The thing is it was obvious he wouldn't steal many Dem voters being an all out anti vaxxer whose own family thinks he's a nutjob. Why the right twats believed he would help their campaign is hilarious.
Trump loses 6% in the polls since his fake ear injury
- Thread starter dirtydaveiii
- Start date
And that is while he has daughters. I can imagine where he’d be mentally if he had sons.
Because the type of rich mofos who were supporting that tend to have their heads up their own asses about what people are like.
That said, it was drawing some people from both sides, both with the Kennedy name, the general "Oh fuck, we don't want Trump or Biden anymore, can't we have something new?" vibe, and the fact people don't really pay attention until later.
There was always a worry he was drawing more from Trump.
That's one of the reasons his campaign talked about coordinating with Trump to best hurt Biden in specific states.
What's happened is that the polls have shifted rather solidly in the "hurts trump more" direction now. (That may have been inevitable as people began to pay attention and as RFK Jr got weirder and weirder as the public eye turned on him, but we don't know.)
OH OH, Trump is pissed!!!
Trump DECLARES WAR on Joe Rogan After He Predicts KAMALA WIN!
Why do you think a convicted felon, convicted for cheating the government, should be in charge of american's tax money?
The afternoon may be nap time for you, but just you.
Rump was adjudicated that he committed rape and repeatedly slandered his victim, resulting in an $85 million ruling.
Why do you think the country should be lead by a rapist?
Hoping he makes it legal or something?
You're stuck in old economic theory, skoob.
Your trickle down economic model has been tried for 50 years now and has failed every single time.
Why do you keep backing failure?
Why are you making up an argument about something that I never said, and about the laws in another country?
Sounds desperate.
Are you desperate?
By that measure, we can call anyone whatever we want as long as we believe it.
Let's take that a step further and convict someone without proof.
Slippery slope indeed.
I'm the kind of person that believes that accusing someone of a serious offence in the absence of proof, and under biased scrutiny is wrong.
if you remove your cognitive bias for a moment, the whole thing was a sham.
Civil court, accusations by someone who can't even remember the year it happened, a biased judge who was the prosecutor's mentor when they worked together at a law firm, et, etc.
Open your eyes for a moment and realize you have been played.
You think the POTUS single-handedly controls the bookkeeping for the government? Haha that's funny.
All that typing and you haven't learned anything.
I gave you an opportunity to tell me why you don't fit the profile of a Marxist, even provided you a list, and instead, you go on the attack and deflect.
Tell me why you think you're not a Marxist if you tick all the boxes of the ideology?
No.
I just told you how happy I was you were being honest about your complaint instead of your weird, illogical argument about legal semantics.
Again, if you actually believe that the only people who can be called rapists are those who have been found guilty in a court of law of a crime specifically named as "rape" or if you believe the only valid definition of rape is the one that existed in New York State Law when Trump assaulted Carroll (or one that is substantially similar to that definition) then I will apologize for misunderstanding your argument and simply agree to disagree.
Straw man arguments, skoob.
rump is an adjudicated rapist and convicted felon also guilty of fraud.
Only on imbecile would give him access to taxpayer money that you know will get siphoned off into his businesses and family.
Your Marxist attacks are hilarious, you argue anything to the left of the trickle down theory is Marxism.
Don't call DJT a rapist.
Call him The King of Kings, Supreme Being on Earth. Regardless of the outcome of the November 5th election, he will be President. So it is ordained, so it will be. It's comforting to know that a 78 year old man with creeping dementia will have access to The Football again.
JD Vance doesn't look like a Wile Coyote level Supergenius by stalking Kamala Harris. To the bleary eyed it looks like he's setting up a lynching.
Call him The King of Kings, Supreme Being on Earth. Regardless of the outcome of the November 5th election, he will be President. So it is ordained, so it will be. It's comforting to know that a 78 year old man with creeping dementia will have access to The Football again.
JD Vance doesn't look like a Wile Coyote level Supergenius by stalking Kamala Harris. To the bleary eyed it looks like he's setting up a lynching.
The fact that this was a civil case, where the burden of proof is significantly lower than a criminal court case, it's essentially based on he-said/she-said.
Throw in a judge and prosecutor who are friends and coworkers.
Throw in the witness not even remembering the year it allegedly happened.
Throw in the suspect situation where they were both willingly in a dept store changeroom; two people who barely knew each other getting frisky.
Throw in overwhelming negative bias towards Trump.
Throw in a woman scorned.
Throw in a jury who did not conclude rape.
And you can argue the judgement for the plaintiff all you want...but doesn't make him a rapist.
Strawman?
You said he couldn't be trusted with managing public taxes. How is that a strawman argument?
Prove you're not a Marxist if you tick every box on the Marxism checklist of ideology.
Or
Just admit that you are and move on.
Except the jury didn't find that.
Using your same argument, civil court requires far less proof compared to criminal court.
So which argument are you going with?
Did I argue that the POTUS has single handed control over finances, as you claimed?
That was a straw man argument, a total skoob bullshit post.
