Jill Stein a Clinton pawn?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

And Trump is criticizing them for doing the same thing he said he would do.

Conservative logic and hypocrisy are like peas and carrots.

Glad we agree.

Yes but the fraud is on the Dems side, big diff

[Dakine10 5,452]

Yes but the fraud is on the Dems side, big diff

I cannot condone this ongoing abuse of the comma.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

And Trump is criticizing them for doing the same thing he said he would do.

Conservative logic and hypocrisy are like peas and carrots.

Glad we agree.

Cept never said he would do the same thing they are doing

[Dakine10 5,452]

Cept never said he would do the same thing they are doing

link???

[bcking 3,157]

link???

He stated a negative. It would be much easier for you to provide a link proving him wrong than him provide a single link proving that Trump "never" said something.

He didn't specifically say what he would do. He said he would "look it at the time" or something. He left it rather vague. We can't speculate as to what he would be doing if the roles were reversed. He left enough uncertainty to wonder if he would have made a fuss, but we can't know for sure. Maybe we would have "Trump Television" already.

[Dakine10 5,452]

He stated a negative. It would be much easier for you to provide a link proving him wrong than him provide a single link proving that Trump "never" said something.

He didn't specifically say what he would do. He said he would "look it at the time" or something. He left it rather vague. We can't speculate as to what he would be doing if the roles were reversed. He left enough uncertainty to wonder if he would have made a fuss, but we can't know for sure. Maybe we would have "Trump Television" already.

I know exactly what he stated. Before you start taking things too seriously, sometimes we do joke around on here. Consider that the board has been here for many years and some of us with it. There is some context and frame of reference that you have missed.

As far as speculating what he would do if the roles are reversed, of course we can do that. That is what speculation is. Obviously we can't know what he would do.

[bcking 3,157]

I know exactly what he stated. Before you start taking things too seriously, sometimes we do joke around on here. Consider that the board has been here for many years and some of us with it. There is some context and frame of reference that you have missed.

As far as speculating what he would do if the roles are reversed, of course we can do that. That is what speculation is. Obviously we can't know what he would do.

There are a few of you who love to mention how long you've been here as if it should be a badge of honor. You realize I don't care that I'm new? A good discussion of an issue has nothing to do with how long people have been here. If anything it seems like the longer people have been around, the more likely the discussion will be weak, empty and full of insults.

Yes we can speculate. It doesn't really get us anywhere though and it's rather pointless. I like to deal in a little more than speculation.

[Dakine10 5,452]

There are a few of you who love to mention how long you've been here as if it should be a badge of honor. You realize I don't care that I'm new? A good discussion of an issue has nothing to do with how long people have been here. If anything it seems like the longer people have been around, the more likely the discussion will be weak, empty and full of insults.

I don't care that your new either. And I don't care how long anyone's been on here. However you were not discussing an issue. You were trying to correct me for posting "LINK?", and I was trying to explain to you that it was a joke based on something that has come up previously.

I'm not sure why, based on that, you felt the need to make such a generalization about long term members. I really don't think there's going to be much to discuss if you're going to get that defensive.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

He stated a negative. It would be much easier for you to provide a link proving him wrong than him provide a single link proving that Trump "never" said something.

He didn't specifically say what he would do. He said he would "look it at the time" or something. He left it rather vague. We can't speculate as to what he would be doing if the roles were reversed. He left enough uncertainty to wonder if he would have made a fuss, but we can't know for sure. Maybe we would have "Trump Television" already.

Thank you for doing my heavy wording. What he said x 2

There are a few of you who love to mention how long you've been here as if it should be a badge of honor. You realize I don't care that I'm new? A good discussion of an issue has nothing to do with how long people have been here. If anything it seems like the longer people have been around, the more likely the discussion will be weak, empty and full of insults.

Yes we can speculate. It doesn't really get us anywhere though and it's rather pointless. I like to deal in a little more than speculation.

I may just pay you to post for me. Your doing great channeling my thoughts, pledge

I don't care that your new either. And I don't care how long anyone's been on here. However you were not discussing an issue. You were trying to correct me for posting "LINK?", and I was trying to explain to you that it was a joke based on something that has come up previously.

I'm not sure why, based on that, you felt the need to make such a generalization about long term members. I really don't think there's going to be much to discuss if you're going to get that defensive.

I would be defensive too if a newbie just owned me

[Dakine10 5,452]

I would be defensive too if a newbie just owned me

You definitely would.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[bcking 3,157]

I don't care that your new either. And I don't care how long anyone's been on here. However you were not discussing an issue. You were trying to correct me for posting "LINK?", and I was trying to explain to you that it was a joke based on something that has come up previously.

I'm not sure why, based on that, you felt the need to make such a generalization about long term members. I really don't think there's going to be much to discuss if you're going to get that defensive.

I was discussing the issue. I was contributing by clarifying that when someone takes a negative hypothesis, you have to offer up the evidence of proof to the contrary. You can't produce evidence of a negative. I felt that was "on topic".

Regardless I did not intend to come across quite so rude in my second post so I apologise. It's early on a Sunday and I'm at work, so I'm probably a little grumpy. Generally you've been fine here, there have just been other people who have used "you're new here" as some sort of excuse to ignore my point and just say that I'm wrong without providing any supporting evidence.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Cept never said he would do the same thing they are doing

You are right! He indicated he might not accept an outcome where he lost. Like very close to everything else he said during the campaign, who knows what he meant or what he would actually do?

Trump was pretty spazzy and unclear on pretty much everything.

[Dashinka 24,954]

I don't care that your new either. And I don't care how long anyone's been on here. However you were not discussing an issue. You were trying to correct me for posting "LINK?", and I was trying to explain to you that it was a joke based on something that has come up previously.

I'm not sure why, based on that, you felt the need to make such a generalization about long term members. I really don't think there's going to be much to discuss if you're going to get that defensive.

I think the abuse of grammar is far worse than the abuse of commas.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

You are right!

Thank you it takes a real man to admit he is wrong