turn on moderation 
6390 answers matching: president
new search
Presidents used to be mature enough not to call news fake just because they didn't like to hear it.

UNITED STATES / SEP 23, 2017 12:24 PM EST

in response to: How come we never had fake news until we had a fake President?
The list is clear, containing "old, well-known" facts, as Dutchie said. Any vandalism would be immediately noticed. Besides, the page is protected. Plenty of sources are mentioned as well. We're good. Of course, you can try to prove that Trump is not the 19th Republican President of the USA. You don't seem to be willing to do so, though. So let's leave it at that. Matter solved.

TURKEY / SEP 22, 2017 8:13 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
So the answer is clear now. Donald Trump is the 19th Republican President of the United States of America. Matter solved. At last.

TURKEY / SEP 22, 2017 7:49 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
But why are we talking about research? The topic is if Trump is the 19th Republican president or not. We don't need a scholarly article in order to get the answer to that question.

TURKEY / SEP 22, 2017 7:40 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
"I'm talking about statistics. I want statistics." I wasn't talking about statistics. In fact, the topic is whether Trump is a Republican president or not.

TURKEY / SEP 22, 2017 7:34 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
As Dutchie said himself already, why are you hellbent on discussing criteria for primary sources that can be used for research papers while all we want to know is if Trump is a Republican president or not? A tertiary source will do in this case.

TURKEY / SEP 22, 2017 7:33 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
"No, 12:39, that wouldn't be wise. Dutchie already showed you that whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump, a .gov site, is not exactly neutral." This is how we know you're both reaching too much. You're talking about the white house written by the white house basically. You can't argue your point when you simply use a source that was written by itself. Until then, your points are invalid.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 6:56 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
There's another true thing Dutchie said. The matter at hand is whether Donald Trump is a Republican president or not. No thorough research is required to find the answer to this kind of question. So yes, check any tertiary source to get your answer to that question. Tertiary sources citing references are to be preferred.

TURKEY / SEP 22, 2017 6:33 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
No, 12:39, that wouldn't be wise. Dutchie already showed you that whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump, a .gov site, is not exactly neutral.

TURKEY / SEP 22, 2017 6:23 PM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
"He failed to answer simple questions. Why is Trump a bad president?" Why should Dutchie answer that question if he never stated Trup is a bad president?

TURKEY / SEP 22, 2017 5:53 PM EST

in response to: The Apologist's wisdom: "Like I said before, if [Trump] was a Republican, he would not make a deal with the opposing party. Name one president who has that was against the other party. You can't cause only Conservative presidents do that." Only on JC, right? 不不不不不不不不不不不不
How pray tell? A president must be charged under Article 1, section 3. of the US Constitution. Then tried and convicted by the US Senate.......NOT going to happen in your lifetime, bunky.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 1:22 PM EST

in response to: Impeach 45.
Lmao lets all take a deep breath since some of you need it. I feel bad for you 3 really. He claims I'm all alone on this but from the beginning, I've had people actually expose him for his stupidity. This is the same person who says "liberals and socialists don't have the same views"不 that they don't want the same thing 不 and claims he's not a liberal. He failed to answer simple questions. Why is Trump a bad president? He takes quotes and claims they're his opinion lol.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 11:49 AM EST

in response to: The Apologist's wisdom: "Like I said before, if [Trump] was a Republican, he would not make a deal with the opposing party. Name one president who has that was against the other party. You can't cause only Conservative presidents do that." Only on JC, right? 不不不不不不不不不不不不
Let me repeat, once again, that I'm still waiting for your list of Presidents of the United States proving you right. You just can't admit that you're wrong, huh? 不不不不不

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 6:55 AM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
But... we're not writing research papers, remember? So don't change the topic. Back to our topic. The topic is whether Donald Trump is a Republican president or not. No deep research needed. The facts are known. Now, do we need .gov sites to get the answer to this question or will any tertiary source do? Let me answer this one for you. No, we don't need a .gov site to answer questions of this nature.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 6:52 AM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
6:32 like I keep saying to you. Bipartisan deals never went through. Presidents have tried but they never worked. I'm gonna be busy now so you have all the time in the world to come up with the next retarded comments you wanna make.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 6:39 AM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
5:42, this is what you said: "Give us all an example of one president that actually went against their own party. You can't cause every president was either Democrat or Republican." Bipartisan deals struck by presidents that went against the party line are not rare at all. Just google "bipartisan deal" plus the name of a president. Striking a deal that goes against the party line doesn't make you non-affiliated either. Who told you that crap? 不 不

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 6:32 AM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
"You really have never heard of bipartisan deals struck by presidents? You really think that Trump is the first? You really think that Republican presidents such as Bush Sr., Bush Jr. and Reagan avoided those deals? Genius! 不" I never said they avoided them. I clearly said that Trump is a Conservative who actually made a deal with Democrats who like him now. No hesitation or nothing on his part to make a deal. When Republicans and Democrats tried to make deals, they failed.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 5:42 AM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
I asked a question a month and a half ago. I still am waiting for a response for a decent intelligent person and so far not one liberal was able to explain. New thread new question doesn't matter. This new thread new question is from the same person who failed to answer in the other threads what makes Trump stupid. Then quotes became his life when he threw them at you and says he agrees as if he understood the quote. I just want to know what makes Trump a bad president.

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 5:30 AM EST

in response to: The Apologist's wisdom: "Like I said before, if [Trump] was a Republican, he would not make a deal with the opposing party. Name one president who has that was against the other party. You can't cause only Conservative presidents do that." Only on JC, right? 不不不不不不不不不不不不
Let me repeat, too, that I'm still waiting for your list of Presidents of the United States proving you right. You just can't admit that you're wrong, huh? 不不不不

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 5:18 AM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
We're talking about politics. Stick to a topic. The topic is whether Donald Trump is a Republican president or not, genius. Same low level as finding out the largest cities in Belgium. No deep research needed. The facts are known. Now, do we need .gov sites to get the answers to these two simple questions or will any tertiary do, genius? 不不不不不不

UNITED STATES / SEP 22, 2017 5:10 AM EST

in response to: The Trump Apologist has gradually become aware that you can't win an argument just by calling names. He can't live without calling names, though. So this has become his new logic: "Sore loser" can be used, as it merely means somebody who can't handle a loss. By giving a definition, presented by him as a fact, he thinks that calling someone a sore loser is no longer an opinion lacking any substance, but a fact as well. 不 When was the last time you heard some utterly stupid logic?
« Previous | Next »