Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

His increasingly erratic behavior is pointing to something of the sort, so I'm curious what KMC thinks. Any mental / nervous breakdown incoming?

Originally posted by |King Joker|
His increasingly erratic behavior is pointing to something of the sort, so I'm curious what KMC thinks. Any mental / nervous breakdown incoming?

What behavior do you feel he has shown that was absent prior to the election?

Seems to me Trump has been..Trump lol. For better or for worse. I can't point to anything nutty he's done in the post election days that I would have been utterly shocked to see him do prior to the election.

I'll vote no. I suppose anything is possible, but I'm no shrink so whether I say no or yes doesn't mean much. I don't feel he'd be in anymore danger of a mental breakdown than the other people who tried to become president in this election.

True for the most part I suppose, though I feel like his constant outbursts of 'FAKE NEWS' and actually responding to Meryl Streep via Twitter has me a tad more concerned about his temperament than perveiously.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
True for the most part I suppose, though I feel like his constant outbursts of 'FAKE NEWS

Considering the number of people on the left who shout about fake news, if this pointed to mental instability then we have a whole lot of mentally unstable folk on both sides.

Anyways, shouldn't he be ticked at fake news? Look at this bullshit with John McCain and Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed originates some report saying Russia has compromising information of Trump.

It can't be substantiated at all. The people who shout "they say the source is a credible british intelligence agent" ignore the variety of errors in the report, as well as just the overall lack of evidence.

Yet..news sites are running with it, and of course people are assuming it is true because the media said it.

Why is it that it seems you can only be pissed over fake news if you're from the left? Nobody gives a shit unless the fake news harmed Hilary Clinton. I'm not saying you personally believe that, I'm just noticing people have zero problems with fake news unless it hurts those they support.

Another question: people are upset about stuff about the DNC being leaked, etc. What are the chances they will be upset about shit about Trump being leaked?



It's nothing new for Trump to respond to people who specifically call him out in public. She calls him out without having the balls to say his name. She shows hypocrisy by preaching tolerance and patting herself and fellow libs on the back for their tolerance, but then of course takes a shot at football and MMA fans.

To me? I'm glad Trump isn't afraid to call these people on their stupid bullshit. Like it or not these dumbass celebrities do have some influence. So when they try to open their mouths about politics, it's fair game for anyone(including Trump) to respond.

#Triggered

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
#Triggered

I forgot that the truth can trigger some.

Remember, Podesta's emails about aliens giving humanity zero-point energy and blood orgies and semen filled pastries etc were all true just cos someone printed them. Weird stories about Trump, well, those need to be confirmed first. Such is the workings of Surtur's mind.

Originally posted by Robtard
Remember, Podesta's emails about aliens giving humanity zero-point energy and blood orgies and semen filled pastries etc were all true just cos someone printed them. Weird stories about Trump, well, those need to be confirmed first. Such is the workings of Surtur's mind.

If you're gonna be stupid at least pick better examples. Podesta has said plenty of shit about aliens and ufos, outside of the wikileaks.

A lot of ufologists wanted a Hilary Clinton victory, and why? Because they thought her team would do the most to declassify shit with UFO's.

But don't bother to point that out. Also by all means try to compare the wikileaks to an issue where even the people reporting on it flat out say they can't verify it.

Because you're Robtard, and as long as you can come in and thump on your chest? You don't give a shit if the stuff you say makes any actual sense. But let me guess: triggered?

Originally posted by Robtard
Remember, Podesta's emails about aliens giving humanity zero-point energy and blood orgies and semen filled pastries etc were all true just cos someone printed them. Weird stories about Trump, well, those need to be confirmed first. Such is the workings of Surtur's mind.

Let's be real. Those docs came ftom John McCain. He's old and bitter. Now, pizzagate on the other hand

Originally posted by Unoriginal
Let's be real. Those docs came ftom John McCain. He's old and bitter. Now, pizzagate on the other hand

Plus if we're being real they are flat out saying they can't be verified. Buzzfeed is, most news places are.

I missed the part of wikileaks where they posted the emails, but said they can't be verified as legit.

Probably when he finds out his dad conspired with Justin Trudeau's alleged real dad to assassinate JFK

Originally posted by jaden101
Probably when he finds out his dad conspired with Justin Trudeau's alleged real dad to assassinate JFK

WWaLxFIVX1s

Originally posted by Surtur
If you're gonna be stupid at least pick better examples. Podesta has said plenty of shit about aliens and ufos, outside of the wikileaks.

A lot of ufologists wanted a Hilary Clinton victory, and why? Because they thought her team would do the most to declassify shit with UFO's.

But don't bother to point that out. Also by all means try to compare the wikileaks to an issue where even the people reporting on it flat out say they can't verify it.

Because you're Robtard, and as long as you can come in and thump on your chest? You don't give a shit if the stuff you say makes any actual sense. But let me guess: triggered?

Look at you desperately focus of the UFO nonsense. The orgies, cum cakes etc., you bought it all, just because someone printed it and you hate Clinton.

You still can't figure out that the very nature of Wikileaks means the emails can't be verified.

When it comes to Clinton, it's all true until proven false. When it comes to Trump, you demand proof. That's clown tactics, sport.

Trump having a breakdown in office are probably far less then if the Hilldawg being in office and having another seizure and falling down on camera.

Which would have been awesome.

Originally posted by Surtur
I forgot that the truth can trigger some. It triggered you this time. Lol.

Surtur's humiliation continues.

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at you desperately focus of the UFO nonsense. The orgies, cum cakes etc., you bought it all, just because someone printed it and you hate Clinton.

Lmao, look at you desperately trying to deflect, after always whining about other people deflecting.

