You had me until here again, you cannot keep parroting this part of your argument because you THINK he might do that. He has never committed a war crime, nor authorized an appropriate agent to do so. Therefore penchant is a deliberate lie.
Stay on your point, not the made up stuff.
Iâm not interested in debating if reducing women to tits, menstruation, and faces should be acceptable. It isnât. It wonât be. Itâs a non-winner in the General. You can not possibly be trying to imply his image amongst women will improve with this line of argument (well, they say Trump is orange). Romney and McCain lost with significantly better favorability among women. Trump has no chance.
If you campaign upon expanding torture, and killing non-combantants, you own it. Iâll bust out the video (which youâre going to see a ton of, again and again in the General), yet again. And you can try to suggest he meant weâll âtake them outâ for dinner or some such other nonsense.
Shall I repost them?
You tried this in our previous discussion.
The video which you posted before does not say he wants to kill women and children. You ASSUME that is what he means. For a normally level headed poster, who would call out others on speculative postsâŠyou sure own the fuck out of this one.
Penchant - is a tendency to do somethingâŠsince he has never done it, nor authorized anybody under his control to do soâŠyour post is a blatant lie.
Itâs not nonsense, itâs English.
Iâll also repost the video of him floating the National Enquirer conspiracy theory that papa Cruz might have had some involvement in the JFK assassination, as a bonus.
Why would you think I give one wet fuck about that other video??..Iâm not voting for Trump, I just donât like it when people parrot things the MSM says as if they are somehow facts. Just because you keep shouting something, does not make it true.
**[quote=âUtahLama, post:427, topic:215570, full:trueâ]
You tried this in our previous discussion.
The video which you posted before does not say he wants to kill women and childrenâŠ[/quote]
Youâre a fool.
The moderator specifically asks him about TARGETING FAMILIES (and his support for the expansion of torture). Trump doesnât even correct him. He was asked point blank ABOUT TARGETING FAMILIES, and what would happen if OUR SOLDIERS REFUSED TO DO SO. So unless youâre really going to stick with the absolute asinine argument that they could have been talking about targeting families toâŠI donât even know, take out for ice creamâŠAnd that our soldiers would have an issue with the ice cream outing orderâŠ
Is this real life? Donât come on here talking about lies while pulling that foolishness.
Thank you for your level headed discussion.
You perhaps read my post above?
You can rant and rail all you want against Trump, I really could give a shit less to be honest. Although you might want to stay on top of your BP.
I ONLY said, you cannot say that somebody has a PENCHANT for war crimesâŠwhen they have not actually done so.
Iâm sorry you have a problem with the English languageâŠalthough if it is your 2nd after your native tongue I apologize.
[quote=âUtahLama, post:429, topic:215570, full:trueâ]
Iâm not voting for Trump[/quote]
Yeah, right. You just happen to be willing to make yourself look like a fool for somebody youâre not voting for. Have you yet even listened to the question being asked (illegal orders, soldiers refusing to follow them, the targeting of families, expansion of torture), or was it just too difficult for you follow?
Donât even. Donât even pretend you were interested in a level headed discussion. You came in here calling my statements a lie, when theyâre backed up by video taken during a debate. Do us both a favor, ignore me.
Again thank you for your level headed responseâŠI can assure you I am fully capable of following normal discourse. For the record, as I have stated many times I am voting for Gary Johnson.
If you want to say Trump has the POTENTIAL for ordering war crimes, ok I can buy that argument. But saying PENCHANT is just incorrect for the reasons stated above.
Yeah, sure you are. Ok, then.
Potential vs. penchant. itâs not that difficult.
And if you are so obsessed with this that you decide name calling and ignore functions are in orderâŠwell I hope you are better with face to face discourse.
[quote=âUtahLama, post:436, topic:215570, full:trueâ]
Potential vs. penchant. itâs not that difficult.
⊠that you decide name calling and ignore functionsâŠ[/quote]
If youâre not going to do it, then I will. Take care.
LOLâŠwow bro.
You must be a real hit at parties.
Ha ha not happening. Donât get me wrong Trump may not win but I assure you Hillary will never become President.
Odd thing to say huh?
By the way are we betting on this outcome?
Not that I want to see you take a year off from PWI threads as I enjoy your non-Trump posts.
Financial support?
Youâve never built a fucking birdhouse let alone a sky scraper, have you?
If you had, you would know that there is a big game that gets played on permits, licensing, and every other aspect of construction that is not in a contract or blueprint.
Whatâs funny is that people donât think that type of âsupportâ is going to show up in a presidential race between the payer and payee.
What are you addressing?
I wonât have to take a year off. Trump is a conspiracy nut-job, he isnât winning.