Yfw hillary is guilty of mishandling classified information among other things

>yfw hillary is guilty of mishandling classified information among other things
>yfw trump is guilty of colluding with the russians among other things
>yfw obama is guilty of illegal spying among other things
>yfw the democratic party is complicit in hillary and obama's crimes among other things
>yfw the republican party is complicit in trump's crimes among other things
>yfw literally everyone in government down to mayors are out here doing illegal shit and lying about it on the daily
>yfw Americans are just fucked and everyone in politics is equally corrupt

when did you take the REAL red pill?

What confuses me about pol are the people who support trump unironically... I ironically supported Trump because im an admitted contrarian and wanted a good laugh. I didn't vote for him but I sure as shit had a good hard laughing fit when I saw those videos of Hillary supporters crying during election night. I sure as shit love my front row seats to the circus.

We have to ask ourselves... are we supporting him because he's genuinely good or are we just trying to troll normies on the grandest of scales?

>colluding

Could you define this sjw buzzword and show me how it is illegal?

>>yfw trump is guilty of colluding with the russians among other things

I just gotta ask, are you open to the idea of it being true? or is there literally nothing that would change your mind? I'm not saying I have evidence that would change your mind, I'm just wondering how open you are to the idea...
and I think you know damn well what collusion means. either russia blackmailed him and are using him as a pawn or some such situation wherein trump is just working for russia

I know you're a shill and all but what reason did your superiors give for us to not support Trump?

im a shill? aahahahahahahahahaha
you used to be able to have serious conversation, as crazy as it sounds, on pol. i dont think we can if you think im being dishonest with you and shilling for or against someone.

actually it's pretty obvious im criticizing trump AND hillary / obama admin. I thought these shills were correcting the record and clearing the names of democrats? i think the dems are very complicit in wrongdoings and a lot of them probably deserve jail time for the things they've done behind closed doors. But do you honestly believe republicans have completely clean hands?
Just because hillary and the dems are guilty does NOT mean the republicans aren't also guilty.

>Trump colluded with Russia
To do what exactly? Take out anti-trump pro-hillary ads on Facebook. Or did he collude with Russia to have their Russian bots known as Sup Forums spread dank memes?

>im gonna pretend like i dont know how useful it'd be to have the president of the USA in my pocket
you rn

If you had an understanding of reality that was even the slightest bit of realistic you'd be ashamed of yourself now for writing this shit. Anybody who believes a billionaire can be fucked into doing anything he doesn't want to do has no clue what he is talking about. You were fed lies and are too much of a coward to use your own brain.

Still didn't answer my question. What did trump collude with Russia on other than defeating ISIS After he took office?

perhaps to implement policies / laws / etc that would assist Russia's interests?

Woah there, I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just hypothesizing. Are you closed to the idea that Trump is guilty in any way?

>Perhaps
Perhaps he colluded with Russia to make Bigfoot have sex with the lochness monster

look dude, i know you're probably just terribly closed minded and im going nowhere here, but you REALLY think it's equally possible that Trump is assisting Russia behind closed doors as he is to making bigfoot having sex with the lochness monster? you think there's an equal possibility of the two?

>perhaps
Tell me what he did and what evidence you have for it.

i dont have any evidence, my claim that he was guilty is baseless

what I came here looking for is a take down of my claim. how do we know it's a nonsense claim? or is it just a case of no evidence currently existing that supports the claim? if the latter is the case, are you open to the idea that there might exist evidence that he in point of fact is a russian plant?

>i don't have any evidence
>my claim is baseless
>how do we know it's a nonsense claim?
fuck off

So, yes, it's just the case that there's no evidence for it but also no evidence against it?

There's no evidence against you sucking a dick right now. That's not how logic works, faggot.

no shit? i know i started by saying trump is guilty but i dont actually believe that. im looking for how we know he didn't or if it's just he said / she said.

The lack of evidence makes it worthless.
>I think you murdered this guy
>No, I don't have any evidence, but prove me wrong or we're going to keep talking about it.
>What, you're not open to the idea that it's possible?
Retard.

it's kinda like god. it's wrong to say he certainly doesn't exist but its also wrong to say that he certainly does

regardless, why are you being so obtuse? IT'S A SIMPLE "YES, THERE IS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE CLAIM" OR A "NO, THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE CLAIM"
sheesh, im not hinging my view based on whether or not there's counterevidence. I was just wondering if there is or isn't.

A claim is worthless when there's no evidence supporting it, it doesn't matter whether or not there's evidence falsifying it. That just makes it easier to disregard, the fact remains that there's no point to persist on a claim with no fucking evidence.
You're asking for evidence against an extremely vague claim ("Trump colluded!" without even fucking defining what collusion is.

Provide evidence and people will believe.

this isn't something i needed to be explained to me

i was looking for a simple "there's no reason to believe the claim, but there's no reason to believe the claim is necessarily false either"

thank you

>oh so you can't say it's false gotcha!
The bottom line is that there's no fucking point to the constant discussion of a claim without evidence. Learn how the fuck logic works. You only need to disprove a claim when some evidence initially supports it. When there's nothing supporting it, there's not even a point in mentioning it.

You're a child rapist, how do we know if this is a nonsense claim? I guess we need to accept that until someone shows that you aren't a kiddie fondler.

>well, would you look at this absence of evidence?
>i think that means there's evidence of abence!

no, im not saying "gotcha!"
im saying we should postpone judgement

17 intelligence agencies agree that OP is a rapist. 17!

>postpone judgment
On fucking what? The statement doesn't even deserve to be in the public discussion without any evidence. What is your goal? You just want "trump colluded" to remain in people's thoughts.

no, i literally dont, I just wanted to confirm whether or not it was verifiable or falsifiable so the next time i get into an argument with someone irl i dont make myself look like a dumbass trying to convince them that trump didn't do it, instead i will convince them that we don't have evidence that trump did it

there is a big difference between the two

>i'm with you I swear!
>also you're a dumbass if you say trump didn't collude!

you've been terribly condescending and you think you know more but let me make this very simple for you:

>Trump did it
baseless claim

>Trump didn't do it
baseless claim

>There is no evidence to suggest that Trump did it
grounded claim

make sense?

>Mishandling

Could you define this conservatard buzzword and show me how it is illegal?

lol

Trump ran on a platform of protection, peace and prosperity. I watched nearly every rally. Anyone who watched even a few would know him. He was and is the greatest thing to happen to this country in my lifetime.

Wrong.
>trump did it
Worthless claim.
>let's keep talking about it anyways!
Dangerously agenda riddled stance.

>it's illegal to handle classified info this way
>she handled classified info in that way
Shills out in force.

>some such situation wherein trump is just working for russia

Ironically?

That's why trump is great. He's not a Republican. :-)

i think that's capitulation on your part, thanks for contributing

ah true, i suppose he wasn't involved with the party until he started campaigning, unlike the rest of the republican candidates who had involvement with the gop for years now

>By continuing to argue, you've surrendered!!!

You still don't understand at all. What you're saying is so very basic that centering a thread about it is offensively retarded, and the media participating in that same line of stupid logic is astounding.
>yeah but we can't prove he didn't do it
That does not matter and has never mattered when dealing with a claim that has no evidence.

>yfw trump is guilty of colluding with the russians among other things

go back to plebbit nigger

>20 posts by this ID

kike alert

...

...

JUDEN THREAD

>Are you closed to the idea that Trump is guilty in any way

Such an interesting theme for a thread. There is no evidence. Its like your begging for us to believe.

holy shit dude why are you so caught up on this

IM SAYING THERE'S AS MUCH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT TRUMP BEING GUILTY AS THERE IS EVIDENCE OF RUSSELL'S TEAPOT FOR FUCKS SAKE

>but honestly goy we can't say he didn't do it there's just not proof
Russell's teapot was about how fucking dumb it is to even propose such a thing.

Well we don't know if he colluded with Russia to make make a sex tape with the lochness monster and Bigfoot. That's why we need to spend millions of tax payers dollars to find out. Don't you want to know. Why would you want to shut an investigation into that? What are you hiding?

im glad we agree

>im looking for how we know he didn't or if it's just he said / she said

Did you mean this ironically?

>Trump colluding with russia

Lol
I remember hillary spawning this . she was an animal backed into a corner . Her machine is just running on autopilot at this point.

Trolling normies on the grandest of scales is the most good. Idiot.

really dude, i dont understand how to make it any more simple than I mean, do you honestly believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence? that's what im gathering from and that's why i called it capitulation

the thing i hate about this site is when someone comes here to try and gain an understanding, everyone just assumes that they're so far above everyone else... im literally trying to be able to argue IN FAVOR of trump and you're being a dick about it and calling me a shill.

yeah, thats why i wanted trump to win lowkey

i voted third party but i obviously didn't expect gary to actually win lol

>i'm one of you! i'm arguing in favor of trump!

>c'mon goy-i mean guys, we don't really support trump right? it's all ironic trolling surely

why do you choose to avoid addressing the points i make?
i want to argue for trump because, when it came to hillary vs trump, i found trump to be preferable but ONLY when it's trump vs hillary. and it just so happens that most of americans fall for the two party system so when talking about politics irl, people are either arguing for/against trump or for/against hillary. and i'll always be anti hillary in favor of trump in this regard.

but like, were you planning on addressing the things i said or did you just want to deteriorate the converstaion

Clearly a shill.

Again and again, what you're saying is not profound or even interesting or worth mentioning
>2+2 is 4 man, why don't you want to talk about that?

I think we should still be open to discuss whether or not you are a child rapist. No, I'm not saying you certainly are, but I think we should postpone judgement until we have good evidence for it.

and you know what the crazy part about that statement is? YOU'RE LITERALLY CORRECT. YOU'RE NOT DISAGREEING AT ALL

>haha see I'm completely right with my basic and obvious statement! This DID need to be a thread!

I am not correct. If you were to be charged in a court of law for being a child rapist and the only evidence for it was that there is none against it the judgement would not be "postponed". You would be cleared as innocent, because you are innocent until you are proven guilty. If you do not instantly assume Trump is innocent then you are by definition anti-constitutional.

well ok you're right it is very obvious and basic but why did you take issue with the very obvious statement earlier if that's the case...

it's asinine for you to pretend to know one way or the other whether some random guy on the internet is or isn't a child molester.

maybe i should have started by saying that I'm not the courts and im not using court rules to determine validity. of course the courts would clear them as innocent. but has a guilty man never been cleared as innocent? an innocent verdict in court does not actually mean the person is actually innocent.