Did I go on and on about orgies and shit? No? Okay lol. Did we see the DNC coming out to say these emails weren't real? Not that I ever saw.



You still can't figure out this isn't the same as the people who provided it flat out saying "we can't verify this". If Julian Assange had, at the very beginning, prefaced the first release with "I have no idea if these are legit" you'd have a point. Did he do that? If he did not, why do you continue attempting to draw up these false equivalencies? Either Julian Assange did say that or you are legitimately unaware he didn't. Or you just don't care enough to be accurate.



When it comes to things where even the people reporting it say it can be verified? Yeah, I want them verified. But you can continue to try to downplay the obvious differences and your own hypocritical bullshit.

Yes, you believed all the emails leaks.

More backflips. Unless the person releasing claims they're BS, they're true now; this is your standard? Lolz. Do you every go back and read what you write? You'd probably laugh at yourself if you did.

IMO, the thread should be renamed "Will Surtur have a mental breakdown defending his defenseless stances?" Imho, yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, you believed all the emails leaks.

More backflips. Unless the person releasing claims they're BS, they're true now; this is your standard? Lolz. Do you every go back and read what you write? You'd probably laugh at yourself if you did.

Holy shit, more pot calling the kettle black. I never said that was my standard. I'm pointing out the differences in the comparisons you are trying to use, but you can't handle that, you never can. It's why you revert to the same cliched bullshit every time.

I want this shit verified because even the people putting it out said they couldn't verify it. Julian Assange did not say he couldn't verify the wikileaks, nor did Podesta or Hilary ever come out and tell the world the emails were not real. You drew a false equivalency, failed miserably, and then you are the one commenting about going back and reading the things one says? Is that a joke?



Lol right.

FFS, say what you mean and mean what you say for once in your life then.

You're cracking and Trump hasn't been sworn in yet, buddy.

Originally posted by Robtard
FFS, say what you mean and mean what you say for once in your life then.

You're cracking and Trump hasn't been sworn in yet, buddy.

Lol, is this all you can even do now? When proven wrong you just spout random crap now?

Has Quans cheerleading gone to your head?

Lol, look at this cuck

Trying to compare 4chan fanfiction to e mails that are so fake that Obama sent troops to Russia's border

Oh my, two consecutive #triggerings. Skillz.

#doubletrigger

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Lol, look at this cuck

Trying to compare 4chan fanfiction to e mails that are so fake that Obama sent troops to Russia's border

The best part is if you basically correct anything they say they just shout "triggered" or "you're slipping" or some variation of the two.

They can bring up all the false equivalencies they want, practice hypocrisy on a rampant scale, but the moment they suspect someone else of behaving that way..lol, they lose their minds.

I mean holy shit though, the people who released these even said it couldn't be verified. But this is somehow comparable to wikileaks because..who knows?

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh my, two consecutive #triggerings. Skillz.

#doubletrigger

Lol, case in point.

The point is that yes, you indeed did believe all the emails, even the most ridiculous ones; never once asking for proof. Keep dodging and I'll keep pointing it out, sport.

Originally posted by Robtard
The point is that yes, you indeed did believe all the emails, even the most ridiculous ones; never once asking for proof. Keep dodging and I'll keep pointing it out, sport.

The point is, though, that Julian Assange didn't come out and say they couldn't be verified before releasing those emails.

So you can keep pointing it out, and I'll keep pointing out the differences in the situation. So it seems we understand each other. Any dodging by the other will be pointed out. So in the future, I don't want to see the fact the people releasing this even said it couldn't be verified not mentioned, you hear?

Did you ever imagine that it wouldn't have been in his best interest to let people know that the very nature of his leaks means said leaks/emails can't be verified?

I understand that you have double standards.

Will? Because he hasn't already?

Originally posted by Robtard
Did you ever imagine that it wouldn't have been in his best interest to let people know that the very nature of his leaks means said leaks/emails can't be verified?


It depends. If he knew they couldn't be verified but said nothing..the potential blowback if people found out would be substantial and could cause wikileaks to be taken even less seriously than if they had come out in the beginning and said they can't be verified. Also I feel the need to point out that just because it would be advantageous to lie in a situation doesn't mean you are necessarily lying. If it meant that then a whole bunch of politicians would be in trouble.

But this still doesn't actually change reality. The situation still is I'm asking for verification over something in which the people who first reported on it said they can't verify it. That's suspicious to me, when even Buzzfeed makes a point of saying that.

Originally posted by Surtur
It depends. If he knew they couldn't be verified but said nothing..the potential blowback if people found out would be substantial and could cause wikileaks to be taken even less seriously than if they had come out in the beginning and said they can't be verified. Also I feel the need to point out that just because it would be advantageous to lie in a situation doesn't mean you are necessarily lying. If it meant that then a whole bunch of politicians would be in trouble.

But this still doesn't actually change reality. The situation still is I'm asking for verification over something in which the people who first reported on it said they can't verify it. That's suspicious to me, when even Buzzfeed makes a point of saying that.

No, it doesn't depend.

The point is and has always been that you have double standards and will believe any story; no matter how ridiculous if it's anti-Clinton/Democrats/Liberal, what are anathema to you.

Change these ridiculous cloak-and-dagger and Golden Shower stories to be about Clinton and you'll demand that they're true unless proven false. You've done this.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it doesn't depend.

Lol yes, whether someone would willingly choose to cover up a story couldn't be verified does depend on the circumstances. You have to compare the gain with the potential loss.



Except no, the point is I don't accept stories that boil down to mere claims, and whose supplier says they can't be verified.

