Because it sounds a lot like you know how foolish you'll sound trying to say the network was not 100% colluding with Kamala and her campaign but you're still trying to salvage a Very Concerned victory by saying some dude just pointing out the obvious that anyone who saw the debate can see for themselves was true…was lying?
ABC whistleblower
33,904 Views |
226 Replies |
Last: 18 days ago by BMX Bandit
Even by the standards you have set for yourself, that's just stupid.
BMX Bandit said:
Even by the standards you have set for yourself, that's just stupid.
Ok then yes or no
Did the network collude with the Kamala campaign in a dishonest manner to give her an unfair advantage in the debate
Yes or No
Here's the thing- you can be as conservative as they come (which I am), and still realize when you are being baited by something stupid.
Just like Trump could have been smart enough not to get baited during the debate in question.
This whole thing was flimsy (at best) from the start, and now you are deflecting because you took the bait because you wanted so badly for it to be true, you didn't raise an eyebrow.
Just like Trump could have been smart enough not to get baited during the debate in question.
This whole thing was flimsy (at best) from the start, and now you are deflecting because you took the bait because you wanted so badly for it to be true, you didn't raise an eyebrow.
20ag07 said:
Here's the thing- you can be as conservative as they come (which I am), and still realize when you are being baited by something stupid.
Just like Trump could have been smart enough not to get baited during the debate in question.
This whole thing was flimsy (at best) from the start, and now you are deflecting because you took the bait because you wanted so badly for it to be true, you didn't raise an eyebrow.
Yes or No
Did the network collide with the Kamala campaign in a dishonest manner to give her an unfair advantage in the debate?
Yes or No, don't deflect now
Maroon Dawn said:BMX Bandit said:
Even by the standards you have set for yourself, that's just stupid.
Ok then yes or no
Did the network collude with the Kamala campaign in a dishonest manner to give her an unfair advantage in the debate
Yes or No
Rephrasing this - Yes or No - is there proof or evidence the network colluded with the Kamala campaign to help her during the debate?
Note how not a single Very Concerned person here will answer that question straight up even after they watched the debate
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
I don't think it's fair to just blame it all on "not able to trust the media".
It's a (un)healthy portion of that, but also a large part of A) confirmation bias, B) lack of understanding of modern technology and C) how that technology is used to manipulate.
Just read this whistleblower thread, or the concert grooming thread. A few slow dripped tweets, some redacted text and the term "affidavit" is enough to have multiple posters think something could actually have legs... something posted by a completely random, anonymous twitter handle.
People also tend not to think to the extremes on how easily someone can do something with social media and technology. "This guy has been right a lot in the past"...
In 20 minutes I can have 100 twitter accounts created, all with different "personalities". Over the span of a month I can have 50 of them predict one thing, and 50 of them predict the opposite. I can take the 50 that were right and over the next month have 25 of them predict one thing, and 25 of them predict the opposite. I can take the 25 that were right and over the next month... etc... In 6 months I have can a handful of twitter personalities that "have never led people wrong", buy them a blue checkmark and 5,000 subs and people think they are a legitimate source.
That's one person spending $50 and taking a couple of months to refine the accounts. Now think how quickly the "professionals" can churn these out.
AI will just make this worse.
It's a (un)healthy portion of that, but also a large part of A) confirmation bias, B) lack of understanding of modern technology and C) how that technology is used to manipulate.
Just read this whistleblower thread, or the concert grooming thread. A few slow dripped tweets, some redacted text and the term "affidavit" is enough to have multiple posters think something could actually have legs... something posted by a completely random, anonymous twitter handle.
People also tend not to think to the extremes on how easily someone can do something with social media and technology. "This guy has been right a lot in the past"...
In 20 minutes I can have 100 twitter accounts created, all with different "personalities". Over the span of a month I can have 50 of them predict one thing, and 50 of them predict the opposite. I can take the 50 that were right and over the next month have 25 of them predict one thing, and 25 of them predict the opposite. I can take the 25 that were right and over the next month... etc... In 6 months I have can a handful of twitter personalities that "have never led people wrong", buy them a blue checkmark and 5,000 subs and people think they are a legitimate source.
That's one person spending $50 and taking a couple of months to refine the accounts. Now think how quickly the "professionals" can churn these out.
