on if he wanted Trump or not.

I think he wanted chaos. And yes Russia is shady all that, I can't disagree.

I just don't think Trump was working hand in hand with them.

I disagree on the claim about intelligence agencies, but im looking into, maybe link me your source if you dont mind,.

But we're cool on everything else.

Also. It should be known that commies lie as a part of disinformation.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Also. It should be known that commies lie as a part of disinformation.

Christopher Steele can confirm

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!


Are you ready to accept my Battlezone and assemble your council?

Has anyone seen the movie the cable guy with jim carrey? I know it seems like a non sequitur, but it isnt.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!


Do you think trump conspired with russia? Or do you think that's a bs narrative?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

I dont get the smiles. If it's to be condescending because i said commies lie, i dont necessarily mean all people who identify as communists. Im talking about communist leadership, particularly of the soviet variety, but Also of the north Korean, chinese, or cuban styles as well, from the 1917 revolution onward. Even the leaders that tried to back away from the personality cult of stalin i.e. kruschev, did so for self interested reasons. Even Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika were still limited to the expansion of the communist paradigm, just a multifaceted approach that incorporated elements from trotskyism, eurocommunism, and marxism, while still discouraging a free market.
The closest thing to good leadership in Russia was yelstin and everyone hated him for playing grab ass with the west.

Im highlighting this to say the people of the ussr, or the other countries i mentioned, were normal good people.

An analogy can be drawn here to islam. Isis follows the koran fundamentally, the wahabi leaders abide and encourage this, which makes it impossible for the peaceful muslims to live and practice islam spiritually. So when i say i think muslims lie, im speaking of the ayatollah khomeini, not the average muslim person. And in the same way islamic extremism hurts the much larger majority of moderate muslims more than any other group, the ideology of communism has hurt more communists than any other group. So to recapitulate; the doctrines of communism are bad, but communists = people = good. The koran, if followed fundamentally is bad, but muslims = people = good.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

You must be practicing taqiyya. Communists and muslims form transient alliances all of the time.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

that's the spirit!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that's the spirit!

Totally expected to see another emoji, so this caught me off guard and i laughed from it.

If you do want to chat to me i will be affable, you could even pm if you wanted. Thanks for the little exchange.

The primary goal of Russia was to sew chaos, mistrust, and division in our country and in our electoral system (not get Trump elected) and, thanks to the democrats and the left-wing media, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

Dark days are ahead.

Godspeed

I think the way this question is posed you won't get many people to argue for the motion. I think I could potentially argue relatively recently that there was some minor attempts by people in the Trump campaign to get some aid from Russia, or at the very least condone help, but I don't think that a) amounted to much and b) that Russia is the reason that Trump won. I think I could also try to argue that Trump and people around him tried to interfere with the investigation into whether he did "collude" with Russia. But the way it is posed is not-defensible, imo.


Also, debates are garbage, we should try to have fruitful discussions that broaden our understanding instead.

Originally posted by Artol
I think the way this question is posed you won't get many people to argue for the motion. I think I could potentially argue relatively recently that there was some minor attempts by people in the Trump campaign to get some aid from Russia, or at the very least condone help, but I don't think that a) amounted to much and b) that Russia is the reason that Trump won. I think I could also try to argue that Trump and people around him tried to interfere with the investigation into whether he did "collude" with Russia. But the way it is posed is not-defensible, imo.


Also, debates are garbage, we should try to have fruitful discussions that broaden our understanding instead.

A and B are correct

The question is posed very simply because that was the accusation/narrative/talking point/gaslighting for 4 years now.

That Trump himself conspired with Russia to win the election.

Ill just leave this here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officia
ls

I am not mad.
Not even sad.
A little bad.
Really glad.

Don't be glib
Put on a bib
You silly noobs
Suckle my boobs.
If you are feeling meaner,
Do the same to my weenar.
We know I make the calls
Also tickle my balls

Reading this thread,
You have been had.
I know you're dead,
Cheer up a tad.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am not mad.
Not even sad.
A little bad.
Really glad.