If Julian Assange came out, said he had emails which showed (insert shady thing) about the DNC, I wouldn't believe him. I'd want to see the emails, I'd want to know they exist.

When someone comes out and right off the bat says this can't be verified..then I am not going to give it any credence until it is.

I also do love how whenever I attempt to point out your hypocritical bullshit and double standards I'm either deflecting or triggered. But when you decide to do it? It suddenly becomes okay lol.

IOW: "Robtard said I often use double standards today so I'm going to say he does." -Surtur

Originally posted by Robtard
IOW: "Robtard said I often use double standards today so I'm going to say he does." -Surtur

You routinely tried to draw silly comparisons and were called on it. You are now attempting to draw attention away from it by implying that since I accused you of something you accused me of...it means what I have said is not valid. Despite both of us having called each other hypocrites many times in the past, but I guess you called dibs on it today?

Originally posted by Surtur
You routinely tried to draw silly comparisons and were called on it.

You are now attempting to draw attention away from it by implying that since I accused you of something you accused me of...it means what I have said is not valid. Despite both of us having called each other hypocrites many times in the past, but I guess you called dibs on it today?

Incorrect.

The word(s) of the day is "double standard"; not hypocrisy, sport. Keep up or just stop talking.

ps You ***** and moan a lot

Originally posted by Robtard
The word(s) of the day is "double standard"' not hypocrisy, sport. Keep up or just stop talking.

But we've also accused each other of that before as well.

Originally posted by Robtard
ps You ***** and moan a lot

https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg

Originally posted by Surtur
But we've also accused each other of that before as well.
Originally posted by Robtard

ps You ***** and moan a lot

I think he could have a mental breakdown. I've heard that he doesn't get a lot of sleep which isn't going to do any favors for his already strained mental capacity. Plus urine doesn't have the necessary vitamins and minerals that the mind needs to operate and peak capacity, so that might be a problem since that seems to be his drink of choice.

I think he's likely to get himself impeached before any mental breakdown occurs.

Okay I admit, you fooled me. Touche indeed.

Originally posted by BackFire
I think he could have a mental breakdown. I've heard that he doesn't get a lot of sleep which isn't going to do any favors for his already strained mental capacity. Plus urine doesn't have the necessary vitamins and minerals that the mind needs to operate and peak capacity, so that might be a problem since that seems to be his drink of choice.

I think he's likely to get himself impeached before any mental breakdown occurs.

Yeah, but I doubt most presidents got much sleep.

Originally posted by BackFire
I think he could have a mental breakdown. I've heard that he doesn't get a lot of sleep which isn't going to do any favors for his already strained mental capacity. Plus urine doesn't have the necessary vitamins and minerals that the mind needs to operate and peak capacity, so that might be a problem since that seems to be his drink of choice.

I think he's likely to get himself impeached before any mental breakdown occurs.

Is the claim that he's a piss-drinker or that he enjoys being pissed on by underage Ruskie prostitutes?

Originally posted by Robtard
Is the claim that he's a piss-drinker or that he enjoys being pissed on by underage Ruskie prostitutes?

Doesn't really matter. Both are out there now, thus, both are true.

He needs to get out in front of this and specifically deny it.

Originally posted by Robtard
He needs to get out in front of this and specifically deny it.

Hmm? Why? Are you saying the lack of a specific denial of something lends credibility to that something?

Originally posted by Surtur
Hmm? Why? Are you saying the lack of a specific denial of something lends credibility to that something?

I'm using your logic. eg where Clinton not coming and denying that Podesta has blood orgies where people eat semen cakes means the story is true. Let me guess, we can't use that same standard because Trump.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm using your logic. eg where Clinton not coming and denying that Podesta has blood orgies where people eat semen cakes means the story is true. Let me guess, we can't use that same standard because Trump.

You misunderstand me. Use it, I just wanted to make sure you're approving it's use.

By all means, apply it.

Originally posted by Surtur
You misunderstand me. Use it, I just wanted to make sure you're approving it's use.

By all means, apply it.

So why aren't you condemning Trump for this? Since it's apparently true using your standards.

I dunno, I'm just not sure what to think. I'm not saying he likes to drink urine and donates large sums of money to NAMBLA. I'm not saying that. I'm just asking questions, questions that deserve answers. Why are so many people saying that he likes to drink children's pee and give so much money to NAMBLA? It's just strange is all, why so many people are saying he gets peed on all the time.

Originally posted by Surtur
A lot of really smart people said Hilary would be our next president. Sucks, right? For them, I mean. Being so majorly wrong probably is a blow to the ego(a lot of intelligent people, for some reason, are arrogant). You also said trump didn't have a chance, dummy.

Originally posted by Robtard
So why aren't you condemning Trump for this? Since it's apparently true using your standards.

But he said the reports weren't true, did he not?

Was there more than one report? I heard of a 35 page report. He specifically addressed the report and said it is nonsense. Hilary never specifically said wikileaks in general(or even a specific email) were nonsense.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You also said trump didn't have a chance, dummy.

But this doesn't change the fact a lot of smart people were hilariously wrong.

Originally posted by Surtur
But this doesn't change the fact a lot of smart people were hilariously wrong. You aren't smart and you were also wrong. Smarter people are still up on your dumb ass.

Originally posted by BackFire
I dunno, I'm just not sure what to think. I'm not saying he likes to drink urine and donates large sums of money to NAMBLA. I'm not saying that. I'm just asking questions, questions that deserve answers. Why are so many people saying that he likes to drink children's pee and give so much money to NAMBLA? It's just strange is all, why so many people are saying he gets peed on all the time.

It's butthurt over losing the election. Losing sucks, amirite? It's almost like they lost several times. The election. The attempt to get electors not to vote for Trump. The attempt to object when congress counted the votes.

So many losses? It's gotta hurt and it's gotta cloud a lot of peoples minds.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You aren't smart and you were also wrong. Smarter people are still up on your dumb ass.

You seem to be under the impression I claimed to be some very smart person or anything of the sort? I simply responded to the logic of "a lot of smart people think" being used, that is all.

Originally posted by Surtur
You seem to be under the impression I claimed to be some very smart person or anything of the sort? I simply responded to the logic of "a lot of smart people think" being used, that is all. Glad to hear you admit you're a dumb ass. You were also still wrong.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's butthurt over losing the election. Losing sucks, amirite? It's almost like they lost several times. The election. The attempt to get electors not to vote for Trump. The attempt to object when congress counted the votes.

So many losses? It's gotta hurt and it's gotta cloud a lot of peoples minds.

You may be right. But so many people are saying that he likes to get urinated on. So many great and smart people are saying it. Maybe there's some truth to it. These are great people, ok? Really great people saying that he hired Russian teenage prostitutes to urinate on him. I just don't know what to believe.

Originally posted by Surtur
But he said the reports weren't true, did he not?

Was there more than one report? I heard of a 35 page report. He specifically addressed the report and said it is nonsense. Hilary never specifically said wikileaks in general(or even a specific email) were nonsense.

Not sure, did he specifically say that he's never paid underage prostitutes to urinate on him? Cos the reports made multiple claims, yeah? If so, please post the source.

Personally, I don't believe it, but I have standards of proof I adhere to.

Originally posted by BackFire
You may be right. But so many people are saying that he likes to get urinated on. So many great and smart people are saying it. Maybe there's some truth to it. These are great people, ok? Really great people saying that he hired Russian teenage prostitutes to urinate on him. I just don't know what to believe.

Out of curiosity, could you name 3 smart people saying this for sure happened?

Originally posted by Surtur
Out of curiosity, could you name 3 smart people saying this for sure happened?

Just so many people on twitter, and on the internet, are saying that he paid child prostitutes to urinate on him. There's just so many people saying it, and they're very smart people saying it, the best people, that he likes to get peed on by children. I'm not saying it's true or that I believe it, I'm just saying what I'm hearing is all. I'm not saying I believe that he hired Russian child prostitutes to urinate into his mouth. I'm not saying that.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Glad to hear you admit you're a dumb ass. You were also still wrong.

So saying you have never claimed to be one thing means you are in fact the complete opposite of that? Alright.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure, did he specifically say that he's never paid underage prostitutes to urinate on him, cos the reports made multiple claims? If so, please post the source.

Personally I don't believe it, but I have standards of proof I adhere to.

Man you just have no luck with comparisons today do you? It's okay.

Originally posted by BackFire
Just so many people on twitter, and on the internet, are saying that he paid child prostitutes to urinate on him. There's just so many people saying it, and they're very smart people saying it, the best people, that he likes to get peed on by children. I'm not saying it's true or that I believe it, I'm just saying what I'm hearing is all. I'm not saying I believe that he hired Russian child prostitutes to urinate into his mouth. I'm not saying that.

That's the longest "no" I've seen in a while.

Originally posted by Surtur
So saying you have never claimed to be one thing means you are in fact the complete opposite of that? Alright.



Man you just have no luck with comparisons today do you? It's okay. I am intelligent you aren't. This isn't rocket science, dummy.

Originally posted by Surtur

Man you just have no luck with comparisons today do you? It's okay.

Nice dodge, all you had to do was show your source. What are you scared of; is it the wtf chance that you both support and defend a pedo piss drinker?

Originally posted by quanchi112
I am intelligent you aren't. This isn't rocket science, dummy.

I think I understand. How intelligent would you say you are? On a scale of 1 to 10?

Originally posted by Robtard
Nice dodge, all you had to do was show your source. What are you scared of; is it the wtf chance that you both support and defend a pedo piss drinker?

There was no dodge at all. I told you that Trump denied the report was true. You've been flailing around this topic trying desperately to compare it to wikileaks. It's quite amusing.

If you ask me for my source on Trump denying the report, look no further than his recent press conference. Not the only time it happened, but probably the most recent.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think I understand. How intelligent would you say you are? On a scale of 1 to 10? Seeing as how these numbers will send that mini brain of yours into overload I'll make it simple. Smarter than you.


Ps. Are you excited he likes to be peed on. Does this make you love the man more so than you already have ?

Originally posted by Surtur
There was no dodge at all. I told you that Trump denied the report was true.

And I asked you to show the source, which you dodged. How is this hard? Anyhow.

Tell me, on a scale of 0-10, how embarrassed will you be if this in all likelihood BS story turns out to be true and you're a guy who both supports and defends a pedo piss drinker (PPD)?

0 being not at all, 10 being you'd likely kill yourself instead of facing your family, friends and colleagues.

Originally posted by Surtur
That's the longest "no" I've seen in a while.

Look I'm not making a claim here. I'm just asking questions about why he may or may not like to get peed on by children. I have no way of knowing if it's true or not, but it is strange that he hasn't flat out denied that he likes to be urinated on by Russian children. It would be very easy for him to deny that he likes to get peed on by Russians all the time but he hasn't.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Seeing as how these numbers will send that mini brain of yours into overload I'll make it simple. Smarter than you.


Ps. Are you excited he likes to be peed on. Does this make you love the man more so than you already have ?

