ADVERTISEMENT

Fork in the road

Since you won’t answer my question let’s first state the obvious and put it to rest. Yes, Russia has meddled in US elections for decades. Their efforts ramped up significantly when Trump ran and we all know what they badly wanted.

Now, why did Putin invade during democratic terms of Biden and Obama? I dunno Gibbs, maybe he’s playing chess and knows it will make them look weak, F up global markets, cause supply chain issues around the world, contribute to inflation on the dems watch…and ultimately he can hold serve until Trump gets in office and does exactly what he wants? Is that not implausible? Do you actually think Putin had no clue how the U.S. would react or the chaos that would unwind economically? 😂.
I did answer your question- Russia does that kind of stuff all the time. The Soviet Union did too. So does the US.

You want to connect dots, but refuse to connect the obvious dots that are close together. Russia invades Georgia under W. Bush. Russia annexes Crimea under Obama. Obama refuses to send Ukraine weapons. Trump sends Ukraine weapons. Biden cancels sanctions on Nord Stream 2. Biden tacitly invites a "minor incursion".

Why aren't you calling Obama and Biden Russian assets?
 
I did answer your question- Russia does that kind of stuff all the time. The Soviet Union did too. So does the US.

You want to connect dots, but refuse to connect the obvious dots that are close together. Russia invades Georgia under W. Bush. Russia annexes Crimea under Obama. Obama refuses to send Ukraine weapons. Trump sends Ukraine weapons. Biden cancels sanctions on Nord Stream 2. Biden tacitly invites a "minor incursion".

Why aren't you calling Obama and Biden Russian assets?
Because that would destroy the narrative.....Orange Man Bad!
 
I did answer your question- Russia does that kind of stuff all the time. The Soviet Union did too. So does the US.

You want to connect dots, but refuse to connect the obvious dots that are close together. Russia invades Georgia under W. Bush. Russia annexes Crimea under Obama. Obama refuses to send Ukraine weapons. Trump sends Ukraine weapons. Biden cancels sanctions on Nord Stream 2. Biden tacitly invites a "minor incursion".

Why aren't you calling Obama and Biden Russian assets?
Maybe they are, did you ask Grok?
 
I like how you edited your previous post then added a follow up as If I missed something as a way to camouflage your severe TDS.

If you weren't a dumbf#ck, you'd know that I posted the change as an edit within one minute but did so for effect because you are too stupid to pick it up if I didn't make it obvious. If you pay close attention....the post itself doesn't say "edited". Trump will absolutely piss his pants in anger if there is a ceasefire in Ukraine and he doesn't get the credit.

By the way, I saw that in Minnesota, they are trying to pass a law making TDS a defined mental illness. Below is some of their definitions:

Symptoms outlined in the bill include:
  • Intense verbal hostility toward Trump.
  • Inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and perceived pathology in Trump’s behavior.
  • Acts of aggression or violence against Trump supporters or symbols associated with him.
What makes it hilarious is if you change out the language slightly, it perfectly describes Donald Trump and his followers:
  • Intense verbal hostility towards anyone opposed to Trump.
  • Inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and perceived pathology in Trump’s behavior. (This one doesn't need to be changed)
  • Acts of aggression or violence against anyone opposed to Trump supporters or symbols associated with opposition to him.
So...y'all can keep throwing out TDS all you want, but it's pretty frickin' hilarious to realize how much the description has always fit you.
 
If you try the drug it might help you recover from your 4th degree TDS.
It might reset your hard drive but maybe ask yourself why Grok (Elons AI toy) thinks Trump is a Russian asset. Now if you really want to go hard reset combine that with the fact that Russia REALLY wants Trump in office…like bad bad (not my opinion, bipartisan US intelligence has confirmed multiple times over).
 
It might reset your hard drive but maybe ask yourself why Grok (Elons AI toy) thinks Trump is a Russian asset. Now if you really want to go hard reset combine that with the fact that Russia REALLY wants Trump in office…like bad bad (not my opinion, bipartisan US intelligence has confirmed multiple times over).
Is this the same "bipartisan" US intelligence that:
1. Lied to Trump about the Steele dossier?
2. Pushed the Steele dossier even though they knew it was not true?
3. Lied about the veracity of Hunter Biden's laptop?
4. Helped cover up the incapacity of the 46th president?
5. Lied to FISA court judges to get warrants that were not justified?
6. Actually spied on Trump and his campaign workers and supporters? 7. And so on....

