Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Seems pretty true. Name one thread you made on Clintons corruption.
How does me not making a thread about Clinton mean I 'follow every Trump story'? There's no connection.
But to answer your question anyways, you (and XYZ to a degree)make thread after thread about Clinton being the devil, just look at the board. There's no room/need for anyone else.
This is why I find it funny when people claim in here that Trump is picked on, there's just a few Trump threads and only one is active and even then that thread features Clinton many a time, while there's a thread-quilt on Clinton.
I never said he was picked on. My stance has been the unfair bias of "what trump said" over the hundreds of scandals the Clintons are involved in and the biggest are to incite violence st Trump rally's. THREADS YOU LOVED TO PARTICIPATE in. When it comes out it was the CLINTONS you either won't comment or refuse to denounce it and says "unproven" or deny, skate by it and won't retract your statements about Trump inciting violence.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I never said he was picked on. My stance has been the unfair bias of "what trump said" over the hundreds of scandals the Clintons are involved in and the biggest are to incite violence st Trump rally's. THREADS YOU LOVED TO PARTICIPATE in. When it comes out it was the CLINTONS you either won't comment or refuse to denounce it and says "unproven" or deny, skate by it and won't retract your statements about Trump inciting violence.
Listen, I don't know about you, but stories that may or may not be true take back seat to Trump in his very own words telling his zealots to "punch people" and that he'll pay their legal fees, commenting how in the "good ole days" people would be carried out on stretchers etc. That's literally inciting violence.
Originally posted by Robtardall those threads are time being ignored. Mobody else posts in those threads because most of the members here are unenlighted sheep who want to talk about pussy grabbing.
How does me not making a thread about Clinton mean I 'follow every Trump story'? There's no connection.But to answer your question anyways, you (and XYZ to a degree)make thread after thread about Clinton being the devil, just look at the board. There's no room/need for anyone else.
This is why I find it funny when people claim in here that Trump is picked on, there's just a few Trump threads and only one is active and even then that thread features Clinton many a time, while there's a thread-quilt on Clinton.
Its completely irrelevant.
Originally posted by Its2016
all those threads are time being ignored. Mobody else posts in those threads because most of the members here are unenlighted sheep who want to talk about pussy grabbing.Its completely irrelevant.
Well as long as you've found a way to make yourself feel undeservedly superior 👆
Alright, sure:
1) It damaged him with the female vote; possibly other demographics
2)It's another smear on his name and his name is directly connected with his business. Have you seen that Trump is launching another brand and the word "Trump" is no where to be found
So yeah, I would call losing potential voters when you're running for POTUS and negative connotations to your brand/business name as "damaging"
Originally posted by Robtardcan you show me a slump in nate shilver polls? Specifically before and after the video and female only voters. Would also need a decline in polls across the board.
Alright, sure:1) It damaged him with the female vote; possibly other demographics
2)It's another smear on his name and his name is directly connected with his business. Have you seen that Trump is launching another brand and the word "Trump" is no where to be found
So yeah, I would call losing potential voters when you're running for POTUS and negative connotations to your brand/business name as "damaging"
Citation needed.
Originally posted by Robtard
Listen, I don't know about you, but stories that may or may not be true take back seat to Trump in his very own words telling his zealots to "punch people" and that he'll pay their legal fees, commenting how in the "good ole days" people would be carried out on stretchers etc. That's literally inciting violence.
You dismisss under cover video with detailed info on the plans, coordination and taking credit for it.
Maybe if Clinton had not done what she did, he would not have "said" it.
He didn't incite it, they did.
Look what you are doing now, Defending Hillary.
Trump should not have said it, but that doesn't give her a pass. It's so ****ing pathetic, you excuse everything Clinton does cause "what trump said."
Originally posted by Its2016LoL, now polls matter and you've dodged half my post/points. I'm not playing your silly games.
can you show me a slump in nate shilver polls? Specifically before and after the video and female only voters. Would also need a decline in polls across the board.Citation needed.
Originally posted by Robtard
Alright, sure:1) It damaged him with the female vote; possibly other demographics
It didn't. Female voters were already strongly supporting Hillary before and the numbers are still similar on the gender split, after.
Originally posted by Robtard
2)It's another smear on his name and his name is directly connected with his business. Have you seen that Trump is launching another brand and the word "Trump" is no where to be found
And yet his own "brand" stuff still exists and everyone knows Scion is Trump's and it will appear everywhere as "A Trump Company" or something like it like everything else.
In other words, this "Scion missing Trump's name, hur dur" stuff you're reading is just a red herring. It's a bullshit talking point. Them talking about it literally defeats their point because they are making it more obvious.
Originally posted by Robtard
So yeah, I would call losing potential voters when you're running for POTUS and negative connotations to your brand name as "damaging"
Since The Trump Organization is a privately held company, we don't really know if it is damaging or not. Likely...it is not damaging him at all...not even a little. Far more likely he is doing better than ever.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You dismisss under cover video with detailed info on the plans, coordination and taking credit for it.Maybe if Clinton had not done what she did, he would not have "said" it.
He didn't incite it, they did.
Look what you are doing now, Defending Hillary.
Trump should not have said it, but that doesn't give her a pass. It's so ****ing pathetic, you excuse everything Clinton does cause "what trump said."
When did I excuse Clinton here?
This is another example of what I've said to you before, you take me pointing out something negative Trump actually did; where there is no question that he did it as "supporting Clinton", when the two are not connected. This is why it's impossible to have an honest conservation, it devolves to shit and silly accusations every time any negative is pointed out about Trump.