I'm just saying that while you didn't dismiss concerns about Russia for being "unreasonable," you did dismiss them for being trivial. To put it another way, the premise was true, but the conclusion was false.
Sorry, you're lying. Stop lying. Thanks.
I dismissed
some concerns as trivial, yes. For example, when Rama said that Russia openly voiced support of Trump, I argued that that's not concerning to me, because we can't exactly stop heads of state or their national media to voice an opinion. Given how many times I've made it clear that I supported an independent investigation into this stuff, you're really not going to find it easy to spin this into me opposing the investigation. You've been trying to do this by pretending there's a contradiction in my statements, but so far you've had to rely on lies and omission. How about we drop those and get the ball rolling?
You accuse me of shitposting, but you've missed out on some nuance. The problem here is that your argument boils down to "Yeah, you technically said you support an investigation, but that's bullshit and you totally don't support one." In other words, you're accusing me of inaccurately representing my own views. That sort of claim, especially when I have absolutely no stake in this, is going to require some substantiation. So, no snark, no nothing: please explain why you think you know my thoughts better than I do.
And now you're trying to move the goalposts again by slipping in a "to date,"
Actually, there's been plenty of "to date"s and "unless new evidence emerges" in my previous postings. Here's one example, back from when Russia totally-definitely hacked the DNC:
As far as I'm concerned, no evidence has been presented to date. I'm not immediately dismissing CIA's and FBI's accounts, but I do it suspicious that so little detail has been presented for these accusations.
Ooh, look, here's the one where I'm calling you a Pizzagater! But wait, hhhhwhat's this in red?!
Until the situation changes (either your views adjust to the evidence available to date, or evidence emerges which yields your ideas some credence), I'll keep laughing at you for pursuing the left-wing equivalent of Pizzagate.
Several of us raised the possibility, not an ironclad conclusion that we could just skip the trial and execute Trump, but a hypothetical, something that could be true, might be true, that there may have been some collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia - and you came down on that suggestion in the strongest possible terms.
Once again, you lie.
You called it insane, retarded, a meme, and compared it to Pizzagate. Your language wasn't even slightly vague or ambiguous. You weren't saying we were stretching, you weren't saying we were being hasty, you weren't saying we were wrong, you were saying we were out of our minds.
Actually, these comparisons came in response to the article about Louise Mensch et al. Her (and your) claims were nothing like "there might be some collusion".
The obvious implication here is "as opposed to investigating Trump," given the context. If that's not what you meant, then you were being very unclear.
That conclusion is not only not obvious, but it strictly requires you to ignore everything I've been saying to you while you were busy calling Trump a Russian-controlled person. Then again, you probably have been ignoring everything I was saying.
But in any case - fine, let's try again. What reasonable claims, focusing on Trump's campaign and Russia, would you be supportive of investigating?
The possibility of undue communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government (or proxies thereof)? I don't understand, Saddam. Why are you asking me to name this
over and over. I've agreed on this with people time and time again, even when I disagreed with them about everything else.
Like I said, I don't believe there's anything you could say here that wouldn't fall into the very, very broad category of lol-memes that you previously dismissed.
You don't believe in many things that actually happened, but we have a written record of this entire conversation, so your beliefs are somewhat irrelevant.
I do find the picture very funny, yes.
Saddam, "Yes" is not a very good answer to the question of "Why?" Please, focus for just a minute and try responding to, like,
one thing that someone actually said.