@Raiders22
That is your retort? On point for you unfortunately..silly off topic sarcasm and very little actual content. Nothing of what he said was nonsense, when Trump exaggerates his reactions there will be reversals of those reactions and it could be as severe as the reactions the King made initially.
"See, this is the problem with conservatives. Where you see a wicked and heinous criminal, democrats see future voters and misunderstood individuals just trying to provide for themselves and their families."
D.eflect
E.nrage
I.ncite
"It is plain to see who the left is. They are illegal aliens first over the safety of American citizens. They have evolved from protestors (?) to unhinged rioters and currently domestic terrorist."
@wallstreetcappers
That is your retort?
Yes.
What was yours?
"I agree 100% with what he posted."
So? Of course you do. You are an extreme partisan Leftist.
Everyone knows you agree. Substantiate it with something more than, "I agree."
Otherwise, you are just agreeing with posted propaganda to propagate talking points of no substance.
Anyone can post nonsense that Trump is bad, he makes the world worse, next President will have to make it like it was again because it was much better in view of what we Leftists want.
Just gibberish nonsense to stir things up. No facts were cited.
@Raiders22
No facts were cited, what the crap does that even mean? He gave opinion about Trumps actions and the severity of what he is doing and stated that it will be changed in the future. How can a future prediction be fact?
Your partisan take is current actions are not extreme, his take is they are. What exactly is nonsense about his take on what is happening that could not be pointed directly back at you? Everyone is entitled to their opinions of current events and for you to just blurb that crappy retort is completely inappropriate and serves no purpose but to provoke. He was not addressing you or insulting you and yet you come in yet again with your little quippy put downs and insults and fail to add any value or create discussion to his point.
@wallstreetcappers
He gave opinion about Trumps actions and the severity of what he is doing and stated that it will be changed in the future. How can a future prediction be fact?
I am talking about you. What do you base it on.
Or did you just pass by to 'cheerlead' it?
Your partisan take is current actions are not extreme, his take is they are.
Incorrect
He was not addressing you or insulting you and yet you come in yet again with your little quippy put downs and insults and fail to add any value or create discussion to his point.
So? He never addresses anyone or tries.
You at least attempt to try. But when asked what you base your 'opinion' on it is just more "little quippy put downs and insults" from you.
He posted his opinion. I simply say it is nonsense just to keep posting anti-Trump stuff for no reason. Repetitive nonsense.
You happily agreed.
Just simply take one point and say why you agree and we can go from there.
@Raiders22
Actually I usually make a comment to the lousy partisan takes your side gives which are adding zero value and are antagonistic. Even if you dislike his style or approach there is absolutely no need for your reply and that bothers me when your group does this constantly. He usually will not even address your useless replies where I often times and in this case did.
I based my reply on what HE said, I agree with him that Trump is being extreme and that his bully tactics will be reversed in the future. I agree with that. Me having an opinion on the way Trump makes decisions is an OPINION just as you have your opinion. The difference is YOU make the little nasty digs and have several times in just this short exchange. If you are not seeking to add value in replying to someone else maybe it is better you do not submit the reply. Your response to him is not reasonable or acceptable so just stop doing it and if you disagree with a reply either try to have reasonable discussion or just move along.
@wallstreetcappers
I agree with him that Trump is being extreme and that his bully tactics will be reversed in the future.
I agree they are extreme. I understand that; and nearly everyone agrees with that part.
But that is NOT what he said. You said that. You can infer he meant it. But you are adding your 'thoughts' to what he might have continued if he were to try to have conversation. But since he never does. Maybe you can try for him.
@wallstreetcappers
The difference is YOU make the little nasty digs and have several times in just this short exchange.
No sir. This is you projecting. Look at how you started this.
Like this:
That is not a serious start to anything.
It gets frustrating that none of you can have a simple discussion.
I do not know if you are afraid because you are concerned you do not have the facts on your side. Or if you are just regurgitating talking points.
So, sometimes it is just tempting to reply back to you in your like manner.
