Hillary is Done and she knows it.

[Skylar]

Your best explanation for why a person would reasonably conclude that Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals ....is that you don't need to explain?

lol, that is not what he said, you lying pile of shit.

Actually, that's exactly what he said:

"I don't need to explain where Trump gets his knowledge or his intel as I am not the one running for president."

Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at why Trump would 'know more about ISIS than the generals do'.

I can always use another giggle.

 

[Sundance508]

Your best explanation for why a person would reasonably conclude that Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals ....is that you don't need to explain?

lol, that is not what he said, you lying pile of shit.

Actually, that's exactly what he said:

"I don't need to explain where Trump gets his knowledge or his intel as I am not the one running for president."

Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at why Trump would 'know more about ISIS than the generals do'.

I can always use another giggle.

Obama unknown to many has gutted the military of high ranking officers wit good experience and excellent knowledge of our islamic enemies -- such organizations as ISIS --because they were not politically correct and opposed his ineptness, ignorance and pc policies.

WASHINGTON – 'President Obama this year alone has fired some nine generals and flag officers, on top of at least four similar dismissals during his first term, suggesting that a purge may be the real reason behind the removals, which are being described as cases of personal misbehavior.'

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, claims it is part of Obama’s strategy to reduce U.S. standing worldwide.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...GV5jR7Qc3WBerLnpA&sig2=zGq9fooTXi_o1g7ogeuiCg



“Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he charged.


Read more at Obama ‘gutting military’ by purging generals

You giggle like a little girl...go away before i bitch slap ya.

 

[RodISHI]

Really? So tell me....why would Trump 'know more about ISIS than the generals do?"

As Trump is advised by a few generals that specialize in Asymetrical Warfare, and many generals dont know much more than their own specialty (logistics, maintenance, finance, etc) it is hardly an outrageous statement to say Trump knows more than many generals, particularly if the generals in question are lying, moron Dimbocrats.

Attorneys, doctors and any other profession has specialty field expertise. Idiots like Skylar don't get that.

Oh, I get it. I just don't see how Celebrity Apprentice provides Trump with the 'specialty field expertise' about ISIS.

And you can't explain it either. Or back the claim with the slightest evidence.

Damn. Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Whatever you claim is pretty worthless and you continue to prove that with your continued fake, twisted shit and bs.

And by 'fake, twisted shit and bs', you mean direct quotes and videos of Trump saying *exactly* what I've attributed to him?

How did you not know he'd called for US citizens to be tried by military tribunals?

And of course, what base of knowledge does Trump have that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that he 'knows more about ISIS than the generals do?

Laughing...even you can't polish that turd.

Nah your twist go beyond a statement with your own misguided precepts of what was meant or even what the law actually is. You have made it clear and obvious that the law and enemies against the people of this nation make no difference to you.

 

[Skylar]

As Trump is advised by a few generals that specialize in Asymetrical Warfare, and many generals dont know much more than their own specialty (logistics, maintenance, finance, etc) it is hardly an outrageous statement to say Trump knows more than many generals, particularly if the generals in question are lying, moron Dimbocrats.

Attorneys, doctors and any other profession has specialty field expertise. Idiots like Skylar don't get that.

Oh, I get it. I just don't see how Celebrity Apprentice provides Trump with the 'specialty field expertise' about ISIS.

And you can't explain it either. Or back the claim with the slightest evidence.

Damn. Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

Whatever you claim is pretty worthless and you continue to prove that with your continued fake, twisted shit and bs.

And by 'fake, twisted shit and bs', you mean direct quotes and videos of Trump saying *exactly* what I've attributed to him?

How did you not know he'd called for US citizens to be tried by military tribunals?

And of course, what base of knowledge does Trump have that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that he 'knows more about ISIS than the generals do?

Laughing...even you can't polish that turd.

Nah your twist go beyond a statement with your own misguided precepts of what was meant or even what the law actually is.

I just quote Trump and let him hang himself:

Interviewer: Would you try to get the military commissions to try US citizens?

Trump: I know they want to try them in our regular court system. I would say that they could be tried there, that would be fine.

Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo

You could watch the video. But you won't. As long as you refuse to watch Trump back my claims about him, you can pretend that the evidence doesn't exist.

You fail.....because you can't make anyone else ignore what you do.

You have made it clear and obvious that the law and enemies against the people of this nation make no difference to you.

I've made it clear that my claims are accurate. You've been reduced to arguing WHY I'm right.

See how that works?

 

[Esmeralda]

what a sad election, if there was an alternative like a Reagan this one would be in the bag, I think Romney could have won this one. The fact is neither party has put forward anybody decent for along time, politics is changing fast for the worse.

Hillary is a remarkably weak candidate, probably the worse the Dems have run since maybe McGovern. But in defiance of all reason the GOP nominated the one guy she can beat easily.

A guy that conservatives weren't happy with. And the general electorate can't stand.

Who is hated and despised by the Political Class, the very people who shit on the middle class every single time and yet the middle class has been voting for them since time began. I can't stand trump but i have to say I LIKE the fact that the political class is afraid of him. And i think that is why he actually has a 50/50 shot at winning. It is becoming clear that hilary isn't crushing him, as she should be, considering she has outspent him 60 million to maybe 1 million so far.

People around the world are afraid of Trump because they are afraid of what such a fascist will do to the world. Americans are afraid of Trump because they are afraid of what an ignorant man, a shallow thinker, a reactionary and racist will do to America.

No one is 'afraid' of him because he has a distant chance of winning the election. The fear is about the harm he will do if he actually gets elected. Even major GOP members 'fear' him.

Really? He's now a fascist? He is a capitalist. Although I'm sure in your book that's worse.

you're just learning this?

Is Donald Trump a Fascist? A Historian of Fascism Weighs In.

btw, one isn't automatically a fascist if one is a capitalist. that's just silly.

That's an interesting and thoughtful article. I doubt thehawk will take the time or have the wherewithal to read it with any care or consideration. .

 

[JimBowie1958]

I've made it clear that my claims are accurate. You've been reduced to arguing WHY I'm right.
See how that works?

No, it does not work, idiot.

 

[Skylar]

I've made it clear that my claims are accurate. You've been reduced to arguing WHY I'm right.
See how that works?

No, it does not work, idiot.

Except when it does. I claim that Trump has called for US citizens to be tried in military courts.

And this video has Trump afirming the same thing:

Interviewer: Would you try to get the military commissions to try US citizens?

Trump: I know they want to try them in our regular court system. I would say that they could be tried there, that would be fine.

Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo

Which of course, you ignored entirely. Just out of curiosity.....does lying to yourself make you feel better? Is it a cognitive dissonance thing?

Because it really won't matter what you ignore. Reality just keeps on trucking.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I've made it clear that my claims are accurate. You've been reduced to arguing WHY I'm right.
See how that works?

No, it does not work, idiot.

Except when it does. I claim that Trump has called for US citizens to be tried in military courts.

And this video has Trump afirming the same thing:

Interviewer: Would you try to get the military commissions to try US citizens?

Trump: I know they want to try them in our regular court system. I would say that they could be tried there, that would be fine.

Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo

Which of course, you ignored entirely. Just out of curiosity.....does lying to yourself make you feel better? Is it a cognitive dissonance thing?

Because it really won't matter what you ignore. Reality just keeps on trucking.

If US citizens engage in terrorist activities they should be tried in military courts and then shot if found guilty.

Whats wrong with that, idiot?

 

[Skylar]

I've made it clear that my claims are accurate. You've been reduced to arguing WHY I'm right.
See how that works?

No, it does not work, idiot.

Except when it does. I claim that Trump has called for US citizens to be tried in military courts.

And this video has Trump afirming the same thing:

Interviewer: Would you try to get the military commissions to try US citizens?

Trump: I know they want to try them in our regular court system. I would say that they could be tried there, that would be fine.

Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo

Which of course, you ignored entirely. Just out of curiosity.....does lying to yourself make you feel better? Is it a cognitive dissonance thing?

Because it really won't matter what you ignore. Reality just keeps on trucking.

