Rat

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Well with all the Trump X cabinet appointees and campaign staffers cooperating with the Mueller investigation, only Trump and his base would characterize them as "Rats" to begin with. Since multiple convictions have been handed out and with Trump continuing to suggest many have had a raw deal handed to them, I'm pretty sure pluralizing the statements works. It is certainly going to be an interesting new year and I think Donny and his darling little boys are not going to be too happy with the end result.

Yeah, yeah, yada, yada, yada . . . I referred to specific actual text, to specific misleading verbiage and statements, and I get back expanded, vague, inflated, inaccurate, deflective, suggestive, speculative, rhetoric, accompanied by typical insulting characterizations.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, yeah, yada, yada, yada . . . I referred to specific actual text, to specific misleading verbiage and statements, and I get back expanded, vague, inflated, inaccurate, deflective, suggestive, speculative, rhetoric, accompanied by typical insulting characterizations.

yada, yada, yada . you ignore or discount All Trump's comment his subordinates actions and comments all the guilty pleas and the like and dismiss them as vague, inflated, inaccurate, deflective, suggestive, speculative, rhetoric, accompanied by typical insulting characterizations.

But they have all happened you can watch some on you tube ?????

but Hillary's emails now that's a scandal

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

yada, yada, yada . you ignore or discount All Trump's comment his subordinates actions and comments all the guilty pleas and the like and dismiss them as vague, inflated, inaccurate, deflective, suggestive, speculative, rhetoric, accompanied by typical insulting characterizations.

But they have all happened you can watch some on you tube ?????

but Hillary's emails now that's a scandal

Why on earth must I have to refer to Trump's comments when I am talking about yours? It was your words, your misinformation. Your lies and propaganda.

You have tunnel vision when you criticize Trump. You don't give any credence to his supporters. You don't try to be egalitarian, or fair, or objective. So, forgive me if I focused solely on you. And, what is worse, you often use deceptive rhetoric, which is what I was pointing out. There was no need nor reason that I had to discuss Trump's rhetoric. I was speaking solely of yours.

Your deflection to Hillary's emails scandals do not absolve you of your deceptions.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Why on earth must I have to refer to Trump's comments when I am talking about yours? It was your words, your misinformation. Your lies and propaganda.

You have tunnel vision when you criticize Trump. You don't give any credence to his supporters. You don't try to be egalitarian, or fair, or objective. So, forgive me if I focused solely on you. And, what is worse, you often use deceptive rhetoric, which is what I was pointing out. There was no need nor reason that I had to discuss Trump's rhetoric. I was speaking solely of yours.

Your deflection to Hillary's emails scandals do not absolve you of your deceptions.

Said the guy who all to frequently posts links to someone else’s (propaganda) video or news piece to make “his” point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Said the guy who all to frequently posts links to someone else’s (propaganda) video or news piece to make “his” point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All too frequently? If you think so, we may disagree on the meaning of "too".

And I would think that, if that's what you think, you would be relieved that here, in the criticisms of you and WDMSO, I didn't do that. And, BTW, there has been no rebuttal to what I said, as is often (all too often?) the case in those times I link to a source.

And in this case, in my criticisms of your and WDMSO's misinformation, I pointed out, without a link, in my own words, exactly what the "lies" were. Instead of deflecting to my supposedly overuse of links, you could actually point out where I was wrong.