Don't be glib
Put on a bib
You silly noobs
Suckle my boobs.
If you are feeling meaner,
Do the same to my weenar.
We know I make the calls
Also tickle my balls

Reading this thread,
You have been had.
I know you're dead,
Cheer up a tad.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Ill just leave this here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officia
ls

Can you repost the link

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Can you repost the link

Here I fixed it :

Links between Trump associates and Russian officials

EDIT: I guess not lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officia
ls

EDIT: even just copy and pasting it doesn't seem to work

Just google: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials

it's the first result

Originally posted by Surtur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officia
ls

EDIT: even just copy and pasting it doesn't seem to work

Just google: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials

it's the first result

Thank you trying to help, im not tech savvy at all, which is why i have no sig or avatar and dont post pics because i dont get what the hell image hosting is and i was panicking that i did it wrong lol

Yeah sometimes links to wikipedia mess up when posted here

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah sometimes links to wikipedia mess up when posted here

Oh okay, thanks for the heads up. Wikipedia is one of my favorite sources because it's crowd sourced and i believe in the power of crowdsourcing

Who is opposing council?

If your team loses you have to agree to a sig of my choosing for 6 months.

How much more could I sweeten it?

$200 to every poster on the other side if they win the debate

If they lose sig of my choosing for 6 months

Wouldn't you need to define what would constitute "collusion" first?

Read OP

That doesn't define collusion though.

You'd have to decide upon a definition and let the judges decide if that definition had been met rather than letting the judges decide upon the definition itself.

.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
How much more could I sweeten it?

They are spineless cowards. They will not accept no matter how much you sweeten the deal because they know they are wrong.

Fine. If you want to play semantics.

Agree upon a definition of what would constitute "conspiring"

How are we playing semantics? Conspiring is textbook and defined as such.

Is there a gulf of difference between "conspiring" with Russia and "colluding" with Russia towards the same end?

Please explain what they are.

The mueller report def showed collusion. It just wasnt criminal, why do you think a bunch of russian nationals were indicted?

No Russians were indicted for conspiracy with Trump or associates.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Is there a gulf of difference between "conspiring" with Russia and "colluding" with Russia towards the same end?

Please explain what they are. /end thread

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
No Russians were indicted for conspiracy with Trump or associates.

I posted the wiki and pooty even helped me fix the link.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Is there a gulf of difference between "conspiring" with Russia and "colluding" with Russia towards the same end?

Please explain what they are.

Conspiracy was the charge. Read the Mueller report

Also what you said makes no difference you can call it whatever you want. The point is. Did Trump conspire with Russia to win the election

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Also what you said makes no difference you can call it whatever you want. The point is. Did Trump conspire with Russia to win the election

Yeah I was wondering why anyone would feel that was some sort of gotcha. Mueller didn't prove Trump "conspired" with Putin or that he "colluded" with him.

The bottom line: The Trump campaign was not actively working with Putin and the Russians in order to win the 2016 election. Nobody, not our intelligence agencies nor the intelligence agencies of any other country, has ever shown otherwise.

He thought that would end the debate and apparently so did Whirly

My vote is for sale. If you want me to vote for your side send me nude photos of sexy women you know and I will vote for you.

Do pics your gf sent me count?

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah I was wondering why anyone would feel that was some sort of gotcha. Mueller didn't prove Trump "conspired" with Putin or that he "colluded" with him.

The bottom line: The Trump campaign was not actively working with Putin and the Russians in order to win the 2016 election. Nobody, not our intelligence agencies nor the intelligence agencies of any other country, has ever shown otherwise.

So far the only real hard evidence we do have is the heads of our intelligence agencies conspiring against a duly elected president then getting hired by media outlets to lie some more....weeeeee Murika.

Looking for the other team. Where did they go?

Rob you going to assemble your team?

No takers?

Still waiting for Whirly to grab his sack and man the **** up