Everybody knows you have a thing for piss. Even a mod clowned you about it lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
Everybody knows you have a thing for piss. Even a mod clowned you about it lol. I have rarely seen a mod specifically try to own someone, it was hilarious. A mod altered a quote with his powers. Trump may have paid women to urinate. Now I know you're self admittedly a moron but how can you see these two as one and the same. Please explain, dummy.

Originally posted by Robtard
And I asked you to show the source, which you dodged. How is this hard? Anyhow.

I just told you where you could find it.



0. Do you have any further questions?

Originally posted by quanchi112
A mod altered a quote with his powers. Trump may have paid women to urinate. Now I know you're self admittedly a moron but how can you see these two as one and the same. Please explain, dummy.

You've shown a thing for piss in other places too lol. But keep avoiding that.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just told you where you could find it.



0. Do you have any further questions? 0 means you accept it and kind of like it. You're a freak.

Originally posted by Surtur
You've shown a thing for piss in other places too lol. But keep avoiding that. I said you'd drink his piss but apparently the two of you would drink some Russian skanks pee.

Originally posted by quanchi112
0 means you accept it and kind of like it. You're a freak.

He asked how embarrassed I'd be, I'd say not at all. What would be embarrassing is knowing someone likes this stuff and still supporting them.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just told you where you could find it.



0. Do you have any further questions?

You edited your post telling me to go look for it. That's not showing your source, that's asking another person to prove your claims. You often do this.

You're a weird one.

Originally posted by Surtur
He asked how embarrassed I'd be, I'd say not at all. What would be embarrassing is knowing someone likes this stuff and still supporting them. You said 0 which shows this wouldn't bother you at all. Be honest you would love this to be true. You love this sick shit.

Originally posted by Robtard
You edited your post telling me to go look for it. That's not showing your source, that's asking another person to prove your claims. You often do this.

You're a weird one.

I told you the most recent one was his press conference. I'm now telling you again.

It's worth a watch, he calls CNN a fake news site, it's funny.

Originally posted by Surtur
I told you the most recent one was his press conference. I'm now telling you again.

It's worth a watch, he calls CNN a fake news site, it's funny. You love everything about the trump even the urine.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You love everything about the trump even the urine.

Man I'm guessing with the talk of piss in the report it's kinda like some form of erotica for you? You seem to enjoy thinking about others enjoying urine.

Originally posted by Surtur
I told you the most recent one was his press conference. I'm now telling you again.

It's worth a watch, he calls CNN a fake news site, it's funny.

I want the quote and source.

Considering his praise of Breitbart, it's silly for him to call another news agency fake. Some may call that being hypocritical of sorts.

Originally posted by Surtur
Man I'm guessing with the talk of piss in the report it's kinda like some form of erotica for you? You seem to enjoy thinking about others enjoying urine. You said 0 out of ten you love this shit. It doesn't bother you in the slightest. You're a freak.

Originally posted by Robtard
I want the quote and source.

I told you the most recent one was a press conference. If you don't want to track it down it's cool.



But you yourself practice hypocrisy on epic scales while calling it out when you think you see it in others. Do you find what you just said is maybe the very opposite of being self aware?

Originally posted by quanchi112
You said 0 out of ten you love this shit. It doesn't bother you in the slightest. You're a freak.

Question wasn't about love, but level of embarrassment. Stop not knowing things.

Originally posted by Surtur
I told you the most recent one was a press conference. If you don't want to track it down it's cool.

But you yourself practice hypocrisy on epic scales while calling it out when you see it in others. Do you find what you just said is maybe the very opposite of being self aware?

Repeat: You're still asking me to prove your claim. How can you not understand that or are you dancing again because you can't prove your own claims?

Now you're resorting to insulting me because I pointed out Trump's factual nonsense and it upsets you. Very mature, sport.

Unlike you, I can provide proof of claims. Fake Breitbart story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/07/german-police-quash-breitbart-story-of-mob-setting-fire-to-dortmund-church

Originally posted by Robtard
Repeat: You're still asking me to prove your claim. How can you not understand that or are you dancing again because you can't prove your own claims?

Who is dancing around claims? I told you that he spoke about it in his press conference. No, I'm not going to go track down the specific wording of it. If you want it go get it lol.

The shit I'm telling you isn't something hard to prove wrong if I'm wrong.



But who said I'm upset over that? I'm simply calling you on your bullshit. Do you not feel you behave hypocritically?

Originally posted by Surtur
Who is dancing around claims? I told you that he spoke about it in his press conference. No, I'm not going to go track down the specific wording of it. If you want it go get it lol.

But who said I'm upset over that? I'm simply calling you on your bullshit. Do you not feel you behave hypocritically?

You are, by not showing proof.

You clearly are, since you're attacking me as a means to deflect away from Trump's shown hypocrisy. You do this often.

Originally posted by Surtur
Question wasn't about love, but level of embarrassment. Stop not knowing things. You don't feel urinating games is embarrassing at all which speaks volumes about who you are. You're a freak.

Originally posted by Robtard
You are, by not showing proof.

You clearly are, since you're attacking me as a means to deflect away from Trump's shown hypocrisy.

I genuinely don't mean to attack you, but I'm applying the same tactics you have used. You were saying Trump has no room to talk about fake news because he has supported people who push fake news.

Notice I didn't get upset with you or deny that or anything of that sort. But what I'm telling you is that if we use that logic, you'd have no room to call others out for hypocrisy, double standards, deflections, being triggered, and all that jazz.

Surely you realize this? Or is it only wrong for people to do what Trump did if they are in the public eye, it's perfectly acceptable behavior by others? I have listed examples of your hypocrisy and when I do you just say "triggered". I'm triggered when it's something you don't want to hear, but when it's something you want to hear it's a different story, right?

