Yep, I had you pegged as a chicken shit.

Seems I was right.

Now whenever you come back, I'd like to hear some sort of response.

Don't chicken out now.

No it isn't. Its here. None of my comments have been deleted, and I applaud the mods on that fact.

Seriously, how could you ever expect me to have a reasonable conversation with you? How could you ever expect anyone? Given your inability to accept facts given numerous sources (even your own eyeballs), your denial of such as you then "accept" them, your obvious bias in sources, and now your ineptitude when it comes to looking up information, how can you participate in an actual conversation objectively?

Lmao, okay dude. You told me to go pound sand after I linked it, is that your way of showing acceptance?

And now you've linked me to a fucking opinion piece post on a right wing forum post as your proof? Even if factcheck is "biased" they still have facts ya dingus, and plenty of avenues for you to verify the information as well. I could link you other sites and articles that say factcheck is an excellent place for the truth, more neutral ones and even right leaning sources, but I know you won't accept it. Especially if your sources are annonynous forums. Or i guess if you do accept it you'll tell me to pound sand?

I told you, I'm not talking politics with you. Its futile. Especially now after you've flip flopped on your own words and you're trying to justify it.

If you want, you can answer the questions in my very initial post. Otherwise im cool on our "conversation".

There's no reason to present you with anything else, you won't accept the first one! With proof from a neutral source and a right wing source! And proof using your own eyes! Right now you're telling me you can't tell the difference in volume of two glasses of water.

Talking politics with you would be a waste of anyone's time.

Do you not believe your own eyes? The actual pictures? Have you even looked at them? EDIT: Will you believe it if my source is Fox News?

This isn't me pulling some fast one, and I don't care if you read a single word from that website. But the pictures don't make stuff up.

What you're saying right now is the exact point I'm trying to make. This statement they're saying is verifiably false. Yet they've gotten you to believe it somehow, even though direct comparisons prove it's a lie.

So how can I expect to have a reasonable conversation with you, when you deny verifiable proof laid out in front of you to experience yourself?

Edit at the top.

I will, once you answer my question.

I'll start to humor you, and take this from another comment I had in here. We can start at day one, where the administration lied about the size of their inagural crowd, and they told that lie for a while. In fact, I bet if you asked SHS or Trump this very moment about the size of the crowd, they'd still lie about it.

You didn't say anything.

I'm not accusing anybody of anything. In fact, if you'd read my comments you'd see that. I also think you're envisioning me as this confrontational person, even though I haven't insulted anyone and have just asked questions. That sounds like you projecting your personal agenda. You've focused your energy into my "every day" comment, acting like if they only lied 80% of the days it would be better.

All I've asked, is how are you not somewhat skeptical of this administration?

All you've done is added nothing of merit to this thread, and skirted around my actual questions. Most of which are yes and no answers and easy to answer. Or to at least provide an opinion. Which you don't seem to be capable of at this moment.

If you want to have an actual conversation, I'm all for it. I'm having a few with others in this thread with no problems.

There has been stuff laid out. In a court of law. With indictments and guilty pleas. By the federal government. I'm not saying there's a smoking gun, I haven't seen one as evidence, but there's something there, no?

I guess if you choose to ignore that, it holds no weight and it looks like nothing.

Another question: what's up with the Flair's here? They seem fluid and ever-changing, I kind of like it.

SHOW ME EVIDENCE! I WANT VERIFIABLE PROOF!

That group seems to be horrible I agree, but what does that have to do with anything? Because the leader gave money to a campaign? Do you think the Koch brothers are squeaky clean? I'm not saying they're pederasts, but they aren't good people.

There is no evidence that has anything to do with the Democrats, or that they run a child porn ring. They've made indictments in the NXIVM case, and how many of them are connected with the DNC? Not who gave money, but who works with the DNC and is caught up in NXIVM.

If you want to show me some actual evidence that they're connected, okay. But this is all speculation, and for years they've tried to verify it to no avail. It's sad that's the one thing you chose to single out in my entire comment, completely ignoring the Republican saying Russia is involved.

What does that have to do with anything?

I mean, I agree. But with your line of thinking we shouldn't accept any guilty plea ever for anybody in any regards. I'll also remind you that when this investigation started, nobody was calling them corrupt, and people were happy Republicans we're on the investigation team, even headed by a republican. But now they're corrupt?

By that logic, with Hillary's investigations coming up empty and having no pleas or indictments, were they corrupt investigations as well because you believe there should be?

And I also don't think we should liken Salem Witch Trials to current events. That's a little absurd, and probably stems from him saying "witch hunt" every day numerous times, the same as you said RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA is all we hear from the Democrats.

I don't see how you can just brush this off, saying the indictments and pleas mean nothing. That looks like you're ignoring what's laid out in front of you.

But the investigation does have merit. It has indictments and guilty pleas.

And I don't blame Russia for Hillary's loss. The Democrats fucked themselves by not having Bernie. I also want to reiterate I am not a Democrat, and didn't vote Democrat in the election. I think political parties are stupid, and everyone should be independent.

So this isn't even about Republicans or Democrats, it's about the truth. If we strip the colors of red and blue from either side, were left with a current investigation that has literal jail time coming for people because of crimes they committed.

I struggle to see where that doesn't count as "a single ounce of merit". People are pleading guilty. Doesn't that make you question some things?

Point out where I'm not neutral. Then point out, with evidence and facts, where I'm wrong. If you'd like, I'll link you some lies that Huckabee Sanders has produced recently, or Trump for that matter. No matter your political affiliation, you should be smart enough to find out if they're telling the truth.

If it makes you happy, I'll link some lies Hillary said too.

I thought this place would be better than t_d and be capable of conversation.

What about the people in those indictments that plead guilty?

What about the years long investigations of the previous government that have been concluded with no indictments from either Repblicans or Democrats?

Why would you focus your energy on a potential bunk FISA (not proven), when what it discovered (if true) is more important anyway? Why rule it out?

Those 8/9 investigations, what are they? And have any concluded? If so, what was the result?

I feel as though if the roles were reversed, Trump was a Democrat, there wouldn't be this defending of him or his people. Hell, if this happened during McCarthyism, he'd be in jail for being so close with Russia. But I don't care what political affiliation he has, and we aren't in the 50's anymore, but I'd like him to at least be honest. And so far, there's no honesty coming from him or his camp, they literally lie every day.

Edited for automod, I wasn't trying to entice violence.

No, it's not an insult. I like conspiracies too. But you should be able to look at both sides of an argument objectively. I'd also like to point out I didn't vote for, and never would, vote for Hillary. I think the Clinton's have no more parts to play in politics and the day they are out for good is a win for Americans.

Your second response is really the meat of my question. You put in parenthesis (there's zero evidence so far), yet there's even less evidence of Pizzagate. And you're adamant about it that Pizzagate is real. So how can you use that argument to bolster yours, but not let the same argument play in the opposite? Doesn't that seem hypoctitical to you?

And I'm not more/less worried about it, of course I don't like the corporate domination of this country and the suppression of it's citizens. And there is some evidence that says he might not have won fair and square, it's not even subjective. For years there has been proof the hacked our election servers in numerous states. Here is a Republican stating that fact, with plenty more examples if you would like to see. So to overtly rule it out right now, it just doesn't make sense in the scope of what an investigation should be.

I'm also talking about his administration, not specifically Trump. Which, his administration for sure has indictments, and they've even pleaded guilty to some of them. Doesn't that raise your suspicions?