Trump got $413,000,000.00 from daddy

Oneuli said:
No, I'll go ahead and use this thread. But if you're tacitly admitting you can't think of a substantive rebuttal to the facts I laid out, that's fine.
Click to expand...

nope.... I'm admitting I don't intend to let you divert the thread to a new topic....use this thread however you want.....just don't look for me to join you.....
 
bhaktajan said:
Obama's mother-in-law got secret service body guards for life

e51b0d1e690f48015bf6dc60e73001c0.jpg
Click to expand...

False.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
nope.... I'm admitting I don't intend to let you divert the thread to a new topic....use this thread however you want.....just don't look for me to join you.....
Click to expand...

As you'll remember, you gladly came along for the ride. In Post 155 you tried to fluff Trump by suggesting my investments had done better since Trump's election (and obviously off-topic argument relative to the top post). Then in post 159 you tried to denigrate Obama by wrongly suggesting his market must finished where it began. When I pointed out that was clearly factually incorrect, you shot off in a new direction, saying Obama fucked the economy for eight years. After I'd presented you with evidence that the economy improved just about across the board, during his years, you responded in post 169 with a suggestion that the rise in debt on his watch shows he fucked up the economy, as well as other incorrect arguments like the idea it was the slowest recovery in modern times. I then challenged you to apply your notion that a big rise in debt means a president is fucking up the economy to Trump, in light of the debt rising faster on his watch than Obama's. You responded in post 174 claiming that wasn't right. As you can see, time and again, you were happy to talk about things other than the NYT story about Trump's taxes. But, eventually, you got upset about your errors being corrected with hard numbers and links, the way I do. So way down in post 175, you tried to opt out of continuing on the basis of it not being pertinent to the original post.

That's fine. Nobody can force you to engage in a discussion if you don't want to. But let's be honest. This isn't a principled objection to a political discussion evolving away from the original focus of the top post. It's a discomfort with having your false statements repeatedly rebutted with hard data.
 
Ya sure can't pay any attention to a word vomited up by your govt or president. But hey, the corporate state took over your media machine once Clinton deregulated the FCC.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then why pretend it should be an issue now....you nominated him, didn't you
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about it being an issue now? I remember the entire Kerry tax and income arguments, especially because he was married to a Pittsburgher, Theresa Heinz, and we had plenty of news coverage about his money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top