|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> No leaks from the White House. /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1572655454 Message started by eau de sauvage on 11/01/19 at 17:44:14 |
|
Title: No leaks from the White House. Post by eau de sauvage on 11/01/19 at 17:44:14 Even though Nunes, Trump's loyal attack dog, is sitting on the committee hearing testimony, there has been nothing at all leaked from he WH that is good for Trump. Nothing. That 'nothing' speaks volumes. All Trump has left is 'there was nothing wrong' He has been using every bit of ammunition he has and the live testimony has not even begun. The GOP are now locked into a death march, how the fcuk are they going to walk back that it's OK for a Republican president to use the power of his office to strong-arm a foreign govt to announce a sham inquiry into his political rival (at the time) |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/01/19 at 20:10:23 Some aren't afraid to sink the ship of state. Unconcerned, more accurate. Remember Paul Ryan? Cashed out after delivering tax cuts to his investors. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/02/19 at 04:45:28 how the fcuk are they going to walk back that it's OK for a Republican president to use the power of his office to strong-arm a foreign govt to announce a sham inquiry into his political rival (at the time) Because he didn't. You're essentially a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist, seeing freefall where there is none. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/02/19 at 05:53:59 Mark's big strategy is saying that we don't see what we see, we don't hear what we hear. He's just a troll. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/02/19 at 07:17:47 The 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist is a perfect picture of you. And its easier for to do so because you have the wide reach of the news and entertainment culture behind you to offer you cover. You see 2 + 2 and call it 5 and applaud yourself because you've got the Today Show and Jimmy Fallon on your side. Congrats brave little one, congrats. You've found your peeps. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/02/19 at 08:54:51 Perfect troll form: deny the record, then demagogue reporters of the record. This is all he has left. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by eau de sauvage on 11/02/19 at 15:19:20 No, Mn like, Ray and JoG, are worse than trolls, these are people who are in fact little extensions of Trump and his strategy. They just see what he does and mimic it. So WM, first equates a simple fact that Trump did ask a foreign govt to mess up the 2020 elections, *then* with a named (911) conspiracy theory he reinforces it by saying it refers to you personally. Suddenly we are completely off thread talking bullsh!t. This is what Trump does and therefore it's what they do. Here's an insight into the troubled "mind" of Mn... http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1541113634 |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by T And T Garage on 11/04/19 at 05:41:35 0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote:
LOL - go back in the history of this little forum and you'll see that jog was the #1 9/11 conspiracy theorist. How about that? But back here in reality, everyone but mark can see what's actually going on. Once again, he projects what he's doing on everyone else. Nothing new to see here. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/04/19 at 05:54:06 213F30313C213A27550 wrote:
It's a tired old path: accuse others of misrepresentation even as you lie. Decry intolerance for bigotry and hate. Insinuate normalized State corruption while swimming in graft, self dealing, and leveraging office for personal gain. Claim authority from rumor and innuendo while abjuring the record. Set good people about defending themselves instead of focusing on your wrong doing. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by eau de sauvage on 11/05/19 at 14:09:11 @Mavigogun, it's just a form of abuse. Like people who motormouth you or shout you down, there's nothing you can do about it. People are free to abuse their freedom. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/05/19 at 14:33:52 283A2E2D3A3C3E5B0 wrote:
How about people who tell you to fxxx off and die? Is that motomouthing or is that shouting down? |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/05/19 at 14:54:42 57455152454341240 wrote:
I reckon, if Mark is any indication, they aren't. Willfully ethically unmoored, their plan is to lie poorly-but-emphatically, the gesture more important than substance, elevating tribal identity above passé concepts like right and wrong. The Troll-n-Chief cultivates a troll constituency- trolling tactics are their only card to play, so they play it at every opportunity. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/05/19 at 15:21:31 The last President used the IRS to attack political rivals, made up a fake story about a video creating a riot in order to cover the fact he refused security request (which got our Ambassador killed) so he could keep the charade up that he had a bad situation under control..... you guys managed to walk that back just fine so I imagine we'll handle a manufactured crisis just fine thanks. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/05/19 at 16:24:09 As predicted: every opportunity. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Serowbot on 11/06/19 at 06:46:18 Time to shift the defense from, "Didn't happen", to "It's not a crime if the President does it".... That was Nixon's defense... |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 06:58:54 I wouldn't be in favor of that route. There was nothing done wrong. Trump better not give in to typical Washington think-tank how to deal with political enemies. Number 1, Democrats aren't reasonable, but number 2, he wasn't elected to do that. There was nothing wrong in anything Trump did. Don't deviate from that Mr. President. Tell the Dems to kiss you a$$. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/06/19 at 07:43:23 Mark's parodying his own greatest hits- you don't see what you see, you don't hear what you hear. You don't know what you know. Crimes are not crimes. Witness after witness has confirmed what was clearly a crime from the outset. Mark is either profoundly ignorant or fundamentally dishonest. There's really no "or"- the dude doesn't care for the truth, only sides. "Please.....waste a few minutes looking for one of those 'obvious lies.....'" As predicted, you supply lies with a frequency that doesn't require excavation. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Eegore on 11/06/19 at 07:47:28 My observance of WebsterMark is he has been the only one to acknowledge when Trump has stated very obviously false claims, and also is willing to explain why he is more forgiving of Trump's actions than he would others. At a minimum he is at least being honest and in my opinion not so pro-Trump that he denies or ignores information presented that is not painting trump in a positive light. When I have asked questions and provided empirical evidence it is typically met with silence. Bottom line is we will forgive our drunk friend who broke our window before we will forgive that jerk down the street we don't know. The problem I see is many Trump supporters will say their drunk friend didn't break the window at all even if he did, and somehow find a way to blame the outcome on Obama, Hillary or Gun Control. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 07:57:58 Careful Eegore, TT will get jealous and I'm not up for a lover's triangle fight.....! I know exactly who Donald Trump is. I have no illusions about him. Trump is egotistical, monomaniac, prone to quick shifts on policy based on singular inputs and probably a very difficult person to work for. I've worked for two people exactly like this. While profitable for me, I left both. As I've always said a million times; between Trump and Obama, I'd rather have Obama for a neighbor. But..... Trump as President is a million times more preferable than Hilary as President and maybe half a million times more preferable than Elizabeth Warren. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Serowbot on 11/06/19 at 08:35:52 Web,.. I get what you're saying, but then why defend him with denials? Just admit that breaks emoluments, and he blackmailed Ukraine, and say you don't care. Admit you are one of those that would allow him to kill someone in Times Square. "Trump is egotistical, monomaniac, prone to quick shifts on policy based on singular inputs" If I said this,.. you'd say I have TDS... ;D |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 09:32:58 2731263B23363B20540 wrote:
I don't believe he has broken the emoluments clause. Sorry but that clause is there to prevent someone from getting rich off the office. Now, we've let Presidents make millions after they've left office and that's the way it is. But Trump wanted that meeting at Doral for reasons other than money. And no, he did not blackmail Ukraine. The difference is you say that about Trump right before or after you call him Hitler. You're not based in reality. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/06/19 at 10:20:43 794B4C5D5A4B5C634F5C452E0 wrote:
Yet another bald lie- repeating it, you make it yours. In Mark's world, all that is required to dismiss naked criminal activity is an improbable story. Folks who actually care about integrity of the Executive branch would never place themselves in a position of such overt conflict of interest. There's nothing difficult to understand about this. Mark understands the concept- he just doesn't care. Moreover, he's made it a reflex to lie to all of us, pretending he doesn't understand what the problem is. