For those that Ha ha'd

[ballsofsteel]

Whats the definition of an affair? To me its a relationship that goes on for a few months.
I thought Trump only boned Stormy that one time.

[*bfine32*]

(10-17-2018, 04:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually she has never said anything like that at all.

Sure she did, she wanted to let the haters (you know the type) know that she didn't care what they thought. 


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/melania-trump-reason-i-really-dont-care-jacket_us_5bc17237e4b01a01d68aeb65




“I want to show them that I don’t care,” Trump said. “You could criticize whatever you want to say, but it will not stop me to do what I feel is right.”

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2018, 05:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure she did, she wanted to let the haters (you know the type) know that she didn't care what they thought. 


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/melania-trump-reason-i-really-dont-care-jacket_us_5bc17237e4b01a01d68aeb65




“I want to show them that I don’t care,” Trump said. “You could criticize whatever you want to say, but it will not stop me to do what I feel is right.”

"I would prefer they would focus on what I do and on my initiatives than what I wear.”

So let me get this straight.  Melania claimed that in order to get people to NOT talk about what she was wearing she wore the most controversial garment she could find and then refused to comment about it for 4 months.  Instead she had her spokesperson lie and claim there was "no message".

And you believed her?

[*bfine32*]

(10-17-2018, 06:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "I would prefer they would focus on what I do and on my initiatives than what I wear.”

So let me get this straight.  Melania claimed that in order to get people to NOT talk about what she was wearing she wore the most controversial garment she could find and then refused to comment about it for 4 months.  Instead she had her spokesperson lie and claim there was "no message".

And you believed her?

Sure Fred, I realize it wasn't a criminal court of law, but I give her the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, is this saying you were wrong when you boldly asserted she never said any such thing? I realize it's embarrassing for you. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-17-2018, 02:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's been proven?  How?

By his paying her to not talk about it (actually proven) or the paper she signed (and he didn't) to make her not talk about it (actually proven)?

"proven" 

LOL
She's the one that can't make up her mind.
I did have an affair with Trump.
I did not have an affair with Trump.

Wishy washy

Now her defamation case got tossed and Trump's going after her for defamation.

[*bfine32*]

(10-17-2018, 06:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL
She's the one that can't make up her mind.
I did have an affair with Trump.
I did not have an affair with Trump.

Wishy washy

Now her defamation case got tossed and Trump's going after her for defamation.

But we as citizens do not have to consider Trump innocent until proven guilty, so he did that shit. 

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2018, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure Fred, I realize it wasn't a criminal court of law, but I give her the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, is this saying you were wrong when you boldly asserted she never said any such thing? I realize it's embarrassing for you. 

1.  Why would you give her the benefit of the doubt when she had her own spokesperson lie to you from the start?

2.  Yes I will admit when I was wrong.  I am a bigger man than you when it comes to that.  I could nit pick about your claim that she did it "multiple times" when in fact she never said anything for month (other than having her spokesperson lie for her) before making these comments for the first time just a few days ago.

[*bfine32*]

(10-17-2018, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  Why would you give her the benefit of the doubt when she had her own spokesperson lie to you from the start?

2.  Yes I will admit when I was wrong.  I am a bigger man than you when it comes to that.  I could nit pick about your claim that she did it "multiple times" when in fact she never said anything for month (other than having her spokesperson lie for her) before making these comments for the first time just a few days ago.

1. Because I don't automatically assume folks are lying, but you do you

2. No doubt, very big of you to admit I was right "multiple times" and you were wrong "multiple times". 

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2018, 06:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But we as citizens do not have to consider Trump innocent until proven guilty, so he did that shit. 

There is absolutely no reason to believe Trump.  He lies about everything,  He has admitted to adultery with other women.  Stormy had enough credibility to earn $130K to not talk about the affair.

Not saying there is enough evidence to convict him of any crime, but anyone who believes everything Trump says is a gullible rube.

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2018, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Because I don't automatically assume folks are lying, but you do you

Yes you do.  You automatically assume every woman who alleges sexual assault is a liar until her story is proven in court.

When I am not sitting on a jury I try to take a neutral position.  I don't assume either party is lying until I see some evidence.  But you don't believe in that.  You believe that the accuser should be assumed to be a liar without looking at any evidence.

