Trump exposed for using fake documents at press conference

[SassyIrishLass]

The OP's own link...Snopes no less, says it's unproven.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It's been a running joke on TV all day.

FACT CHECK: Trump Busted Using Empty Folders As Conflict-of-Interest Documents

I FUCKING CALLED IT!!

 

[Iceweasel]

You edited my post. I mentioned his pathological lying as being the symptom of his mental illness. That means you are proclaiming pathological lying to not be a mental illness or you are in denial of his pathological lying affliction.

I responded to the portion I wanted to respond to. I am denying your ability to see clearly.

You responded by evading addressing the substantive part of the post, that being that pathological lying is a mental disorder and our President is a pathological liar, thus, suffers from a mental disorder.

It really should be obvious that I don't agree with your conclusions. Let us know when he says you can keep your plan and save $2,500.

There is no excuse for editing a posters post to make a response. It is just dishonest of you and cowardly too. Deflecting to Obama to escape addressing Trump showing a clear symptom of a mental illness, pathological lying, is also dishonest.

I feel the same way, but I was given clarification that is not against the rules unless a Mod feels it takes the entire quote out of context... so basically it is a case by case basis and puts every occurrence at a mad's discretion. Personally I think that is a poor rule, and that any time a poster quotes someone in a reply it should be the full quote... ALWAYS thus taking out ANY chance the quote can be taken out of context, and so that you never have to worry if the Mod you report possible abuse to has to make a decision on whether they "feel" it is a violation of the rule...

That's dumb. It's pointless to post, repost, repost and repost ad nauseum portions that aren't being discussed.

The posts are still there. You libsa re the only I see whining about what should be obvious. No words were changed. Look, if this is too tough for you, log off and play with your dolls or whatever.

 

[Iceweasel]

The OP's own link...Snopes no less, says it's unproven.

It was a case of premature post elation. He couldn't help it.

 

[Lewdog]

I responded to the portion I wanted to respond to. I am denying your ability to see clearly.

You responded by evading addressing the substantive part of the post, that being that pathological lying is a mental disorder and our President is a pathological liar, thus, suffers from a mental disorder.

It really should be obvious that I don't agree with your conclusions. Let us know when he says you can keep your plan and save $2,500.

There is no excuse for editing a posters post to make a response. It is just dishonest of you and cowardly too. Deflecting to Obama to escape addressing Trump showing a clear symptom of a mental illness, pathological lying, is also dishonest.

I feel the same way, but I was given clarification that is not against the rules unless a Mod feels it takes the entire quote out of context... so basically it is a case by case basis and puts every occurrence at a mad's discretion. Personally I think that is a poor rule, and that any time a poster quotes someone in a reply it should be the full quote... ALWAYS thus taking out ANY chance the quote can be taken out of context, and so that you never have to worry if the Mod you report possible abuse to has to make a decision on whether they "feel" it is a violation of the rule...

That's dumb. It's pointless to post, repost, repost and repost ad nauseum portions that aren't being discussed.

The posts are still there. You libsa re the only I see whining about what should be obvious. No words were changed. Look, if this is too tough for you, log off and play with your dolls or whatever.

Long quotes get condensed... why do you feel the NEED to edit out parts of a person's quote if for no other reason than to take them out of context? Not all people when they come to a thread read your post with the edited quote, then feel like going back and reading the original post you quoted to see what you took out of it. It IS DISHONEST... and you know what you are doing when you do it.

Are you paying this site by the word that you post or something? It actually takes more work to go in and edit stuff out of someone's quote than just to leave it alone. It proves motive.

 

[Iceweasel]

You responded by evading addressing the substantive part of the post, that being that pathological lying is a mental disorder and our President is a pathological liar, thus, suffers from a mental disorder.

It really should be obvious that I don't agree with your conclusions. Let us know when he says you can keep your plan and save $2,500.

There is no excuse for editing a posters post to make a response. It is just dishonest of you and cowardly too. Deflecting to Obama to escape addressing Trump showing a clear symptom of a mental illness, pathological lying, is also dishonest.

I feel the same way, but I was given clarification that is not against the rules unless a Mod feels it takes the entire quote out of context... so basically it is a case by case basis and puts every occurrence at a mad's discretion. Personally I think that is a poor rule, and that any time a poster quotes someone in a reply it should be the full quote... ALWAYS thus taking out ANY chance the quote can be taken out of context, and so that you never have to worry if the Mod you report possible abuse to has to make a decision on whether they "feel" it is a violation of the rule...

That's dumb. It's pointless to post, repost, repost and repost ad nauseum portions that aren't being discussed.

The posts are still there. You libsa re the only I see whining about what should be obvious. No words were changed. Look, if this is too tough for you, log off and play with your dolls or whatever.

Long quotes get condensed... why do you feel the NEED to edit out parts of a person's quote if for no other reason than to take them out of context? Not all people when they come to a thread read your post with the edited quote, then feel like going back and reading the original post you quoted to see what you took out of it. It IS DISHONEST... and you know what you are doing when you do it.

Are you paying this site by the word that you post or something? It actually takes more work to go in and edit stuff out of someone's quote than just to leave it alone. It proves motive.

You're an idiot. If you respond to a specific part it's pointless to include everything. Most people here do it. Only monkeys would just keep making the posts longer and longer for no reason.

You are literally too stupid to understand what happened. No context was changed. More work to edit out stuff. Two seconds to make it more readable and save bandwidth? LOL, what a chimp.

 

[Lewdog]

It really should be obvious that I don't agree with your conclusions. Let us know when he says you can keep your plan and save $2,500.

There is no excuse for editing a posters post to make a response. It is just dishonest of you and cowardly too. Deflecting to Obama to escape addressing Trump showing a clear symptom of a mental illness, pathological lying, is also dishonest.

I feel the same way, but I was given clarification that is not against the rules unless a Mod feels it takes the entire quote out of context... so basically it is a case by case basis and puts every occurrence at a mad's discretion. Personally I think that is a poor rule, and that any time a poster quotes someone in a reply it should be the full quote... ALWAYS thus taking out ANY chance the quote can be taken out of context, and so that you never have to worry if the Mod you report possible abuse to has to make a decision on whether they "feel" it is a violation of the rule...

That's dumb. It's pointless to post, repost, repost and repost ad nauseum portions that aren't being discussed.

The posts are still there. You libsa re the only I see whining about what should be obvious. No words were changed. Look, if this is too tough for you, log off and play with your dolls or whatever.

Long quotes get condensed... why do you feel the NEED to edit out parts of a person's quote if for no other reason than to take them out of context? Not all people when they come to a thread read your post with the edited quote, then feel like going back and reading the original post you quoted to see what you took out of it. It IS DISHONEST... and you know what you are doing when you do it.

Are you paying this site by the word that you post or something? It actually takes more work to go in and edit stuff out of someone's quote than just to leave it alone. It proves motive.

You're an idiot. If you respond to a specific part it's pointless to include everything. Most people here do it. Only monkeys would just keep making the posts longer and longer for no reason.

You are literally too stupid to understand what happened. No context was changed. More work to edit out stuff. Two seconds to make it more readable and save bandwidth? LOL, what a chimp.

Wrong, like you would ever admit being dishonest?

The best is when someone refers back to a quote... one that they conveniently leave out of a quote chain so that those new to the thread have no clue started it. But hey... just because something isn't against the rules doesn't mean it is honest, moral, or ethical. You keep doing what you do... and keep proving how much of a fraud you are. I'm sorry you can't learn ethics, honesty, and morals on an internet forum.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wrong, like you would ever admit being dishonest?

The best is when someone refers back to a quote... one that they conveniently leave out of a quote chain so that those new to the thread have no clue started it. But hey... just because something isn't against the rules doesn't mean it is honest, moral, or ethical. You keep doing what you do... and keep proving how much of a fraud you are. I'm sorry you can't learn ethics, honesty, and morals on an internet forum.

Here you are humping my leg already. The posts are still there. People can decide if I'm being dishonest or if you are a moron.

 

[longknife]

It's been a running joke on TV all day.

FACT CHECK: Trump Busted Using Empty Folders As Conflict-of-Interest Documents

Another butthurt Leftard thread

 

[blackhawk]

Did anyone else see this part of the article?

In the end, however, all the chatter about "empty files" and "blank" or "fake" documents is mostly speculative. As we noted above, what gave rise to the suspicions in the first place was the fact that none of the reporters in the room was allowed to examine the file folders and documents. If no one examined them, we can't corroborate what was or was not in them.

It's certainly possible that the mounds of paperwork displayed during the press conference were blank and just for show, but there is not enough evidence to prove it.

 

[Lewdog]

Did anyone else see this part of the article?

In the end, however, all the chatter about "empty files" and "blank" or "fake" documents is mostly speculative. As we noted above, what gave rise to the suspicions in the first place was the fact that none of the reporters in the room was allowed to examine the file folders and documents. If no one examined them, we can't corroborate what was or was not in them.

It's certainly possible that the mounds of paperwork displayed during the press conference were blank and just for show, but there is not enough evidence to prove it.

As pointed out using video on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah... how many people have piles upon piles of files that aren't labeled in any way... that are real?

 

[blackhawk]

Did anyone else see this part of the article?

In the end, however, all the chatter about "empty files" and "blank" or "fake" documents is mostly speculative. As we noted above, what gave rise to the suspicions in the first place was the fact that none of the reporters in the room was allowed to examine the file folders and documents. If no one examined them, we can't corroborate what was or was not in them.

It's certainly possible that the mounds of paperwork displayed during the press conference were blank and just for show, but there is not enough evidence to prove it.

As pointed out using video on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah... how many people have piles upon piles of files that aren't labeled in any way... that are real?

Yes by all means lets take the opinion of a comedian doing a fake news shows as proof of something. Thank you no.

 

[PredFan]

More fake news from the butthurt left. Enjoy the next 8 years snowflakes!

 

[Lewdog]

Did anyone else see this part of the article?

In the end, however, all the chatter about "empty files" and "blank" or "fake" documents is mostly speculative. As we noted above, what gave rise to the suspicions in the first place was the fact that none of the reporters in the room was allowed to examine the file folders and documents. If no one examined them, we can't corroborate what was or was not in them.

It's certainly possible that the mounds of paperwork displayed during the press conference were blank and just for show, but there is not enough evidence to prove it.

As pointed out using video on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah... how many people have piles upon piles of files that aren't labeled in any way... that are real?

Yes by all means lets take the opinion of a comedian doing a fake news shows as proof of something. Thank you no.

Opinion doesn't matter, common sense does. You don't have mounds and mounds of folders full of important documents without them being labeled...

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey, Trump is just doing what the GOP has been doing for the past 8 years, and using mounds of paper as props to "prove" what they are saying.

 

[blackhawk]

Did anyone else see this part of the article?

In the end, however, all the chatter about "empty files" and "blank" or "fake" documents is mostly speculative. As we noted above, what gave rise to the suspicions in the first place was the fact that none of the reporters in the room was allowed to examine the file folders and documents. If no one examined them, we can't corroborate what was or was not in them.

It's certainly possible that the mounds of paperwork displayed during the press conference were blank and just for show, but there is not enough evidence to prove it.

As pointed out using video on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah... how many people have piles upon piles of files that aren't labeled in any way... that are real?

Yes by all means lets take the opinion of a comedian doing a fake news shows as proof of something. Thank you no.

