Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Flagpole wrote:

LIAR Flagpole 100% Proof wrote:

YOU'VE JUST BEEN PROVEN A LIAR! You said he had zero chance to win on March 7th, 2017!

You said you are not willing to say YET that he can't win. Yes you did, you said he had ZERO chance to win the next election.

LIAR!

1) I did not remember saying that more than a year ago, but apparently I did. I even tested to make sure it wasn't an impostor, and it clearly wasn't. I was likely trolling a little bit with that as it doesn't appear I repeated that, but I will just acknowledge that I said it.

2) Obviously my opinion on whether he can win again in 2020 or not if he is eligible has changed. You should enjoy that. The mouth breathers have obviously proven to me since more than a year ago, that they will stand by a serial lying criminal. I have already previously stated that my biggest fault in life is expecting too much (as in too much integrity and too many intelligent decisions) from people at large.

3) So, this is not a lie. This is forgetfulness...and no you can't say that with regard to anything.

4) If you want to hold my feet to the fire on that proclamation though, fine by me. I have already said MANY TIMES and continue to state that he won't get the chance to run anyway as I believe he will be impeached and removed or he will resign (if he doesn't die first or the crime or aliens thing).

I will always admit when I am wrong, and even though I didn't say so, I would have told you that I didn't say Trump had ZERO chance to win in 2020, so I will accept that I am wrong generally here and would have been wrong directly if asked. It is not evidence of lying though as a lie is a conscious effort to deceive, and that is not what I did...I simply did not remember posting that more than a year ago.

The main thing though is and always will be...

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Excuse Maker Flagpole gets outed! wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) I did not remember saying that more than a year ago, but apparently I did. I even tested to make sure it wasn't an impostor, and it clearly wasn't. I was likely trolling a little bit with that as it doesn't appear I repeated that, but I will just acknowledge that I said it.

2) Obviously my opinion on whether he can win again in 2020 or not if he is eligible has changed. You should enjoy that. The mouth breathers have obviously proven to me since more than a year ago, that they will stand by a serial lying criminal. I have already previously stated that my biggest fault in life is expecting too much (as in too much integrity and too many intelligent decisions) from people at large.

3) So, this is not a lie. This is forgetfulness...and no you can't say that with regard to anything.

4) If you want to hold my feet to the fire on that proclamation though, fine by me. I have already said MANY TIMES and continue to state that he won't get the chance to run anyway as I believe he will be impeached and removed or he will resign (if he doesn't die first or the crime or aliens thing).

I will always admit when I am wrong, and even though I didn't say so, I would have told you that I didn't say Trump had ZERO chance to win in 2020, so I will accept that I am wrong generally here and would have been wrong directly if asked. It is not evidence of lying though as a lie is a conscious effort to deceive, and that is not what I did...I simply did not remember posting that more than a year ago.

The main thing though is and always will be...

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Your math needs help. It was OVER 2 years ago, not more than a year ago (but you'll argue that as well). Yes, there's a big difference. You've been at this well over 2 years now and you've proven nothing, ZERO. Today is March 13, 2019 and you posted it on March 7th, 2017. Does that help?

No, you weren't trolling, that's your fall back excuse for everything. You were adamant about it and basically made another prediction in hopes of getting credit later on. But you have to add that "maybe I was trolling" in there. No, you weren't.

But you will "just" acknowledge that you said it. Wow, how big of you to admit what we already know. It's your registered name, no sh*t you said, there's no debating that.

You are just like what you describe Trump, a liar. You could have just admitted it and say that you were wrong with your recent post. But your EGO won't allow for that. You've got to somehow slide that little excuse in there in hopes of it now not looking like a lie.

You failed. You lied. You are what you claim Trump to be. A sad old fat man who lies every day, that is you.

Excuse Maker Flagpole gets outed! wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

1) I did not remember saying that more than a year ago, but apparently I did. I even tested to make sure it wasn't an impostor, and it clearly wasn't. I was likely trolling a little bit with that as it doesn't appear I repeated that, but I will just acknowledge that I said it.

2) Obviously my opinion on whether he can win again in 2020 or not if he is eligible has changed. You should enjoy that. The mouth breathers have obviously proven to me since more than a year ago, that they will stand by a serial lying criminal. I have already previously stated that my biggest fault in life is expecting too much (as in too much integrity and too many intelligent decisions) from people at large.

3) So, this is not a lie. This is forgetfulness...and no you can't say that with regard to anything.

4) If you want to hold my feet to the fire on that proclamation though, fine by me. I have already said MANY TIMES and continue to state that he won't get the chance to run anyway as I believe he will be impeached and removed or he will resign (if he doesn't die first or the crime or aliens thing).

I will always admit when I am wrong, and even though I didn't say so, I would have told you that I didn't say Trump had ZERO chance to win in 2020, so I will accept that I am wrong generally here and would have been wrong directly if asked. It is not evidence of lying though as a lie is a conscious effort to deceive, and that is not what I did...I simply did not remember posting that more than a year ago.

The main thing though is and always will be...

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Your math needs help. It was OVER 2 years ago, not more than a year ago (but you'll argue that as well). Yes, there's a big difference. You've been at this well over 2 years now and you've proven nothing, ZERO. Today is March 13, 2019 and you posted it on March 7th, 2017. Does that help?

No, you weren't trolling, that's your fall back excuse for everything. You were adamant about it and basically made another prediction in hopes of getting credit later on. But you have to add that "maybe I was trolling" in there. No, you weren't.

But you will "just" acknowledge that you said it. Wow, how big of you to admit what we already know. It's your registered name, no sh*t you said, there's no debating that.

You are just like what you describe Trump, a liar. You could have just admitted it and say that you were wrong with your recent post. But your EGO won't allow for that. You've got to somehow slide that little excuse in there in hopes of it now not looking like a lie.

You failed. You lied. You are what you claim Trump to be. A sad old fat man who lies every day, that is you.

Racket wrote:

Excuse Maker Flagpole gets outed! wrote:

Your math needs help. It was OVER 2 years ago, not more than a year ago (but you'll argue that as well). Yes, there's a big difference. You've been at this well over 2 years now and you've proven nothing, ZERO. Today is March 13, 2019 and you posted it on March 7th, 2017. Does that help?

No, you weren't trolling, that's your fall back excuse for everything. You were adamant about it and basically made another prediction in hopes of getting credit later on. But you have to add that "maybe I was trolling" in there. No, you weren't.

But you will "just" acknowledge that you said it. Wow, how big of you to admit what we already know. It's your registered name, no sh*t you said, there's no debating that.

You are just like what you describe Trump, a liar. You could have just admitted it and say that you were wrong with your recent post. But your EGO won't allow for that. You've got to somehow slide that little excuse in there in hopes of it now not looking like a lie.

You failed. You lied. You are what you claim Trump to be. A sad old fat man who lies every day, that is you.

Flagpole has declared firmly Trump will not be president by Inauguration Day, 2021. He says Trump could be re-elected in the event he is wrong, but seems to still believe that will not be possible as Trump will be :

1) indicted;

2) impeached;

3) step down from office;

4) removed from office in anyway otherwise;

5) any combination of the above.

The caveat that Trump could get re-elected if Flagpole is more of a "musing" than a condition on the original Flagpole Prediction (understood to be : "Mueller is coming" and "the clown is done"). However, he may be presenting in a way that does not accurately separate it from said Prediction. So as member of the "Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread" judiciary committee, I am ruling Flagpole as technically correct but perhaps obtuse.

Semantics of whether or not this is a "promise," "guarantee," or any sort of official contract otherwise is of no concern to this court. The time of posting from two years ago is obvious from proof provided and Flagpole is in error there

Racket wrote:

Excuse Maker Flagpole gets outed! wrote:

Your math needs help. It was OVER 2 years ago, not more than a year ago (but you'll argue that as well). Yes, there's a big difference. You've been at this well over 2 years now and you've proven nothing, ZERO. Today is March 13, 2019 and you posted it on March 7th, 2017. Does that help?

No, you weren't trolling, that's your fall back excuse for everything. You were adamant about it and basically made another prediction in hopes of getting credit later on. But you have to add that "maybe I was trolling" in there. No, you weren't.

But you will "just" acknowledge that you said it. Wow, how big of you to admit what we already know. It's your registered name, no sh*t you said, there's no debating that.

You are just like what you describe Trump, a liar. You could have just admitted it and say that you were wrong with your recent post. But your EGO won't allow for that. You've got to somehow slide that little excuse in there in hopes of it now not looking like a lie.

You failed. You lied. You are what you claim Trump to be. A sad old fat man who lies every day, that is you.

Flagpole has declared firmly Trump will not be president by Inauguration Day, 2021. He says Trump could be re-elected in the event he is wrong, but seems to still believe that will not be possible as Trump will be :

1) indicted;

2) impeached;

3) step down from office;

4) removed from office in anyway otherwise;

5) any combination of the above.

The caveat that Trump could get re-elected if Flagpole is more of a "musing" than a condition on the original Flagpole Prediction (understood to be : "Mueller is coming" and "the clown is done"). However, he may be presenting in a way that does not accurately separate it from said Prediction. So as member of the "Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread" judiciary committee, I am ruling Flagpole as technically correct but perhaps obtuse.