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 10:51:40 Okay.... I get it now. Mavi the Drive By doesn't understand the definition of a lie. He's confused by the difference between formulating a personal opinion based upon available information and a statement of pure fact. Would you like me to explain it to you Mavi? Let's use one of your statements for example. In Mark's world, all that is required to dismiss naked criminal activity is an improbable story Now then, I know that to be 100% untrue because I'm the topic of the statement. However, is Mavi lying when he says this even though I know it to be false? No, of course not. Why? Because it's a personal opinion that Mavi has formed based upon his interpretation of available information. So, a good definition of a lie is; purposely relaying (in some cases withholding) information that is known by that person to be untrue for selfish intentions. There are 3 facets to lying. You have to 1) either pass along false info or withhold it 2) you have to know the info is false (or could be true but you withhold it) and 3) you do this for selfish gain. So, let's run with that. If I hear something I assume to be true and retell it, am I lying? No. Foolish for not checking perhaps, but not lying. If I just lost money in a vending machine and I see someone else about to do the same yet I say nothing, am I lying? I'd have to say, yes. That's a tough one, it opens all sorts of doors we'd rather leave closed. If someone asked me if I did something that would cast me in an unfavorable light and I answered untruthfully in order to avoid that, am I lying. Yes, absolutely. That's the classic example of lying. So Mavi, let's see if you paid attention and get a gold star today. Donald Trump is a far better President than Barrack Obama. True? False? Opinion? |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/06/19 at 11:23:08 You have to 1) either pass along false info or withhold it 2) you have to know the info is false (or could be true but you withhold it) and 3) you do this for selfish gain. There is no "and" to be concerned with- your motive or any potential gain are irrelevant. You know what is true, but proffer fictions. Your defense is juvenile- 'you can't know I know I'm lying'. 'I wasn't lying when I said the world is square, and you can't prove I know it is round.' This isn't a semantic distinction- your lies distinguish themselves. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by T And T Garage on 11/06/19 at 11:52:44 7C4E49585F4E59664A59402B0 wrote:
Sorry to break this to you (well, not really), but you and people like you forgiving trump for breaking the law doesn't mean a thing. What he did was unlawful. There is no grey area. There was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. The evidence is growing by the day. The president may think that's OK, but it isn't. Further, he is indeed breaking the emoluments clause consistently as he directs his guests and his administration to his properties. This last attempt to get the G7 was yet another glaring example. How anyone can't see this is beyond me. So, the only thing for his apologists to do is say - "I forgive him no matter what". Because when a democrat gets in office in 2021, the entire republican party will be muted in giving much of anything in the way of criticism. They will have no leg to stand on. trump has taken the office of president to the toilet and wiped his a$$ with the Constitution. The republican party is complicit. They will pay at the ballot box next year. Virginia is only the beginning. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Serowbot on 11/06/19 at 12:05:29 Quid pro quo.... it's in the summary of the phone call. Corroborated by testimony from his own WH Chief of Staff, his own EU Ambassador Sondland, the Ukraine Ambassador, several Ukraine officials, Pentagon official Laura Cooper, Tim Morrison a top Russia and Europe adviser, Ukraine expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, and the original whistleblower. ... but Web still needs proof. So for that matter does the entire Republican Party... Waiting on God to write it in stone, I suppose?... ;D |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 12:05:41 5E52455A545C54465D330 wrote:
Motive is more than relevant for baring false witness, it's a requirement. Knowledge that you are perpetrating a falsehood is likewise a necessary element. Don't you understand this? |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 12:11:18 What he did was unlawful. There is no grey area. Given the context of my discussion with Mavi the Drive By Shooter, that's not a lie despite it being untruthful. It's an opinion based upon TT's interpretation of how he perceives events told to him or what he's read. It's demonstratively false. Trump has not been adjudicated in a binding court of law so whatever TT is referring to cannot be proclaimed as fact. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Serowbot on 11/06/19 at 12:14:44 Come on Web,... you know spending $110,000,000 taxpayer dollars at Trump resorts while in office is breaking the Emoluments Clause... So is Saudi's renting multiple Trump hotel rooms and never using them. So was Pence traveling across the country daily to stay a that Scottish Trump golf course. ...and the 100's of military plane layovers. So was having the G7 at Doral... You know this.... to deny it is to lie... |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 12:22:18 7462756870656873070 wrote:
