Trump claims that the U.S. "caught 10 terrorists" at the Southern Border

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

People learn to disbelieve individuals who are classified as compulsive serial liars like Trump. When a person is caught telling thousands of lies, why would anything they say be believed?

I have, on number of occasions, challenged Trump bashers to present ONE LIE that Trump has ever told, with absolute proof to back it up. None have ever succeeded in responding.

That ten terrorists were caught in the last little while at the southern border, trying to sneak in.
Yeah, I know, you say he's not lying because he's telling us state secrets that are not supposed to be made public, but that is no argument. That's a total cop out.

He did not give you specifics that could compromise intelligence gathering methods. Do you not see the difference?

He didn't actually give us anything---he made it up and some clever fans of his are trying to pull an excuse out of their asses. But the fact is, what he said isn't backed up by facts, and it isn't because they're "secret." They don't exist.

How do YOU know? I currently work for the Army. I don't even have a job requiring a high level clearance and I know more than people who do not. It is the nature of what we do.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Lies. And all plastic POTUS Putin soldiers.
Michael Flynn's criticism of FBI interview slammed by special counsel - CNNPolitics

No it's NOT a lie just to say liberals are accusing Trump of lying while presenting no evidence of that. I am correct. They present no evidence that he lied about 10 terrorists, and you don't present it either.

Trump has misled the public on terrorism. Time to correct the record. - The Washington Post

Take a deep breath and just read. P.

The Washington Bird Cage Liner? Seriously?

If they wrote it, you can be certain that it is a lie.

 

[Pogo]

People learn to disbelieve individuals who are classified as compulsive serial liars like Trump. When a person is caught telling thousands of lies, why would anything they say be believed?

I have, on number of occasions, challenged Trump bashers to present ONE LIE that Trump has ever told, with absolute proof to back it up. None have ever succeeded in responding.

That ten terrorists were caught in the last little while at the southern border, trying to sneak in.
Yeah, I know, you say he's not lying because he's telling us state secrets that are not supposed to be made public, but that is no argument. That's a total cop out.

He did not give you specifics that could compromise intelligence gathering methods. Do you not see the difference?

He didn't actually give us anything---he made it up and some clever fans of his are trying to pull an excuse out of their asses. But the fact is, what he said isn't backed up by facts, and it isn't because they're "secret." They don't exist.

How do YOU know? I currently work for the Army. I don't even have a job requiring a high level clearance and I know more than people who do not. It is the nature of what we do.

Doesn't matter whether you work for the Army, for Chucky Cheeses, or for nobody at all ---- if there's no evidence, there's no evidence. And Rump is a pathological liar. His is the burden of proof, and he ain't got none.

Besides which, if you work for the Army how come you're an Admiral?

 

[miketx]

Anyone seen any news reports on who these terrorists were and when they were caught?

If they caught you that would make 11.

 

[Pellinore]

President Trump's remarks:

The bill's introduction, including its six Democratic co-sponsors: Cosponsors - H.R.6 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act

It passes the House, 393-8: Actions - H.Res.1099 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act

It passes the Senate, 99-1: U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 115th Congress - 2nd Session

Admittedly, the term "very little" is subjective, but it's hard to imagine any reasonable person considering a cosponsored bill that swept through both chambers with near-unanimous Democratic support as receiving "very little" support from the left.

I can offer a lot more, subject to my available time and energy.

So where is this opioid bill "lie" as you call it ? The video is an HOUR and six minutes. If you knew of something in the video, you could have poste the time on the time bar.

I set the video to start at 41:00. He talks for a minute and change about the bill, and at about 42:30, he says that Rob Portman helped a lot (no problem there) but that it got "very little Democrat support."

 

[protectionist]

He didn't actually give us anything---he made it up and some clever fans of his are trying to pull an excuse out of their asses. But the fact is, what he said isn't backed up by facts, and it isn't because they're "secret." They don't exist.

"Secret" doesn't mean there's no facts. It just means you don't get to hear them.

You DON'T KNOW if Trump is making up stuff, or if he really has facts. You shouldn't proclaim things you have no way of knowing.

 

[protectionist]

Doesn't matter whether you work for the Army, for Chucky Cheeses, or for nobody at all ---- if there's no evidence, there's no evidence. And Rump is a pathological liar. His is the burden of proof, and he ain't got none.

Besides which, if you work for the Army how come you're an Admiral?

He does not have the burden of proof. He's not a courtroom prosecutor. He can say what he wants to say, whether divulging proof or not. If you choose to not believe him, that's your perogative.

 

[protectionist]

I set the video to start at 41:00. He talks for a minute and change about the bill, and at about 42:30, he says that Rob Portman helped a lot (no problem there) but that it got "very little Democrat support."

Maybe Trump is talking about earlier on "very little Democrat support." being the case THEN. Your posts are about the bills voting, which was later. The last phase of it.

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't matter whether you work for the Army, for Chucky Cheeses, or for nobody at all ---- if there's no evidence, there's no evidence. And Rump is a pathological liar. His is the burden of proof, and he ain't got none.

Besides which, if you work for the Army how come you're an Admiral?

He does not have the burden of proof. He's not a courtroom prosecutor. He can say what he wants to say, whether divulging proof or not. If you choose to not believe him, that's your perogative.

"Burden of proof" is a logic term, not a legal term. You don't need a courtroom. If you make an ass-sertion, then you ass-SUME the burden of proof with it. That comes with the package, standard equipment. So until the ass-serter shows his evidence he's pissing in the wind.

Sure he can say what he wants to say, and what he usually wants to say is made-up crapola. But he can't claim facts not in evidence. He's entitled to his own opinion but not his own universe of reality where saying so makes it so.

The fact is, if he had any evidence he'd bring it, because that would preclude this call. Just as he had no evidence for "thousands and thousands dancing on rooftops", just as he had no evidence for "three million illegals voted", just as he had no evidence for "biggest electoral college victory since Reagan", etc etc. The man swims in a toxic soup of self-delusion, so nothing he says can ever be taken seriously sans evidence except by an idiot who's equally self-delusional.

 

[protectionist]

"Burden of proof" is a logic term, not a legal term. You don't need a courtroom. If you make an ass-sertion, then you ass-SUME the burden of proof with it. That comes with the package, standard equipment. So until the ass-serter shows his evidence he's pissing in the wind.

Sure he can say what he wants to say, and what he usually wants to say is made-up crapola. But he can't claim facts not in evidence. He's entitled to his own opinion but not his own universe of reality where saying so makes it so.

It's not saying so makes it so. You can believe it or not. He's not compelling you.

And since you're so hopped up on "proof" where' yours for the claim >> "what he usually wants to say is made-up crapola." Burden of proof on YOU ?

 

[Pogo]

"Burden of proof" is a logic term, not a legal term. You don't need a courtroom. If you make an ass-sertion, then you ass-SUME the burden of proof with it. That comes with the package, standard equipment. So until the ass-serter shows his evidence he's pissing in the wind.

Sure he can say what he wants to say, and what he usually wants to say is made-up crapola. But he can't claim facts not in evidence. He's entitled to his own opinion but not his own universe of reality where saying so makes it so.

It's not saying so makes it so. You can believe it or not. He's not compelling you.

And since you're so hopped up on "proof" where' yours for the claim >> "what he usually wants to say is made-up crapola." Burden of proof on YOU ?

I just gave you several examples. You chose to cut them out of the quote.

See what I mean about self-delusion? You seem to think by cutting out the comment it never existed.
Doesn't work that way.

 

[protectionist]

I just gave you several examples. You chose to cut them out of the quote.

See what I mean about self-delusion? You seem to think by cutting out the comment it never existed.
Doesn't work that way.

I don't see any examples. Examples of what ? I don't know what you're talking about (nothing new about that, and I'd be worried if I did know)

 

[Pogo]

I just gave you several examples. You chose to cut them out of the quote.

See what I mean about self-delusion? You seem to think by cutting out the comment it never existed.
Doesn't work that way.

I don't see any examples. Examples of what ? I don't know what you're talking about (nothing new about that, and I'd be worried if I did know)