President Trump

[Indecisi0n]

Doesn't he first have them pee on him?

 

[LarryBird]

Bill Clinton? Cory Booker?

Are you familiar with the term, "two wrongs don't make a right"?

So if Bill Clinton did something wrong in the past, it means that it's ok for Donald Trump in the present? Am I following your argument correctly?

You guys despised Bill Clinton, dragged his consensual sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky through the mud, and railed against him for the accusations of sexual improprieties made by women throughout his presidency. Hate him to this very day.

Now you defend The Donald tooth and nail for the same things?

Hypocritical much?

 

[LarryBird]

Doesn't he first have them pee on him?

Only if he's paid them.

He's not a monster.

He's got a sense of fairness - his personal rule is no getting pissed on by his sexual assault victims - if he wants them to piss on him, he gives them $500.

But always afterwards. Never pre-piss.

He's been burned by giving a woman the money first, and then she hasn't drank enough water before their rendezvous, and she can't piss before his hour is up.

Fool him once...

 

[floridays]

Translation, please?

I don't speak .

The translation is,
You're fortunate I'm moderated, you aren't a sharp person, and offer little factual basis for your posts.
You got that?
The way you command and attempt to intimidate doesn't work with me.
You are attempting to be floridays part deux, minus facts ans reasoned evaluation.
You are no there, there.
Ask @bbsam he knows what I speak of.

 

[floridays]

Are you familiar with the term, "two wrongs don't make a right"?

So if Bill Clinton did something wrong in the past, it means that it's ok for Donald Trump in the present? Am I following your argument correctly?

You guys despised Bill Clinton, dragged his consensual sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky through the mud, and railed against him for the accusations of sexual improprieties made by women throughout his presidency. Hate him to this very day.

Now you defend The Donald tooth and nail for the same things?

Hypocritical much?

No, I agree, lets charge both formally, Booker included and move forth.
You are a weak sister, albeit white, not a strong darker sister.
Call me a racist, your next move.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Are you familiar with the term, "two wrongs don't make a right"?

So if Bill Clinton did something wrong in the past, it means that it's ok for Donald Trump in the present? Am I following your argument correctly?

You guys despised Bill Clinton, dragged his consensual sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky through the mud, and railed against him for the accusations of sexual improprieties made by women throughout his presidency. Hate him to this very day.

Now you defend The Donald tooth and nail for the same things?

Hypocritical much?

Dude, do you think creepy old men like Vantexan and Newfie care that Trump sexually assaults women and pays for sex?

They don't.
In fact, they envy him.
It's sad, but you need to come to terms with the twisted minds of his hardcore sheep.

 

[LarryBird]

The translation is,
You're fortunate I'm moderated, you aren't a sharp person, and offer little factual basis for your posts.
You got that?
The way you command and attempt to intimidate doesn't work with me.
You are attempting to be floridays part deux, minus facts ans reasoned evaluation.
You are no there, there.
Ask @bbsam he knows what I speak of.

I got a pm about you a few days ago.

People laugh at you and your faux intellectual tough guy act.

I'm well aware of who and what you are.

You're not the Chief around here anymore, just another (half)Indian. I'm running these days.

Get in line or get run over.

 

[floridays]

I got a pm about you a few days ago.

People laugh at you and your faux intellectual tough guy act.

I'm well aware of who and what you are.

You're not the Chief around here anymore, just another (half)Indian. I'm running these days.

Get in line or get run over.

I'm sure you did, that is the way the left tries to eliminate opposing views.
I'll put my academic credentials against yours any day, and beyond that, positions held, you up for it big guy?
I don't blow my load here, I can however inject some truth when needed. Albeit, once again, not in a politically correct way, that's the way the real world talks behind closed doors.
Bring it buddy!

 

[Fred's Myth]

He’s not a cock hound.

He’s a rapist.

What happened to colluder?

 

[floridays]

What happened to colluder?

Hello myth, you still may look like my deceased mother in law, but you obviously have testosterone flowing through your veins and therefore some sense.
Just poking the only lib that hasn't blocked me and the mods of course, carry on Sir.
Next time we're raping together I'll tell The Donald he needs to award you with the Presidential Medal of Smart Guy.

 

[Fred's Myth]

I got a pm about you a few days ago.