None of what you say is true. A smple reading of the transcript reveals no such "if you do this for me, Ill do that for you." All the people you cite have motives for giving an interpretation that's one explanation just like other people have motives for giving the opposite interpretation you wish to see. But, the words of the transcript do not say it, they simply don't. And the person on the other end has said there was nothing of the sort. The original "whistleblower" said nothing. He merely gave his opinion of words and sought out others with similar opinions. All the FACTS point to the call being nothing more than what an honest reading of the transcript revealed. You are duplicating the model used 9/11 conspiracy theorists. You have a theory; Trumps a bad guy. You read a transcript with couple thousand words. You search for a hidden meaning. A 9/11 conspiracy theorist has a theory. He watches videos and looks for anything to prove his theory while ignoring all logic. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 12:25:04 $110,000,000 million........ come on now Sew. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Serowbot on 11/06/19 at 12:27:15 It's not a transcript... it's a summary of a phone call. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who was on the call, testified that pertinent statements he wanted included were intentionally left out. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 12:49:01 Did it occur to you maybe he lied? |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Serowbot on 11/06/19 at 13:08:38 0E3C3B2A2D3C2B14382B32590 wrote:
His story matches other accounts... it all points one direction, and you're looking the other way... Does it occur to you that Trump is lying?... He does lie, you know... :-? |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/06/19 at 13:19:51 When Trump wets his pants, Mark has a theory about who did it. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Eegore on 11/06/19 at 13:23:15 "When Trump wets his pants, Mark has a theory about who did it." Would this be an opinion, or a lie? |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 13:38:28 4F594E534B5E53483C0 wrote:
His story matches other accounts... it all points one direction, and you're looking the other way... Does it occur to you that Trump is lying?... He does lie, you know... :-?[/quote] All those women lied about Kavanagh and you looked the other way. None of their stories added up but you believed everyone single one that raised their hands. People in DC have been lining up to destroy Trump. Is it impossible to believe all these did too? Not at all. That one guy yesterday said "oh, yea, sorry but I forgot one very important detail..." Give me a break.. Sure, Trump lies. This time; I don't think so. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 13:40:57 5070727A6770150 wrote:
Hmm..... good question. Let's see....if Trump wet his pants, I would have a theory who did it. So I guess it would be a truthful statement. Congratulations Mavi! You did it! You told the truth! Give yourself a gold star.... I'm getting a little teary eyed knowing I taught someone today..... sniffle, sniffle.... |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/06/19 at 14:14:18 4F7D7A6B6C7D6A55796A73180 wrote:
Add another lie on the pile. There was one demonstrably false claim reported among several credible accounts. I, for one, did not "look away", but gave the matter my full attention; from reports, I judged several accounts credible enough to warrant investigation, at least one not. Your attempt to rewrite the record- of both reports and the disposition of those considering the reports -is dishonest. That one guy yesterday said "oh, yea, sorry but I forgot one very important detail..." Give me a break.. That guy, Trump appointee Gordon D. Sondland, United States Ambassador to the European Union, reversed his testimony when it became clear his perjury was at risk of being discovered as other witnesses testified. His testimony aligns with what other witnesses report. This is a great example of Mark's mendacity- he contrives excuses for why this report or that report may be discounted, elevates his imagination and supposition over the record- then claims he isn't lying because he doesn't adhere to reality. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 14:58:09 Add another lie on the pile. There was one demonstrably false claim reported among several credible accounts. I, for one, did not "look away", but gave the matter my full attention; from reports, I judged several accounts credible enough to warrant investigation, at least one not. Your attempt to rewrite the record- of both reports and the disposition of those considering the reports -is dishonest. I see I'm going to have to take your gold star away.....Judging stories as credible or not credible are the very definition of opinion. In my judgement, none of those claims were in the slightest bit credible. Ford was a gold star liar and lucky she's a woman in today's world or she'd face perjury charges. As far as Sondland, you are merely repeating a story why he changed his story and I am repeating a different story why he changed his story. I am not suggesting you are lying. I'm suggesting you are picking which story fits your narrative. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by T And T Garage on 11/06/19 at 15:07:18 152720313627300F233029420 wrote:
