By the way the leaks could have come from the other countries, I am sure Australia has no issue with showing what a blithering IDIOT Trump is.... DD
Yeah leaks are bad sure. Can we get back to the content of the transcripts? I think Trump is shockingly unintelligent. Turnbull had to explain the boat policy like 5 times, and Trump couldn't wrap his head around it. It was incredible! I couldn't stop laughing by the third time he tried to explain it. It's a simple policy to deter refugees from making dangerous risks - and Trump after MULTIPLE explanations still assumed it was because of "where they're from". Curious to hear from my friends on the right - do you guys think he is actually smart? Part of me thought that his outward dumb comments was a performance ploy to win over the electorate. But to hear the blatant lack of intelligence on a private call? Incredible.
Why are you so focused on belittling other posters? You realize doing so doesn't help your attempts at argument, right? ROFL!!! I didn't respond with anything even approaching emotion. Try again, rookie.
It really was shocking, and I'm no Trump fan. But I thought he was a little bit smarter than what these transcripts show. And good luck getting any sort of real answer to your good and honest question from our pals in the didn't-vote-for-him-no-sirree-but-he's-better-than-any-liberal-I-guess camp.
I take this as confirmation that you don't plan at any point even attempting a coherent argument about any subject and are just trolling. Have a good day
The "attitude" to which you refers occurs nearly every time other posters ignore my arguments, accuse me of things without basis in fact, and toss out insults.
I've been asking you to attempt to make a point, and you've ignored that. If you think that you've done so, by all means re-post it. Of course, we all know that you are a mindless troll so that's probably too much to ask from you.
you have been one of the biggest "insult tossers" on the forum I can remember. I for one welcome only addressing the quality of posts and not dishing out insults so if this policy sticks you will get nothing but praise from me. The common situation seems to be 5 insults throwers, insults get tossed back then the person firing back gets the BS post you just made in their face.
He isn't close to little (bloater) or young. Not sure how old you are but he is way older than me. He never followed rational arguments before and was always quick to toss insults (and challenges to fights) so I'm interested in seeing how this return pans out.
Assuming that the leaks are coming from Obama holdovers is dishonest. You're the one who made that assumption and then posted as if it were factual. Then, when I called you out for it, you started tossing out insults and accusing me of being emotional.
This is a huge load of bullshit. The "policy" has been in place for a LONG time, with an exception made for people who choose to toss out insults first. That's likely why you found yourself at the business end of my insult machine, I will give as good as I get. Yes, evidenced by bobby choosing to ignore my arguments and tossing out insults and accusations of emotionalism instead.
I am definitely quick to toss out insults as a fair return for the same being leveled at me. You don't even seem to understand I didn't challenge you to a fight, I challenged you to prove your point by way of an experiment. You chose to lie about it instead of just politely declining.
No need to deny history, sticking with your policy moving forward is all that is required for legitimacy. This "experiment" involved fighting, which I did decline because it is insane to fight people you disagree with online. Anyways, we've been through this. Good luck with your policy, I have my doubts.
Well that's sad to hear. That just means that his body is old because when I call people "kiddo" or whatever, it's usually giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are just young and naive. In situations where they are just young and naive, they can potentially grow out of it one day. It's unfortunate to hear about those who are old that have the mentality of a child still. You think that's "dishonest" based on what? You do realize that is part of making an argument, you can't just say "I disagree" or "I think you are wrong" and leave it at that. That's why I said you never made a coherent argument, because you didn't, you just said "nuh uh" which wasn't based on anything at all. I accused you of being emotional because it was obvious that's what you based what you are now claiming was an argument on. Specifically you gave yourself away by trying to liken the president to Kim Jong-il, perhaps you thought it was clever but you sold yourself out as an unthinking overly emotional child.....even if you are old as Bandwagoner suggests.
Your memory is faulty. It isn't a new "policy," it has been my SOP since I started having political discussions. No, it didn't involve fighting at all, you can stop lying about it any time.
How would you describe an "experiment" that involves no holds barred contest to bring the other person down? Wrestling match with striking? That's not wrestling. A bout? A Match? Don't be ridiculous. You weren't thinking straight back then and a long time has passed. You seem far more rational now.
