TakeYouToTasker

Spending your time gathering evidence? You haven't even read/seen any evidence at all, period. There is no evidence of what you're claiming. What is being demonstrated is that the Trump-Russia investigation is a farce perpetrated by the prior Administration, the Clinton Foundation, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC, and elements of the intelligence committee for the purpose of rigging a federal election and then attempting a coup once they failed. But we should continue the investigation, even after this is conclusively demonstrated, why exactly?

He's Canadian actually. You still haven't posted any evidence by the way. Where as Greg is posting tons of evidence every single day in the form of declassified memos, legal documents, reports, text messages, emails, etc. including active timelines, names, dates, motivations and levels of access. You've posted nothing.

Gerrymandering is not a criminal enterprise. Even in the case you listed where they found gerrymandering illegal, they made no mention of how the districting ran afoul of the law. That's not a legal issue. That's 5 Democrats on a panel of 7 individuals making a political decision for the benefit of their preferred party.

No, no. You made a claim. "Pure evil". Those words mean something, and you have a habit of saying things that are wildly inaccurate. Explain how the Viet Nam War was "pure evil". You've left no room for nuance, you've left no room for error. Go.

The Viet Nam War was pure evil? On what grounds?

Odd that the Russian hacking narrative is being reintroduced now that the intel rollout is underway. Oh, wait. No it isn't.

... Gerrymandering isn't voter fraud. It's not even similar to voter fraud.

I'm curious to see the methodology.

That's not evidence of anything. What you're doing is taking a circumstance and attributing the worst possible connotations to it, and then demanding others prove that nothing happened. That's not evidence, or how to properly make a case. Greg is laying out evidence. Page after page of evidence including legal documents, and ties everything together neatly leaving no gaps in his explanations, sourcing those as well.

ev·i·dence ˈevədəns/ noun noun: evidence 1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination" synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation "they found evidence of his plotting"

What would convince me? Evidence that he colluded with Russia in order to influence the election would convince me. That's the charge you're asking me to believe. Present evidence. Not talking points. Not fiat declarations. Not hearsay. Evidence. Why don't you have any evidence?

And there's the rub: I have asked myself the same question. I began all of this as a very well documented "Never Trump" voter. I shared all of your concerns over Russian collusion, and began to look at the evidence, which is what one should always do. The problem was, that that there never was any evidence presented. There were lots of fiat assertions, and lots of bluster; and then there were factual inaccuracies which weren't being explained, but rather papered over; and then there were narrative shifts and character attacks in absence of evidence when those factual inaccuracies were challenged; and then there was evidence leading away from Trump/Russia collusion, which was once again papered over; and the list goes on and on, and leads further away from President Trump. I am where I am on this because I have been examining all of the evidence being presented. I had to throw away my preconceptions because the evidence told me I was wrong. There is no shame in being wrong as long as you can admit it when the truth reveals itself.

Listen, I get that you think that's clever, but I'm genuinely asking you: At what point? What will it take? Or, even upon seeing incontrovertible evidence, which is coming rapidly, will you still side with those acting as deceivers?

Tremendous for folks that do small engine repair.

At what point, if any, will you join the side of freedom, standing against tyrants who tried to overthrow the very concept of free and fair elections, attempting to implement a pseudo-monarchy?

PM sent.

Tie this in if you don't mind?

This begs the question: Do you believe it's OK to be immoral and take positive actions to do terrible harm to others, so long as it benefits you directly?

The movement isn't about justice, it's about consolidating power and tearing down human social structures; and it is used as a cudgel by liars looking for nothing more than to punish white men for being white men.

I'd say several of the second choice leading up to either the third or the fourth choice.

Yes, but that was when it was "evil Republicans" conquering "brown people"; while now it's "virtuous liberals" fighting to protect us from "actual Nazis".

The constant leaks of closed door meetings early in his Presidency, which led to distrust and infighting over the leak sources, portrayed in the media as signs of incompetence has a very different feel to it suddenly. That would be the use of gathered intelligence to directly impede the President's ability to govern, and force him out of office.

Those are marching orders which lead directly to the end of a rope, and they came from "somewhere". Those responsible for issuing an order like that must know that their time is near if this is being introduced.

Do you believe that the Constitution permits the construction of the FBI and DOJ?

3. The FBI and DOJ need to be abolished, and replaced with a new agency with direct congressional oversight, constructed from the ground up.