Putin Bots are out again

[Jhhnn]

I'm suspicious of all online polls so yes. But I wouldn't be all that surprised if it was a significant number who thinks this obstruction stuff is weak.

Of course they do. Trump could shoot somebody.

 

[buckshot24]

Of course they do. Trump could shoot somebody.

Not CNN's viewers. We don't watch CNN.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not CNN's viewers. We don't watch CNN.

You confirm that the poll results are bogus & that you're in with the "Trump could shoot somebody" crowd.

Not that those things weren't already completely obvious.

 

[Meghan54]

Not CNN's viewers. We don't watch CNN.

I thought you could receive CNN via satellite in Russia. Guess I was wrong.

 

[buckshot24]

You confirm that the poll results are bogus & that you're in with the "Trump could shoot somebody" crowd.

Not that those things weren't already completely obvious.

No, I do not confirm either of those two things.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

You confirm that the poll results are bogus & that you're in with the "Trump could shoot somebody" crowd.

Not that those things weren't already completely obvious.

Hey play nice with Buck he's taking his first steps and he agrees in a way

 

[buckshot24]

I thought you could receive CNN via satellite in Russia. Guess I was wrong.

That doesn't mean I have to watch it.

 

[jackstar7]

That doesn't mean I have to watch it.

But you speak for people who do?

 

[Jhhnn]

No, I do not confirm either of those two things.

You can't claim that CNN viewers are anti-Trump & that 3 out of 4 don't think he should be investigated for obstruction at the same time. Those things are mutually exclusive.

 

[buckshot24]

You can't claim that CNN viewers are anti-Trump & that 3 out of 4 don't think he should be investigated for obstruction at the same time. Those things are mutually exclusive.

I am skeptical of the result. I think I said that.

Saying "I wouldn't be surprised" isn't the same thing as affirming it.

 

[jackstar7]

I am skeptical of the result. I think I said that.

Saying "I wouldn't be surprised" isn't the same thing as affirming it.

What does it take to surprise you? Do you need to travel into space to see the Earth isn't flat? Is that what it takes to "surprise" you with reality?

 

[buckshot24]

What does it take to surprise you? Do you need to travel into space to see the Earth isn't flat? Is that what it takes to "surprise" you with reality?

The only thing that might be flat is your forehead.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ignoring the Omnipotent Putin, even you have to think this is suspicious. Be serious please, do you honestly think two thirds to three quarters of CNN readers think President Trump should not be investigated for obstruction of justice?
I'm not talking Fox or Breibert, CNN only.

Important over 2.6 million votes have been cast

I'm suspicious of all online polls so yes. But I wouldn't be all that surprised if it was a significant number who thinks this obstruction stuff is weak.

I am skeptical of the result. I think I said that.

Saying "I wouldn't be surprised" isn't the same thing as affirming it.

If you were actually answering the question you said "Yes" you believed it, that the poll was legit even though you're supposedly skeptical. Unless you really said "No" because it's highly unlikely (preposterous, really) that CNN viewers would vote that way.

And, of course, nobody is surprised that some people believe Trump shouldn't be investigated. He could shoot somebody, remember?

 

[buckshot24]

If you were actually answering the question you said "Yes" you believed it, that the poll was legit even though you're supposedly skeptical. Unless you really said "No" because it's highly unlikely (preposterous, really) that CNN viewers would vote that way.

And, of course, nobody is surprised that some people believe Trump shouldn't be investigated. He could shoot somebody, remember?

He asked if I was suspicious of the poll, that was what I was referring to.

 

[Jhhnn]

He asked if I was suspicious of the poll, that was what I was referring to.

The question was "Do you honestly think..."

Your answer was "Yes." at the time. Are you now changing it to "No"?

 

[buckshot24]

The question was "Do you honestly think..."

Your answer was "Yes." at the time. Are you now changing it to "No"?

If I was answering that question why would I say "I'm suspicious of all online polls so yes."?

It is like somebody asking me if I want water and saying "I hate water, so yes".

Anyway, that is what I meant.

I take no position on how accurate the poll is.

 

[jackstar7]

The only thing that might be flat is your forehead.

Resorting to personal attacks now? No surprise, but still pathetic.

 

[buckshot24]

Resorting to personal attacks now? No surprise, but still pathetic.

I did say "might".

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I did say "might".

you did guarantee that drumpf would play less golf than Obama, so your word is just rock fucking solid bucky.

 

[Jhhnn]

If I was answering that question why would I say "I'm suspicious of all online polls so yes."?

It is like somebody asking me if I want water and saying "I hate water, so yes".

Anyway, that is what I meant.

I take no position on how accurate the poll is.

Why? To obfuscate as usual. Even now you still hold forth the absurd proposition that the poll might be accurate by saying you have no opinion. In between you've made several attempts to bolster its credibility in your usual weasel words fashion. It's like "teaching the controversy" about creationism.

 

[jackstar7]

I did say "might".

Right. You made a mealy-mouthed personal attack.

I'll add coward to the list of descriptors to explain you to people along with pedant and bot.

 

[zinfamous]

Putin controls the entire chess board, true facts!

violating the forum rules, yet again.

Oh, go back to your russian conspiracy theories while apologizing for islam will you. You don't get to ask for things when your ideology lost its grip on reality long ago.

oo, a second violation!

 

[buckshot24]

Why? To obfuscate as usual. Even now you still hold forth the absurd proposition that the poll might be accurate by saying you have no opinion. In between you've made several attempts to bolster its credibility in your usual weasel words fashion. It's like "teaching the controversy" about creationism.

What more do you want me to say? I'm skeptical of the results but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a large portion of CNN's viewership that don't buy into the obstruction nonsense. That isn't bolstering anything.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

What more do you want me to say? I'm skeptical of the results but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a large portion of CNN's viewership that don't buy into the obstruction nonsense. That isn't bolstering anything.

Fair enough imo

 

[Jhhnn]

What more do you want me to say? I'm skeptical of the results but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a large portion of CNN's viewership that don't buy into the obstruction nonsense. That isn't bolstering anything.

"Obstruction nonsense" explains the Special Counsel how, exactly?

What "wouldn't surprise you" about CNN viewers is just a post-truth rhetorical construction.