You accuse me of not knowing what hypocrisy means. Am I wrong to say it's hypocritical for you to chastise for me what you see as a deflections to Hilary Clinton, but then to deflect to her yourself when you see fit? I know in your own mind you probably have justifications for that, but surely you can see how it looks?

Well I'm out for the night, about to get picked up at 8pm and I gotta shower and smoke a bowl. I'm sure we'll continue this tomorrow.

Drug addiction strikes and urination will surely follow.

The real question of this is and or should be..."Will HIllary SURVIVE the AWESOMNESS that will be the Trump Presidency?"


I vote no.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
The real question of this is and or should be..."Will HIllary SURVIVE the AWESOMNESS that will be the Trump Presidency?"


I vote no.

I vote yes. Or rather, I hope yes. I want her to survive Trump, and spend the rest of her days aimlessly hiking in the woods confusingly asking people why she's not up by like 50 points.

Hillary really did a number of you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Hillary really did a number of you.

She apparently did a number ON a lot of people. How else to you explain the crazy logic of "derp, you can't deflect to her!" and then people deflecting to her when it's convenient? It's hilarious.

Originally posted by Surtur
She apparently did a number ON a lot of people. How else to you explain the crazy logic of "derp, you can't deflect to her!" and then people deflecting to her when it's convenient? It's hilarious. What is ironic is in a topic about trump you can't seem to get off Hillary's nuts you dummy.

Originally posted by quanchi112
What is ironic is in a topic about trump you can't seem to get off Hillary's nuts you dummy.

Lol another fail. I'm not the one who originally tried to deflect to wikileaks.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol another fail. I'm not the one who originally tried to deflect to wikileaks. This topic has nothing to do with Hillary. Let it go.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This topic has nothing to do with Hillary. Let it go.

Nothing to do with Hilary or wikileaks, correct?

Originally posted by Surtur
Nothing to do with Hilary or wikileaks, correct? You're obsessed with her. You are very strange.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You're obsessed with her. You are very strange.

Perhaps you didn't see what I typed, so I will say it again: the statement this has nothing to do with Hilary or wikileaks is a correct statement, yes?

Surely you aren't..afraid to say that, are you? You're Quan, dropper of truth bombs.

Gotta go do some grocery shopping, no doubt when I get back you will have answered my question. After all, nothing to be afraid of.

Originally posted by Surtur
Perhaps you didn't see what I typed, so I will say it again: the statement this has nothing to do with Hilary or wikileaks is a correct statement, yes?

Surely you aren't..afraid to say that, are you? You're Quan, dropper of truth bombs.

Gotta go do some grocery shopping, no doubt when I get back you will have answered my question. After all, nothing to be afraid of. Topic is about trump. Your mind can't seem to stay on point.

Originally posted by Surtur
I genuinely don't mean to attack you

Stop. Here are the facts. It was pointed out that Trump's condemning another news agency for being "fake" is silly because he's praised Breitbart, who are well known for pushing fake stories and you try and shift the focus elsewhere (to me).

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop. Here are the facts. It was pointed out that Trump's condemning another news agency for being "fake" is silly because he's praised Breitbart, who are well known for pushing fake stories and you try and shift the focus elsewhere (to me).

I pointed out that if the claim is he can't do that because of hypocrisy, you have no room to call out the hypocrisy of people either, yet you have attempted to do so constantly. Despite practicing hypocrisy yourself.

That's the fact.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Topic is about trump.

Exactly, not wikileaks. Glad you agree.

Originally posted by Surtur
I pointed out that if the claim is he can't do that because of hypocrisy, you have no room to call out the hypocrisy of people either, yet you have attempted to do so constantly. Despite practicing hypocrisy yourself.

That's the fact.

Because I'm comparable to the president-elect of the United States in the things I say and do? Think for once and here you are again trying to make the topic about me instead of facing the music with Trump, Deflecto.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because I'm comparable to the president-elect of the United States in the things I say and do? Think for once and here you are again trying to make the topic about me instead of facing the music with Trump, Deflecto.

You aren't comparable to Trump, I'm just asking you to practice what you preach.

As for deflecting, you came in and tried to deflect to the wikileaks emails lol. Yet you whine about deflecting, and wonder why your hypocrisy is continually pointed out?

It's time to decide: either it's okay to deflect or it isn't.

And more false attacks on me instead of focusing on the topic of Trump. Careful, or people might start believing that I'm a #trigger topic for you.

Confirmed subjects that #Trigger Surtur:

-women
-black people
-college, anything to do with
-clinton
-liberals

Pending:

-robtard

Originally posted by Robtard
And more false attacks on me instead of focusing on the topic of Trump. Careful, or people might start believing that I'm a #trigger topic for you.

It's only a false attack if you feel you don't do the things I accuse you of.

You realize I was having a discussion with the OP about Trump that lead into the reports about him from Russia until you came and began bringing up wikileaks and shit and trying to act like the two situations were comparable?

Your own faults are pointed out and suddenly you can't wait to get back to discussing Trump.

You literally just proved the point I made; so let me adjust the list.

Confirmed subjects that #Trigger Surtur:

-women
-black people
-college, anything to do with
-clinton
-liberals
-robtard

Originally posted by Robtard
You literally just proved the point I made; so let me adjust the list.

Confirmed subjects that #Trigger Surtur:

-women
-black people
-college, anything to do with
-clinton
-liberals
-robtard

It's hilarious how much you can't stand when your own shitty behavior is pointed out.

You have constructed the perfect system for yourself. Whenever anyone dares point out anything about you, you just shout deflection or triggered over and over.

I suspect you use this in the same way people have felt they could shut down discussion by hurling accusations of racism or sexism. Oh shit wait, you kinda did that too.

Originally posted by Surtur
Exactly, not wikileaks. Glad you agree. You are an idiot.

Oh my, looks like we have to adjust that list again.

Confirmed subjects that #Trigger Surtur:

-women
-black people
-college, anything to do with
-clinton
-liberals
-robtard
-thetruth

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh my, looks like we have to adjust that list again.

Confirmed subjects that #Trigger Surtur:

-women
-black people
-college, anything to do with
-clinton
-liberals
-robtard
-thetruth

Yikes, you're nothing more than some rabid dog now, aren't you?

he already had a breakdown at his first press conference. cnn hurt the baby's little feefees. cry

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
he already had a breakdown at his first press conference. cnn hurt the baby's little feefees. cry

It sure seemed more like he hurt CNN's feelings the way they constantly tried interrupting him after he shut them down.

Then the way the guy cried about it afterwards on CNN.

Originally posted by Surtur
It sure seemed more like he hurt CNN's feelings the way they constantly tried interrupting him after he shut them down.

Then the way the guy cried about it afterwards on CNN. Review his Twitter the guy can't handle any criticism. Also you aren't embarrassed by women urinating on men. You're a sexual deviant.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
he already had a breakdown at his first press conference. cnn hurt the baby's little feefees. cry

That was a cringe worthy display, the man about to assume the mantel of POTUS throwing a complete infantile-like tantrum because a reporter asked to be allowed a question to defend his news agency.

Originally posted by Surtur
It sure seemed more like he hurt CNN's feelings the way they constantly tried interrupting him after he shut them down.

Then the way the guy cried about it afterwards on CNN. 'No, you!'

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
'No, you!'

Yes I indeed did have a different interpretation of the events with CNN. In fact, it's why before Bash even mentioned it I'd made comments in this thread(or another thread) laughing at how Trump treated CNN.

But hey, why bother thinking stuff through when you can just shout "triggered" or "no you" or "deflection" or something, right?

#triggered

Surtur,

Do you really believe the soon to be POTUS should be yelling at a reporter for asking "may I ask a question?" in regards to defending his news organization that was just attacked?

Originally posted by Robtard
Surtur,

Do you really believe the soon to be POTUS should be yelling at a reporter for asking "may I ask a question?" in regards to defending his news organization that was just attacked?

He yelled at him because the guy wouldn't shut up, Trump had said no he couldn't ask and had called on someone else. The guy didn't stop.

Is that appropriate behavior for a reporter? Do not act like he innocently just tried to ask a question, was rebuffed, and then accepted it like a professional.

Please don't turn this into a debate over if the guy had the right to defend his shitty network. This wasn't a press conference for CNN, it was for Trump. He can call on who he chooses.

This topic has quickly turned into will Surtur have a mental breakdown in this thread. Multiple.

Surtur,

So you believe it's alright for the soon to be most powerful man in the world (so the saying goes) to attack and accuse someone/organization of wrongdoings and then not allow said person/organization a chance to defend themselves is what you're saying?

Because all the man did was repeatedly ask if he could ask a question in defense on himself/CNN.

Originally posted by Robtard
Surtur,

So you believe it's alright for the soon to be most powerful man in the world (so the saying goes) to attack and accuse someone/organization of wrongdoings and then not allow said person/organization a chance to defend themselves is what you're saying?

Because all the man did was repeatedly ask if he could ask a question in defense on himself/CNN.

Considering the way the media and CNN especially treated Trump all throughout this election? I 100% do feel it is alright to do it to CNN.

Robtard, do you feel it is alright for a reporter to continually try to ask a question he has been told he can't ask..after another person has been called on to ask a question? All under the guise of defending his shitty organization that does indeed peddle misleading news?

Furthermore, do you feel this conference was a platform for CNN to defend itself, or for President Trump to hold the press conference to answer questions? Which last I checked, the person giving the conference usually chooses who gets to ask the next question. Are you seriously trying to justify the behavior of CNN because someone dared call them out and didn't want to listen to their bullshit excuses? Stop acting like there isn't a history between Trump and CNN, not to mention of CNN's own bullshittery in general.

Good lord. You're advocating media censorship if a given news agency hurt Trump's feelings.

Yes, I feel it's 100% acceptable for a reporter to repeatedly ask a question, especially if he/his organization was just accused of wrongdoing and he wants a chance to defend against the attack. If someone is mentioned and accused, they should be given a chance at a rebuttal. Maybe you should go live in Putin's Russia?

See above.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good lord. You're advocating media censorship if a given news agency hurt Trump's feelings.

Yes, I feel it's 100% acceptable for a reporter to repeatedly ask a question, especially if he/his organization was just accused of wrongdoing and he wants a chance to defend against the attack. If someone is mentioned and accused, they should be given a chance at a rebuttal. Maybe you should go live in Putin's Russia?

See above.

Lol media censorship? By not allowing a specific reporter to ask a question at a press conference where I'm sure not every reporter got to ask one?

But anyways, you tried to frame this as if guy asked a question and Trump yelled. No, what happened was he was told he could not ask a question, someone else was called on, and the man continually interrupted. If the guy felt CNN was slighted, those feelings are irrelevant. The bottom line is what happened was this man continually tried to interrupt someone after he had been told he couldn't ask a question.

Why? Because Trump feels CNN is fake news.

As for chances for a rebuttal, they can give a rebuttal all they want, do they not have their own network? They are not *owed* a rebuttal at this press conference.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes I indeed did have a different interpretation of the events with CNN. In fact, it's why before Bash even mentioned it I'd made comments in this thread(or another thread) laughing at how Trump treated CNN.

