my sweet and simple child, i don't know which audience you think you are performing for, but i'll try to make it really easy for you to understand:

FACT: i claimed trump owns stock in the company.
FACT: he definitively held stock in the company at the very least until some point late last year.

FACT: we don't know for sure if he still holds stock in the company, which makes my claim unverified - and i gave you that hours ago. trump's lack of transparancy, however, makes it unverifiable to the public.

FACT: you accused me of LYING about it. in order for my statement to be a lie, however, it has to be factually incorrect - and you would have to know that "with 100% certainty" - otherwise it can never be a LIE from your perspective.
FACT: just like me, you can't possibly know if he still holds the stock at this point or not. uncritically believing what his spokesperson said in order to call me a liar is just cucking for trump, not a fact.

FACT: your claim is just as unverified and unverifiable as mine at this point. the last time publicly available record was available to shed light on the matter, he still HELD stock!

again, that's just really simple logic which you either refuse or simply fail to understand. i don't know why, maybe you're just really cucking too hard and don't want to see it, maybe you're just too stubborn and too proud to admit it, i can't really tell what your problem is. that won't stop me from calling you out for your bs though.


that being said, don't think i failed to realise how you consistently avoid making any comments about the FACT that he's not transparent about his business ties, that the public does NOT know about his potential conflicts of interest.
is it fair to assume that you will probably also avoid making any comments about the FACT that the company building the pipelines massively donated to him, as proven by FEC records? or will you just try to spin it as a lie or halftruth maybe?

anyway, you just bitch and moan about "halftruths" and when you are asked to specify what exactly you mean, you resort to your usual ad hominem routine, calling ppl liars (based on incredibly poor logic and understanding of the word "lie"), and act offended about how they could possibly misinterpret you so badly when they formulate their expectations or summarise your statements in reasonable terms, based on your post history. then it's back to discussing semantics again, claiming that's not at all what you said / meant / implied without ever specifying what it was that you actually meant. it's pathetic really, i just hope you don't live under the delusion that ppl don't see what you're doing...



seriously? i mean i know that he deleted climate change references from government websites, but this would be just outrageous, even for him. could you provide some kind of source please? i bet not even the biggest trump cuck could justify this if it happens...

Hmm yeah, it doesnt seem to be all.

Just any government initiative made by obama:
EPA and the white house website is what I could find, while working.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15906G

#FakeBrain

and you still cant grasp basic logic. such a waste of time and space.
You are just repeating the same nonsense without incorporating in my response, declaring my claims are just as unverifiable when thats clearly not the case.
Time to end the conversation. You are far less intelligent, far less honest and far less informed.

Claiming he has it when you dont know and the evidence available points to no is a lie, aka not truthful.
It was one of many untruthful things I pointed out in that post.



and here we go again with the im a trump fan conspiracy.
I dont need to comment on every single thing you say, particularly when its completely irrelevant to the point im making.
I do not claim that trump is a saint or is perfect. I dont care that you dont like him. Its irrelevant.

You are a liar. i will continue to mention that you are lying when you lie and refuse to admit your lies. Thats fair play.
The lies were listed in bold with numbers next to them. Instead of accepting it you lie some more and fantasize about what you think I believe, despite what all the evidence says and what I say.
Its shady, fallacious and immature.

Saying I 'act offended' when I am dismantling you and intellectually leaving you for dead does not disprove anything I say. Give it a rest.

You are comprehensively wrong and dishonest. Go to bed.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jan 25 2017 01:53pm

still waiting on a way to get scientists in one room to forge a consensus and quantifiable plan for CO2 reduction without the government doing it. maybe they'll all decide to buy plane tickets, hotel rooms, rent out a convention center, and just go at it.

dont worry guys, we dont need those expensive govt funded summits.

You are starting with the implication that the above is necessary, possible, scientific and/or preferable.
I don't want the government flying in select scientists to form a "consensus" plan to forcibly reduce emissions.

well, i'll just write it off as too proud to admit a mistake, it's so blatantly obvious that not even you could possibly fail to see your incredibly flawed reasoning here. positively claiming something is a lie without knowing the facts is just, well, poor logic. simple as that - especially considering how the most recent actual objective FACTS we know support MY statement...

and you can call me whatever you want of course, i already stated that i realise it's one of your main strategies to avoid the topic and avoid making concrete statements, so no surprise here...

btw, nice dodge on the lack of transparency and the donations - again... trump cuck.

ok lets ask a simple question. do you think we do or do not need to drastically reduce CO2 emissions? that's about as simple of a question as i can ask to judge whether this even bears fruit. don't over-complicate it by semantically taking shots at drastic or reduce or whatever else, just answer in a generality.

yes yes blah blah, you are a child. i get it
lets move on.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jan 25 2017 02:34pm

can u not realize tho, that thru the fact you and I both know that he held stocks in certain companies, that there is transparency in that? Average people like you and I can clearly see where conflicts of interest may arise, the media also knows this.

As before in past administrations, I would say some may have suspected conflicts, and there is evidence certainly to show this, but the vast majority didn't really know where. I think vast majorities had no idea what was going on with conflicts, and they were MUCH more covered up. With President Trump, there has been speculation since before day 1, as to where conflicts could arise, and thru this, there is transparency.

Even if he doesn't release certain documents to public, which is not out of the possibility mind you, there is still transparency. You just need to look past the fact that he has not released documents yet.

I'm not saying there is ZERO possible chance of conflicts, but he is much more transparent than anyone in office in recent decades. This is my opinion