Trump

[Tyrone Biggums]

You are clearly a Trump person. Your attempts to hide it are very, very silly. And you are, of course wrong, I had quite a bit to say on here about my dislike of Hilary Clinton. It's a typical Trump supporter reaction whenever he is criticised, to hark back to the now irrelevant Hilary Clinton.

No, you have zero ability to see clearly.

In your myopic world there are only two options people could have voted for. Unfortunately for you I've stated many a time before I personally would have voted for the Johnson/Weld ticket.

As such I can call the hypocrisy I see in truckloads out in threads like this. We all know Trump is a ****wit. No reason why calling out those who go after Trump as hypocrites though. Perfect time for it really. To expose their biased bullshit.

It's true I hate the Clintons more than Trump, that's simply because they are ***** of the highest order.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

How about all the dodgy crap the Democrats got up to in the previous eight years and you've probably never said squat about that. Don't expect anyone to take all these cry babies who are losing their shit over Trump etc to be taken serious when their bias and lack of caring when this kind of rubbish was always going on was raised as an issue.

I find that mentality abhorrent.

What a completely stupid thing to say. It is like dismissing criticism of someone who randomly stabs somone on the grounds that somone else also stabbed somone (although in this case, not stabbed, but slapped). Logic and reasoning beyond pathetic.

If you are incapable of considering whether or not Trump might be a bit problematic owing to your loathing of Obama* then your credibility as a protagonist is zero.

*No doubt you will come back with 'I didn't say Obama'.

 

[The Clamp]

No, you have zero ability to see clearly.

In your myopic world there are only two options people could have voted for. Unfortunately for you I've stated many a time before I personally would have voted for the Johnson/Weld ticket.

As such I can call the hypocrisy I see in truckloads out in threads like this. We all know Trump is a ****wit. No reason why calling out those who go after Trump as hypocrites though. Perfect time for it really. To expose their biased bullshit.

It's true I hate the Clintons more than Trump, that's simply because they are ***** of the highest order.

Yeah, sure.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

So you take the guilty before proven innocent path and I take the innocent until proven guilty path. We could end up at the same point on the path no doubt.

Well I take guily before proven innocent IF NO DEFENCE IS OFFERED, Yes, for sure.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

What a completely stupid thing to say. It is like dismissing criticism of someone who randomly stabs somone on the grounds that somone else also stabbed somone (although in this cas, not stabbed, but slapped). Logic and reasoning beyond pathetic.

If you are incapable of considering whether or not Trump might be a bit problematic owing to your loathing of Obama* then your credibility as a protagonist is zero.

*No doubt you will come back with 'I didn't say Obama'.

Well at least you've put it out there that you're OK with hypocrisy and take hypocrites opinions seriously.

That's all I can take from your discussion point.

The only people worth listening to are those who criticize ALL governments.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Well I take guily before proven innocent IF NO DEFENCE IS OFFERED, Yes, for sure.

So if they say "it's fake news" then you believe them?

Trying to work out how they actually are supposed to defend the claim anyway? Release private conversations?

Personally I think anyone who releases private conversations is an utter contemptible POS regardless.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Yeah, sure.

Thought so. Keep up with your fake news

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Why do you believe they are real if I may ask?

Ok, the alleged transcripts.


You don't find them interesting either way?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

So if they say "it's fake news" then you believe them?

Trying to work out how they actually are supposed to defend the claim anyway? Release private conversations?

Personally I think anyone who releases private conversations is an utter contemptible POS regardless.

No, if they say " it's fake news" then I wait to see if anyone directly involved challenges this. We are not at that stage yet. If it gets there then eventually the hard evidence comes out and we see who the liars are. But no one has denied anything yet, so that situation isn't in play.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Ok, the alleged transcripts.


You don't find them interesting either way?

Dunno mate, I find the willingness of leaks and biased media reporting on essentially irrelevant information troubling.

It's almost like certain section of the media want to destabilize a legitimately elected government to further their own agendas.

Why worry about what the "Russian hackers" are doing when there's Americans leaking information internally. What else are they leaking and to whom?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

No, if they say " it's fake news" then I wait to see if anyone directly involved challenges this. We are not at that stage yet. If it gets there then eventually the hard evidence comes out and we see who the liars are. But no one has denied anything yet, so that situation isn't in play.

So it seems it's actually very hard for anyone to prove either way the legitimacy without breaching confidence with other nations leaders.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Dunno mate, I find the willingness of leaks and biased media reporting on essentially irrelevant information troubling.

It's almost like certain section of the media want to destabilize a legitimately elected government to further their own agendas.

Why worry about what the "Russian hackers" are doing when there's Americans leaking information internally. What else are they leaking and to whom?

That's what is so interesting about the suggestion they are fake. It's a lot of effort to go to to make it all tie together. That's a concerted campaign on a huge scale.

If it's real then there is the added bonus of getting an insight into how Trump works as a statesman.

To me both sides of the coin are interesting.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

That's what is so interesting about the suggestion they are fake. It's a lot of effort to go to to make it all tie together. That's a concerted campaign on a huge scale.

If it's real then there is the added bonus of getting an insight into how Trump works as a statesman.

To me both sides of the coin are interesting.

To me this is troubling because if these sections of the media keep up their Trump witch hunt there is going to start being a backlash from those who legitimately voted him in. It's going to come across as the Democrat elite shitting on the working class Americans in the states struggling in terms of the many varied social issues they face.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well at least you've put it out there that you're OK with hypocrisy and take hypocrites opinions seriously.

That's all I can take from your discussion point.

The only people worth listening to are those who criticize ALL governments.

I have no problem with your last point (albeit, critisism can be positive and encouraging and need not always be destructive and negative). Thing is, having read your stuff, on and off, it does not seem to be even handed. You give the impression you are defending Trump by criticising his predecessor. Apologies if my impression is wrong.

 

[looney]

So the answer is that you, looney, the King of Evidence, have no evidence that Hillary's server was smashed up and you believe that repeating that it has been again and again will be enough. Does that seem a fair conclusion?

Nope, check the last couple of links I posted, but keep trying to twist semantics and split hairs.

 

[looney]

No, if they say " it's fake news" then I wait to see if anyone directly involved challenges this. We are not at that stage yet. If it gets there then eventually the hard evidence comes out and we see who the liars are. But no one has denied anything yet, so that situation isn't in play.

Shouldn't that be the starting point? Hard evidence? Or any evidence come to that. Then you build a theory from that, and Waaah we lost an election to Trump does not count as evidence.

In my mind, the pivotal point is that Julian Assange, who describes Trump as Trash, said that the e-mails were leaked by a DNC staffer.

This is the only evidence, oh and that the DNC refused to turn its servers over to the FBI to check for hacks.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Shouldn't that be the starting point? Hard evidence? Or any evidence come to that. Then you build a theory from that, and Waaah we lost an election to Trump does not count as evidence.

In my mind, the pivotal point is that Julian Assange, who describes Trump as Trash, said that the e-mails were leaked by a DNC staffer.

This is the only evidence, oh and that the DNC refused to turn its servers over to the FBI to check for hacks.

Lol


Using Russian GRU asset Assange as a source of wisdom. With his wikileaks servers in Russia.


The circular logic of using a russian asset to defend Trumpski is genius.


Lol.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Reading this thread takes me back to the late 90s and these guys:



FFS

 

[knocky1]

Reading this thread takes me back to the late 90s and these guys:

View attachment 87886

FFS

No idea what you're on about. I need a clue even though it still makes more sense than a looney "I don't support Trump but the Clinton's and Obama were worse" post.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

No idea what you're on about. I need a clue even though it still makes more sense than a looney "I don't support Trump but the Clinton's and Obama were worse" post.

X-Files.