5 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

triggered . com.  around 80mil do, those that voted anyway, the more they throw at him the more popular he becomes.... guess you can't see that.

 

You do know system. Majority said he was a flawed man and booted him out of office after ONE term. He is lawless to reject a peaceful transfer of power. He ain’t getting more popular. Just a MAGA hallucination. 

5 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

triggered . com.  around 80mil do, those that voted anyway, the more they throw at him the more popular he becomes.... guess you can't see that.

 

There are 48,517,845 registered Democrats. and 36,132,743 registered republicans 

Do you think any democrats will vote for trump?I don't think so

Do you think any republicans will vote for Biden?IMO , and as they have said,  many Lincoln republicans will vote for Biden if trump is the nominee. 

A Quinnipiac University pole has Bidend leading trump 50 to 44 percent, with independants. 

So Biden will get the Democrats who are 10 million more,will get a larger percentage of the independants, and some of the republicans. 

God do I hope the Supreme court dont ruin it for us and disqualify trump. 

 

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That's hilarious. 

 

Everyone that comes out against Trump, including the old has-been columnist is a hero to the left and is catapulted to stardom. 

 

Who has come out against Trump has suffered at all? 

Your post demonstrates MagaWorld's lack of reasoning and critical thinking as it is full of logical fallacies:

1. Overgeneralization: The statement assumes that “everyone” who criticizes Trump is celebrated by “the left” and becomes famous. This is an overgeneralization as it simplifies the diverse range of views and responses within any political group.
    

2. Ad Hominem: The phrase “old has-been columnist” is an example of an ad hominem attack, which involves attacking a person’s character rather than addressing their arguments or points.
    

3. Straw Man: The statement could be seen as a straw man argument, as it misrepresents the position of “the left” by suggesting that they universally celebrate anyone who criticizes Trump, which may not accurately reflect the nuanced views within this group.
   
   Obviously, you took the blue pill.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That's hilarious. 

 

Everyone that comes out against Trump, including the old has-been columnist is a hero to the left and is catapulted to stardom. 

 

Who has come out against Trump has suffered at all? 

Depends, if you think getting your personal information published is stardom and you and your family getting death threats is not suffering.

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

yeah, not a coincident what so ever!! 😕. he was a high profile celeb, all over the tv & news..  didn't feel the need to file a lawsuit in 2 decades...funnily enough wasn't hated by the media back then, i wonder what changed all that!!

'Not a coincident (sic)'?

Seems you don't know the difference between the words 'running for office' and being a 'high profile celeb'.

Also, though understandable for MagaWorld talking points, your post seems to be a logical fallacy salad, comprising:
 

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (After this, therefore because of this): This fallacy is present in the assumption that because the lawsuits were filed after Trump announced his candidacy, they were filed because of his candidacy. Correlation does not imply causation.
    

2. Ad Hominem (Attack on Character): The phrase “funnily enough wasn’t hated by the media back then” could be seen as an ad hominem attack, as it attempts to discredit the claims by implying a bias in the media, rather than addressing the claims themselves.
    

3. Hasty Generalization: The statement “didn’t feel the need to file a lawsuit in 2 decades” is a hasty generalization. It assumes that the timing of a lawsuit is solely based on ‘feeling the need’ to file it, oversimplifying the many factors that can influence such a decision.

 

13 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

'Not a coincident (sic)'?

Seems you don't know the difference between the words 'running for office' and being a 'high profile celeb'.

Also, though understandable for MagaWorld talking points, your post seems to be a logical fallacy salad, comprising:
 

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (After this, therefore because of this): This fallacy is present in the assumption that because the lawsuits were filed after Trump announced his candidacy, they were filed because of his candidacy. Correlation does not imply causation.
    

2. Ad Hominem (Attack on Character): The phrase “funnily enough wasn’t hated by the media back then” could be seen as an ad hominem attack, as it attempts to discredit the claims by implying a bias in the media, rather than addressing the claims themselves.
    

3. Hasty Generalization: The statement “didn’t feel the need to file a lawsuit in 2 decades” is a hasty generalization. It assumes that the timing of a lawsuit is solely based on ‘feeling the need’ to file it, oversimplifying the many factors that can influence such a decision.

 

An "education" major, yes? 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

An "education" major, yes? 

While I didn’t major in education, I believe that learning is a lifelong process.

We all have the capacity to educate ourselves and others, regardless of our formal education.

