Elizabeth Warren endorses Trump for anyone with two or more brain cells

[brooks85]

Turd you were right, her speech tonight was important!!

“Donald Trump is a loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud who has never risked anything for anyone and serves nobody but himself.”



now ignoring the obvious lies in bold, she is 100% correct about the underlined part. The same part that would tell any rational thinking person to vote for.


Good call Turd!

[rkelly110]

Yet you posted!

[brooks85]

as usual your "my truths" make no sense!! just like your business acumen lol think before you post

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/politics-economics/3265552-iger-embarrasses-bernie-sanders-his-supporters.html

[d2bets]

Turd you were right, her speech tonight was important!!

“Donald Trump is a loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud who has never risked anything for anyone and serves nobody but himself.”



now ignoring the obvious lies in bold, she is 100% correct about the underlined part. The same part that would tell any rational thinking person to vote for.


Good call Turd!

The sentence preceding that one was about how Judge Curiel risked his life going after drug traffickers and murderers. When did Donald Trump do anything comparable?

You want to change the meaning by saying that Donald risked a few bucks on something. First, that's a totally different thing and way out of context. And second, when he lost his bet he'd just declare bankruptcy or stuff his creditors.

[brooks85]

The sentence preceding that one was about how Judge Curiel risked his life going after drug traffickers and murderers. When did Donald Trump do anything comparable?

You want to change the meaning by saying that Donald risked a few bucks on something. First, that's a totally different thing and way out of context. And second, when he lost his bet he'd just declare bankruptcy or stuff his creditors.

nothing to do with what is on topic here. You're desperation is obvious.



and I didn't change the meaning in anyway whatsoever, no need to lie like dante. Aside from the lies, she is 100% correct.

[d2bets]

nothing to do with what is on topic here. You're desperation is obvious.



and I didn't change the meaning in anyway whatsoever, no need to lie like dante. Aside from the lies, she is 100% correct.

It's exactly on topic (Warren's speech). Just because you left out the context doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[brooks85]

It's exactly on topic (Warren's speech). Just because you left out the context doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

again, lying isn't going to save you. I left out no relevant information. Remember, I'm nothing like you mr. urban dictionary.


which you're further proving by focusing on warren's conjecture instead of her important endorsement for trump.

[DwightShrute]

The sentence preceding that one was about how Judge Curiel risked his life going after drug traffickers and murderers. When did Donald Trump do anything comparable?

You want to change the meaning by saying that Donald risked a few bucks on something. First, that's a totally different thing and way out of context. And second, when he lost his bet he'd just declare bankruptcy or stuff his creditors.

good for him. Totally irrelevant to his feelings whether he should recuse himself. Many people a lot smarter than you and I also think he should. Doesn't mean Trump (or anyone else) doesn't have the right to express his opinion if he feels the judge is being unfair either.

You paint this picture of Trump because he isn't politically correct. Everyone that knows him says he's a great guy. Millions that don't also think the same.

Warren is a typical lying politician. She says he's not qualified because of the awful things he says and how mean he is to people but in the same breathe she herself calls Trump all sorts of awful names. I was watching he on CNN with 2 Trump haters and they both said she is doing exactly what she's complaining Trump is doing! LOL. Pocahontas is a liar and a hypocrite.

[d2bets]

You claimed that the following bolded part was a lie: “Donald Trump is a loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud who has never risked anything for anyone and serves nobody but himself.’’

Here is the sentence immediately preceding that one: “Judge Curiel is one of countless American patriots who has spent decades quietly serving his country, sometimes at great risk to his own life,’’ Warren said.

[jtoler]

Brooks buried again, its obvious she's referring to the judge. Also Donald serving only himself isnt a positive for someone who claims he wants to serve in public office.

[d2bets]

good for him. Totally irrelevant to his feelings whether he should recuse himself. Many people a lot smarter than you and I also think he should. Doesn't mean Trump (or anyone else) doesn't have the right to express his opinion if he feels the judge is being unfair either.

You paint this picture of Trump because he isn't politically correct. Everyone that knows him says he's a great guy. Millions that don't also think the same.

