Hillary physically violent on Election Night, Mook and Podesta targets (Breaking)

[Revoltingest]

Repeating a denial doesn't make it so... I am forced to call this:

First, the claim was that he discriminated against blacks. That he used the "C" to do this is as ancillary as it is documented. After all, writing a "C" on someone's application is hardly noteworthy much less illegal, unless there's a deeper meaning to it, which there was. First, last and most importantly, he discriminated against blacks in providing housing and had to pay a fine, even though he never admitted to it.

But from the articles, which you have apparently not read:



I did make the mistake that the first article quoted the second article. So a quote from it would read the very same as the first quote.

I don't think you understand what al logical fallacy is.
If onek repeats fuzzy, changing & unsupported claims, then I'll repeat the criticisms.
A fallacy is an erroneous application of reasoning.
Until you actually present any reasoning, to challenge that lack is not fallacious.

It seems now you're modifying your earlier claim.....

He marked the applications "C" for "Colored". Pretty sleazy, but then: he's your president.

....to be only subordinates who did it. This is an important distinction. Did the offenders do this under Trump's direction, or was it a lower level decision?

At least now you're culling support from your articles.
But a Wash Po claim of allegations is not convincing evidence because court is all about making claims, often ridiculously wild accusations because the system is adversarial.
In an adjudicated case, there would've been a ruling.
What did it say?

I've been in court many many times, & have seen first hand that one cannot rely upon accusations to judge reality.
Example......
In a dispute over my purchase of an item, I presented a signed receipt, proof of payment, many witnesses, & other supporting documentation. Sounds overwhelming, eh? The plaintiff needed to create a climate which would counter my far stronger case, so he accused me of holding one of the witnesses on a document at gunpoint, forcing her signature. It was utterly ridiculous, & entirely unsupported. But this is what lawyers do.

 

[columbus]

You claim that Donald put the "C" for "colored" there.
Have you seen anything proving this?

Here's the thing Rev. This is not merely possible, or even plausible. It's more than likely. It would be noteworthy if it weren't true at that time and place.
Segregation of that illegal but normal variety was derigeur, most everywhere. Things have changed enormously for the better since, but it still happens now.
To me, the question is not "Did it happen?" Rather, what matters is "Is it relevant?" I don't think that it is. It was a long time ago in a world where that was the norm.
It's rather like Clinton voting for the middle east Bush Wars. Things have changed and some true events from people's past are going to be irrelevant because almost everybody has changed in that regard.
Same with the Donalds illegal and despicable segregation policy.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's the thing Rev. This is not merely possible, or even plausible. It's more than likely. It would be noteworthy if it weren't true at that time and place.
Segregation of that illegal but normal variety was derigeur, most everywhere. Things have changed enormously for the better since, but it still happens now.
To me, the question is not "Did it happen?" Rather, what matters is "Is it relevant?" I don't think that it is. It was a long time ago in a world where that was the norm.
It's rather like Clinton voting for the middle east Bush Wars. Things have changed and some true events from people's past are going to be irrelevant because almost everybody has changed in that regard.
Same with the Donalds illegal and despicable segregation policy.
Tom

You sound almost reasonable!
But it still seems that because it's "likelly", it rises to the level of confirmed fact.
Such sloppiness is normal in the media, but it's far beneath you.
(Many of us here see you as an intellectual god.)

 

[Scuba Pete]

I've been in court many many times,

This is where we part... I've only been in court for traffic violations. I keep my nose clean and I keep away from shysters trying to fleece me. You see this as fairly commonplace and unremarkable while I see the THOUSANDS of law suits Trump is involved in as astonishing and problematic. But then, he's your president and not mine, so you're going to justify his unethical actions any way you can.

If you had read the citations, you would have been agog that this pattern started with daddy Trump. No, not just the discrimination, but the denial, denial, denial. OK, I get that you're not only OK with his denials, but you're right up there with your own.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is where we part... I've only been in court for traffic violations. I keep my nose clean and I keep away from shysters trying to fleece me. You see this as fairly commonplace and unremarkable while I see the THOUSANDS of law suits Trump is involved in as astonishing and problematic. But then, he's your president and not mine, so you're going to justify his unethical actions any way you can.