 

In discussions here, for example, we’re educating each other about important issues and perspectives.

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

While I didn’t major in education, I believe that learning is a lifelong process.

We all have the capacity to educate ourselves and others, regardless of our formal education.

 

In discussions here, for example, we’re educating each other about important issues and perspectives.

Really? From your writing it seems you already know everything you ever will. 

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

'Not a coincident (sic)'?

Seems you don't know the difference between the words 'running for office' and being a 'high profile celeb'.

Also, though understandable for MagaWorld talking points, your post seems to be a logical fallacy salad, comprising:
 

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (After this, therefore because of this): This fallacy is present in the assumption that because the lawsuits were filed after Trump announced his candidacy, they were filed because of his candidacy. Correlation does not imply causation.
    

2. Ad Hominem (Attack on Character): The phrase “funnily enough wasn’t hated by the media back then” could be seen as an ad hominem attack, as it attempts to discredit the claims by implying a bias in the media, rather than addressing the claims themselves.
    

3. Hasty Generalization: The statement “didn’t feel the need to file a lawsuit in 2 decades” is a hasty generalization. It assumes that the timing of a lawsuit is solely based on ‘feeling the need’ to file it, oversimplifying the many factors that can influence such a decision.

 

apart form the spelling mistake in the beginning....its all pretty clear. like i said, funny how they waited 22 years to file a lawsuit, all that time trump was a high profile star/celeb, if he hadn't run would they have kept it to themselves and never said anything?

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

apart form the spelling mistake in the beginning....its all pretty clear. like i said, funny how they waited 22 years to file a lawsuit, all that time trump was a high profile star/celeb, if he hadn't run would they have kept it to themselves and never said anything?

Haven't you noticed that high profile celebs have been only recently sued (i.e. Weinstein and the me too movement)? Haven't you also noticed that, because of these events  a law was passed allowing to sue for older cases too?

BTW  who is "them"?

1 hour ago, candide said:

Haven't you noticed that high profile celebs have been only recently sued (i.e. Weinstein and the me too movement)? Haven't you also noticed that, because of these events  a law was passed allowing to sue for older cases too?

BTW  who is "them"?

yes i remember  metoo movement, and the 'believe women' mantra that was all over the media.... believe all women.. unless that is, you're Tara Reade and accuse Biden of sexual assault... then its believe all women, except her, she's a liar !!  everyone jumps to senile joes defense. 

'them' are the 2 girls, now women who waited 22 year until trumpo was running for president before filing a lawsuit, your sidekick loslobotomy posted about it a while ago and didn't see it as a coincidence due to his TDS blinkered brain 🙂 

1 hour ago, candide said:

Haven't you noticed that high profile celebs have been only recently sued (i.e. Weinstein and the me too movement)? Haven't you also noticed that, because of these events  a law was passed allowing to sue for older cases too?

BTW  who is "them"?

I believe the only reason the law was passed was to get Trump. Just look at who pushed it. Didn't they also change the law to try to get his state tax returns as well? 

Obviously all these trial delays are designed to ensure that Trump wins the nomination but is convicted before the general election.

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Obviously all these trial delays are designed to ensure that Trump wins the nomination but is convicted before the general election.

All what trial delays? 

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

All what trial delays? 

Trump D.C. trial drops off court’s March calendar, clearing way for N.Y. case

 

Election Judge Cannon Hands Donald Trump Much-Needed Delay in Blow to Jack Smith

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I believe the only reason the law was passed was to get Trump. Just look at who pushed it. Didn't they also change the law to try to get his state tax returns as well? 

Sure. It's been passed only because of Trump! 😀

The law that launched 2,500 sex abuse suits and felled celebrities is expiring

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/20/new-york-adult-survivors-act-law-expires-trump-diddy-bill-cosby

29 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Obviously all these trial delays are designed to ensure that Trump wins the nomination but is convicted before the general election.

Conspiracy theory.

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

yes i remember  metoo movement, and the 'believe women' mantra that was all over the media.... believe all women.. unless that is, you're Tara Reade and accuse Biden of sexual assault... then its believe all women, except her, she's a liar !!  everyone jumps to senile joes defense. 

'them' are the 2 girls, now women who waited 22 year until trumpo was running for president before filing a lawsuit, your sidekick loslobotomy posted about it a while ago and didn't see it as a coincidence due to his TDS blinkered brain 🙂 

This Tara Read? 😀

 

"Reade misrepresented herself and her life experiences on numerous occasions, including lying under oath and in court proceedings. For example, she falsely claimed to hold a bachelor's degree from Antioch University.[2]"

"In May 2023, Reade defected to Russia to seek Russian citizenship, which she announced during an interview with Sputnik in Moscow alongside suspected Kremlin spy Maria Butina, whom Reade called her friend.[4] Reade said that she felt safe in Moscow, and criticized the United States' "aggressive stance" towards her.[5]"

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation

11 minutes ago, candide said:

This Tara Read? 😀

 

"Reade misrepresented herself and her life experiences on numerous occasions, including lying under oath and in court proceedings. For example, she falsely claimed to hold a bachelor's degree from Antioch University.[2]"

"In May 2023, Reade defected to Russia to seek Russian citizenship, which she announced during an interview with Sputnik in Moscow alongside suspected Kremlin spy Maria Butina, whom Reade called her friend.[4] Reade said that she felt safe in Moscow, and criticized the United States' "aggressive stance" towards her.[5]"

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation

yeah, like i said, believe all women......unless they accuse JB.

8 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

yeah, like i said, believe all women......unless they accuse JB.

Diversion. My point was that this law has not been made for Trump.

 

Who believes all women? I tend to believe what juries have decided. 

 

She did not file a suit, so we don't know what a jury would have thought about it.... So no reason to believe her, and even less knowing her profile.

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

yes i remember  metoo movement, and the 'believe women' mantra that was all over the media.... believe all women.. unless that is, you're Tara Reade and accuse Biden of sexual assault... then its believe all women, except her, she's a liar !!  everyone jumps to senile joes defense. 

'them' are the 2 girls, now women who waited 22 year until trumpo was running for president before filing a lawsuit, your sidekick loslobotomy posted about it a while ago and didn't see it as a coincidence due to his TDS blinkered brain 🙂 

I must apologise for using the unfair tactics of reasoning, logic and facts in my discussion arguments.

In reality, I welcome ad hominem attacks as they represent a subliminal yielding to a more worthy opponent when all else has failed and they have nothing more to offer.

So, thank you for your admission.

Seems there are more than two girls who have filed lawsuits against Trump for assault.

There are five:

 

1. Ivana Trump: During their divorce proceedings in the early 90s, Ivana Trump accused Donald Trump of assaulting and raping her.
 

2. Jane Doe (also known as Katie Johnson): Jane Doe accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in 1994 when she was 13 years old.
 

3. Summer Zervos: A former contestant on “The Apprentice,” accused Donald Trump of groping her in a Los Angeles hotel room in 2007. 

4. Alva Johnson: A former campaign staffer, accused Donald Trump of forcibly kissing her without her consent in 2016.

 

5. E. Jean Carroll: Accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s

In fact, there have been 26 women who have accused him of sexual misconduct.

The 26 Women Who Have Accused Trump of Sexual Misconduct 
 

9 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   It used to be a conspiracy theory that the Jan 6 th   rioters were lefties posing as Trump supporters , now the truth is emerging 

And the rioters used to be insurrectionists, what happened?  

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And the rioters used to be insurrectionists, what happened?  

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/01/09/us/capitol-hill-insurrection-extremist-flags-soh/index.html

 

These guys can explain it to you.

22 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   It used to be a conspiracy theory that the Jan 6 th   rioters were lefties posing as Trump supporters , now the truth is emerging 

It still is a conspiracy theory.

 

But, I will ask you: are the January 6 prisoners hostages or Antifa?

23 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   It used to be a conspiracy theory that the Jan 6 th   rioters were lefties posing as Trump supporters , now the truth is emerging 

Which truth?

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And the rioters used to be insurrectionists, what happened?  

The ringleaders got nailed for sedition, so, yeah, it was an insurrection. 

Trump is not only dominating primaries he is dominating weirdness.

He is not only a reincarnation of the Messiah.....

 

 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/111869870716367808

1 minute ago, LosLobo said:

Trump is not only dominating primaries he is dominating weirdness.

He thinks he is not only a reincarnation of the Messiah.....

 

He sure cleaned that photo up a bit. It still looks ridiculous.

13 minutes ago, candide said:

Which truth?

 

   The , ermmm truth that Biden supporters participated in the Trump Jan 6 th insurrection 

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The ringleaders got nailed for sedition, so, yeah, it was an insurrection. 

So the Newsweek article you linked to was a lie? 

 

Sedition is not the same as insurrection.