Quid pro quo for dirt on Biden (and that server nonsense) will be shown. The evidence mounts. It'll be in a public forum - we'll all see it. However, the tumpette's will say there's nothing wrong. But hey, Lynyrd Skynyrd told everyone that "Watergate didn't bother them"... But acceptance don't make it any less illegal. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by T And T Garage on 11/06/19 at 15:09:32 023037262130271834273E550 wrote:
Is that number too low? Perhaps. Another fantastic fact - trump has played more golf in 3 1/2 years than Obama played in 8... Like I said, I think that number might be low.... |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 15:55:26 2F313E3F322F34295B0 wrote:
Quid pro quo for dirt on Biden (and that server nonsense) will be shown. The evidence mounts. It'll be in a public forum - we'll all see it. However, the tumpette's will say there's nothing wrong. But hey, Lynyrd Skynyrd told everyone that "Watergate didn't bother them"... But acceptance don't make it any less illegal.[/quote] The number of times you and others have said Trump is finish is practically uncountable so I think I'll just wait and see.... |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 15:57:30 Is that number too low? Perhaps. This coming from a guy who thought 7,000 dairy's went out of business in one state the first 8 or 9 months out of the year. Seriously, how out of touch with reality do you have to believe to hear that number and not thing.... "wait a second...... can that be true?...." . |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Mavigogun on 11/06/19 at 17:08:24 526067767160774864776E050 wrote:
It is oft the fault of good people that they underestimate the depravity of the corrupt. Maybe you foresaw the extent to which the Senate Republicans would debase themselves- but we held out a naive hope that some capacity for shame, contrition, and love for the Union remained. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 17:24:16 Holy Loon Batman.... you're a sick man....... |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by NHLycan on 11/06/19 at 17:34:15 This thread makes me wonder. There are some bizarre and obviously wrong ideas which refuse to fade. For the purpose of politeness, let's choose Flat Earth Theory to kick around. It checks both boxes nicely. If you don't subscribe to this bit of madness, you probably find it incomprehensible that anyone would. People who espouse this fall into two buckets; the crazy and the evil. For an interlocutor the difference in approach between the two is not small. Kindness versus contempt. I hope we'll all agree that it's preferable to treat the damaged (crazy) with a degree of kindness. After all, there but for the grace of God and whatnot. That doesn't mean coddling, because you shouldn't indulge them but cruelty for crueltys' sake is evil. Simultaneously, and this can be difficult, you need to accept the futility of dialogue. This is a belief they have. A faith, if you will. It's not addressed by logic or evidence. Full stop. If these folks were suseptable to reason on this subject, they wouldn't hold the beliefs they do. It's not a condition able to be shifted by argument. It's not like the truth is hidden. Cause that up there is the moon, and that over there is the sun. If you've been on a plane, you might have seen the curve of the earth. So walk away from the topic. If you and they are lucky, this may be the only hole in their heads. They might be perfectly nice otherwise. Or the bats have completely taken over the belfry. If you feel like taking the time to find out, good on you. YMMV. Now let's toddle on over to the other hand; the (evil) liars. We call it 'trolling' online. That's as good a name as any other. I'm not clear on what motivates this. Could it be a hatred of the idea of truth? It could be a hatred of their fellow humans. They seem to exist only to inspire frustration. Seriously, if you have an insight into whatever is going on inside someone like this, I'm interested. I wouldn't be surprised if doing this habitually causes a slide down the Turing Scale towards non-sophont. If you engage with these wankers it should be on your terms. As a kind of mental masturbation. If you get a kick from it, hey, go ahead and relive that Monthy Python Argument Room skit. But that's all you're doing. There is nothing like a dialogue happening. There can't be. I'm a big fan of blocking. There's more fulfilling things to do. These toenails aren't going to clip themselves, right? Again, YMMV. There IS something else that needs to be asked: how do we tell these groups apart? I don't have a great answer for that. I'd suspect that the liars are more likely to reach for the normal bag of bad faith argument modes. Ad hominem, Gish Gallop, Tu Quoque, etc. And especially gaslighting. Oh goodness, I bet they love gaslighting. Because liars are going to lie. But just because they're liars doesn't mean they're dumb, so maybe not. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/19 at 18:55:50 I had to look up the definition of gaslighting..... The flat earth analogy doesn’t quite fit because it’s an easily determined fact that 99% acknowledge. In our little world here on this forum we are arguing political opinions. The problem with political opinions is, unlike the flat earth theory, they are not agreed-upon by 99%. It’s pretty much 50-50. I am in the middle of a mental masturbation go around with someone calling my opinions bold faced lies. I don’t call his opinions or anyone else’s opinion a bold face lie. A lie requires very specific actions and intent that most of what we say on this site does not apply. But I have not heard that phrase mental masturbation for a long time and that fits exactly what we do on here 99.9% of the time!!! The only differences, we won’t go blind. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by T And T Garage on 11/07/19 at 07:21:36 1F2D2A3B3C2D3A05293A23480 wrote:
Thank goodness you're not making it personal....lol |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Serowbot on 11/07/19 at 07:39:30 724047565140576844574E250 wrote:
Did you find a picture of Trump?... ;D |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/07/19 at 07:55:02 No. A collective portrait of the Main Stream Media. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Serowbot on 11/07/19 at 08:54:18 You know why the Right Wing media doesn't explain gaslighting?... It would give them away... |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/07/19 at 10:23:18 gaslighting (present participle) manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity. So help me out here, am I gaslighting when I remind TT and Mavi that their opinions are not facts and that if they think they are, their view of reality is questionable? |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Serowbot on 11/07/19 at 10:40:30 No,.. you're being gaslighted when you believe that. Nearly all the witness testimony says Trump was trying to use Ukraine to influence election. If you're not seeing that, you're being gaslighted. Right-Wing media is very limited,... perspectives can be more easily manipulated. This is why the term "gaslighting" is new to you. It has been in the lexicon of the mainstream media for years, in reference to the Trump administration. A similar expression is getting "snowed"... Gaslighting is bigger... it makes you believe a different reality. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/07/19 at 11:03:25 So you learned nothing from the constant 2 - 3 year drumbeat of "Trump colluding with Russia" story? Over and over I heard 'there's strong evidence...."we now know...Adam Schiff "I've got absolute evidence...." and yet at the end of the day, there was what? Nothing. Nada. Zero. Did it occur to you that you are the one being gaslighted? |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by T And T Garage on 11/07/19 at 13:02:17 796F78657D68657E0A0 wrote:
http://media.tenor.com/images/d44fd4aa6041f02ee6379eca2f5412d2/tenor.gif |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/08/19 at 05:27:16 As more and more information comes out about the connections, exaggerations, flat out lies and perjury from those leading the Democratic coup against Trump, it occurred to me that what we're seeing is no different than what we'd see if this forum were in charge of this impeachment. Think about it. Sew would be Pelosi, TT would be Pencil neck Schiff. Eegore strikes me as a Mitt Romney type, always playing both sides of the fence... I'm probably Lindsey Graham. Jog would have to be Senator Kennedy from LA. Doesn't say much but sometimes what he says leaves you laughing your a$$ off. Ray has to be Rand Paul. |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Serowbot on 11/08/19 at 14:29:04 “I think he’s a kook,” he said in February 2016. “I think he’s crazy. I think he’s unfit for office.” - Graham |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by WebsterMark on 11/09/19 at 05:28:41 .....an yet that’s preferable to anyone the Democrats put up..... I like you as Pelosi, it fits. But, do you have a wall around your property like her? Asking for my friend José. He’s too far from Bernie’s seaside place and he needs a place to pitch a tent for a while, |
|
Title: Re: No leaks from the White House. Post by Serowbot on 11/09/19 at 12:33:47 My house came with a wall around the back... Previous owner had dogs. Dogs were to keep people out,.. the wall was to keep the dogs in. Maybe Trump should get a dog... :-? |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |