Groper Trump nominated a fellow groper. Why is anyone surprised?
The only surprise (not really) is that you completely and totally take her at her word without evidence. How gullible can someone be?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Groper Trump nominated a fellow groper. Why is anyone surprised?
Wait. Trump supporters are whining about people who are gullible and bleev a liar!?!?Groper Trump nominated a fellow groper. Why is anyone surprised?
The only surprise (not really) is that you completely and totally take her at her word without evidence. How gullible can someone be?
Wait. Trump supporters are whining about people who are gullible and bleev a liar!?!?Groper Trump nominated a fellow groper. Why is anyone surprised?
The only surprise (not really) is that you completely and totally take her at her word without evidence. How gullible can someone be?
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Oh, man. That's priceless.
The only woman I claimed to be a soulless bitch and a whore is you.
You poor thing. You've been triggered.Wait. Trump supporters are whining about people who are gullible and bleev a liar!?!?Groper Trump nominated a fellow groper. Why is anyone surprised?
The only surprise (not really) is that you completely and totally take her at her word without evidence. How gullible can someone be?
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Oh, man. That's priceless.
Does making up stuff like that make your gullibility any less egregious?
Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad
You poor thing. You've been triggered.Wait. Trump supporters are whining about people who are gullible and bleev a liar!?!?Groper Trump nominated a fellow groper. Why is anyone surprised?
The only surprise (not really) is that you completely and totally take her at her word without evidence. How gullible can someone be?
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Oh, man. That's priceless.
Does making up stuff like that make your gullibility any less egregious?
Mission accomplished.
Karma's a bitch. It's a whole new world with Trump in the picture.
My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.
Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad
My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.
If you followed the conversation above,
Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'
Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'
The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......
So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......
The only woman I claimed to be a soulless bitch and a whore is you.
As well....
Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad
My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.
If you followed the conversation above,
Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'
Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'
The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......
So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......
You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall
So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad
My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.
If you followed the conversation above,
Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'
Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'
The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......
So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......
You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall
There is no evidence that she was either drinking nor drunk, nor even there.
Thanks
So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad
My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.
If you followed the conversation above,
Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'
Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'
The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......
So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......
You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall
There is no evidence that she was either drinking nor drunk, nor even there.
Thanks
I guess when you're a democrat, as they continue to prove over and over again, 'We don't need no steenking evidence'.
She said he was a witness. End of story, turd.It's unfortunate that she named him as a witness then, isn't it? Apparently, "bad witness" is your euphemism meaning a witness who doesn't support your case.Political activists who want to be believed when they falsely accuse someone of 'almost rape' should not name someone as an eye witness who says it never happened.From the sound of things, they were the ones who showed up at a girl party. But you're essentially right. Teenage girls who don't want to be sexually assaulted shouldn't go out in public.
Another ^ one who doesn't get it a self-admitted "drooling blackout drunk" who wrote a book called Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk is NOT going to be a good witness.
You're posts most often make me face-palm .. this one was no exception!
She did not at any time suggest that he would be a "good witness". She clearly stated that both boys were "stumbling drunk".
So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?
I guess when you're a democrat, as they continue to prove over and over again, 'We don't need no steenking evidence'.
So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad
My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.
If you followed the conversation above,
Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'
Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'
The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......
So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......
You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall
There is no evidence that she was either drinking nor drunk, nor even there.
Thanks
I guess when you're a democrat, as they continue to prove over and over again, 'We don't need no steenking evidence'.
So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad
My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.
If you followed the conversation above,
Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'
Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'
The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......
So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......
You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall
There is no evidence that she was either drinking nor drunk, nor even there.
Thanks
I guess when you're a democrat, as they continue to prove over and over again, 'We don't need no steenking evidence'.
Feinstein has nothing to do with it. Dr Ford's name was leaked by a staffer.
Feinstein has EVERYTHING to do with it. SHE is the one who went extremely public with a rumor - even Ford said she was NOT ready for this to get out.Feinstein has nothing to do with it. Dr Ford's name was leaked by a staffer.
So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.
My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.
If you followed the conversation above,
Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'
Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'
The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......
So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......
You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall
There is no evidence that she was either drinking nor drunk, nor even there.
Thanks
I guess when you're a democrat, as they continue to prove over and over again, 'We don't need no steenking evidence'.
Feinstein has nothing to do with it. Dr Ford's name was leaked by a staffer.
who?