Why should he? For what single reason? What is the reason other than he's of Mexican heritage and Trump has insulted Mexicans?

Judge doesn't recuse himself because the litigant whines about your rulings.

[brooks85]

lol just like jayvegas, you can always count on jtoler to jump on a sinking ship

You claimed that the following bolded part was a lie: “Donald Trump is a loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud who has never risked anything for anyone and serves nobody but himself.’’

Here is the sentence immediately preceding that one: “Judge Curiel is one of countless American patriots who has spent decades quietly serving his country, sometimes at great risk to his own life,’’ Warren said.

and this does NOTHING to prove anything for you... lol I thought you were a lawyer?



again;

again, lying isn't going to save you. I left out no relevant information. Remember, I'm nothing like you mr. urban dictionary.


which you're further proving by focusing on warren's conjecture instead of her important endorsement for trump.

do you need help with that word also? lol

[brooks85]

Brooks buried again, its obvious she's referring to the judge. Also Donald serving only himself isnt a positive for someone who claims he wants to serve in public office.

not exaggerating when I say that is one of the most uneducated statements I've ever heard/read. You're obviously very ignorant on who presidents normally serve you poor little sheepy.

[DwightShrute]

Why should he? For what single reason? What is the reason other than he's of Mexican heritage and Trump has insulted Mexicans?

Judge doesn't recuse himself because the litigant whines about your rulings.

I don't know. You don't either. That's my point.

Why was there 9 black people on the OJ Simpson Jury?
Why do they move trials to different cities when lawyers claim their defendant can't get a fair trial in the one they're at?

You've convicted Trump without the facts.

[DwightShrute]

You claimed that the following bolded part was a lie: “Donald Trump is a loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud who has never risked anything for anyone and serves nobody but himself.’’

and you obviously don't have a problem her saying things like this. Or all sorts of nasty thing people call him, including his appearance. But he calls a reporter a bimbo or has blood coming out of her whatever ... and you are outraged. LOL.

[jtoler]

not exaggerating when I say that is one of the most uneducated statements I've ever heard/read. You're obviously very ignorant on who presidents normally serve you poor little sheepy.

[d2bets]

I don't know. You don't either. That's my point.

Why was there 9 black people on the OJ Simpson Jury?
Why do they move trials to different cities when lawyers claim their defendant can't get a fair trial in the one they're at?

You've convicted Trump without the facts.

Not because of race or ethnicity. That literally CANNOT be the reason. And jury selection CANNOT be race-based. That's the law. Similarly, a judge cannot be accused of bias based on race or ethnicity. Donald Trump does not understand this, and apparently neither do you.

I haven't convicted Trump. I'm looking forward to seeing how the trial comes out (I think he's going to lose). November should be fun. First he's going to lose the election. Then he's going to lose the case.

[DwightShrute]

Not because of race or ethnicity. That literally CANNOT be the reason. And jury selection CANNOT be race-based. That's the law. Similarly, a judge cannot be accused of bias based on race or ethnicity. Donald Trump does not understand this, and apparently neither do you.

I haven't convicted Trump. I'm looking forward to seeing how the trial comes out (I think he's going to lose). November should be fun. First he's going to lose the election. Then he's going to lose the case.

I am not saying it is race based. Some people just think differently and every person in court tries to get the best possible advantage. Trump is no different and unless you have seen how the case has gone with the judge, you have no idea whether him wanting the judge recused is valid or not. But you pretend you do.

and apparently neither do you.

ya ok. Read all your posts about him and his lawsuit. No one believes you. No one.

[brooks85]

you don't know what ad hominem means lol wow jtoler, you're impressive


I DARE you to post the definition of ad hominem lol

[brooks85]

hey.. and don't be going to urban dictionary. You might be ignorant but no reason to be a scumbag intellectually like some people...

[Andy117]

Brooks buried again, its obvious she's referring to the judge. Also Donald serving only himself isnt a positive for someone who claims he wants to serve in public office.

There's no chance that brooks is smart enough to pick up on that.

[khicks26]

not exaggerating when I say that is one of the most uneducated statements I've ever heard/read. You're obviously very ignorant on who presidents normally serve you poor little sheepy.

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

• 1.
  (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
  [COLOR=#878787 !important]"vicious ad hominem attacks"[/COLOR]
  
  
  
  
• 2.
  relating to or associated with a particular person.
  [COLOR=#878787 !important]"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"[/COLOR]
  
  
  

[brooks85]

There's no chance that brooks is smart enough to pick up on that.

i noticed you didn't use the word THE... I guess you just cherry picked that one out..lol oh andy, look what you've relegated yourself too

[brooks85]

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

• 1.
  (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
  [COLOR=#878787 !important]"vicious ad hominem attacks"[/COLOR]
  
  
  
• 2.
  relating to or associated with a particular person.
  [COLOR=#878787 !important]"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"[/COLOR]
  
  
  

bingo khicks, thank you highlighting the difference. You've finally stopped digging.

[Turd Ferguson]

Good call Turd!

It sure was, Liz hit a home run as expected. Biden was great too!

Hillary with President Obama, Bernie, and Liz Warren vs Trump and his army of angry racist rednecks...I like the good guys' odds.

[brooks85]

It sure was, Liz hit a home run as expected. Biden was great too!

Hillary with President Obama, Bernie, and Liz Warren vs Trump and his army of angry racist rednecks...I like the good guys' odds.

I agree, her endorsement for trump was one of the most hilarious in history.


the funny part is she actually had to "think" before she put it in her speech but said it anyways lol

[Andy117]

i noticed you didn't use the word THE... I guess you just cherry picked that one out..lol oh andy, look what you've relegated yourself too

I also didn't use the word NEVER.

But you haven't caught on to the meaning of that yet. Maybe one day you'll get it. But we all know you're not that sharp.

[brooks85]

I also didn't use the word NEVER.

But you haven't caught on to the meaning of that yet. Maybe one day you'll get it. But we all know you're not that sharp.

why would I?

I didn't post 4 quotes in context, cherry pick one out of context then say it wasn't cherry picking did I? That was you.

keep digging that hole andy, I enjoy watching. Tell me when you reach khicks lol

[khicks26]

why would I?

I didn't post 4 quotes in context, cherry pick one out of context then say it wasn't cherry picking did I? That was you.

keep digging that hole andy, I enjoy watching. Tell me when you reach khicks lol

Originally Posted by khicks26
At least I know when I have been betrayed. Not that I'm a DEM.Are you voting for Trump because you feel betrayed? But yet you still preach the right wing values.

Trump was a DEM at one time. Take away his acting like a Nazi & playing on your fears. He pretty much ran on DEM values, pointing out everything you hate about REP's.

I have see you say so yourself. Life sure is funny.




lol you lose credibility quickly khicks. We've been posting together too long, I know exactly what you are.



If Hillary's last name wasn't Clinton you would be up her ass with support. Let that reality sink in khicks.

Originally Posted by khicks26
More cherry picking, LOL No need to reply.

[brooks85]

^ I already embarrassed you on that lol keep up


plus has nothing to do with anything this thread. Your desperation reeks.


I appreciate the ad hominem definition though because it was clear I specifically made my argument against his factually ignorant response.

[khicks26]

Originally Posted by brooks85cherry pick one

Originally Posted by khicks26
More cherry picking,

[jtoler]

bingo khicks, thank you highlighting the difference. You've finally stopped digging.

Thats precisely what you did. What is wrong with you?

[brooks85]

^wrong



Originally Posted by jtoler
Brooks buried again, its obvious she's referring to the judge. Also Donald serving only himself isnt a positive for someone who claims he wants to serve in public office.

not exaggerating when I say that is one of the most uneducated statements I've ever heard/read. You're obviously very ignorant on who presidents normally serve you poor little sheepy.

"of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."


I am specifically talking about the position you are mainting and it is factually wrong therefore I can call you ignorant all penetrating day.

[brooks85]

Originally Posted by brooks85cherry pick one

Originally Posted by khicks26
More cherry picking,

awesome non response... lol I think you've confused yourself with your quote-ception

[brooks85]

who do presidents serve jtoler?






this is going to be funny. Since you usually run at this point I'll be sure to follow up tomorrow until you answer.