AI will just make this worse.
No.
There is no evidence that an entire network "colluded" with Kamala. Nor does it seem like she got any unfair advantage. Because the questions asked in the debate were so basic, any high school debate team could have predicted what they would be.
There is no evidence that an entire network "colluded" with Kamala. Nor does it seem like she got any unfair advantage. Because the questions asked in the debate were so basic, any high school debate team could have predicted what they would be.
Did they need to collude if they were all of the same mindset?
Pretty easy to pull the 3 on 1 deal if you knowingly share the same thoughts and vote the same way.
They didn't fact check her. They didn't challenge her. The gave her slow pitch softball questions.
We all knew they were going to do it. Trump knew they were going to do it as well. But I believe Trump correctly assessed the situation and understood he was going to benefit from a debate setup any observer outside the DC-NYC-Cali bubble would understand was unfair and uneven to the advantage of his opponent in every single respect.
When your party controls the network and your party members serve as "journalists" on that network, then there isn't much you need to do to set things up.
They are already set up in your favor.
Pretty easy to pull the 3 on 1 deal if you knowingly share the same thoughts and vote the same way.
They didn't fact check her. They didn't challenge her. The gave her slow pitch softball questions.
We all knew they were going to do it. Trump knew they were going to do it as well. But I believe Trump correctly assessed the situation and understood he was going to benefit from a debate setup any observer outside the DC-NYC-Cali bubble would understand was unfair and uneven to the advantage of his opponent in every single respect.
When your party controls the network and your party members serve as "journalists" on that network, then there isn't much you need to do to set things up.
They are already set up in your favor.
Quote:
Did they need to collude if they were all of the same mindset?
Exactly.
They don't even try to hide it. They have the same goal. Defeat Trump. While the MSM has always been aligned with the Democrats, it's worse now than it has ever been with trying to defeat Trump.
I first got interested in politics when I saw Dukakis put on that hilarious helmet in the tank. And I have never seen anything as bad and blatant as the media being against a candidate as they are against Trump.
YesMaroon Dawn said:BMX Bandit said:
Even by the standards you have set for yourself, that's just stupid.
Ok then yes or no
Did the network collude with the Kamala campaign in a dishonest manner to give her an unfair advantage in the debate
Yes or No
but not in the way this fake whistleblower claims.
if you'd bother reading the thread, you'd have already known that was my position.
I'm unapologetically supporting and voting for Trump on 10/22 without any reservation. your lameass attempts to call me a concerned moderate show you just have an inability to rationally think, which is long evidenced by your posting history here and the zoo.
Maroon Dawn said:
Note how not a single Very Concerned person here will answer that question straight up even after they watched the debate
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
There is currently no evidence the campaign and ABC colluded in a dishonest manner prior to the debate. Possible? Sure. But if you have evidence, feel free to provide it. And were the moderators clearly biased? Of course, but if Trump wasn't an undisciplined idiot he wouldn't have fallen into the obvious traps and stuck to talking about the giant failures of the Biden/Harris admin.
In the meantime, since I don't operate on feelings like the Always Trumpers, I'll wait until there's evidence before deciding 100% one way or the other.
J. Walter Weatherman said:Maroon Dawn said:
Note how not a single Very Concerned person here will answer that question straight up even after they watched the debate
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
There is currently no evidence the campaign and ABC colluded in a dishonest manner prior to the debate. Possible? Sure. But if you have evidence, feel free to provide it. And were the moderators clearly biased? Of course, but if Trump wasn't an undisciplined idiot he wouldn't have fallen into the obvious traps and stuck to talking about the giant failures of the Biden/Harris admin.
In the meantime, since I don't operate on feelings like the Always Trumpers, I'll wait until there's evidence before deciding 100% one way or the other.
Go hug your Kamala blow up doll.
Ag-Yoakum95 said:J. Walter Weatherman said:Maroon Dawn said:
Note how not a single Very Concerned person here will answer that question straight up even after they watched the debate
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
There is currently no evidence the campaign and ABC colluded in a dishonest manner prior to the debate. Possible? Sure. But if you have evidence, feel free to provide it. And were the moderators clearly biased? Of course, but if Trump wasn't an undisciplined idiot he wouldn't have fallen into the obvious traps and stuck to talking about the giant failures of the Biden/Harris admin.
