ADVERTISEMENT

Poor Loser Trump -- loses again

No, the Clinton numbers were correct. The graph was about those in each administration that were indicted. Only two in Clinton’s administration were indicted. Campaigns don’t count. Your list includes Clinton cronies, family, friends and associates outside the administration that were indicted. Yes, there were many, but they weren’t in the administration.

The Washington Post was the source of his inaccurate graph, I believe, and he definitely should have sourced it. Why aren’t you focusing on the fact that they falsely claimed 215 in Trump’s administration were indicted when the number is actually just six? Why attempt a whatabout when the number for Trump was wildly wrong? That should be your attack. I’m helping you out here.
I only have so much bandwidth to counter stupidity.

It's much easier to just list Clinton corruption.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IU_Hickory
I only have so much bandwidth to counter stupidity.

It's much easier to just list Clinton corruption.
Again, I recommend addressing the incorrect facts rather than doing a "what about." You should be happy that I'm advising a Trumpster on what to do to defend Trump! ;)
 
Again, I recommend addressing the incorrect facts rather than doing a "what about." You should be happy that I'm advising a Trumpster on what to do to defend Trump! ;)
Thanks for the recommendation. HIs point has already been rendered moot.

EDIT: I don't see anything wrong about whutabouts as long as they're pertinent to the subject. It exposes hypocrisy.
 
Trumpniks asslick in every way imaginable. Happens here daily. I don’t see the appeal in engaging them in endless posts as you have done in the last couple days. DANC will never but never change his view about collusion or anything else.
Why should I? I'm right.

By the way, I just finished watching 2000 Mules. Same offer to you I gave to Zeke and Tommy - I'll pay for your subscription to watch it or I'll donate that amount to a charity of your choice if you don't want to give me your personal info.

But be prepared to deal with facts and data.
 
He wasn’t an unconstitutional President, but the rest is correct.
He wasn't unconstitutional? Trying to get Sec. of States to find him 11,700 votes to overturn an election is not unconstitutional? Urging states to bring an "alternate" set of electors on Jan 6th in order to overturn the election is not unconstitutional? Holding up appropriated money to the Ukraine in order for that country to open up an investigation on his political rival?
 
He lost according to the official results. I don't think he lost the vote count, but it's impossible to tell because there were not voter signature verifications on the votes that came in at the last minute.
The Prez of the Flat Earth Society speaks.
 
He wasn't unconstitutional? Trying to get Sec. of States to find him 11,700 votes to overturn an election is not unconstitutional? Urging states to bring an "alternate" set of electors on Jan 6th in order to overturn the election is not unconstitutional? Holding up appropriated money to the Ukraine in order for that country to open up an investigation on his political rival?
No. He was legitimately elected in 2016. He wasn’t President after the January inauguration of President Biden. Please don’t be stupid. We have more than enough stupid here.
 
Reminder: May is Mental Health Month. Help is available, even for you.
And you could not answer the question could you
He wasn't unconstitutional? Trying to get Sec. of States to find him 11,700 votes to overturn an election is not unconstitutional? Urging states to bring an "alternate" set of electors on Jan 6th in order to overturn the election is not unconstitutional? Holding up appropriated money to the Ukraine in order for that country to open up an investigation on his political rival?
Boy I gotta admit. Your a "funny" dumb mother trucker.
 
No. He was legitimately elected in 2016. He wasn’t President after the January inauguration of President Biden. Please don’t be stupid. We have more than enough stupid here.

You guys are talking about 2 different things. He didn't say Trump was illegitimate. He said he did things that were unconstitutional and listed some of the things he did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NOMORENIT
You guys are talking about 2 different things. He didn't say Trump was illegitimate. He said he did things that were unconstitutional and listed some of the things he did.
What is wrong with people here? He specifically said he was an unconstitutional President. He didn’t even mention “things that were unconstitutional.” Read the post I replied to. It’s ridiculous that we argue about facts. Please help with stopping this BS, don’t perpetuate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
And you could not answer the question could you

Boy I gotta admit. Your a "funny" dumb mother trucker.
Can you stop embarrassing us Republicans and IU grads? In post after post you show you don’t understand simple grammar like “you, your or you’re.” Your spelling is atrocious. You also don’t understand punctuation. It’s a chore to try to decipher what your posts actually mean. It’s all embarrassing. I recommend you stop posting so people don’t continue to gather evidence that you’re not very intelligent. It would also cease your embarrassment of other Republicans.
 
Thanks for the recommendation. HIs point has already been rendered moot.

EDIT: I don't see anything wrong about whutabouts as long as they're pertinent to the subject. It exposes hypocrisy.

In grade school we were taught to “compare and contrast” but now as adults it’s called “whataboutism” and is looked down upon. One of many lies we were all apparently told. Lol
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
In grade school we were taught to “compare and contrast” but now as adults it’s called “whataboutism” and is looked down upon. One of many lies we were all apparently told. Lol
Whutabout = "I don't want to talk about it because it exposes my hypocisy"
 
Lots of good choices there....unfortunately unless the fever breaks in the next two years, none will be considered viable.
Look at the policy positions of the 3 most popular (Governors Phil Scott of Vermont, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts and Larry Hogan of Maryland), they would be lumped in with the Squad on a national level.

I am a Larry Hogan fan, but he doesn't have a chance in hell with the MAGAs.

Phil Scott:


Charlie Baker:


Larry Hogan:


A large number of those policies would receive broad support in the center-left and even farther left.

The country has been hijacked by the extremes and a large number of Americans have bought into it, just look at this board. The righties on this board are touting how GOP govs are the most popular while painting the policy initiatives they have outlined as extreme left in other threads.

It's insanity.
 
Can you stop embarrassing us Republicans and IU grads? In post after post you show you don’t understand simple grammar like “you, your or you’re.” Your spelling is atrocious. You also don’t understand punctuation. It’s a chore to try to decipher what your posts actually mean. It’s all embarrassing. I recommend you stop posting so people don’t continue to gather evidence that you’re not very intelligent. It would also cease your embarrassment of other Republicans.
Hey aloha

Trump won. Now go stick it up your ass. Is that good enough English for you.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Lucy01
What is wrong with people here? He specifically said he was an unconstitutional President. He didn’t even mention “things that were unconstitutional.” Read the post I replied to. It’s ridiculous that we argue about facts. Please help with stopping this BS, don’t perpetuate it.

He may have used the wrong word but it was clear he didn't mean illegitimate, which is where you took it for some reason.

Those things listed were illegal and definitely an abuse of power.

Given he thought the judicial branch was there to do his bidding, I think it could easily be argued that he was not respecting the constitution.
 
He may have used the wrong word but it was clear he didn't mean illegitimate, which is where you took it for some reason.

Those things listed were illegal and definitely an abuse of power.

Given he thought the judicial branch was there to do his bidding, I think it could easily be argued that he was not respecting the constitution.
It’s not possible to divine his meaning from his post as you’re doing. He said he was an unconstitutional President and I can only assume that’s what he meant. Why would I not think he meant what he posted?
 
It’s not possible to divine his meaning from his post as you’re doing. He said he was an unconstitutional President and I can only assume that’s what he meant. Why would I not think he meant what he posted?

Because unconstitutional and illegitimate are not synonyms.

It was obvious what he meant given the context
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
The only thing he won was a tax-payer funded helicopter ride out of the White House and into the dustbin of history.
So much obsession around here...According to Biden it's Ultra Maga King. Even Joe knows that. Keep ranting Joe!

FSjDWSTX0AAltek
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and Lucy01
I'm a sinner bowl just like everyone else. The difference btwn me and you...I'm saved.
From everything I've seen here, your thought process seems to be: "I'm saved, therefore I can be a dick." You probably should rethink that approach.
 
You said it bowl not me :)
Good one.

And that "2,000 Mules" movie is complete nonsense. Someone should do a responsive film and call it, "2,000 Mules Touted by 2,000 Jackasses."

Trump lost. He's a loser.

 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
Good one.

And that "2,000 Mules" movie is complete nonsense. Someone should do a responsive film and call it, "2,000 Mules Touted by 2,000 Jackasses."

Trump lost. He's a loser.

So all those ballot runners...You know the ones on 4 million minutes of video aren't guilty? The ones that visited ballot boxes 5 to 100 times with handfuls of ballots caught on camera. You think they should be allowed to go free?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT