Care to man up and say "Trump will not go to jail"?
I would guess you aren't that stupid, but hey you have a way of surprising me sometimes when it comes to that.
Care to say Cohen isn't going to jail?
You need to keep in mind the context, you seem to stray from it often. "Going to jail" isn't a prediction. It's a fact. Cohen is going to jail. Trump isn't. That doesn't mean Trump won't ever, but he's not currently going to jail. Again, context. You take too many liberties with it so discussion with you is tedious.
What does that mean?
Why must you edit someone's post then respond to that as if that's what they said? You're fairly dishonest in that regard. Does it make you feel more righteous about your response?
You people must not have enough going on in the news to be picking apart a simple INNOCENT comment.
Since you said "Jews" you must be anti-Semitic. It's how Pavlov copes - by labeling.
Cohen is going to jail but Trump currently isn't but might some day?
It's a good thing you're here to break all that down for everybody
I understand what the intention of not being explicit is.
Insulated, yes.
Problem is that when it comes to insulation that plausible deniability can, and DOES get pierced.
"mob boss to hitman: it would be a shame if something happened to that witness".
When the underlying subtext is clear enough to be made, courts can, and do assume the unspoken implication for the "meeting of the minds".
When the president of the united states says "it would be nice if the investigation into this nice guy were to be over" to the FBI director, only an idiot would think that wasn't coercion.
"There's nothing wrong with them except..."
"but I've got friends that are them" incoming
If it was an unfair edit, then rmt is capable of saying so. I am happy to take it back, as the intention was not to distort.
You're fairly dishonest when it comes to describing my motivations.
It didn't get pierced yesterday. Ergo still plausible deniability.
It has to be proven he said it. Jesus can't you grasp that?
If it was fair you wouldn't need to edit it. You respond to what you want people to have said. That's dishonest. rmt didn't say Jews are bad because they vote for democrats. You put those words in there. rmt only said Jews likely voted in DWS.
It's how DMC copes - narrating
The next time you have an original take will be the first time. Back to your corner, the show is starting.
Merely wanting to see how much you are addicted to the cool aid. I have no idea whether Trump will ever see jail, and that is the reasonable statement. "I don't know".Care to man up and say "Trump will not go to jail"?
I would guess you aren't that stupid, but hey you have a way of surprising me sometimes when it comes to that.
Either you are a fanboy, ala TSA/Chris or not. Easy enough to step away form that crowd.
I don't do many predictions. So back to the facts: Cohen going to jail, not Trump
Pretty much. he starts from the assumption that I am dishonest, and can't see anything beyond that bias. Seems like projection to me. I tend to think people tell the truth generally.
Almost as many as the president tells single every day, those don’t seem to bother you
Was I too far off? If so, apologies. Just trying to see if I understood correctly.
Oh hey more narrating.
Your Trump derangement syndrome has been noted.
Wow what an original take.
Seriously, show of hands of anyone disagreeing with that? Anyone? Anyone? Going once...
Your actions indicate you don't wish to address what's being said. You prefer to change the narrative and then address that angle. You've done in plenty times in this thread already. It's a common tactic so you're not alone. In fact, it's probably 2nd most common tactic going, right behind inferring instead of quoting, or wrongly paraphrasing and responding to that instead of what was actually said.
Once again you're just parroting what I said.
Mosquito cuck
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote