My point, as you ought to be aware, is that disproving one specific claim does not automatically disprove all claims.
Perhaps a more precise analogy would be "Disproving one line of The Origin of Species" would not disprove the Theory of Evolution (although I dare say that to a lot of the Trumper crowd, it would).
No, it happened the moment he was fired right after publicly criticizing a terrorist chemical weapons attack on an American ally by the Russia government, you unbelievably repellent apologist for fascism.Yeah, so in other words, the moment it became useful to TrumpRussia Bullshit Artists, Tillerson went from Putin's Stooge (in a way that no one ever actually explained or proved, ever) to Man Who Reached the Line.
Your sarcastic jeering at the idea of Trump being held accountable, and at those who want to see it happen, is suggestive as to your true motives and sympathies.Yeah dude, the Ship Is Sinking. Any day now, Trump will be led away in handcuffs!
If you just said "I defend Putin and Trump because I hate the US and want to see it fail", I'd probably respect you more for your honesty.
The entire US intelligence community confirmed that Russian interference occurred (which you have denied).Since when did the entire US intelligence community conclude that Trump colluded with Russia? Because I'm pretty sure that's never. Or are you aping their "17 intelligence agencies" propaganda canard about "Russian interference" and turning that into "Trump Russia collusion!"
The emails from members of the Trump campaign demonstrate that at least an attempt at collusion occurred.
Because massive organized crime cases take time, and Mueller is not a sloppy fuck, but a professional who is methodical in building the strongest possible case. Which is fortunate and necessary, given the efforts of apologist scum like you to undermine any attempt to uphold the rule of law in America.LOL, what about their emails? If their emails proved what you think they proved, how come no one's been charged over what you think they say?
Are you denying that Trump is frequently self-contradictory?[/quote]So Trump is a Russian Stooge but because of Multiple Agendas (?!), he'll decide to hire a notorious anti-Russian ultra-hawk who wants to do stuff that Russia hates - because he's a yes man. It all makes sense!
Pretending that this one example proves collusion allegations are Fake News while ignoring or hand-waving all far the more substantial evidence that collusion occurred is cherry-picking.Pointing out that the person Trump is replacing Russian Stooge Tillerson with is a notorious ultra-hawk is somehow "cherry picking", lol.
Of course, this is almost certainly why Trump constantly contradicts himself, at least in part- so that people like you can cherry-pick what they want to see in his actions.
He is a man who is very stupid about a great many things, but has one undeniable talent- playing the media.So in service of the conspiracy, Trump Is Playing 3D Chess Now. He's not a TV game show host whose brain is turning into jello, he's a Master Deceiver.
I've been very consistent, incidentally, in arguing this interpretation of Trump.
Among other things.Yes because that's what we're discussing, how bad Trump's judgment is.
My point is that whatever the reason for firing Tillerson, Trump did it in a way that made it appear to be an act supporting Russia against Britain. Why?
The problem with that argument is that you haven't disproved the theory, either about Tillerson specifically or in the bigger picture. So my rejecting that notion does not prove that I will dismiss any evidence as "part of the conspiracy".I never said it did. What I did was point out how Tillerson illustrates how nicely this conspiracy theory works. Like any conspiracy theory, its totally unfalsifiable because any contrary evidence is to the conspiracy theorist - just further proof of the conspiracy.
And FYI, if Mueller says that he cannot prove collusion by Trump personally, I will accept that he is acting in good faith unless I have a very good reason not.
You are twisting my words to fit your caricature, so that you can substitute ridicule and personal attacks for reasoned, evidence-based argument."But he did that to throw everyone off the trail! It's ALL CONNECTED"
Besides the fact that a President who repeatedly acts overtly friendly towards Russia's dictator, who is under investigation for possible collusion with the Russian government to become President and for trying to obstruct said investigation, with deep business ties to Russia oligarchs close to Putin, fired Tillerson almost immediately after Tillerson sided with Britain (the victim of a Russian chemical weapons attack) against Russia, while Trump was still dragging his feet on doing so.Literally no evidence whatsoever on planet Earth that Russia played a role in it. Not incumbent on anyone to prove a negative.
Sure, that could all be coincidence. But I would hardly say that there is no cause to be suspicious.
By the way, I'm not saying "Russia ordered the firing." I doubt it was that direct. Nor do I think that it was the only reason for Tillerson's firing. But his taking such an overtly anti-Russian stance, while the President was dragging his feet on the issue, may well have been the last straw for Trump.
I'm not trying to "distract" from anything. I'm calling out your attempts to do so. And your "actual point" is nothing but ad hominem and shallow ridicule in an attempt to discredit my argument by discrediting the people making it.Your attempts to distract from the actual point (Tillerson and conspiracy theory logic) couldn't get any more obvious.
Oh, here we go. Anyone who doesn't suck Dear Leader Putin's cock is a McCarthist. Get a new line, troll.On your fun little neo-McCarthyite red-baiter merry-go-round once again, aren't we? Go back to the 1950s, for fuck's sake. It's embarassing.
Also, "red-baiter", even more explicitly than "McCarthyite", implies that I am attacking Russia out of a fear.hatred of Communism. This is illogical, as Russia is no longer communist (hint: its fascist) and hasn't been for decades- a fact of which I am well-aware. So by calling me a "red-baiter" for criticizing the Russian government, you are either revealing your own utter historical illiteracy, or being dishonest (hint: its the latter).
I think there are certain points on which Trump is unwilling to challenge Putin. That does not mean that they must agree completely on every single point, or else no collusion occurred.But I thought you said Putin had Trump wrapped around his finger? It's funny how your claim morphs to much weaker variants the moment you're challenged on it.
It is typical of a dishonest shill like yourself to equate any attempt at nuance or recognizing the complexities of the situation as dishonesty on my part.
No, it goes (in very abbreviated form) like this:Oh ho. So the Big Fucking Idiot Russia Conspiracy Plot goes a little something like this:
1. Trump colluded with Russia to steal American Democracy
2. In exchange, Trump agreed to do with Putin Wants
3. Trump is a 'double-dealing turncoat' though, which explains everytime he does something that the Russians plainly don't want him to do, like expand NATO, build up forces along Russia's border, undermine the Syrian government, or sell lethal arms to Ukraine.
4. Trump is still a Russian Stooge despite 3, so he got so concerned at Tillerson following the British line for the nerve agent attack he immediately fired him.
It all makes sense!
1. Trump has long-standing business ties with Russian organized crime and Russian oligarchs close to Putin, and a fetish for dictators. This is public knowledge, and has been for a long time.
2. Russia wants to undermine the governments of rival nations, discredit democracy, and keep the anti-Putin Clinton out of the White House. Again, this is common knowledge.
3. Russia tries to cultivate a relationship with Trump and his campaign, has meetings with campaign officials, offers dirt on Clinton, as confirmed by Trump campaign members' released emails. At around the same time, it hacks the DNC and gives the dirt it steals to Wikileaks, as confirmed by various intelligence agencies. Trump associates subsequently admit connections to Wikileaks. Trump "jokingly" asks Putin to release any Clinton emails on television.
4. The Republicans, at Manafort's prompting, add a pro-Russia bit on the Ukraine to the Republican platform at the convention.
5. Russia wages a systematic propaganda campaign which is suspiciously similar in its methods, rhetoric, and targets to the social media campaign of the Trump campaign. This was a subject of the last round of indictments from Mueller. Trump frequently acts more friendly toward Russia and its leader than towards NATO and other close US allies (continuing during his Presidency). We've seen this in his own statements again and again.
6. Trump becomes President in a narrow win in certain key states (including places heavily targeted by the aforementioned propaganda campaign). It is subsequently revealed that Russian gained access to voter databases in a number of states.
7. An investigation, begun during the election and based on the Steel dossier, concerns raised by foreign intelligence services, and others, continues. Trump does everything in his power to obstruct it, waging a full-scale PR campaign against the Justice Department and the Free Press, aided and abetted by fan whores like you.
8. In that context, Trump drags his feet on condemning Russia after it carries out a chemical terrorist attack on civilians in Britain, a close US ally, then fires Tillerson right after he sides with Britain over Russia.
You are making false and misleading claims, and intellectually irrational arguments. You are doing so either out of stupidity, or dishonesty. Take your pick.I love it how you use "liar" in contexts where it makes no sense at all.