Semantics of whether or not this is a "promise," "guarantee," or any sort of official contract otherwise is of no concern to this court. The time of posting from two years ago is obvious from proof provided and Flagpole is in error there

llort wrote:

I sincerely applaud your effort Racket, you get an A+.

But he lied. It has nothing to do with his original Mueller is coming... That is not a lie, that is a prediction and something that he will be 100% proven wrong about, but I guarantee you he will be all prepared with a rolodex of excuses.

He'd never unreservedly admit that he was wrong. Russians;), Facebook;), Comey;), he's always got to add something. Honestly, that shows a very insecure person.

The irony of it, that's what he accuses others of. Had someone not found that, he'd still be denying it. What does it show? It shows that he's said so much garbage that he doesn't even remember it.

He was not trolling, that's a fact. Someone caught him and he didn't like reading their post as he knew he was full of it, so the deflection mode gets turned on.

A couple years ago I had read a few posts by him and thought he's no dummy. Since then he's posted so much on this thread that the evidence doesn't support my original view of him.

You and the poster LL are both fair and obviously well above average in intelligence. Flagpole could take a cue from both of you.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat Hurts - I respect your background in science and engineering. . But please help me understand this - I was always told that there is no "consensus" in science. You say scientific consensus is a real thing, but isn't science really about developing theories or theorems and then attacking them to see if they are really justified. Don't you always want to test a theory just to confirm time and time again that what it purports is actually what it purports? Why are Global Warmists so afraid of outsiders attacking what they are purporting? I thought science welcomed opposing views just to maybe validate what they propose.

First, nobody is afraid of opposing viewpoints. Global Warming has been studied since the first scientific article on the topic was published in the late 1800's. And there have been vigorous debates ever since that time. But as the years have gone by, more and more scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming has come to the fore. The scientific method has worked.

If you were told there was no "consensus" in science then you were grossly misinformed. We do have a baseline of generally accepted scientific principles. Those principles constitute the consensus. As I said, without consensus, there would be no undergraduate courses in science. Can you imagine your undergraduate chemistry professor saying, "Well, we are not going to cover stoichiometry because there is no real concensus that it works. Same goes for atomic structure. And as for that periodic table, are we really sure?"

Sometimes, consensus is overturned. A good example is how Einstien's theories supplanted Newtonian physics. But even so, Newton was mostly correct. It's just that Einstien showed conditions under which Newton's laws were insufficient.

Consensus on climate change is what we have today. It doesn't mean the conclusions are perfect. It doesn't mean those conclusions can not be challenged. It just gets harder and harder to mount that challenge when further study keeps pointing to the same conclusions.

And those conclusions are that greenhouse emissions are warming the planet. And furthermore, it will have devastating consequences.

Racket wrote:

Excuse Maker Flagpole gets outed! wrote:

Your math needs help. It was OVER 2 years ago, not more than a year ago (but you'll argue that as well). Yes, there's a big difference. You've been at this well over 2 years now and you've proven nothing, ZERO. Today is March 13, 2019 and you posted it on March 7th, 2017. Does that help?

No, you weren't trolling, that's your fall back excuse for everything. You were adamant about it and basically made another prediction in hopes of getting credit later on. But you have to add that "maybe I was trolling" in there. No, you weren't.

But you will "just" acknowledge that you said it. Wow, how big of you to admit what we already know. It's your registered name, no sh*t you said, there's no debating that.

You are just like what you describe Trump, a liar. You could have just admitted it and say that you were wrong with your recent post. But your EGO won't allow for that. You've got to somehow slide that little excuse in there in hopes of it now not looking like a lie.

You failed. You lied. You are what you claim Trump to be. A sad old fat man who lies every day, that is you.

Flagpole has declared firmly Trump will not be president by Inauguration Day, 2021. He says Trump could be re-elected in the event he is wrong, but seems to still believe that will not be possible as Trump will be :

1) indicted;

2) impeached;

3) step down from office;

4) removed from office in anyway otherwise;

5) any combination of the above.

The caveat that Trump could get re-elected if Flagpole is more of a "musing" than a condition on the original Flagpole Prediction (understood to be : "Mueller is coming" and "the clown is done"). However, he may be presenting in a way that does not accurately separate it from said Prediction. So as member of the "Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread" judiciary committee, I am ruling Flagpole as technically correct but perhaps obtuse.

Semantics of whether or not this is a "promise," "guarantee," or any sort of official contract otherwise is of no concern to this court. The time of posting from two years ago is obvious from proof provided and Flagpole is in error there