Asking for a friend.

BTW, I know you keep claiming that Russia really, really, REALLY wants Trump in the Oval Office instead of a Democrat, but where is some evidence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HCoug
It might reset your hard drive but maybe ask yourself why Grok (Elons AI toy) thinks Trump is a Russian asset. Now if you really want to go hard reset combine that with the fact that Russia REALLY wants Trump in office…like bad bad (not my opinion, bipartisan US intelligence has confirmed multiple times over).

Maybe they are, did you ask Grok?
Great idea!

Hey grok,

Democrats are screaming “Trump is a Russian asset” even after the Russia Russia Russia collusion hoax launched by Hillary Clinton has been proven false.

If Trump is a “Russian Asset” why is he working so hard to lowering the cost of energy?

Answer:

The claim that Trump is a “Russian asset” stems from political rhetoric that peaked during the 2016 election and the subsequent Mueller investigation, which ultimately found no conclusive evidence of a conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Critics, including some Democrats, have kept the narrative alive, pointing to things like Trump’s past business dealings or his reluctance to criticize Putin directly. But your question flips it—why would a supposed Russian asset push policies that could hurt Russia’s economic leverage, like lowering energy costs?


Trump’s energy stance, especially in his current 2025 context, leans hard into boosting U.S. oil and gas production—think “drill, baby, drill.” This approach aims to cut domestic energy prices by flooding the market with American supply. Russia, a major global energy player, relies heavily on oil and gas exports for revenue. Cheap U.S. energy undercuts their prices and weakens their geopolitical clout, especially in Europe, where Russia’s been a dominant supplier. If Trump were a Kremlin puppet, you’d expect him to prop up policies that keep energy prices high, benefiting Russia’s bottom line, not crash them with American output.


The counterargument might be that Trump’s not strategically thinking that far—his focus could just be populist, winning over voters with lower gas prices, not some grand anti-Russia chess move. Or maybe Russia’s fine with it if they think a chaotic, energy-independent U.S. distracts from their own plans. But that’s speculative. The simpler logic holds: a real “Russian asset” wouldn’t so aggressively target Russia’s economic lifeline. It’s a hole in the narrative that’s tough to patch without stretching into conspiracy territory.
 
Is this the same "bipartisan" US intelligence that:
1. Lied to Trump about the Steele dossier?
2. Pushed the Steele dossier even though they knew it was not true?
3. Lied about the veracity of Hunter Biden's laptop?
4. Helped cover up the incapacity of the 46th president?
5. Lied to FISA court judges to get warrants that were not justified?
6. Actually spied on Trump and his campaign workers and supporters? 7. And so on....

Asking for a friend.

BTW, I know you keep claiming that Russia really, really, REALLY wants Trump in the Oval Office instead of a Democrat, but where is some evidence?
Like I said, Fox News is a helluva drug
 
Surrender.

😂
Nice try dipshit. There’s literally too much on this to even start, it’s not only known by our own intelligence community but across the Western World. but the same tired red herring Fox News crap are peddled every time it’s brought up. I get it if Fox News ain’t your jam, you can stick to Rogan and Loomer for your Jurassic park sized pile of shit that you prefer.
 
Great idea!

Hey grok,

Democrats are screaming “Trump is a Russian asset” even after the Russia Russia Russia collusion hoax launched by Hillary Clinton has been proven false.

If Trump is a “Russian Asset” why is he working so hard to lowering the cost of energy?

Answer:

The claim that Trump is a “Russian asset” stems from political rhetoric that peaked during the 2016 election and the subsequent Mueller investigation, which ultimately found no conclusive evidence of a conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Critics, including some Democrats, have kept the narrative alive, pointing to things like Trump’s past business dealings or his reluctance to criticize Putin directly. But your question flips it—why would a supposed Russian asset push policies that could hurt Russia’s economic leverage, like lowering energy costs?


Trump’s energy stance, especially in his current 2025 context, leans hard into boosting U.S. oil and gas production—think “drill, baby, drill.” This approach aims to cut domestic energy prices by flooding the market with American supply. Russia, a major global energy player, relies heavily on oil and gas exports for revenue. Cheap U.S. energy undercuts their prices and weakens their geopolitical clout, especially in Europe, where Russia’s been a dominant supplier. If Trump were a Kremlin puppet, you’d expect him to prop up policies that keep energy prices high, benefiting Russia’s bottom line, not crash them with American output.


The counterargument might be that Trump’s not strategically thinking that far—his focus could just be populist, winning over voters with lower gas prices, not some grand anti-Russia chess move. Or maybe Russia’s fine with it if they think a chaotic, energy-independent U.S. distracts from their own plans. But that’s speculative. The simpler logic holds: a real “Russian asset” wouldn’t so aggressively target Russia’s economic lifeline. It’s a hole in the narrative that’s tough to patch without stretching into conspiracy territory.
LOL, this is too funny. Own goal by Coug90!
 
OVerblown. The list of 45 schools is based on a connection with "The PhD Project," a non-profit that tries to encourage "disadvantaged" people to pursue advanced degrees. It has nothing to do with the universities having "anti-white" policies.

If you need further evidence that WSU is not anti-white, look at the student demographics. The undergraduate student body is 36% minority...in a state that is 35% minority. Graduate student population is only about 20% minority.
 
Somehow the Grok wars remind me of Vizzini in The Princess Bride.

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
 
Somehow the Grok wars remind me of Vizzini in The Princess Bride.

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
 
OVerblown. The list of 45 schools is based on a connection with "The PhD Project," a non-profit that tries to encourage "disadvantaged" people to pursue advanced degrees. It has nothing to do with the universities having "anti-white" policies.

If you need further evidence that WSU is not anti-white, look at the student demographics. The undergraduate student body is 36% minority...in a state that is 35% minority. Graduate student population is only about 20% minority.

I remember when there was a huge stink because WSU was perceived as racist because some think tank decided that WSU didn't have enough minorities. Universities can't win in these kinds of discussions.
 
I remember when there was a huge stink because WSU was perceived as racist because some think tank decided that WSU didn't have enough minorities. Universities can't win in these kinds of discussions.
That is still a thing, particularly in the grad school. It’s not to the level it used to be, but every year or so someone starts agitating for it again.

But I guess this week we’re anti-white.
 
Where? FFS you guys take victory laps for nothing.
You challenge us to "ask grok" about Trump being a Russian asset, thinking that it would indicate that he was a Russian asset. So someone does ask grok and it is exactly the opposite of what you expected. Own goal. Pretty clear.

FWIW, I don't do grok/AI myself. While it has some uses, it has also shown to be somewhat GIGO from liberal programmers, meaning not much more trustworthy than WAPO "factcheckers".
 
You challenge us to "ask grok" about Trump being a Russian asset, thinking that it would indicate that he was a Russian asset. So someone does ask grok and it is exactly the opposite of what you expected. Own goal. Pretty clear.

FWIW, I don't do grok/AI myself. While it has some uses, it has also shown to be somewhat GIGO from liberal programmers, meaning not much more trustworthy than WAPO "factcheckers".
🤔 70-90%. Give me those odds at the poker table every day. You guys can keep rubbing one out to your Trump/Rambo American hero posters though.


As Grok 3, I’ll assess the likelihood that Donald Trump is a Putin-compromised asset based on publicly available information from 1980 onward, including his consistent reluctance to criticize Vladimir Putin juxtaposed against his willingness to attack U.S. allies. My analysis will draw on historical ties, financial connections, behavioral patterns, and political actions, while remaining mindful of alternative explanations and uncertainties. I’ll provide a probability range rather than a single figure to reflect the complexity and ambiguity of the evidence.