If you had read the citations, you would have been agog that this pattern started with daddy Trump. No, not just the discrimination, but the denial, denial, denial. OK, I get that you're not only OK with his denials, but you're right up there with your own.

I have problems with some of Trump's business dealings.
But there's no need to believe all accusations on faith.

Btw, he's your president just as much as he is mine.
And there's nothing we can do to stop it.
The only consolation is that at least we dodged the bullet in a pantsuit.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But there's no need to believe all accusations on faith.

Why not? He's established a pattern of abuse, breaking promises, discrimination and then denial when he's called out on it. He's got a bigger lawyer is one of his strongest bargaining chips when he breaks a promise and I find that deplorable. Why don't you?

Btw, he's your president just as much as he is mine.

No, he's really not. I was pretty unhappy with Shrub, but this is ridiculous. Maybe it's finally time to emigrate! I've been considering moving back to Columbia for some time due to our horrid tort system you seem so enamored with and he's made a fairly good case for me to finally do it. Why stay where I'm not wanted?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why not?

Because if one believes all bias confirming accusations without evidence,
one will live in a very negative & distorted false reality. This is unhealthy,
& can lead to dysfunctional political views. One could wind up like these
seething & sobbing SJWs we see in the news, some of whom are driven
to abuse & even violence. You wouldn't want that.

He's established a pattern of abuse, breaking promises, discrimination and then denial when he's called out on it. He's got a bigger lawyer is one of his strongest bargaining chips when he breaks a promise and I find that deplorable. Why don't you?

The old loaded question fallacy again, eh?
Try to re-word it so that it's a real question...one worthy of answering.

No, he's really not.

He's your president....even more than he's mine.
You're more a creature of the 2 party system, while I'm a fringe extremist.
Her being nominated is something for which you've partial responsibility.
Her nomination enabled the Trump presidency.

I'd ask for an apology, but I don't think this consequence was intentional.

I was pretty unhappy with Shrub, but this is ridiculous. Maybe it's finally time to emigrate! I've been considering moving back to Columbia for some time due to our horrid tort system you seem so enamored with and he's made a fairly good case for me to finally do it. Why stay where I'm not wanted?

Threaten to emigrate?
You'd join the likes of Al Sharpton & Lena Dunham?
Ew.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Because if one believes all bias confirming accusations without evidence,
one will live in a very negative & distorted false reality.

You're simply describing Trump's campaign strategy here. There's plenty of evidence about his unethical business activities. How much do you really need? This is the real problem: you're demanding oodles and oodles of detailed evidence for Trump's wrong doings while swallowing all the jizz about Clinton without ever asking for one shred of evidence. Truly a double standard here. Comments like "we dodged that bullet" means what? We almost had a trustworthy and non-bigoted president instead of this bully bigot? Oh the horrors.

Threaten to emigrate?

Why can't white wingers learn to read and comprehend what's written? It's absolutely disgusting that you misrepresented what I wrote in that fashion. You twist Trumps failings in his favor and any one you disagree with against them.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're simply describing Trump's campaign strategy here. There's plenty of evidence about his unethical business activities. How much do you really need? This is the real problem: you're demanding evidence for Trump's wrong doings while swallowing all the jizz about Clinton without ever asking for one shred of evidence. Comments like "we dodged that bullet" means what? We almost had a trustworthy and non-bigoted president instead of this bully bigot? Oh the horrors.

Why can't white wingers learn to read and comprehend what's written? It's absolutely disgusting that you misrepresented what I wrote in that fashion. You twist Trumps failings in his favor and any one you disagree with against them.

I wonder if you even read my posts.
Your responses are strange....& ironically rife with racism.

 

[Scuba Pete]

& ironically rife with racism.

See? Yet you believe Trump is the paradigm of equality. At least, you voted that way. There's no discussing things here.

 

[Revoltingest]

See? Yet you believe Trump is the paradigm of equality. At least, you voted that way. There's no discussing things here.

I recommend more often asking people what they believe,
& less often telling them what they believe.
This leads more towards conversation than bickering.

 

[Watchmen]

Has there been any corroboration that Hillary got drunk and violent on Election Night?