Dlkdldjkd wrote:
You and ItsBaddude make a great team. Nice to know you two have each other's backs.
You might be a bit more direct but you both think the same.
As ItsBadude has said, keep up your good work. He's proud of you.
Chuckle chuckle
It is nice to know I am hurting your feewings snowflake🤘
HA HA HA😂😂😂
🇺🇸
Dlkdldjkd wrote:
You and ItsBaddude make a great team. Nice to know you two have each other's backs.
You might be a bit more direct but you both think the same.
As ItsBadude has said, keep up your good work. He's proud of you.
Chuckle chuckle
It is nice to know I am hurting your feewings snowflake🤘
HA HA HA😂😂😂
🇺🇸
Dlkdldjkd wrote:
Man that flagpole must be a big part of your life. You are always talking about him.
You are like the jilted lover who can't stop talking about their ex.
He brought it on himself. Therefore a new vocabulary word was invented in his honor or humiliation.
"Flagpoling" wrote:
When one make foolish predictions with absolute certainty, goes into hiding when proven wrong and returns to pontificate again. That is Flagpoling. Don't do it boys and girls, otherwise risk endless ridicule.
Examples:
"What polls will you cling to in 2020? Trump is not winning this election. For sure not. I can even give a chance percentage for Trump...not sure if I've told anyone here or not, but here it is...Trump has ZERO chance to win"
1) Hmm...we will see how much I know when Hillary easily wins this election. I am an expert on Presidential elections, so I do know what I'm talking about. You have no clue. Trump has ZERO chance to win.
2) Big crowds at rallies are not indicators for votes; they are not a criterion for determining who will win or not...and Hillary has been getting some very big crowds lately anyway.
3) You don't know a thing about polling or sampling or how Presidential elections are won. You have an Aunt who will vote for Trump in NH and bring some friends and family with her? Really, that's what you're going with? Her view count? You have to be making this up.
4) So hilarious that you think people aren't excited or motivated to vote for Hillary. Nevada's race is likely already over due to early-voting Democrats.
5) I said Hillary would win this from the very beginning, because all evidence says she will...the 13 keys are now in her favor too. I said this even when the Trump took a lead after the GOP convention and when Lichtman was saying his keys were pointing to Trump (they have now turned to Clinton). What matters in Presidential elections is the economy (decent now and not in recession), approval rating of current President (he is above 50% which bodes well for Clinton), and a few other things, but none of them have to do with big crowds. Trump is a circus, so of course he draws big crowds.
Just say it with me, because it will be appropriate when the returns come in..."Flagpole, you were right all along, and I was wrong." Acceptance is the first step to change...accept after the election that you were wrong in your baseless assumptions and then change by reading about Presidential elections and what factors make a candidate win or lose. Or, if you don't have the interest in that, just refrain from making comments the next time.
LOVE IT. Thank you for that stroll down memory lane. What an unjustifiable ignoranous!
BigODooosh Finder wrote:
"Flagpoling" wrote:When one make foolish predictions with absolute certainty, goes into hiding when proven wrong and returns to pontificate again. That is Flagpoling. Don't do it boys and girls, otherwise risk endless ridicule.
Examples:
"What polls will you cling to in 2020? Trump is not winning this election. For sure not. I can even give a chance percentage for Trump...not sure if I've told anyone here or not, but here it is...Trump has ZERO chance to win"
1) Hmm...we will see how much I know when Hillary easily wins this election. I am an expert on Presidential elections, so I do know what I'm talking about. You have no clue. Trump has ZERO chance to win.
2) Big crowds at rallies are not indicators for votes; they are not a criterion for determining who will win or not...and Hillary has been getting some very big crowds lately anyway.
3) You don't know a thing about polling or sampling or how Presidential elections are won. You have an Aunt who will vote for Trump in NH and bring some friends and family with her? Really, that's what you're going with? Her view count? You have to be making this up.
4) So hilarious that you think people aren't excited or motivated to vote for Hillary. Nevada's race is likely already over due to early-voting Democrats.
5) I said Hillary would win this from the very beginning, because all evidence says she will...the 13 keys are now in her favor too. I said this even when the Trump took a lead after the GOP convention and when Lichtman was saying his keys were pointing to Trump (they have now turned to Clinton). What matters in Presidential elections is the economy (decent now and not in recession), approval rating of current President (he is above 50% which bodes well for Clinton), and a few other things, but none of them have to do with big crowds. Trump is a circus, so of course he draws big crowds.
Just say it with me, because it will be appropriate when the returns come in..."Flagpole, you were right all along, and I was wrong." Acceptance is the first step to change...accept after the election that you were wrong in your baseless assumptions and then change by reading about Presidential elections and what factors make a candidate win or lose. Or, if you don't have the interest in that, just refrain from making comments the next time.
LOVE IT. Thank you for that stroll down memory lane. What an unjustifiable ignoranous!
Unjustifiably *pompous* ignoramous, I meant!
Not my day wrote:
Not a Trump Fan wrote:Would you feel better if Trump stayed in DC?
Seriously?
I would. He repeatedly attacked his predecessor for taking the occasional vacation and going golfing. He claimed he would be too busy working for America to take his own vacations. He then goes on vacation five of six weekends, many rounds of golf, and spent more in one month on vacations than the Obamas spent in a year.
His hypocrisy knows no bounds, and he needs to be called out -- repeatedly.
I wouldn't. The less engaged he is the better as far as I am concerned.
His complaints about Obama's golfing are simply not relevant. Who gives a flying F? Let him golf away the next four years and leave the job of governing to adults.
Trumpettes are NOT Americans.
DRINK F*** FIGHT wrote:
Just wow... wrote:Just curious, you are a Nazi, correct?
No I am a "Winner" that defeated the NAZI aka libbbtards.
The NAZI lose, they always lose...just like on Nov. 8, 2016😂😂😂
OK, I get you!
they're trying to get Bannon on tax avoidance - first Bannon, then Trump.
Shouldn't be too hard. I'd bet a lot of money that Trump has broken many tax laws.
interestingly, the constitution is not clear if presidents can be prosecuted by regular courts. The question is if the formal impeachment process is the ONLY way to prosecute a president, or if it is one MORE way to prosecute a president, on top of regular criminal prosecution.
(this is another reason the 'originalist' view of the constitution is not all that helpful - the Constitution is not clear on many, many topics. Another one is that the Constitution doesn't say that only US citizens have the rights protected by the Constitution. THere was no real concept of citizenship back then. So probably the writers of the constitution meant that anyone who planned to stay here had all these rights. Which would pretty much eliminate teh idea of illegal immigrants not having rights. Sure you want that, fans of an originalist view of the constitution?)
"The issue of Bannon’s legal residency has been simmering since last summer, shortly after he became chief executive of Trump’s campaign. The Guardian reported in an Aug. 26 story that he was registered to vote at a then-vacant house and speculated that that Bannon may have signed an oath that he was a Florida resident to take advantage of the state’s lack of state income taxes.
In California, where Bannon had lived and owned property for more than two decades, income tax can exceed 12 percent."
Talk about post that have to do about NOTHINGâ—😂Seriously you post the most meaningless drivel in the history of LR. You have a unique way of displaying libbbtard butt hurt ðŸ˜.Either way your tears are exceptionally delicious.
eric a blair wrote:
they're trying to get Bannon on tax avoidance - first Bannon, then Trump.
Shouldn't be too hard. I'd bet a lot of money that Trump has broken many tax laws.
interestingly, the constitution is not clear if presidents can be prosecuted by regular courts. The question is if the formal impeachment process is the ONLY way to prosecute a president, or if it is one MORE way to prosecute a president, on top of regular criminal prosecution.
(this is another reason the 'originalist' view of the constitution is not all that helpful - the Constitution is not clear on many, many topics. Another one is that the Constitution doesn't say that only US citizens have the rights protected by the Constitution. THere was no real concept of citizenship back then. So probably the writers of the constitution meant that anyone who planned to stay here had all these rights. Which would pretty much eliminate teh idea of illegal immigrants not having rights. Sure you want that, fans of an originalist view of the constitution?)
"The issue of Bannon’s legal residency has been simmering since last summer, shortly after he became chief executive of Trump’s campaign. The Guardian reported in an Aug. 26 story that he was registered to vote at a then-vacant house and speculated that that Bannon may have signed an oath that he was a Florida resident to take advantage of the state’s lack of state income taxes.
In California, where Bannon had lived and owned property for more than two decades, income tax can exceed 12 percent."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/during-his-political-rise-stephen-k-bannon-was-a-man-with-no-fixed-address/2017/03/11/89866f4c-0285-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_bannonflorida-1128am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d6eee583b102
Every day liberals come up with a conspiracy theory to impeach Trump or fire one of his colleagues.
Meanwhile America is getting greater!
Here I'll take the top 2 lies on the list:
---------------------1---------------------------
The claim: “I’m very pleased to announce the great company ExxonMobil is going to be investing $20 billion in the Gulf Coast and the Gulf Coast region. It’ll be 45,000 jobs, and they’re great jobs; $100,000 average. And this is something that was done to a large extent because of our policies and the policies of this new administration having to do with regulation and so many other things.â€
In fact: Trump’s policies may have had some impact on Exxon’s decisions, but he is taking far too much credit for this particular investment: even the official White House statement acknowledges that it “began in 2013.â€
----------------------------------------------------
Trump is making a claim and they even acknowledge that Trump may have some impact. How can you claim this is a lie?