In the meantime, since I don't operate on feelings like the Always Trumpers, I'll wait until there's evidence before deciding 100% one way or the other.
Go hug your Kamala blow up doll.
Like clockwork. Would you like to try an actual response to the discussion? Or you can just say you have no interest in anything that's not worshipping Dear Leader.
J. Walter Weatherman said:Ag-Yoakum95 said:J. Walter Weatherman said:Maroon Dawn said:
Note how not a single Very Concerned person here will answer that question straight up even after they watched the debate
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
There is currently no evidence the campaign and ABC colluded in a dishonest manner prior to the debate. Possible? Sure. But if you have evidence, feel free to provide it. And were the moderators clearly biased? Of course, but if Trump wasn't an undisciplined idiot he wouldn't have fallen into the obvious traps and stuck to talking about the giant failures of the Biden/Harris admin.
In the meantime, since I don't operate on feelings like the Always Trumpers, I'll wait until there's evidence before deciding 100% one way or the other.
Go hug your Kamala blow up doll.
Like clockwork. Would you like to try an actual response to the discussion? Or you can just say you have no interest in anything that's not worshipping Dear Leader.
I'll stick with my statement as that is about as good as what you've put out there about the idiot you support.
Ag-Yoakum95 said:J. Walter Weatherman said:Ag-Yoakum95 said:J. Walter Weatherman said:Maroon Dawn said:
Note how not a single Very Concerned person here will answer that question straight up even after they watched the debate
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
There is currently no evidence the campaign and ABC colluded in a dishonest manner prior to the debate. Possible? Sure. But if you have evidence, feel free to provide it. And were the moderators clearly biased? Of course, but if Trump wasn't an undisciplined idiot he wouldn't have fallen into the obvious traps and stuck to talking about the giant failures of the Biden/Harris admin.
In the meantime, since I don't operate on feelings like the Always Trumpers, I'll wait until there's evidence before deciding 100% one way or the other.
Go hug your Kamala blow up doll.
Like clockwork. Would you like to try an actual response to the discussion? Or you can just say you have no interest in anything that's not worshipping Dear Leader.
I'll stick with my statement as that is about as good as what you've put out there about the idiot you support.
Did you miss this part?
Quote:
and stuck to talking about the giant failures of the Biden/Harris admin.
Want to try for a rational response again?
This entire ordeal displays the difference between the right and the left in this country. After a cursory review, the right decided this was bs and left it alone. Had this same thing happened to Trump though, we would be halfway through impeachment trials at this point.
J. Walter Weatherman said:Maroon Dawn said:
Note how not a single Very Concerned person here will answer that question straight up even after they watched the debate
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
There is currently no evidence the campaign and ABC colluded in a dishonest manner prior to the debate. Possible? Sure. But if you have evidence, feel free to provide it. And were the moderators clearly biased? Of course, but if Trump wasn't an undisciplined idiot he wouldn't have fallen into the obvious traps and stuck to talking about the giant failures of the Biden/Harris admin.
In the meantime, since I don't operate on feelings like the Always Trumpers, I'll wait until there's evidence before deciding 100% one way or the other.
No evidence? Did you not watch the actual debate? What would you require beyond what your own eyes were telling you?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I thought you guys said that Trump won the debate?agent-maroon said:J. Walter Weatherman said:Maroon Dawn said:
Note how not a single Very Concerned person here will answer that question straight up even after they watched the debate
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
There is currently no evidence the campaign and ABC colluded in a dishonest manner prior to the debate. Possible? Sure. But if you have evidence, feel free to provide it. And were the moderators clearly biased? Of course, but if Trump wasn't an undisciplined idiot he wouldn't have fallen into the obvious traps and stuck to talking about the giant failures of the Biden/Harris admin.
In the meantime, since I don't operate on feelings like the Always Trumpers, I'll wait until there's evidence before deciding 100% one way or the other.
No evidence? Did you not watch the actual debate? What would you require beyond what your own eyes were telling you?
Gig 'Em
And there it is, your admission that you're incapable of any critical, honest conversation on anything pertaining to Trump without you bringing it back to your hatred of the man. You are absolutely no different than what you accused him of, but demoralized people can never see it.J. Walter Weatherman said:Ag-Yoakum95 said:J. Walter Weatherman said:Maroon Dawn said:
Note how not a single Very Concerned person here will answer that question straight up even after they watched the debate
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
There is currently no evidence the campaign and ABC colluded in a dishonest manner prior to the debate. Possible? Sure. But if you have evidence, feel free to provide it. And were the moderators clearly biased? Of course, but if Trump wasn't an undisciplined idiot he wouldn't have fallen into the obvious traps and stuck to talking about the giant failures of the Biden/Harris admin.
In the meantime, since I don't operate on feelings like the Always Trumpers, I'll wait until there's evidence before deciding 100% one way or the other.
Go hug your Kamala blow up doll.
Like clockwork. Would you like to try an actual response to the discussion? Or you can just say you have no interest in anything that's not worshipping Dear Leader.
I'll answer it like he did, just with the wrong visual description, Go punch your Trump blowup doll.
Now, call me a Trumpian, or a cultist, or a low information voter, even a deplorable, because it makes you feel better about your infected mind.
By the way, anyone with a modicum of intellect could watch that debate and see the coordination and cooperation between the network, moderators and Harris. Should Trump have known, yes, was I disappointed in some of his reactions, yes. But, that doesn't mean the coordinated gaslighted didn't happen.
Now's when you ask me for receipts because you're not honest enough or intelligent enough to see it for yourself. 1984 much?
Where did I say that he didn't?
Doesn't matter to me really. This wasn't so much a debate as it was an argument between Trump and the moderators with an obvious bias & agenda.
Doesn't matter to me really. This wasn't so much a debate as it was an argument between Trump and the moderators with an obvious bias & agenda.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
So it should be glaringly obvious that she "cheated", but he won anyway, so this is a non-issue.agent-maroon said:
Where did I say that he didn't?
Doesn't matter to me really. This wasn't so much a debate as it was an argument between Trump and the moderators with an obvious bias & agenda.
And it's a non-issue anyway because once again, the source of this earth-shattering news is completely FOS.
Gig 'Em
RGLAG85 said:And there it is, your admission that you're incapable of any critical, honest conversation on anything pertaining to Trump without you bringing it back to your hatred of the man. You are absolutely no different than what you accused him of, but demoralized people can never see it.J. Walter Weatherman said:Ag-Yoakum95 said:J. Walter Weatherman said:Maroon Dawn said:
Note how not a single Very Concerned person here will answer that question straight up even after they watched the debate
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
There is currently no evidence the campaign and ABC colluded in a dishonest manner prior to the debate. Possible? Sure. But if you have evidence, feel free to provide it. And were the moderators clearly biased? Of course, but if Trump wasn't an undisciplined idiot he wouldn't have fallen into the obvious traps and stuck to talking about the giant failures of the Biden/Harris admin.
In the meantime, since I don't operate on feelings like the Always Trumpers, I'll wait until there's evidence before deciding 100% one way or the other.
Go hug your Kamala blow up doll.
Like clockwork. Would you like to try an actual response to the discussion? Or you can just say you have no interest in anything that's not worshipping Dear Leader.
I'll answer it like he did, just with the wrong visual description, Go punch your Trump blowup doll.
Now, call me a Trumpian, or a cultist, or a low information voter, even a deplorable, because it makes you feel better about your infected mind.
By the way, anyone with a modicum of intellect could watch that debate and see the coordination and cooperation between the network, moderators and Harris. Should Trump have known, yes, was I disappointed in some of his reactions, yes. But, that doesn't mean the coordinated gaslighted didn't happen.
Now's when you ask me for receipts because you're not honest enough or intelligent enough to see it for yourself. 1984 much?
Hey I was just answering an irrational post with an equally irrational post.
Yes, anyone can see that the mods were biased. The claim was that they colluded with the campaign prior to the debate, which currently there's still no evidence of (despite what that grifter twitter account claimed) and is a large step from the general left wing bias we see every day across the media.
You're welcome to draw your own conclusions based on the debate going the same way it has every other time Trump has debated someone with a pulse, I'll choose to wait for actual evidence.
Anonymous Source said:So it should be glaringly obvious that she "cheated", but he won anyway, so this is a non-issue.agent-maroon said:
Where did I say that he didn't?
Doesn't matter to me really. This wasn't so much a debate as it was an argument between Trump and the moderators with an obvious bias & agenda.
And it's a non-issue anyway because once again, the source of this earth-shattering news is completely FOS.
The ever present collusion between the MSM and the dems is a HUGE issue. Probably the biggest issue in politics right now. This particular debate/argument is just one open sore on the body politic that anyone can see.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
20ag07 said:
No.
There is no evidence that an entire network "colluded" with Kamala. Nor does it seem like she got any unfair advantage. Because the questions asked in the debate were so basic, any high school debate team could have predicted what they would be.
You see how willing they are to lie when everyone who watched the debate could see how the network was 100% all in on collaborating with and protecting Kamala?
This is why no one should treat them seriously
Moderators fact-checking Trump is not "collusion".
He could have handled that on stage. He just didn't, because he's not good at debating and is as easily baited as you are.
He could have handled that on stage. He just didn't, because he's not good at debating and is as easily baited as you are.
20ag07 said:
Moderators fact-checking Trump is not "collusion".
He could have handled that on stage. He just didn't, because he's not good at debating and is as easily baited as you are.
Did they fact check any of Kamala blatant lies?
Dang dude, if you see someone murdered with your own eyes, yet no one actually has video or audio evidence of it talking place, did it really happen? I mean, who are you to trust your own eyes and judgement?J. Walter Weatherman said:RGLAG85 said:And there it is, your admission that you're incapable of any critical, honest conversation on anything pertaining to Trump without you bringing it back to your hatred of the man. You are absolutely no different than what you accused him of, but demoralized people can never see it.J. Walter Weatherman said:Ag-Yoakum95 said:J. Walter Weatherman said:Maroon Dawn said:
Note how not a single Very Concerned person here will answer that question straight up even after they watched the debate
They know the answer but they are trying to deflect with "some dude pointed out the painfully obvious but we don't believe him!"
There is currently no evidence the campaign and ABC colluded in a dishonest manner prior to the debate. Possible? Sure. But if you have evidence, feel free to provide it. And were the moderators clearly biased? Of course, but if Trump wasn't an undisciplined idiot he wouldn't have fallen into the obvious traps and stuck to talking about the giant failures of the Biden/Harris admin.
In the meantime, since I don't operate on feelings like the Always Trumpers, I'll wait until there's evidence before deciding 100% one way or the other.
Go hug your Kamala blow up doll.
Like clockwork. Would you like to try an actual response to the discussion? Or you can just say you have no interest in anything that's not worshipping Dear Leader.
I'll answer it like he did, just with the wrong visual description, Go punch your Trump blowup doll.
Now, call me a Trumpian, or a cultist, or a low information voter, even a deplorable, because it makes you feel better about your infected mind.
By the way, anyone with a modicum of intellect could watch that debate and see the coordination and cooperation between the network, moderators and Harris. Should Trump have known, yes, was I disappointed in some of his reactions, yes. But, that doesn't mean the coordinated gaslighted didn't happen.
Now's when you ask me for receipts because you're not honest enough or intelligent enough to see it for yourself. 1984 much?
Hey I was just answering an irrational post with an equally irrational post.
Yes, anyone can see that the mods were biased. The claim was that they colluded with the campaign prior to the debate, which currently there's still no evidence of (despite what that grifter twitter account claimed) and is a large step from the general left wing bias we see every day across the media.
You're welcome to draw your own conclusions based on the debate going the same way it has every other time Trump has debated someone with a pulse, I'll choose to wait for actual evidence.
Your problem is, you think if you admit it was collusion on their part, you saw it, it will absolve Trump of his mishandling of the situation and your TDS brethren will kick you out of the circle. Your own intelligence can tell you they both can be true, but your mental gymnastics won't let you.
And yet, Trump somehow won the debate with a bunch of half-baked, low-information,"concepts of a plan" answers? With the powers of a media monolith behind her, he somehow won by not saying much of anything?Maroon Dawn said:20ag07 said:
No.
There is no evidence that an entire network "colluded" with Kamala. Nor does it seem like she got any unfair advantage. Because the questions asked in the debate were so basic, any high school debate team could have predicted what they would be.
You see how willing they are to lie when everyone who watched the debate could see how the network was 100% all in on collaborating with and protecting Kamala?
