>>Religion is something that is based totally upon faith and ignores all science and evidence.

That sounds like an extreme left-wing athiest's view. After all, even the medieval Vatican had an observatory and prevalent contemporary religions support evolution, modern medicine and all sorts of scientific endeavor. The characteristics of a religion or cult is belief in tenets that can't be proven. You can choose whether you;re a religion or a cult. ;-)

>>Ignoring massive massive amounts of decades long evidence, proof, words, and actions exhibiting racist behavior and then claim there is none seems more along the lines of cult-like behavior to me John.... Don't try to play stupid.

Ignoring is different from assessing and reaching a different conclusion from you. My current response is immediately to reject editorializations and lists of paraphrases about Trump because IME those are misrepresentations more often than not. Just give me the actual words and let me assess it myself. As I said, all too often when you go back to the actual words, the paraphrases seem malicious. Trump's comments about Mexican immigrants are a good example. My last point would be that when somebody conflates, falsifies or exaggerates, that's not the sign of a strong argument.

>>Incorrect. it's already known that there was nefarious interaction (or at lest attempted nefarious interaction - which is still a crime) - what is unknown is to degree to which it happened.

Hang on- which "nefarious interaction" are you onto now? Because "nefarious interactions" aren't illegal and nor is collusion if you want to be a purist. Conspiracy is, but if that's what you mean then why not avoid the fog of paraphrase and use clear words?

>>We already know Trump Jr committed a federal crime because he admitted to it (52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510).

You mean trying to get dirt on HRC from Russians? Remind me what the dirt was again- something about prostitutes and pee pee, wasn't it? What an awful person, trying to influence an election using information from Russians. What he should have done, was to use a law firm as an intermediary whereupon it's all squeaky clean. Or is it? Experts are saying that nefarious cut-outs don't shield you from breachs of the clear intent of statutes. I wonder where that might lead?

Yeah, whataboutism- but there's nothing wrong with whataboutism to expose habitual bias and hypocrisy.

>> Keep watching as the indictments and convictions and plea agreements come out in the following months.

Yes, I get it that you have faith in this outcome. You may even be right. You do understand that- I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that so far I can't see the electrons moving as you claim?

>>You can't say their is a total lack of evidence as you have no idea what evidence there is.

There's a total lack of evidence *for the likes of us* to form a reasoned judgment. Which is why I'm not forming one. You are, and you're full of faith and fervor that Mueller is swimming in evidence.

>>The only thing you can establish is that all these people have been busted for lying and a big fish has copped a plea - thus indicating their is a bigger fish to be had - this is 100% clear standard procedure and obvious.

An alternative explanation is that the big fish is shielding his son. Again, we simply don't know. Leaping to the conclusion that it must mean he's dishing dirt on Trump is like shrieking "racist" because Trump prefers immigrants higher on the UN's HDI. If it's racist that Haiti is down in sh*thole territory then why aren't you racists doing something about it?

>>Oh and there are not that many bigger fish. I understand that you do not live here in the USA and may not be familiar with the path that these types of legal matters take.

LOL, there's your 4th favorite tactic, pretending you get your information via proximity rather than Vox and the other MSM organs available all across the planet.

>>To sum it all up here -- what your stance is here is to stick your head in the sand and ignore all that is going on around you and try to say "nothing to see here folks -- move along" --. Thing is that doesn't change what is gong on around you it just limits your understanding and distorts your perception - sort of like what Fox News does to it's viewers.

I'm not saying "nothing here, move along" I'm saying "I've looked at the same MSM articles as you and I'm not convinced." That's very different from ignoring which is very different from cult-like fervor as to the eventual outcome.