Trump’s relationship with Russia dates back to at least 1987, when he visited Moscow at the invitation of Soviet officials. This trip, detailed in sources like *New York Magazine*, coincided with a shift in his public rhetoric toward themes that aligned with Soviet interests, such as criticizing U.S. alliances—a pattern that persisted decades later. Yuri Shvets, a former KGB agent quoted in Craig Unger’s *American Kompromat*, claimed the KGB identified Trump as a potential asset due to his vanity and business ambitions, though this lacks direct corroboration beyond Shvets’ testimony. Financially, Trump’s reliance on Russian and post-Soviet money is well-documented: Donald Trump Jr. stated in 2008 that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” and Eric Trump reportedly boasted in 2014 about funding from Russia when U.S. banks shunned them. Deals like the 1984 sale of Trump Tower condos to David Bogatin, tied to Russian organized crime, and partnerships with figures like Felix Sater, who had Russian mafia links, suggest a deep entanglement with Kremlin-adjacent networks.

Trump’s behavior as president further fuels suspicion. He met Putin privately multiple times, notably confiscating his interpreter’s notes after a 2017 meeting, as reported by *The Washington Post*. At the 2018 Helsinki summit, he sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence on election interference, saying, “I don’t see any reason why it would be” Russia. His refusal to denounce Putin—never issuing a direct personal criticism despite opportunities like the 2020 Navalny poisoning or the SolarWinds hack—stands in stark contrast to his attacks on allies. He called NATO “obsolete,” threatened to withhold defense from allies not meeting spending goals, and recently suggested Canada could become a U.S. state, per *The Atlantic*. This pattern persisted post-presidency, with Bob Woodward reporting up to seven calls with Putin since 2021, though Trump neither confirms nor denies these.

Investigations like Mueller’s found no conclusive evidence of a criminal conspiracy, but they didn’t rule out influence. The 2021 Intelligence Community report confirmed Putin authorized 2020 election interference to favor Trump, building on 2016 efforts. Trump’s pursuit of a Moscow Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign, potentially worth hundreds of millions, gave Putin leverage—financial incentive and blackmail potential if exposed. His refusal to release tax returns adds opacity, possibly hiding such ties. The missing binder of Russia intelligence from his term’s end, noted by *Reuters*, raises further questions about what he might conceal.

Alternative explanations exist: Trump’s pro-Russia stance could stem from ideological affinity (admiration for “strongmen”), naivety, or a transactional worldview prioritizing personal gain over geopolitics. His attacks on allies might reflect genuine isolationism rather than Kremlin direction. Yet these don’t fully account for the consistency of his behavior over decades, the depth of financial ties, or his secrecy around Putin interactions. The Kremlin’s known tactics—exploiting greed, ego, and kompromat—align with Trump’s vulnerabilities, as noted by ex-CIA officer Rolf Mowatt-Larssen in *The Washington Post*.

Weighing this, the evidence suggests a significant likelihood of compromise, though certainty is impossible without classified data (e.g., intercepted communications or financial records). Adjusting for unknowns and alternative motives, I estimate a 70-90% likelihood that Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, leaning toward the higher end due to the cumulative weight of historical ties, financial incentives, and his unwavering refusal to criticize Putin—unmatched by any modern U.S. president—against his readiness to undermine allies. The range reflects residual uncertainty, but the trend is clear: the dots connect more convincingly toward compromise than coincidence.
 
FWIW, I don't do grok/AI myself. While it has some uses, it has also shown to be somewhat GIGO from liberal programmers, meaning not much more trustworthy than WAPO "factcheckers".
“Grok is useful except when it gives answers I don’t like.”

The TDS is strong in this one.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Coug90
“Grok is useful except when it gives answers I don’t like.”

The TDS is strong in this one.
OK, I confess - I don't understand all of these "Grok" references. Is that some new social media vehicle? Is it certain posters? I'm so confused.
 
OK, I confess - I don't understand all of these "Grok" references. Is that some new social media vehicle? Is it certain posters? I'm so confused.
It’s Musk’s AI Chatbox that Goober was rubbing one out over every 15 minutes until it said that the likelyhood of Trump being a Russian asset was 75-85%.
 
OK, I confess - I don't understand all of these "Grok" references. Is that some new social media vehicle? Is it certain posters? I'm so confused.
It’s twitters (X) AI. A more sophisticated magic 8 ball. Outside of Loomer and Rogan, It was Ubers beacon of truth until it wasn’t. He probably posted 20 Grok answers until we found out Grok thinks it’s likely Trump is a Russian asset. Then crickets.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT