Originally posted by focus4chumps
ddm, strawman is when you presuppose someone's argument. please get it right from now on, k?
Keep making my position look weaker by making a malformed or exaggerated comparison: then destroy that strawman argument you just made with rhetoric.
Shouldn't you be rage reporting me, by now? 😐
Originally posted by Robtard
Non sequitur? We're talking why Obama should do little flips for Trump at Trump's whim compared to other birthers.
Obama would not be doing any flips, at all. He would probably end up doing little but sign a piece of paper and all his aides will do that for him.
Originally posted by Robtard
😐 Yes and no. If you asked to see his balls, he has the right to refuse. He's already shown the paperwork and met the criteria, he doesn't have to dance every time someone wants more proof of him not being a Muslim, Kenyan and/or terrorist.
So says you. But I don't. If there is nothing to hide, and as PotUS he shouldn't have anything to hide, so be it. Sexual privacy? Sure. Academic records privacy? Nope.
Originally posted by Robtard
Disagree on the "shutting up the haters", as the birthers will never be satisfied.
Well, that's not true. It would really destroy many of their various arguments and those arguments about him being an idiot (assuming his records show him to be smart).
Originally posted by Robtard
No, not "taking orders", more akin to entertaining the unending lunacies of an assclown. Trump last year or earlier this year supposedly "found" incriminating evidence while his private detectives were in Hawaii. Then we hear nothing but crickets. Now we have this little stunt.
I agree that it is more like humoring Trump for a win-win situation for Trump. If Obama had nothing to hide, this would be a win-win for Obama: gets the money and destroys Trumps current rage points about Obama being an idiot or some shit.