The Last Great GDF BZ

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.

.

The isn’t a single reference to collusion in the OP.

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.

The isn’t a single reference to collusion in the OP

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.

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

I thought they truly believed Trump conspired with Russia. They said it for four years now.

Whirly is still carrying on that the “truth will come out later”

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

Please explain what they are.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
I thought they truly believed Trump conspired with Russia. They said it for four years now.

Whirly is still carrying on that the “truth will come out later”

They have no proof, only illusions and beliefs. They can’t win here and they know it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.

Word Salad won’t get you anywhere.

Do you believe Trump conspired with Russia to win the election and are you ready to grab your sack and debate me.

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.

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 Old Man Whirly!
👆 😂 /end thread 🙂

No sorry that’s not the /thread

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.