*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1940 on: July 21, 2017, 12:10:52 PM »
I'm only bringing this up as a criticism of your judgment and supposed objectivity, not a rebuttal of your claims here.
I've never claimed to be objective. That would be a stupid thing for me to say. At best, I can argue that I'm non-partisan, but even that would be a stretch since I have a mild preference for non-Trumpian Republican these days.

And on that note, let's see here...one Democratic congressman called for Trump's impeachment, and another called for his legislation to be stalled pending the results of the investigation.
Oh noes, I recalled a couple of examples to respond to a very specific point instead of re-running us through weeks and weeks of a debate that's already been held. I bet that makes me wrong somehow!

That's you. And you know that's you
Lordy, lordy. Saddam, your melodrama aside (nice projection btw keep it up), this is a very simple issue. You've posted crazy shit from crazy people. You got mocked for it. You then pretended that you only supported the somewhat reasonable side of the Democratic inquiry. You weren't allowed to run away with it, so now you're screaming gaslighting (no, that's not melodrama or exaggeration, you literally said it on IRC, using that specific word) and accusing me of designing "escape hatches" (happened here, you've quoted it yourself in the post I'm replying to) so I can make myself sound like I'm always right. So, again, take a deep breath and think to yourself: Do you honestly think that I would waste my time to do any of that? Do you think others (primarily on IRC, I'll admit) would perpetuate it by treating you like the laughing stock you are? Previously you've accused Parsifal of being the leader of some sort of bandwagon against you, now you're just pretending that the others don't exist and that it's all me. I don't really know how to respond to this level of delusion.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 12:13:30 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1941 on: July 21, 2017, 01:55:36 PM »
All right, it's obvious at this point that neither of us are going to budge on this, so we might as well agree to disagree and move on.

]www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/]

Fucking LOL. Mueller has been around the block, he understands what it means when a criminal tells him not to investigate something.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Not for what's in my trunk so you better not look in there!"

To be fair, they basically goaded him into saying that, and they did specify that the hypothetical investigation would be "unrelated to Russia." And it's true, Mueller shouldn't be looking at things that aren't directly connected to the Russian angle, although it would be nuts for Trump to actually fire him.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1942 on: July 21, 2017, 02:10:12 PM »
All right, it's obvious at this point that neither of us are going to budge on this, so we might as well agree to disagree and move on.

]www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/]

Fucking LOL. Mueller has been around the block, he understands what it means when a criminal tells him not to investigate something.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Not for what's in my trunk so you better not look in there!"

To be fair, they basically goaded him into saying that, and they did specify that the hypothetical investigation would be "unrelated to Russia." And it's true, Mueller shouldn't be looking at things that aren't directly connected to the Russian angle, although it would be nuts for Trump to actually fire him.


Money is a primary motivator for Trump.
Thus, if Russia has any pull, it'll be financially.  So checking out Trump's money should be the first thing you do.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1943 on: July 21, 2017, 08:58:49 PM »
Sean Spicer's gone

Goodbye sweet prince. . .

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1944 on: July 22, 2017, 05:27:39 AM »
He got fired or quit?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1945 on: July 22, 2017, 06:18:40 AM »
Quit, it seems.
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1946 on: July 22, 2017, 07:09:40 AM »
Quit, it seems.


Does not blame him.
Hope he gives us all.the dirt on Trump.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1947 on: July 22, 2017, 07:19:54 PM »
Quote from: Trump
So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan.

Where can I get these $12/yr health insurance plans?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1948 on: July 22, 2017, 07:36:32 PM »
Quote from: Trump
So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan.

Where can I get these $12/yr health insurance plans?


He may be mixing insurance with health savings plans.
But that has nothign to do with pre-existing conditions.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #1949 on: July 22, 2017, 08:40:03 PM »
He also could have been throwing hypothetical numbers out.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1950 on: July 22, 2017, 08:51:08 PM »
Health savings plans aren't $12/year either. Pretty sure he's just not learned anything about health insurance, or is confused about what it is. He also said this a couple months ago:

Quote from: Trump
You're going to have absolute guaranteed coverage. You're going to have it if you're a person going in…don't forget, this was not supposed to be the way insurance works. Insurance is, you're 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time you're 70, and you really need it, you're still paying the same amount and that's really insurance.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2017, 08:57:54 PM by trekky0623 »

Re: Trump
« Reply #1951 on: July 22, 2017, 09:23:45 PM »
that's also just not how insurance works.  it's like saying you pay for car insurance when you're 20 in case you have a car accident when you're 70.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1952 on: July 23, 2017, 02:26:50 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions.html

If Trump actually pardons himself, I will laugh and laugh until I die.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1953 on: July 23, 2017, 10:17:11 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions.html

If Trump actually pardons himself, I will laugh and laugh until I die.

Trump supporters: Well obviously he needs to so that people stop accusing him of fake news allegations and he can do his job.  Hope he just says he's pardoned for anything the libs can come up with so he doesn't have to worry about it.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1954 on: July 25, 2017, 12:51:44 PM »
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1955 on: July 25, 2017, 09:57:26 PM »
Trump hires man who demands loyalty and stopping leaks.
And will fire anyone who isn't loyal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/25/white-house-purge-im-going-to-fire-everybody-says-scaramucci/


But this is totally a good thing.  I mean, leaking factual information is a horrible thing for anyone to do and if you work for the president, you should have 100% loyalty to him and only him.  This isn't anything even close to a dictatorship.  No no no... that's absurd....
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1956 on: July 26, 2017, 02:32:12 AM »
I like how Trump goes on and on about loyalty, but yet seemingly keeps throwing people under the bus when they disagree with him. Seems loyalty is a one-way street. He wants you to be loyal to him, not the other way around.

Sessions isn't turning out how you wanted? You want pesky Mueller gone? Time to get on Twitter and start ranting about Sessions.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1957 on: July 26, 2017, 05:15:19 AM »
So the last time I was "active" in the FE community, the topic of politics never arose. At least, not to my awareness. But now it seems to be a thing, and it seems there's a higher-percentage of Trump supporters among FE believers, than in the general population. Maybe That's just a feeling, not the result of rigorous analysis. Does this seem true?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1958 on: July 26, 2017, 12:55:23 PM »
So the last time I was "active" in the FE community, the topic of politics never arose. At least, not to my awareness. But now it seems to be a thing, and it seems there's a higher-percentage of Trump supporters among FE believers, than in the general population. Maybe That's just a feeling, not the result of rigorous analysis. Does this seem true?
You'd be wrong.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1959 on: July 26, 2017, 01:50:46 PM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html

good.  people who are weird shouldn't be allowed to serve their country.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.