Now in this case we have the proven fact that she had her spokesperson lie about the coat. We also have the fact that it is absurd for her to claim she wore controversial clothes to keep people from talking about her clothes. So based on those pieces of evidence I don't believe a thing she tries to say about it now. 

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2018, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2. No doubt, very big of you to admit I was right "multiple times" and you were wrong "multiple times". 

WTF are you talking about?  I never said anything like that.

[*bfine32*]

(10-17-2018, 06:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes you do.  You automatically assume every woman who alleges sexual assault is a liar until her story is proven in court.

When I am not sitting on a jury I try to take a neutral position.  I don't assume either party is lying until I see some evidence.  But you don't believe in that.  You believe that the accuser should be assumed to be a liar without looking at any evidence.

Now in this case we have the proven fact that she had her spokesperson lie about the coat. We also have the fact that it is absurd for her to claim she wore controversial clothes to keep people from talking about her clothes. So based on those pieces of evidence I don't believe a thing she tries to say about it now. 

Done being Big already? 

I do not assume anyone is a liar, I just give the accused the benefit of the doubt. She never said she wore the jacket to keep people from talking about what she wore; she knew haters would do that. If she had worn a dress, diamond, and pearls haters would have said what she wore was inappropriate. She simply said she wished folks would focus on what she did other that what she wore and you are exhibit A to prove her claim.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-17-2018, 06:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: WTF are you talking about?  I never said anything like that.

Have I explained the reason FLOTUS wore the jacket was to send a message to trolls such as yourself multiple times? 

Are you suggesting I'm really brilliant enough to know the exact reason she wore the jacket without reading previous reports where she gave her reasoning or do you think perhaps I have read such reports?

So yeah. I've stated the reason she said she wore the jacket multiple times, you've said multiple times she has never said any such thing and tried to suggest she wore it because she didn't care about the children. 

I liked you so much better when you were big enough to admit you were wrong.

[GMDino]

(10-17-2018, 06:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL
She's the one that can't make up her mind.
I did have an affair with Trump.
I did not have an affair with Trump.

Wishy washy

Now her defamation case got tossed and Trump's going after her for defamation

It amazes me what Trump minions believe without facts.
It shouldn't after all this time but it still does.

[*bfine32*]

(10-17-2018, 08:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: It amazes me what Trump minions believe without facts.
It shouldn't after all this time but it still does.

What did he just post without any facts?

Has Stormy changed her story?

Was her defamation case tossed out and she forced to pay Trump's legal fees?

Is there a chance Trump will counter sue for defamation?

[GMDino]

(10-17-2018, 10:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What did he just post without any facts?

Has Stormy changed her story?

Was her defamation case tossed out and she forced to pay Trump's legal fees?

Is there a chance Trump will counter sue for defamation?

She remained silent while she thought she was bound by a legal document.

Then she told her story.  Which didn't change.

Her case was tossed...and then immediately appealed.

There's always a chance he will sue...that probably how he's made or kept most of his daddy's money that he didn't blow.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-17-2018, 10:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: She remained silent while she thought she was bound by a legal document.

Then she told her story.  Which didn't change.

Her case was tossed...and then immediately appealed.

There's always a chance he will sue...that probably how he's made or kept most of his daddy's money that he didn't blow.  

I guess I missed the part where you showed dude's post was "without facts"

[GMDino]

(10-17-2018, 10:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess I missed the part where you showed dude's post was "without facts"

There were factual words that spun the events.

But I know you'll have to wait for Trump to tell you what is the true story...until he gets caught in another lie and changes the story again.

Mighty strong oath.

[*bfine32*]

(10-17-2018, 11:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: There were factual words that spun the events.

But I know you'll have to wait for Trump to tell you what is the true story...until he gets caught in another lie and changes the story again.

Mighty strong oath.

So what he posted was not "without facts". Thanks for admitting you were/are just talking out of your ass. 

[GMDino]

(10-17-2018, 11:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So what he posted was not "without facts". Thanks for admitting you were/are just talking out of your ass. 

Again there were words...factual words...that misrepresented the truth.  Just like in your follow up.

Have a victory lap for dissecting my post and swear to defend Trump some more.  Maybe he taught you how to insult?

G'night funnyman.