---------------------2---------------------------
The claim: “122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!â€
In fact: According to a report from the U.S. government’s Directorate of National Intelligence, 113 of these 122 “re-engagers†were released from the Guantanamo Bay prison by the administration of George W. Bush, only nine by the Obama administration.
--------------------------------------------------
First, all these numbers are estimates. It is laughable that someone actually uses these numbers as some sort of mathematical fact.
This is not a lie. The point is not the numbers, the point is what happens when you release some of these prisoners. If Trump corrects the tweet like the NYT corrects it's stories then would you argue against the tweet. The numbers are irrelevant. Obama kept releasing prisoners even though it is known they return to be terrorists. Obama released, transferred or relocated to other countries, 190+ prisoners to other countries. It can be argued that Bush released the prisoners that were least likely to become terrorists. I can only imagine the prisoners Obama released.
totally characteristic of the Trump administration players to commit voter fraud while claiming massive voter fraud on the other side. Their charges against others are almost perfect descriptions of themselves. When a Republican senator described Jeff Sessions as very truthful, the fact that Sessions had just perjured himself about having no Russian contacts should not have been surprising. It comes down from the top and is contagious.
ItsBaddude wrote:
If Trump corrects the tweet like the NYT corrects it's stories then would you argue against the tweet.
You're onto something interesting. Back in the day newspapers that corrected their errors in a later issue were considered honest. This has been completely changed in the digital era when the same newspapers correct the online article itself instead of putting up corrections at the end of the article. That's just dishonest and Orwellian.
asdaf wrote:
totally characteristic of the Trump administration players to commit voter fraud while claiming massive voter fraud on the other side. Their charges against others are almost perfect descriptions of themselves. When a Republican senator described Jeff Sessions as very truthful, the fact that Sessions had just perjured himself about having no Russian contacts should not have been surprising. It comes down from the top and is contagious.
It is a tactic. One that we have seen since the beginning of Trump's campaign.
Whatever abhorent thing that you do or characteristic you have (lying, misogyny, crooked, fraud, authoritarian, fake...golf addict) just call the other guy that. Hopefully do this before folks start calling you a liar, misogynistic,... Then, when someone does call you X, it just looks like "No, you are" "No, you are"
It is actually a pretty effective tactic to head off criticism - especially effective with the weak minded (Trumpettes).
STSBO wrote:
asdaf wrote:totally characteristic of the Trump administration players to commit voter fraud while claiming massive voter fraud on the other side. Their charges against others are almost perfect descriptions of themselves. When a Republican senator described Jeff Sessions as very truthful, the fact that Sessions had just perjured himself about having no Russian contacts should not have been surprising. It comes down from the top and is contagious.
It is a tactic. One that we have seen since the beginning of Trump's campaign.
Whatever abhorent thing that you do or characteristic you have (lying, misogyny, crooked, fraud, authoritarian, fake...golf addict) just call the other guy that. Hopefully do this before folks start calling you a liar, misogynistic,... Then, when someone does call you X, it just looks like "No, you are" "No, you are"
It is actually a pretty effective tactic to head off criticism - especially effective with the weak minded (Trumpettes).
The best tactic has been the one where We The People DECIMATED libbbardism for all time. Your whimpering cries are so magically delicious 😋
How did that gun grab go fcktards😂?
Oh yeah we crushed you for FCKN with us....so not so well😂😂😂 See you in 4 years for your next a$$ whooping🤘
eric a blair wrote:
https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/840700010501156864
Keep the tears and irrelevant post flowing; they are after all 1 in the same😂
Whooping your a$$ has been a pleasure😎
STSBO wrote:
asdaf wrote:totally characteristic of the Trump administration players to commit voter fraud while claiming massive voter fraud on the other side. Their charges against others are almost perfect descriptions of themselves. When a Republican senator described Jeff Sessions as very truthful, the fact that Sessions had just perjured himself about having no Russian contacts should not have been surprising. It comes down from the top and is contagious.
It is a tactic. One that we have seen since the beginning of Trump's campaign.
Whatever abhorent thing that you do or characteristic you have (lying, misogyny, crooked, fraud, authoritarian, fake...golf addict) just call the other guy that. Hopefully do this before folks start calling you a liar, misogynistic,... Then, when someone does call you X, it just looks like "No, you are" "No, you are"
It is actually a pretty effective tactic to head off criticism - especially effective with the weak minded (Trumpettes).
The classic, "no your a puppet"
eric a blair wrote:
(Trumps anti-golf tweets)
Both Trump and his supporters are anti-American. It's all about the money. Those that support him are just, well, haters.