This is why no one should treat them seriously
If that's the case, this is some of the most inept collusion there ever was.
Gig 'Em
Anonymous Source said:And yet, Trump somehow won the debate with a bunch of half-baked, low-information,"concepts of a plan" answers? With the powers of a media monolith behind her, he somehow won by not saying much of anything?Maroon Dawn said:20ag07 said:
No.
There is no evidence that an entire network "colluded" with Kamala. Nor does it seem like she got any unfair advantage. Because the questions asked in the debate were so basic, any high school debate team could have predicted what they would be.
You see how willing they are to lie when everyone who watched the debate could see how the network was 100% all in on collaborating with and protecting Kamala?
This is why no one should treat them seriously
If that's the case, this is some of the most inept collusion there ever was.
Just because she's literally the worst and most least deserving candidate in American history. Doesn't mean they didn't try though
Yes, but unless the media fails to is knees and admits it, it didn't happen.agent-maroon said:Anonymous Source said:So it should be glaringly obvious that she "cheated", but he won anyway, so this is a non-issue.agent-maroon said:
Where did I say that he didn't?
Doesn't matter to me really. This wasn't so much a debate as it was an argument between Trump and the moderators with an obvious bias & agenda.
And it's a non-issue anyway because once again, the source of this earth-shattering news is completely FOS.
The ever present collusion between the MSM and the dems is a HUGE issue. Probably the biggest issue in politics right now. This particular debate/argument is just one open sore on the body politic that anyone can see.
Is that collusion? No, no it's not. It's certainly no proof that there was any.Quote:
Did they fact check any of Kamala blatant lies?
Could Trump have asked for a fact check on stage? Absolutely. Was he too stupid to keep his calm and do this? Absolutely.
Was he smart enough to realize that if you don't give them any thing to fact check, they can't fact check? Absolutely not.
Still, none of this is collusion. It's exactly what he should have expected to walk into.
They weren't even giving him the opportunity to respond to their one-sided fact checking.20ag07 said:
Moderators fact-checking Trump is not "collusion".
He could have handled that on stage. He just didn't, because he's not good at debating and is as easily baited as you are.
His authenticity is his strength in debate. He's not a politician by trade. He's not polished. I suspect he's not been a member of the debate club in any educational institute he's been in.
That is a strength and it has enabled him to win debates because he comes off as real as opposed to the air of artifice and fraud constantly emerging from the likes of everyone he's been up against from Jeb! to Oldfinger to Harris.
He destroyed Biden in 30 minutes, forcing the obviously limited coward out of the race with a kill-shot line. That debate was actually moderated in a fairly decent fashion by CNN.
ABC, knowing they needed to protect the anointed and undeserving Bimbo-in-Waiting, protected her and harassed and badgered him constantly.
The left wing pundits rejoiced. The Dick Cheney Caucus and Hunting Club raised glasses of champagne and fired buckshot into the air.
But when all was said and done, Donald Trump ended up in far better position in that debate than his opponent.
In this country, most of us still share a sense of fair play. When someone is denied that opportunity, we tend to reject those who denied the offended party their chance to represent themselves.
As a debater, as in politics and in life, President Trump is a bull in a china shop.
But at least he's authentic. It is his strength, especially against a dip**** con artist like Harris.
20ag07 said:Is that collusion? No, no it's not. It's certainly no proof that there was any.Quote:
Did they fact check any of Kamala blatant lies?
Could Trump have asked for a fact check on stage? Absolutely. Was he too stupid to keep his calm and do this? Absolutely.
Was he smart enough to realize that if you don't give them any thing to fact check, they can't fact check? Absolutely not.
Still, none of this is collusion. It's exactly what he should have expected to walk into.
Ok there Komrade Kommissar. We didn't see any clear evidence of collusion on stage!
"The Party demanded you reject the evidence of your own eyes and ears. It was their last, most essential command"
Featured Stories
See All
SEC Round-Up: Dawgs facing possible playoff elimination this week
by Olin Buchanan
33:59
9h ago
1.0k
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 12
by Matthew Dawson
14:58
9h ago
991
Assessing Earley's first signing class at the helm of Texas A&M baseball
by Ryan Brauninger
Tom Kazansky 2012
Number of football tickets A&M provided to t.u.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
2