People laugh at you and your faux intellectual tough guy act.

I'm well aware of who and what you are.

You're not the Chief around here anymore, just another (half)Indian. I'm running these days.

Get in line or get run over.

It’s a shame Herr Mueller wasn’t aware of your magnificent IQ and razor sharp deductive abilities before he caved in to his own myopia. Results might have been more to your liking.

 

[newfie]

He’s not a cock hound.

He’s a rapist.

Prove it or admit you're a liar?

 

[newfie]

I like when they focus on the part of the tape where says "they let you do it", like that hasn't been said by every rapist ever...

#snowflakesdesperateforanargumentnomatterhowdishonest

 

[LarryBird]

It’s a shame Herr Mueller wasn’t aware of your magnificent IQ and razor sharp deductive abilities before he caved in to his own myopia. Results might have been more to your liking.

They are what they are. I don't distort things to fit my narratives.

If Mueller, who put in the time and manpower, says he couldn't reach a decisive conclusion on collusion, and that there were legal hurdles if an attempt was to be made at prosecuting Trump for obstruction, despite the signs that he did so, then I take him at his word.

I wish he showed more of a backbone, and took a stronger position either way, but he used legal subtleties to duck out of that responsibility, and leave us where we were beforehand - arguing about whether collusion and obstruction actually occurred.

Waste of time and money. I expected better, whether it was in support of what I believe occurred or proved I was wrong about Trump and his campaign's actions, but what we got was an expensive set of steps that lead to the top of the fence, and now we all have to sit there on it with Bob Mueller if we accept his findings. And I do. Bob Mueller had a hard and unpleasant job, and he did his best.

I still believe Trump broke the law, but it is over in my eyes. I suggest you move on as well. You guys eek'd out another small victory - but don't gloat about your President barely escaping the arms of the law, it's nothing to be proud of. In fact, it's gross.

 

[floridays]

It’s a shame Herr Mueller wasn’t aware of your magnificent IQ and razor sharp deductive abilities before he caved in to his own myopia. Results might have been more to your liking.

I responded to this post, I'm waiting for the mods to green light it, most likely as with this one it will be held up or deleted. I posted previously, the record confirms that they were ok'd, and in a reasonable time to my estimation.
There seems to be a lockup currently, have you ever pulled up with a muscle spasm or muscle pull while performing athletically, or seen a fainting goat lock up (google it)?
I guess the mods got the same pm as MVP, Rookie of the Year @LarryBird., Screw em, wood or metal, which is the appropriate screw in this instance?
@LarryBird, that is humorous, it's basis is fact.

 

[vantexan]

Bragged about it actually.

If that's your definition of rape then every guy who ever felt up a girl with her consent is a rapist. Have you had a #MeToo moment?

 

[vantexan]

They are what they are. I don't distort things to fit my narratives.

If Mueller, who put in the time and manpower, says he couldn't reach a decisive conclusion on collusion, and that there were legal hurdles if an attempt was to be made at prosecuting Trump for obstruction, despite the signs that he did so, then I take him at his word.

I wish he showed more of a backbone, and took a stronger position either way, but he used legal subtleties to duck out of that responsibility, and leave us where we were beforehand - arguing about whether collusion and obstruction actually occurred.

Waste of time and money. I expected better, whether it was in support of what I believe occurred or proved I was wrong about Trump and his campaign's actions, but what we got was an expensive set of steps that lead to the top of the fence, and now we all have to sit there on it with Bob Mueller if we accept his findings. And I do. Bob Mueller had a hard and unpleasant job, and he did his best.

I still believe Trump broke the law, but it is over in my eyes. I suggest you move on as well. You guys eek'd out another small victory - but don't gloat about your President barely escaping the arms of the law, it's nothing to be proud of. In fact, it's gross.

I believe he did reach a decisive conclusion on collusion...there wasn't any.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I believe he did reach a decisive conclusion on collusion...there was any.

If you're trying to make yourself look stupid.... great job my guy!

 

[It will be fine]

I believe he did reach a decisive conclusion on collusion...there wasn't any.

Interesting you have a belief without any first hand knowledge of what Mueller wrote.

 

[vantexan]

...but don't gloat about your President barely escaping the arms of the law, it's nothing to be proud of. In fact, it's gross.

Hilllllaaaaarrrrryyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!