The evidence can be as lame as your heart desires. You can even write “LOSER” all over it in black sharpie. You just can’t deny it’s evidence, because that ignores the meaning of words.
2 Likes
Frankly the “pee tape” is of little importance, its existence would only further document Trumps lack of morality
Which everyone, Trumpers included know he has very little of…sad!
1 Like
I’m just saying, kid calls in for the NORAD Santa ■■■■■■■■ they do, the president of the United States ruins it, you defend it. It’s a seven year old kid. You will defend anything.
5 Likes
You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, as is your burden, that the girl’s Christmas was ruined, or this discussion is over.
4 Likes
#lockherup
I said what I said. You said what you said. I stick with what I said.
She has probably not stopped bragging to all her friends that she got to talk to the President of the United States.
Ya, it’s all about Trump. Always.
I get that legally speaking Cohen has already been busted for stuff way worse. But I know as far as the public is concerned, they like big simple things they can grab onto. Dossier says Cohen was in Prague meeting with shady cats; Cohen denies it, even makes Twitter post; Cohen was in Prague.
When it comes to politics, even before the age of memes the American public likes their stories big and simple or even more preferably a metaphor. The Saturday Night Massacre. Ollie North being interrogated by Doug Liman’s dad. Cheney shooting that guy in the face. Dukakis in the tank. Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech or the killer rabbit. That Tyco CEOs bacchanalia birthday party. Joe McCarthy taken down by a sick 1950s burn. ■■■■ like that.
1 Like
The blissfull ignorance of childhood is something to be cherished…
Or you could just say, wow, what a dumb thing to say to a little kid and move on but here we are.
2 Likes
Only that wasn’t done. It had to be in multiple left wing media sites and the source of at least one thread, as well as being brought up intermittently as here.
Mostly, it was worth a “hunh?”
Except you didn’t stick with what you said. You walked it back and said it was evidence, but lame evidence.
I just wrote that post. You have written posts. We endorse our posts. I get it. We don’t need to walk through the sequence of posting to a forum again, btw.
Dont you know… when Trump ascended to the head of the Republican party he called for “Order 66” they cannot turn against their master.
2 Likes
Seems likes you’re reading things into things. There’s no evidence she bragged to her friends that she got to talk to the President of the United States.
4 Likes
As I recall, to you it was worth a “the El Em Ess Em is taking it out of context” and then when presented with the whole conversation, which is still just Trump trying to shake a little kid’s faith in Santa for no good reason, you’ve continued defending it to this very moment.
I honestly wish my girl would refuse to criticize me under any circumstances with as much zeal as you refuse to criticize a politician.
2 Likes
And indeed I do not desire to trace this back to see what exactly you are talking about. Are you saying that saying there is no evidence has changed to there is not strong evidence?
You do realize that postings to this forum are not official documents that have been certified, I assume.
These are extemporaneous postings where subsequent clarification is quite acceptable, IMO.
You are actually laying claim to saying there is no evidence is that much different that saying there is not substantial evidence? That is what you think is important?
So…you’re saying there IS evidence?
This is where these lame attacks on Trump have led to. Saying he didn’t properly handle a Santa talk.
Lame evidence. According to the usage of “evidence” I have been presented, the existence of someone named “Trump” would be evidence that the dossier could be true, because without the existence of someone named “Trump” it is almost impossible for it to be true.
Lame evidence.
