Greene has been Stripped

No it means over 74 million Americans are Donald Trump believers, the guy who suggested injecting disinfectant to cure Covid and supports radical groups as "good people" he loves. That's arguably just as insane.

 

Then why did you mention Qanon?

 

For someone who's been on this forum since 2017, you sure have missed a lot.

Obviously there are tons more. There are multiple threads dedicated to it. But if you searched and couldn't find anything than I'm not sure you are up to even discussing this issue.

As for Swalwell:

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) who recently was revealed to be a target of an accused Chinese spy and is believed to allegedly having a sexual relationship with had spent three years endlessly harping unfound claims that President Trump colluded with Russia Agents during the 2016 election, including falsely accusing the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. of meeting “with a Russian spy” last year.

Swalwell maintains Trump colluded with Russia; ‘Sue me,’ he tells president

Eric Swalwell On Russia Collusion: Circumstantial Evidence Is Treated The Same As Direct Evidence In A Court Of Law

Anyway there are tons of articles online. You don't need me to find them, you can avoid them yourself.

 

They are some of the radical groups Trump claims are "very special" whom he "loves" and invaded the Capitol. Did you forget?

 

@Asherah Please see the above. The evidence that is in this thread.

 

You said, "welcome to Amerika, land of Qanon" after mentioning the 70 million Trump supporters. Why?

 

Oh yes, because Trump was a worse President than Woodrow Wilson!

 

Party of Trump.

 

Far worse.

 

she attacked the victims of school shootings, no way should she be on the education committee

had republicans not put her on that committee, I would not agree with removing her - that was the one that caused outrage

Russian Collusion happened, the Trump Tower meeting happened, we saw Trump Jr's emails - then we had Ukraine, and even Trump's call to GA, Trump did this stuff regularly

 

Take some well spent time to educate yourself so I don't have to keep refuting nonsense with cold, hard, facts.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find

 

I see no one agrees with my proposal in removing all conspiracy theorists.

I guess some conspiracies are more equal than others.

 

Hey I'm trying to educate @Asherah ! He doesn't believe you exist.

 

had nothing to do with being a conspiracy theorist, had to do with her attacking the victims of school shootings, supporting the death of members of congress, ect....

"Rep. Greene refuses to renounce ‘death’ to Pelosi rant, says she’s ‘not sorry’ for harassing school shooting survivor"

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/po...0210205-hc5wv245rngtzclv7jz5nszti4-story.html

"The beleaguered Georgia Republican refused to apologize Friday for her history of advocating violence against Democratic leaders and said she is not sorry for harassing a teenage school-shooting survivor, striking a remorseless tone in the wake of being stripped of all her committee assignments."



Green is a Quack, but that is not why removed

 

I am a right wing nut job. I'm not anybody's guy.

 

Based on the first page of this, it looked like your concern was Qanon. So if she was just a Qanon nut and never yelled at David Hogg you would be OK with her keeping her committee assignments?

 

oh, I am concerned she is a Quack, but that is not the reason she was stripped of her position on the education committee

I think most republicans are concerned about that too, they are just afraid to admit it

 

Not unfounded claims as proven by a mountain of evidence.

 

And their sense of shame.

 

Seriously??
The Qop invented the party line vote! If a Qebpulican even mentions they might not vote the party line the radicle right goes nuts with death threats and they start the primary process!
Where have you been the last 12 years?

 

That nuthead has no place in Congress, let alone in a committee ( education!!??!!). The fact she was accepted as a candidate by the repubs tells a lot on the state of the late GOP.

 

Since it isn't true I couldn't even have known it to be true.

 

Are you that obtuse? This garbage originated in the US and is supported strictly by certain Americans, therefore it's the land of Qanon. Nearly all if not all Qanon morons are Trump supporters and Trump supports them. Is that really such a difficult concept for you?

 

If you would read the links you are given, you'd see that he and I gave you the same one. You'd also see that the article supports exactly what I said, and perhaps you'd finally realize that "collusion" and "criminal conspiracy" are not the same thing. As I've been saying, and as the article says, the term "collusion" can be applied to the actions of the Trump Team that Mueller documented.

Trump's messaging about the Mueller report seems to have been effective with his followers, who were only too eager to see him through rose-colored glasses. Trump conflated "conspiracy" with "collusion", and invalidly led you to believe that failure to establish criminal conspiracy constituted "total exoneration" of "collusion and obstruction". You are, of course, free to use your own subjective definition of "collusion" and equate it with "criminal conspiracy", but this doesn't alter the fact that team Trump did some bad things - things that aren't illegal, but should be. They also did some thing that ARE illegal - particularly obstruction of justice.

 

I'm not avoiding anything. As I've explained several times, "collusion" and "criminal conspiracy" are not the same thing, and team Trump engaged in activities that can subjectively be labelled "collusion". You have yet to acknowledge that. And you still haven't shown that Swalwell insisted that Trump engaged in the crime of criminal conspiracy - the specific crime that Mueller investigated. You've shown the same thing I found, that Swalwell identifed some of Trump's actions as "collusion" - that subjective, non-legal term.

Is there some falsehood here that I'm overlooking? It is true that if someone conspires to achieve hacking that they have committed a crime. It's also true that he publicly encouraged Russia to hack. Mueller asked Trump questions about this. Trump asserted that he'd made the statement "sarcastically and in jest". The investigation ended there. Does that exonerate him? Depends on your perspective. He can't be prosecuted on this basis, but politically biased judgments are often made on less evidence than this. I'd rather this weren't done because it invariably entails a double standard.

I'm aware of 3 meaningful interactions with Russians during the campaign (Trump tower meeting, Flynns calls with Kislyak, Manafort sharing polling data). Are you objecting to his referring to that as "any number of meetings"? OK, but it's subjective. His reference to calling on Russian to obtain Hillary's emails is again subject to partisan interpretation. Shall we agree to decry all such partisan interpretations, including the partisan judgments about Biden and China, or Biden and Ukraine?

Had he not admitted that he was being hyperbolic, I'd say you're closer to hitting the mark. I feel strongly that such statements are unwarranted and should be avoided. This statement is on par with the frequent unwarranted assertions I see by Republicans on the forum that claim Biden is in China's pocket. If one entails a conspiracy theory, then so does the other. But neither has all the features of conspiracy theories - neither entails a large number of conspirators working with near-perfect competence and secrecy, and neither entails an expanding web of conspiracy as disconfirming evidence comes to light. They both entail thinking the worst about a person on the other side of the political spectrum, while thinking the best about those on one's own side, and treating this conclusion-jumping as a confirmed fact. It's irrational, and it impedes discourse between people of different political perspectives.