If US citizens engage in terrorist activities they should be tried in military courts and then shot if found guilty.

That's an enormous 'if'. You're insisting that we pull a US Citizen out of the civilian court system and hand them over to the military on the ACCUSATION of terrorism.

Not the conviction.

Um, no. And of course, all argument that my claims had 'nothing' to be back them have bee conveniently abandoned. As, of course, I have Trump affirming everything I've attributed to him.

Now you're only arguing WHY I'm right about my claims of Trump.

 

[jillian]

Your best explanation for why a person would reasonably conclude that Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals ....is that you don't need to explain?

lol, that is not what he said, you lying pile of shit.

Actually, that's exactly what he said:

"I don't need to explain where Trump gets his knowledge or his intel as I am not the one running for president."

Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at why Trump would 'know more about ISIS than the generals do'.

I can always use another giggle.

Obama unknown to many has gutted the military of high ranking officers wit good experience and excellent knowledge of our islamic enemies -- such organizations as ISIS --because they were not politically correct and opposed his ineptness, ignorance and pc policies.

WASHINGTON – 'President Obama this year alone has fired some nine generals and flag officers, on top of at least four similar dismissals during his first term, suggesting that a purge may be the real reason behind the removals, which are being described as cases of personal misbehavior.'

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, claims it is part of Obama’s strategy to reduce U.S. standing worldwide.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwid8vai4NXOAhXLPiYKHW8dDXwQFggeMAA&url=http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obama-gutting-military-by-purging-generals/&usg=AFQjCNHHfE3dX_IOGGV5jR7Qc3WBerLnpA&sig2=zGq9fooTXi_o1g7ogeuiCg



“Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he charged.


Read more at Obama ‘gutting military’ by purging generals

You giggle like a little girl...go away before i bitch slap ya.

world nut daily?

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's an enormous 'if'. You're insisting that we pull a US Citizen out of the civilian court system and hand them over to the military on the ACCUSATION of terrorism.
Not the conviction.

No, doofus, it is a two step process.

1) The military presents its case to the Department of Homeland security for the need for a military trial.

2) The DHS then goes to a judge to get clearance for said trial.

This falls under war time laws, not civilian.

 

[RodISHI]

Your speculations based on your misguided bias. Your words in pink to match your persona.

Its far lower than 50-50. Which is way higher than it should be. No one like Trump should ever sit in the oval office. The man is a blithering incompetent with impulse control issues, ludicrously thin skinned, delusions of knowledge he simply doesn't have, and dangerously fascist instincts.


Trump has a better understanding of the law than some poor little Internet whiner when it comes to what can be done to military combatants inside of the US that have gain citizenship for nefarious projects against the safety and liberty of ALL United States citizens;

Really? So tell me....why would Trump 'know more about ISIS than the generals do?"

Explain how founding Trump Mortgage or firing Meatloaf on Celebrity Apprentice gives him more insight into ISIS than the generals who fight for us professionally?

If Trump is that knowledgable, then this should be remarkably easy for you to explain. If he's not....then we'll get excuses and akward subject changes.

Gee, I wonder which we'll get.

The rest you have nothing specific only what you have said with your misguided illusions.

You may want to educate yourself on Trump's own positions first:

Interviewer: Would you try to get the military commissions to try US citizens?

Trump: I know they want to try them in our regular court system. I would say that they could be tried there, that would be fine.
Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo

With 'there' being Guantanamo, under the military commissions. He's actively proposed taking US Citizens accused of terrorism OUT of the civilian court and trying the under military tribunals.

How do you not know this?

What women and children the ones that take up bombs for jihad? How do you separate them if they choose to be with the Jihadist?

No, the families of terrorists. He insisted we should kill their entire families. Emphasizing 'their entire families'.

Spoiler Alert! Families include women and children.

Again, how do you not know this?

Again back up your claims with links. I gave you the courts findings and you have nothing more than your own personal insane ramblings.

I just did. I even linked to a video where Trump *says* exactly what I attributed to him.

But as we all knew you would.....you refused to follow it. And refusing, insist that the claims haven't been backed up. Ah, Argument from Ignorance. Its a classic fallacy of logic for a reason.

And of course, you never did explain how Trump would 'know more about ISIS than the generals do.

Laughing.....good luck with that.

I don't need to explain where Trump gets his knowledge or his intel as I am not the one running for president.

Your best explanation for why a person would reasonably conclude that Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals ....is that you don't need to explain?

Holy shit, dude! That's it?

Lets be clear: You *can't* explain why Trump would have more knowledge about ISIS than the generals do. As Trump has no basis of knowledge that would credibly provide him with that insight.

But keep trying to convince yourself that the only reason you can't polish that turd....is that you don't have to.

Oh, and can I take your complete abandonment of any discussion of Trump calling for US Citizens to be tried in military tribunals as you conceding the point?

So much for me having 'nothing' to back up the claim. I have Trump citing Trump. Which, of course, you ignored.

Damn it is hard to get something through to you. You gotta be brain dead dude!
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

 

[Skylar]

That's an enormous 'if'. You're insisting that we pull a US Citizen out of the civilian court system and hand them over to the military on the ACCUSATION of terrorism.
Not the conviction.

No, doofus, it is a two step process.

1) The military presents its case to the Department of Homeland security for the need for a military trial.

2) The DHS then goes to a judge to get clearance for said trial.

This falls under war time laws, not civilian.

And exactly as I described, you're arguing for WHY I'm right in my claims against Trump.

He did call for US citizens to be tried by military tribunals. And you've abandoned any pretense of denying it.

The miltiary doesn't arrest US citizens, dip. The US government does. Take a look at the case of Jose Padilla. He wasn't arrested by the military. Nor did the military 'present' his case to DHS.

Quite the opposite. He was being tried by US civilian court when the President 'declared' him an unlawful combatant and had him transferred to a military court. There was no judges approval. This was done entirely on the authority of the Executive.

Where they then tortured Padilla with waterboarding. A practice that Trump also insists we should bring back. And 'worse'.

Padilla was then held for 6 years without any charges.

And this is what you want to bring back? No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

Really? So tell me....why would Trump 'know more about ISIS than the generals do?"

Explain how founding Trump Mortgage or firing Meatloaf on Celebrity Apprentice gives him more insight into ISIS than the generals who fight for us professionally?

If Trump is that knowledgable, then this should be remarkably easy for you to explain. If he's not....then we'll get excuses and akward subject changes.

Gee, I wonder which we'll get.

You may want to educate yourself on Trump's own positions first:

With 'there' being Guantanamo, under the military commissions. He's actively proposed taking US Citizens accused of terrorism OUT of the civilian court and trying the under military tribunals.

How do you not know this?

No, the families of terrorists. He insisted we should kill their entire families. Emphasizing 'their entire families'.

Spoiler Alert! Families include women and children.

Again, how do you not know this?

Again back up your claims with links. I gave you the courts findings and you have nothing more than your own personal insane ramblings.

I just did. I even linked to a video where Trump *says* exactly what I attributed to him.

But as we all knew you would.....you refused to follow it. And refusing, insist that the claims haven't been backed up. Ah, Argument from Ignorance. Its a classic fallacy of logic for a reason.

And of course, you never did explain how Trump would 'know more about ISIS than the generals do.

Laughing.....good luck with that.

I don't need to explain where Trump gets his knowledge or his intel as I am not the one running for president.

Your best explanation for why a person would reasonably conclude that Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals ....is that you don't need to explain?

Holy shit, dude! That's it?

Lets be clear: You *can't* explain why Trump would have more knowledge about ISIS than the generals do. As Trump has no basis of knowledge that would credibly provide him with that insight.

But keep trying to convince yourself that the only reason you can't polish that turd....is that you don't have to.

Oh, and can I take your complete abandonment of any discussion of Trump calling for US Citizens to be tried in military tribunals as you conceding the point?

So much for me having 'nothing' to back up the claim. I have Trump citing Trump. Which, of course, you ignored.

Damn it is hard to get something through to you. You gotta be brain dead dude!
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Laughing...so much for your claim that there was 'nothing' backing my assertion that Trump called for US citizens to be tried in military courts.

Trump backed my claims with his own quote. And now you're arguing for WHY I'm right.

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

 

[Obiwan]

Sheesh, I've read the past 3 pages and I have no idea what you 2 are bumping butts over...

Do I have to read the whole thread or should I just go away, it's a quandry..?

He wants me to go through every post and provide links for every point I've made. I've told him he'll need to disagree with something I've said first....as I'm not going to be posting links to something we both agree on.

And he has yet to disagree on any specific point.

You made the claims, YOU provide the proof...

Those are the rules, and they apply to anyone (with the exception of someone so retarded they're practically a vegetable)....

So put up or lose...

It's that simple....

Disagree with me on a specific point and I'll happily show you you're wrong.

But I'm not positing links for something we both recognize is accurate. I want you on record that a specific claim is *wrong*....so I can rub your nose in it with the evidence.

Pick a claim, any claim.

I don't recognize ANYTHING as "accurate" without proof, Jackass...

So post the links...

Or admit that we're just listening to the insane ramblings of a drunk idiot...

 

[Skylar]

Sheesh, I've read the past 3 pages and I have no idea what you 2 are bumping butts over...

Do I have to read the whole thread or should I just go away, it's a quandry..?

He wants me to go through every post and provide links for every point I've made. I've told him he'll need to disagree with something I've said first....as I'm not going to be posting links to something we both agree on.

And he has yet to disagree on any specific point.

You made the claims, YOU provide the proof...

Those are the rules, and they apply to anyone (with the exception of someone so retarded they're practically a vegetable)....

So put up or lose...

It's that simple....

Disagree with me on a specific point and I'll happily show you you're wrong.

But I'm not positing links for something we both recognize is accurate. I want you on record that a specific claim is *wrong*....so I can rub your nose in it with the evidence.

Pick a claim, any claim.

I don't recognize ANYTHING as "accurate" without proof, Jackass...

So post the links...

Or admit that we're just listening to the insane ramblings of a drunk idiot...

Disagree with a point I've made and I'll gladly prove it to you. As I did Roshi and his blithering idiocy that there was 'nothing' backing the claim that Trump called for US citizens to be tried in military courts.

But why am I going to start posting links for a claim that you don't even disagree with?

 

[Obiwan]

Sheesh, I've read the past 3 pages and I have no idea what you 2 are bumping butts over...

Do I have to read the whole thread or should I just go away, it's a quandry..?

He wants me to go through every post and provide links for every point I've made. I've told him he'll need to disagree with something I've said first....as I'm not going to be posting links to something we both agree on.

And he has yet to disagree on any specific point.

You made the claims, YOU provide the proof...

Those are the rules, and they apply to anyone (with the exception of someone so retarded they're practically a vegetable)....

So put up or lose...

It's that simple....

Disagree with me on a specific point and I'll happily show you you're wrong.

But I'm not positing links for something we both recognize is accurate. I want you on record that a specific claim is *wrong*....so I can rub your nose in it with the evidence.

Pick a claim, any claim.

I don't recognize ANYTHING as "accurate" without proof, Jackass...

So post the links...

Or admit that we're just listening to the insane ramblings of a drunk idiot...

Disagree with a point I've made and I'll gladly prove it to you. As I did Roshi and his blithering idiocy that there was 'nothing' backing the claim that Trump called for US citizens to be tried in military courts.

But why am I going to start posting links for a claim that you don't even disagree with?

Who said I agree with ANY of your insane notions???

Post the links, or be branded a liar...

Your choice...

 

[RodISHI]

Again back up your claims with links. I gave you the courts findings and you have nothing more than your own personal insane ramblings.

I just did. I even linked to a video where Trump *says* exactly what I attributed to him.

But as we all knew you would.....you refused to follow it. And refusing, insist that the claims haven't been backed up. Ah, Argument from Ignorance. Its a classic fallacy of logic for a reason.

And of course, you never did explain how Trump would 'know more about ISIS than the generals do.

Laughing.....good luck with that.

I don't need to explain where Trump gets his knowledge or his intel as I am not the one running for president.

Your best explanation for why a person would reasonably conclude that Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals ....is that you don't need to explain?

Holy shit, dude! That's it?

Lets be clear: You *can't* explain why Trump would have more knowledge about ISIS than the generals do. As Trump has no basis of knowledge that would credibly provide him with that insight.

But keep trying to convince yourself that the only reason you can't polish that turd....is that you don't have to.

Oh, and can I take your complete abandonment of any discussion of Trump calling for US Citizens to be tried in military tribunals as you conceding the point?

So much for me having 'nothing' to back up the claim. I have Trump citing Trump. Which, of course, you ignored.

Damn it is hard to get something through to you. You gotta be brain dead dude!
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Laughing...so much for your claim that there was 'nothing' backing my assertion that Trump called for US citizens to be tried in military courts.

Trump backed my claims with his own quote. And now you're arguing for WHY I'm right.

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

You are confused I did not say what you are saying. I told you provide links. You really are a confused lil dweeb. Got get those links for all that bull your shoveling.

 

[Skylar]

He wants me to go through every post and provide links for every point I've made. I've told him he'll need to disagree with something I've said first....as I'm not going to be posting links to something we both agree on.

And he has yet to disagree on any specific point.

You made the claims, YOU provide the proof...

Those are the rules, and they apply to anyone (with the exception of someone so retarded they're practically a vegetable)....

So put up or lose...

It's that simple....

Disagree with me on a specific point and I'll happily show you you're wrong.

But I'm not positing links for something we both recognize is accurate. I want you on record that a specific claim is *wrong*....so I can rub your nose in it with the evidence.

Pick a claim, any claim.

I don't recognize ANYTHING as "accurate" without proof, Jackass...

So post the links...

Or admit that we're just listening to the insane ramblings of a drunk idiot...

Disagree with a point I've made and I'll gladly prove it to you. As I did Roshi and his blithering idiocy that there was 'nothing' backing the claim that Trump called for US citizens to be tried in military courts.

But why am I going to start posting links for a claim that you don't even disagree with?

Who said I agree with ANY of your insane notions???

Post the links, or be branded a liar...

Your choice...

Talk to me when you can even disagree with any specific point I've made.

You can't. As we both know I'm right.

 

[Skylar]

I just did. I even linked to a video where Trump *says* exactly what I attributed to him.

But as we all knew you would.....you refused to follow it. And refusing, insist that the claims haven't been backed up. Ah, Argument from Ignorance. Its a classic fallacy of logic for a reason.

And of course, you never did explain how Trump would 'know more about ISIS than the generals do.

Laughing.....good luck with that.

I don't need to explain where Trump gets his knowledge or his intel as I am not the one running for president.

Your best explanation for why a person would reasonably conclude that Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals ....is that you don't need to explain?

Holy shit, dude! That's it?

Lets be clear: You *can't* explain why Trump would have more knowledge about ISIS than the generals do. As Trump has no basis of knowledge that would credibly provide him with that insight.

But keep trying to convince yourself that the only reason you can't polish that turd....is that you don't have to.

Oh, and can I take your complete abandonment of any discussion of Trump calling for US Citizens to be tried in military tribunals as you conceding the point?

So much for me having 'nothing' to back up the claim. I have Trump citing Trump. Which, of course, you ignored.

Damn it is hard to get something through to you. You gotta be brain dead dude!
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Laughing...so much for your claim that there was 'nothing' backing my assertion that Trump called for US citizens to be tried in military courts.

Trump backed my claims with his own quote. And now you're arguing for WHY I'm right.

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

You are confused I did not say what you are saying. I told you provide links. You really are a confused lil dweeb. Got get those links for all that bull your shoveling.

Show me a claim that you disagree with, and I will. Exactly as I did with your blithering idiocy about there being 'nothing' to back my citation of Trump calling for US citizens to be tried in military courts.

There was Trump to back it.

How did you not know that?