***official lol trump thread***

[VaughnP]

People on Twitter and Facebook are still thinking that the special counsel feeling compelled to dispute a news story means that it's still at least 90% true since the statement didn't just say it's all a lie. This is worse than the Obama birther stuff or anything ever was in terms of brainwashed useful idiots.

[blake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaughnP

Isn't it just entirely possible that they have nothing on Trump? Won't you at least consider that? At best it indicates anything they do have is weak. I think Mueller feels that allowing something so damaging to continue to build would later imply a bias once things are wrapped up.

yep, it's 100% possible they have absolutely nothing on trump. i've been on record saying that i don't necessarily believe the collusion narrative. though the manafort-polling data stuff raises some questions.

and don jr. actually was caught "attempting" to collude in emails, though he claims noting came of it.

but yeah, it's entirely possible that because half the country wants trump not just gone, but literally destroyed, that we'll run with any story hoping it's true.

[blake]

vaughn please take note of how one concedes points

[Hillbilly Jim]

pretty sure this is all just a misunderstanding

Footage shows model who claimed to possess secret information linking Trump to the Kremlin being bundled away by FSB agents
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-Moscow.html

[VaughnP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blake

vaughn please take note of how one concedes points

Please refer me specifically to any point I should have conceded so that I can bump the thread with a strengthened argument.

I remember a very old thread where Gamble and I were talking about Texas life etc. I posted about how two of my uncles got into a bitter dispute over fixing a WiFi problem that quickly escalated to uncle A betting one of his vehicles, a customized Ford Lightning, and 5k cash against uncle B's request of a public apology for emotional damages. True story. The men in my family typically don't concede, we escalate things and somehow turn them into wagers, chess showdowns, and litigation. I remember a friendly family card game for instance when I was still in high school that broke down into an argument between one of my uncles and my grandpa over the correct play on a bad beat in hold 'em. I think we were playing .25/.50. They decided to play limit 200/400 5 card and 2-7 triple draw heads up.

One of the aunts that married into my family always brings up an argument between them all at a holiday gathering in the mid 90s that lasted 5+ hours - it started over proper use of a video camera and ended with the morality of abortion. She uses this to explain to new women in the family that they have no idea what they are getting into. I grew up in an environment where things like debate, poker, and chess death matches aren't just something that happens, they're encouraged.

[blake]

as someone who has to argue for a living, just fyi, conceding points is actually the strongest and most persuasive debate tool. it makes people actually care about what you have to say. refusing to do so is the quickest way to have judges laugh when you're before them.

i've pointed out before that you have refused to criticize trump about anything he does, which is comical as he's literally retarded. you refuse to even acknowledge that anything he does is wrong. we went down this road earlier in this thread when i pointed this out. even when i challenged you, you still refused which was kind of unvelievable. you still will refuse to do so now.

you wanted to know "what my deal is with you?" i don't respect people who think everything trump does is ok. i honestly think they're mentally challenged. i probably thought more highly of you. i don't anymore.

you are far and away the biggest trump supporter i've ever encountered (including everyone on pfa -- even dish and mint acknowledge trump is a retard), so that should give you some insight into my thinking.

note saying "i'm not a trump supporter" is meaningless when every specific thing you say is the opposite.

and lol at "point out something i should have conceded." arguing with someone who is 100% mentally incapable of concession is kind of pointless. do you see why?

[Hillbilly Jim]

george you are a great lawyer, keep pointing out trumps faults
i just hope kellyanne doesnt lose her job and run back to kwame

[VaughnP]

You realize I was making a big joke, right? And I will be the first to admit I was wrong about something, but let's point out something I was actually wrong about first, not something that involves your personal feelings and opinions. I'm not a "Trump supporter", I'm anti whiny left. You are so anti Trump that you are unwilling to admit that you might be wrong about any of a dozen news stories over the last year + until it's actually exposed as a lie. The entire crux of my argument is that I'm reserving judgement until the actual facts come out. You keep posting these same type of stories and suggesting they must be true while I all along have maintained that there is an incredible bias in just about all of the mainstream media. Case and point the unbelievable and comical events of yesterday. Can we stop this nonsense until something actually happens? Part of me posting that story was to point out that I enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing with people that are capable of making valid points back. Your arguments have become increasingly weaker, partially because they are based on the Trump bombshell rehash flavor of the week. I don't take any of this seriously or personally, and I wish you didn't either. I'm beginning to think Dave is a better lawyer than you.

[anatine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaughnP

People on Twitter and Facebook are still thinking that the special counsel feeling compelled to dispute a news story means that it's still at least 90% true since the statement didn't just say it's all a lie. This is worse than the Obama birther stuff or anything ever was in terms of brainwashed useful idiots.

so to be clear:

"obama was a kenyan muslim who scammed his way into the white house with a fake birth certificate" was somehow less corrosive and far fetched than suggesting a borderline retarded sundowning real estate scammer (who, by his own chief of staffs admission, would have committed numerous felonies in office had he not been prevented from doing so) asked his literal fixer to lie under oath?

because thats not something a functional adult mind would trot out for peer review, so a lot of us are confused.

[blake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaughnP

You realize I was making a big joke, right? And I will be the first to admit I was wrong about something, but let's point out something I was actually wrong about first, not something that involves your personal feelings and opinions. I'm not a "Trump supporter", I'm anti whiny left. You are so anti Trump that you are unwilling to admit that you might be wrong about any of a dozen news stories over the last year + until it's actually exposed as a lie. The entire crux of my argument is that I'm reserving judgement until the actual facts come out. You keep posting these same type of stories and suggesting they must be true while I all along have maintained that there is an incredible bias in just about all of the mainstream media. Case and point the unbelievable and comical events of yesterday. Can we stop this nonsense until something actually happens? Part of me posting that story was to point out that I enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing with people that are capable of making valid points back. Your arguments have become increasingly weaker, partially because they are based on the Trump bombshell rehash flavor of the week. I don't take any of this seriously or personally, and I wish you didn't either. I'm beginning to think Dave is a better lawyer than you.

except i

said the russian-collusion story is likely not true;

think there's a trememdous left-wing bias in the media;

would probably classify as centrist or even right wing in most people's minds (i honestly don't know how i'd classify myself. sometimes i think liberal, other times not);

how dare you re dave; and

i have no idea what news articles you believe i think are true that you don't.