Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

SpokenTruth said:

If support from blacks...and others...is really as great as they say, why the need to fake so much of it?

This is about as cringe worthy as I have seen any campaign go to show a minority vote.  The problem isn't that Trump Campaign is doing this, its that its not remotely shocking that they are doing it.  How low have the standards come where openly lying like this from the Trump campaign is standard order of the day.



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Second accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/who-is-deborah-ramirez/index.html

Third accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-allegation-kavanaugh/index.html

Fourth...

They'll run out of fingers eventually, and then they won't be able to deny it!

Meaningless post.  

1.)  You're making assumptions of the validity of these claims against Kavanaugh.  

The facts are that neither of us knows what is the for sure actual truth.  Every one is going to point out what they consider evidence that proves or disproves the claim, but the fact is no one knows for sure.  

Using the unknown as evidence or comparisons doesn't work.

2.)  You're implying that there's a similarity between these claims and the whistle blower claims.  

Difference is, Trump broke the law on television. 

Shhhh, Let Eric hang himself on this one because unlike the Kavanaugh situation this one isn't remotely the same.  He continue to try to defend this cluster and not admit when Trump makes mistakes he probably should just be silent. 



the-pi-guy said:
Second whistle blower

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/06/politics/second-whistleblower-trump-ukraine/index.html?utm_source=CNN-News-Alerts&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Lawyer+for+Ukraine+whistleblower+says+he+represents+second+whistleblower+on+Trump&r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fpolitics%2Fcomments%2Fde3ger%2Fmegathread_second_whistleblower_comes_forward_in%2F&rm=1
the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Second accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/who-is-deborah-ramirez/index.html

Third accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-allegation-kavanaugh/index.html

Fourth...

They'll run out of fingers eventually, and then they won't be able to deny it!

Meaningless post.  

1.)  You're making assumptions of the validity of these claims against Kavanaugh.  

The facts are that neither of us knows what is the for sure actual truth.  Every one is going to point out what they consider evidence that proves or disproves the claim, but the fact is no one knows for sure.  

Using the unknown as evidence or comparisons doesn't work.

2.)  You're implying that there's a similarity between these claims and the whistle blower claims.  

Difference is, Trump broke the law on television. 

Where did I make assumptions other than more evidence tends to lead to more people believing something?

I think you mean the difference is Trump broke the world and everything about it the second he was conceived.

I also think you missed a few, or more, differences, but hey, why bother when you can go straight to the 'Trump card'?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

Where did I make assumptions other than more evidence tends to lead to more people believing something?

I think you mean the difference is Trump broke the world and everything about it the second he was conceived.

I also think you missed a few, or more, differences, but hey, why bother when you can go straight to the 'Trump card'?

>Where did I make assumptions other than more evidence tends to lead to more people believing something?

You made some assumption to come to the conclusion that the Kavanaugh case was somehow relevant to the Trump case.

>I think you mean the difference is Trump broke the world and everything about it the second he was conceived.

You're the one who said it.

I know you think that liberals/leftists have an irrational undying hatred for Trump's existence, but that's not the case for vast majority people.  And you're not going to be discussing honestly if you think that anyone here feels that way.  

When Trump got elected, I wanted him to do good for the country or at the very least do nothing bad.  



the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Where did I make assumptions other than more evidence tends to lead to more people believing something?

I think you mean the difference is Trump broke the world and everything about it the second he was conceived.

I also think you missed a few, or more, differences, but hey, why bother when you can go straight to the 'Trump card'?

>Where did I make assumptions other than more evidence tends to lead to more people believing something?

You made some assumption to come to the conclusion that the Kavanaugh case was somehow relevant to the Trump case.

>I think you mean the difference is Trump broke the world and everything about it the second he was conceived.

You're the one who said it.

I know you think that liberals/leftists have an irrational undying hatred for Trump's existence, but that's not the case for vast majority people.  And you're not going to be discussing honestly if you think that anyone here feels that way.  

When Trump got elected, I wanted him to do good for the country or at the very least do nothing bad.  

You're the one who said it, is exactly right. Why do you point to Trump? Why not CNN who was sourced?

I think instead of "I know you think", you meant, 'I think, that you think'. Lefties, not typical liberals, said to be more libertarian in today's world I guess.

That sounds nice on the surface, but if you happened to hate everything he stands for, or him personally, then it don't mean much. It would've been like saying, 'I wish Obama would do good for the country', which would have meant implementing some more conservative policies, to a conservative, even though it was clear that was highly unlikely to happen. 'If only I could win the lottery', is not a valid excuse for unpaid bills.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
the-pi-guy said:

>Where did I make assumptions other than more evidence tends to lead to more people believing something?

You made some assumption to come to the conclusion that the Kavanaugh case was somehow relevant to the Trump case.

>I think you mean the difference is Trump broke the world and everything about it the second he was conceived.

You're the one who said it.

I know you think that liberals/leftists have an irrational undying hatred for Trump's existence, but that's not the case for vast majority people.  And you're not going to be discussing honestly if you think that anyone here feels that way.  

When Trump got elected, I wanted him to do good for the country or at the very least do nothing bad.  

You're the one who said it, is exactly right. Why do you point to Trump? Why not CNN who was sourced?

I think instead of "I know you think", you meant, 'I think, that you think'. Lefties, not typical liberals, said to be more libertarian in today's world I guess.

That sounds nice on the surface, but if you happened to hate everything he stands for, or him personally, then it don't mean much. It would've been like saying, 'I wish Obama would do good for the country', which would have meant implementing some more conservative policies, to a conservative, even though it was clear that was highly unlikely to happen. 'If only I could win the lottery', is not a valid excuse for unpaid bills.

Oh please.  This is always the argument point of Trump supporters.  Oh all the left, liberals, Dems hate Trump. This BS position that people who disagree with the President must hate him instead of the fact that people just disagree with him just like people have disagreed with many Presidents.  You have tried to play this hate role as if it gives you power to stand for every dumb and stupid decision Trump makes and it makes you look bad.  In reality you need people to hate Trump so you can feel justified in supporting him but its a lame decision and choice to make.

Its the reason it makes the GOP look bad when they have to spin every stupid and dumb decision Trump makes just like this Ukraine mess because no matter how much you try to spin, it still looks very bad and sets a bad precedent.  The fact even Trump administration has to put these calls in a seperate private server because they know how bad they are should be a nugget that I am sure you ignored.



Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

You're the one who said it, is exactly right. Why do you point to Trump? Why not CNN who was sourced?

I think instead of "I know you think", you meant, 'I think, that you think'. Lefties, not typical liberals, said to be more libertarian in today's world I guess.

That sounds nice on the surface, but if you happened to hate everything he stands for, or him personally, then it don't mean much. It would've been like saying, 'I wish Obama would do good for the country', which would have meant implementing some more conservative policies, to a conservative, even though it was clear that was highly unlikely to happen. 'If only I could win the lottery', is not a valid excuse for unpaid bills.

Oh please.  This is always the argument point of Trump supporters.  Oh all the left, liberals, Dems hate Trump. This BS position that people who disagree with the President must hate him instead of the fact that people just disagree with him just like people have disagreed with many Presidents.  You have tried to play this hate role as if it gives you power to stand for every dumb and stupid decision Trump makes and it makes you look bad.  In reality you need people to hate Trump so you can feel justified in supporting him but its a lame decision and choice to make.

Its the reason it makes the GOP look bad when they have to spin every stupid and dumb decision Trump makes just like this Ukraine mess because no matter how much you try to spin, it still looks very bad and sets a bad precedent.  The fact even Trump administration has to put these calls in a seperate private server because they know how bad they are should be a nugget that I am sure you ignored.

EricHiggin said:

Second accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/who-is-deborah-ramirez/index.html

Third accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-allegation-kavanaugh/index.html

Fourth...

They'll run out of fingers eventually, and then they won't be able to deny it!

Trump = 0

CNN = 2

And the winner is........ Trump? WTF?

Hmm... can't help but wonder if this is 'fake'.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Actual footage of Eric in this thread:



sundin13 said:

Actual footage of Eric in this thread:



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

Second accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/who-is-deborah-ramirez/index.html

Third accuser

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-allegation-kavanaugh/index.html

Fourth...

They'll run out of fingers eventually, and then they won't be able to deny it!

Hello there false equivalence.


A. Extra accusations in a Supreme Court nomination hearing.

B. Extra whistleblowers in a presidential impeachment case.

The failure of extra A to defeat a Supreme Court nomination is not predictive for failure of extra B to impeach a president.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."