But hey, why bother thinking stuff through when you can just shout "triggered" or "no you" or "deflection" or something, right? 'Different interpretation', that's a new one. It's nice for a change.

If Trump wasn't being bitchy and protecting his fragile feelings why didn't he let the man ask?

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
'Different interpretation', that's a new one. It's nice for a change.

If Trump wasn't being bitchy and protecting his fragile feelings why didn't he let the man ask?

He feels CNN is fake news. That is why he wasn't interested in what they had to say. I would feel that is obvious.

Or should he have just let CNN turn the press conference into a back and forth between them and Trump?

Surtur,

Yes, it's a form thereof.

Incorrect. Trump accused CNN of wrongdoing and then refused to allow the CNN reporter a chance to defend himself, he bullied the reporter into submission.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, it's a form thereof.

Incorrect. Trump accused CNN of wrongdoing and then refused to allow the CNN reporter a chance to defend himself.

Do you feel networks are guaranteed rebuttals at press conferences not about them if they feel they have been slighted by something said?

So if someone feels something negatively they don't have to respect them when they don't have facts to support their claims. Surtur, you're a train wreck of logic.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So if someone feels something negatively they don't have to respect them when they don't have facts to support their claims. Surtur, you're a train wreck of logic.

What I'm simply saying is acting as if CNN was owed a rebuttal right then and there is silly.

So no, you don't get to repeatedly try to interrupt someone at a press conference because they said something about your news organization.

Originally posted by Surtur
Do you feel networks are guaranteed rebuttals at press conferences not about them if they feel they have been slighted by something said?

It's honest practice to allow the person you just accused of wrongdoing a chance to defend themselves, instead of using your position of power to bully them into silence. Seriously, just move to Russia at this point.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's common practice to allow the person you just accused of wrongdoing a chance to defend themselves, instead of using your position of power to bully them into silence. Seriously, just move to Russia at this point.

So Trump had specifically called out this reporter, not CNN as a whole?

Originally posted by Surtur
So Trump had specifically called out this reporter, not CNN as a whole?

*honk honk* clown

Originally posted by Surtur
So Trump had specifically called out this reporter, not CNN as a whole?

Good lord. Trump called out CNN as being fake(noted above); the news agency the reporter works for and represents, why he wanted a chance to defend CNN and by extension himself. Why is this so hard for you.

Did Trump attempt to ban CNN from discussing the incident on their network?

Originally posted by Robtard
Good lord. Trump called out CNN as being fake; the news agency the reporter works for and represents, why he wanted a chance to defend CNN and by extension himself. Why is this so hard for you?

I'm confused as to why this man felt he'd never have the chance to defend himself? Did CNN go out of business?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
*honk honk* clown

He'll do anything to defend Trump's poor actions.

edit: Question is, can he keep it up for four years without #triggering himself into a mental, physical and spiritual meltdown

Originally posted by Surtur
What I'm simply saying is acting as if CNN was owed a rebuttal right then and there is silly.

So no, you don't get to repeatedly try to interrupt someone at a press conference because they said something about your news organization. No, just stop. Trump is rude as shit and would often criticize the moderators for being unfair and biased against him. He would make off topic rants about Rosie o. and somehow someone always excuses his childish behavior. Just stop posting.

Originally posted by Robtard
Anything to defend Trump's poor actions.

While you defend CNN's poor actions? I don't care if they felt slighted, you are not guaranteed any right to a rebuttal at a press conference, and to continually try to interrupt after another person has been called on is hardly professional, but you justify it with essentially "Trump started it".

I am not disagreeing with you that a person would obviously want to defend their network. But to say that not allowing a reporter at a press conference to ask a question(regardless of circumstances) is akin to media censorship is strange to me.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, just stop. Trump is rude as shit and would often criticize the moderators for being unfair and biased against him. He would make off topic rants about Rosie o. and somehow someone always excuses his childish behavior. Just stop posting.

And CNN has peddled fake or misleading news in the past.

That's not debatable lol. Go look up the shit they pulled during the Milwaukee riots, just to give one example.

Originally posted by Surtur
And CNN has peddled fake or misleading news in the past.

That's not debatable lol. Go look up the shit they pulled during the Milwaukee riots, just to give one example.





And he has outright lied as well. For ****s sake the excuses I hear are nauseating. You're a moron. You're dangerously stupid.

Originally posted by quanchi112
And he has outright lied as well. For ****s sake the excuses I hear are nauseating. You're a moron. You're dangerously stupid.

Who said Trump has never lied?

Also whenever you insult the intelligence of someone it is priceless.

But anyways, CNN is a bullshit news organization. Don't peddle fake or misleading news and..you won't be branded fake news. Simple, no?

Originally posted by Surtur
Who said Trump has never lied?

Also whenever you insult the intelligence of someone it is priceless.

But anyways, CNN is a bullshit news organization. Don't peddle fake or misleading news and..you won't be branded fake news. Simple, no? Just because you say something without facts to back it up doesn't lead anyone to give credibility to what you claim. You're an idiot. It isn't hard to make you look terrible. You're the forums whipping boy.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Just because you say something without facts to back it up doesn't lead anyone to give credibility to what you claim. You're an idiot. It isn't hard to make you look terrible. You're the forums whipping boy.

I guess I just have to ask you directly then: do you believe CNN has ever peddled fake or misleading news?

I already even listed you a specific incident: the milwaukee riots. They specifically cut away from the victims sister telling people to go burn stuff in the suburbs in order to make it look like she was merely calling for peace.

Do you feel an honest news organization would do that? I find it priceless the network who behaves that way cries over being labeled fake news.