@Raiders22
To me the issue is you are unable to have actual discussion, you can comment to your side when people agree with you and I notice that all the time. You can give a good job or I agree or more pile on when someone you agree with makes a dig at a lib or at a member who is not conservative. You pile on quite well and do that regularly. I think where you struggle is interacting with others who have a different view. Your style towards me and towards say in this thread is to cackle and make sarcastic comments rather than how you COULD have replied. A better reply would be to give a reasonable and respectful counter point or something as simple as "I do not think the future will be as you expect, we will see" something neutral and not insulting. You added ZERO content on the original comment, nothing of value but sarcasm and insult. You do the same with me regularly and did in this thread. My reply was a direct response short and reflective of your partisan narrow thinking. When someone questions you or has a response that does not agree you always and I say always because I have experienced this with you almost exclusively that you quip back and then start with the insincere and condescending approach that if someone disagrees YOU decree that they have to prove their disagreement to your satisfaction and that your pocket experts are superior to any differing opinion. You dictate how others can disagree and you are the measure of proof of validity...and yet you do NONE of what you proclaim and demand.
You toss down your perspective and do not prove or validate your view and you rely on others who are allegedly superior to make your perspective correct but YOU actually have next to zero original personal content or ability to discuss. So how can you criticize someone stating a position and that is all when YOU do the same thing and worse?
The "your wrong, prove it" stuff is not a discussion starter and you are not the owner of any discussion so the condescending closed minded sarcasm is worse than someone stating a general non-pointed perspective that you might not agree with.
@wallstreetcappers
To me the issue is you are unable to have actual discussion, you can comment to your side when people agree with you and I notice that all the time.
No sir.
Again, this is exactly what you do.
You avoid any discussion and resort to pigeonholing folks you do not agree with and deflect any topic to something else.
Take for example the previous topic you decided to try to engage in.
I repeatedly asked you a question about it to start a discussion. What did you do. Avoided it totally.
Then claim that is was 'trap'.
So, I assume, if you feel it is a 'trap' you do not think you can navigate it well enough to discuss it.
I, again, just assume it is because you know you do not have the facts on your side.
So, instead you just do driveby jabs at folks and then cheerlead the folks you agree with.
@wallstreetcappers
The "your wrong, prove it" stuff is not a discussion starter and you are not the owner of any discussion so the condescending closed minded sarcasm is worse than someone stating a general non-pointed perspective that you might not agree with.
Just cheerleading back and forth adds nothing to the topic nor the entire thread.
But you being closed-minded and being sarcastic doesn't bother.
He posted it; he can try to substantiate his claims, or 'opinions' since you cannot do it. But he never does either.
To me the issue is you are unable to have actual discussion, you can comment to your side when people agree with you and I notice that all the time. You can give a good job or I agree or more pile on when someone you agree with makes a dig at a lib or at a member who is not conservative. You pile on quite well and do that regularly. I think where you struggle is interacting with others who have a different view.
Of course this is untrue. I rarely cheerlead. I do not need reinforcement on my views.
I prefer to discuss with someone I do not agree with. But none of the usual cheerleaders do. They just post and refuse to engage with anyone that they do not agree with.
Maybe three guys on your side will do it. That is it.
It looks like the anti-ICE campaign worked in deflecting away from the massive fraud scandal & impending indictments of Frey, Walz, Ellison, etc......for the moment. Thank goodness for the bold actions of journalists like Nick Shirley, who has spurned many to perform similar actions in other city's thus exposing fraud in those areas. Polls show most Americans support the efforts to expose fraud perpetrated by these shadow groups in liberal areas.
@Raiders22
You did not address anything I said and did the exact blue print I stated you do...which is NO and PROVE IT routine. You did nothing at all but follow your same pointless partisan track.
Funny you try and do the NO YOU routine with me given that I interact with anyone and everyone outside of the moronic evil left links droning people. If you want to generalize with that garbage you posted you better find the right person to lay claim. Its amusing where something is pointed out that you started and your reply is that YOURS WAS WORSE...lol as if that validates or deflects from your crappy initial message. If someone posts what you define as nonsense, the correct response isnt to insult the person and make things worse as you did.
@wallstreetcappers
Try just this last topic.
Because I do not think you have any good arguments for the other one. This one there are some available.
So, I will give you a starting point:
1. “He devastated the credibility of law enforcement and the military”
Counter-argument:
In short: rhetoric ? institutional capture.
Where do you stand on this part of what you agreed with?
@THEMUGG
Polls show most Americans support the efforts to expose fraud perpetrated by these shadow groups in liberal areas.
Regarding these polls you speak of, I'm surprised the poll didn't include the deplorables as well. Don't they want fraud exposed in red states like Alabama, Louisiana, Texas & not just in "liberal" areas?
Tell us all about it when Nick Shirley uncovers fraud in a red state.
Why did the phrase "when hell freezes over" come immediately to my mind?
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