Opinion doesn't matter, common sense does. You don't have mounds and mounds of folders full of important documents without them being labeled...

Common sense tells you if no one has looked in the folders they don't know what is or is not in them they may have been there just for show they may have had finanical information in them we don't know that is the plain simple non partisan truth people can either accept it or not.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Did anyone else see this part of the article?

In the end, however, all the chatter about "empty files" and "blank" or "fake" documents is mostly speculative. As we noted above, what gave rise to the suspicions in the first place was the fact that none of the reporters in the room was allowed to examine the file folders and documents. If no one examined them, we can't corroborate what was or was not in them.

It's certainly possible that the mounds of paperwork displayed during the press conference were blank and just for show, but there is not enough evidence to prove it.

As pointed out using video on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah... how many people have piles upon piles of files that aren't labeled in any way... that are real?

Yes by all means lets take the opinion of a comedian doing a fake news shows as proof of something. Thank you no.

Opinion doesn't matter, common sense does. You don't have mounds and mounds of folders full of important documents without them being labeled...

Common sense tells you if no one has looked in the folders they don't know what is or is not in them they may have been there just for show they may have had finanical information in them we don't know that is the plain simple non partisan truth people can either accept it or not.

Given Trump's record, I'd be willing to bet they were there for show, rather than for any real purpose. If they were real, they should have let the reporters check them out.

And you thought that Trump was gonna give you transparency when he becomes president...............

 

[Lewdog]

Did anyone else see this part of the article?

In the end, however, all the chatter about "empty files" and "blank" or "fake" documents is mostly speculative. As we noted above, what gave rise to the suspicions in the first place was the fact that none of the reporters in the room was allowed to examine the file folders and documents. If no one examined them, we can't corroborate what was or was not in them.

It's certainly possible that the mounds of paperwork displayed during the press conference were blank and just for show, but there is not enough evidence to prove it.

As pointed out using video on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah... how many people have piles upon piles of files that aren't labeled in any way... that are real?

Yes by all means lets take the opinion of a comedian doing a fake news shows as proof of something. Thank you no.

Opinion doesn't matter, common sense does. You don't have mounds and mounds of folders full of important documents without them being labeled...

Common sense tells you if no one has looked in the folders they don't know what is or is not in them they may have been there just for show they may have had finanical information in them we don't know that is the plain simple non partisan truth people can either accept it or not.

He said in the press conference they were all the paperwork to create the trust his sons would run... So are you admitting you think Trump is a liar?

 

[blackhawk]

Did anyone else see this part of the article?

In the end, however, all the chatter about "empty files" and "blank" or "fake" documents is mostly speculative. As we noted above, what gave rise to the suspicions in the first place was the fact that none of the reporters in the room was allowed to examine the file folders and documents. If no one examined them, we can't corroborate what was or was not in them.

It's certainly possible that the mounds of paperwork displayed during the press conference were blank and just for show, but there is not enough evidence to prove it.

As pointed out using video on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah... how many people have piles upon piles of files that aren't labeled in any way... that are real?

Yes by all means lets take the opinion of a comedian doing a fake news shows as proof of something. Thank you no.

Opinion doesn't matter, common sense does. You don't have mounds and mounds of folders full of important documents without them being labeled...

Common sense tells you if no one has looked in the folders they don't know what is or is not in them they may have been there just for show they may have had finanical information in them we don't know that is the plain simple non partisan truth people can either accept it or not.

Given Trump's record, I'd be willing to bet they were there for show, rather than for any real purpose. If they were real, they should have let the reporters check them out.

And you thought that Trump was gonna give you transparency when he becomes president...............

As I said that's possible as far as transparency goes I don't believe anyone expected the Trump administration to be more transparent than the Obama administration you know the one that was going to be the most transparent ever. Not.

 

[Roudy]

It's been a running joke on TV all day.

FACT CHECK: Trump Busted Using Empty Folders As Conflict-of-Interest Documents