The LOCK is that at least a good portion of them are true.
And before you start talking about anyone lying, how about commenting on the 20,000 PLUS DOCUMENTED LIES OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS
that Trump has told over the last 3 1/2 years-you don't want to touch that one do you, other than to say that those lies are also "fake news"
and lies in themselves!! lol
Who can we compare the "20,000 documented lies and misleading statements" to?
Who started tracking, and when? Also... why just documenting Trump?
I guarantee its a LOCK that it was the liberal controlled MSM, only since Trump is president, and to push a narrative for the LOW IQ to believe.
Ok, since you claimed its a LOCK that a good portion is True, lets take his nieces book (the most recent), and do a BAN wager on your LOCK statement.
If 51% of the claims are true and verifiable I BAN PERMANENTLY... If 51% or more cant be proven and unverifiable YOU BAN PERMANENTLY
Of course you wont take this wager, cause you dont even believe your own liberal bullshit
Your wager is totally insane, because no one in reality can prove anything re: the niece's statements-the more I see of your posts, the more I question your
ability to think before you post.
Along the same lines, kindly tell me how you or any one else is going to prove anything about the niece's book one way or the other in any
event to come up with 51%?
Based on what I have seen of Trump since he assumed office with my own eyes, I happen to believe what the niece and Bolton
said about the lying self-servng slime and the 20,000 lies, which were documented by the NY Times and Washington Post.
Seriously, believe and vote as you wish, but you are never going to convince me and many millions more about your opinions
and beliefs about Trump-we have eyes and ears and can and will form our opinions based on that.
Re:the ban obviousy if lies can't be prove, the ban is irrelevant-does that make sense? lol
However I did say I believe in the Rubber Room that if Trump wins, I would ban myself for two months from posting anything in Forum other than
in the NC Thread, and in addition that if Trump wins "in the biggest landslide in history," as sbd claims, I will ban myself pemanently.
ps Moving forward, I am going to limit my responses to you because I am not going to play by YOUR rules, YOUR criterion and YOUR standards
of evaulation ONLY , because essentially it is a waste of your time and mine to do so.
Bye
ps You tried the same absurd nonsense of asking to compare the number of Dafinch's lies to those of SBD in another thread,
and I gave you the same answer as I did in post above.
If you know of a way and/or are psychic enough to know for sure which statements can be PROVEN true or false, then you might try your hand
of becoming a sports service and picking games-you couldn't do any worse than most of them, that's for sure.
and I gave you the same answer as I did in post above.
If you know of a way and/or are psychic enough to know for sure which statements can be PROVEN true or false, then you might try your hand
of becoming a sports service and picking games-you couldn't do any worse than most of them, that's for sure.
So... Just proved my point, which I knew you would.
You believe ANYTHING even if it cant be proven TRUE or FALSE as long as it makes Trump look bad. BUT, on the flip side, something that makes Trump look good using that same logic, you would need cold hard facts.
Way to live life. Starting to see the cracks in you and why most of the posters here dont take your posts seriously. Yet, you have guys like Dafinch who you buddy up with and pat each other on the back constantly.
Dont even think you are worth debating anymore simply because you dont like to use facts and actual logic about statements which carry zero weight simply because they make a person look bad.
Keep poisoning the well(what an understatement!)and AVOIDING directly the questions I asked of you in return to the insane ones you asked me.
You never did answer my question about the 20,000 documented lies about Trump, and instead weakly tried to dodge the answer
by asking who started the tracking of the lies, when I just told you that it was the NY Times and Washington Post.
Of course you will dismiss them because they don't agree with your sources or your own opinion.
The "cracks" are actually in YOU because you can't get out of your own way and can't and/or refuse see that you are trying to superimpose
your own subjective opinions, criterion and standards of what counts and what does not in a discussion like this on ME in order to have
a conversation-sorry that doesn't fly!
And once again you somehow want to equate agreeing with Dafinch about something with being buddies with him.
For that matter using your argument, plenty of folks in here support and pat each other on the back when they agree about something about Trump.
Your first statement makes no sense at all about believing/true/false as certain things cannot be proven, but one has a right to believe
them and especially if many people say the same thing as it applies in this case to Trump.
Again based on what I have seen and heard of Trump with my very own eyes and ears over the last 3 1/2 years, I believe he is a LIAR, which
gives credence to those who have said the same things in their book.
If you don't want to debate me anymore, thats fine with me.
While I give you credit for at least directly responding to my posts other than just about everyone else who "respond" with name calling and insults only,
sadly for reasons cited above I don't consider you much of a match either.
I already answered you 20,000 lies question. Who can we comparing to since they only started tracking those under Trump simply because they hate him.
Heres a wager about the 20,000 lies thing which should show whats going on. Ill wager you that IF Biden wins those tracking the lies, will cease to track his.... What do you want to wager on that? We will see the fallacy on your 20,000 lie question now.
Let me ask you a question... Which 2 righties here are the lowest IQ and most ill informed?
You didn't answer anything a bout the 20,000 lies but as stated brought up something not relevant to the documentation of the lies.
Re this:
"Heres a wager about the 20,000 lies thing which should show whats going on. Ill wager you that IF Biden wins those tracking the lies, will cease to track his.... What do you want to wager on that? We will see the fallacy on your 20,000 lie question now."
I don't understand the relevance of this at all.
For me the bottom line is that it was/is Trump who brought about the documentation of the lies in the first place by telling them
I don't recall the New York Times or Washington Post documenting lies of the likes of George Bush 43 and 45, Reagan,
etc. because they didn't tell 20,000 of them-the same can be said about Clinton and Obama.
If you call documenting 20,000 lies and/or misleading statements wheh they occur as biased because it happened to be Trump, well lets
just say that I don't share that opinion.
I don't see any of the right wing sources talking about/admitting any lies let alone 20,000.
Conversely if Biden wins and starts lying to the likes of 20,000 of them, then if New York Times and/or Washington Post
say nothing about them, then rest be assured that the Right Wing Sources will.
In short it called politics and the way in which things happen in this country-once again its called show biz.
Re: your last question, I have no idea in actuality which two righties have the lowest IQ and are most ill informed-if anything here are about 4 or
five tied in this category.
For the most part, I simply worry about my own posts and reading the posts of others and offering responses when I disagree.
As a more direct answer, I would placet those who respond to me ONLY with name calling and insults with never an actual DIRECT response to
what I have posted, at the bottom of the barreland not worth responding to or at least very often.
Some of them are on ignore.
That's as far as I am going to go with this.
ps Rest be assured for what its worth that for you are not even remotely close to these folks and actually
one of the ones I enjoyed debating and discussing matters with until today anyways.
I respectfully disagree with that.
When there is egregious and unacceptable behavior such as is the case here with Trump's lies, the media is within its rights to report it.
Consider this with this analogy, which is far from perfect.
If someone as a parent sees his child doing something which is unacceptable in his/her opinion, is the right thing to disciplne
the child on the spot in a manner he/she sees fit for what he/she seems to this unacceptable behavior, OR is the parent theoreically
supposed to stop and research the matter on the internet how many other kids in the country have done the same thing in the past
and got away with it/not got away with it and based on the latter, decide if/how their own child should be disciplined?
With Trump, if you want to argue that the the New York and Washington Times were/are simply looking for a way to discredit him, then fine,
On the other hand, if Trump hadn't told those lies, they couldn't discredit him in this way.
Most importantly and as I have said before, the name of the game in this country is to get elected by any and all means which
are technically legal within our society.
In that regard I think that both Parties are equally guilty if that is the right choice of words.
Along the same lines, Trump has the right to sue the New York and Washington Times and the authors of three books for slander
if he feels that he and his lawyers can disprove the allegations.
How many lies did Obama have so I can see how bad Trumps numbers are.
Lying is bad, all presidents lie... thats simple. But, to the extent on HOW bad is the debate here. Acting like Trumps holds a record for something thats never been tracked. And you know EXACTLY why they are tracking Trump, yet you lie and refuse to admit the reason
