I wrote a big ass essay on what your words means and how stupid that meaning is, and then I deleted it because I doubt you’d actually read it. If you were that literate you wouldn’t be vehemently defending the stupid shit you wrote.
How about you pull Trumps head out of your ass and apply your statement to ANY other past or future presidential candidate. Let’s say in the future AOC runs for president and the republicans call her a pedo. Do you think that’s enough to make her unfit to be president? Because that is exactly what your title is saying, that simply by questioning whether she’s a pedo (doesn’t matter how obvious the answer would be) she’d no longer be fit to be president.
I see, you’re republican-brained. Trump is bad so him having pedo accusations (regardless of evidence) makes him unfit while Biden is good so him having pedo accusations (regardless of evidence) doesn’t make him unfit.
This is where we differ because I’m actually consistent in how I apply rules. If Biden gets called a pedo and there are no evidence I don’t think it matters. If Trump gets called a pedo and there are no evidence I don’t think it matters. Just because either is called a pedo it doesn’t matter. The evidence of Trump being a pedo came after the election so, to be consistent, him being called one during the campaign doesn’t matter. Had the Epstein files released under Biden there would’ve been evidence and that would make him unfit.
The only reason I “defended” Trump is because I was actually defending all presidents. Nobody should be considered unfit because of a baseless accusation, regardless of what you personally feel about the candidate. And just to be clear for your republican brain, because you think I’m wrong because you don’t like me, I don’t think Trump is fit to be president. He wasn’t fit the first time around and based on his first presidency he definitely wasn’t fit the second time around.
Fuck off you imbecile. Its not about bias its about severity. You truly lack critical thinking skills if you cant parse the rule that is vaguely being applied in the title. I cant give those to you. Please, kindly, fuck the fuck off.
Well then, please do a breakdown of your rule and explain how you get severity instead of bias. Show me how I’m wrong.
But somehow I doubt you’re going to do that because deep down you know you’re wrong and you just can’t admit being wrong. Instead you’re going to make some vague excuse how you can’t be bothered to try and explain to an imbecile like me who truly lacks critical thinking and is intellectually dishonest. Don’t be like every dipshit I’ve had the displeasure of talking to, be special, take a stand.
What a weak weak defense of donald trump…name any other candidate that amounts to half of what there is on trump.
Its sick how intellectually dishonest you are.
I wrote a big ass essay on what your words means and how stupid that meaning is, and then I deleted it because I doubt you’d actually read it. If you were that literate you wouldn’t be vehemently defending the stupid shit you wrote.
How about you pull Trumps head out of your ass and apply your statement to ANY other past or future presidential candidate. Let’s say in the future AOC runs for president and the republicans call her a pedo. Do you think that’s enough to make her unfit to be president? Because that is exactly what your title is saying, that simply by questioning whether she’s a pedo (doesn’t matter how obvious the answer would be) she’d no longer be fit to be president.
Except they did exactly that with biden… youre ill informed and I can only assume a hopeless ideologue.
So I guess according to you Biden shouldn’t have been the president?
Except, according to what actually happened I never faltered in my support and my opinion on trump remained consistent.
I see, you’re republican-brained. Trump is bad so him having pedo accusations (regardless of evidence) makes him unfit while Biden is good so him having pedo accusations (regardless of evidence) doesn’t make him unfit.
This is where we differ because I’m actually consistent in how I apply rules. If Biden gets called a pedo and there are no evidence I don’t think it matters. If Trump gets called a pedo and there are no evidence I don’t think it matters. Just because either is called a pedo it doesn’t matter. The evidence of Trump being a pedo came after the election so, to be consistent, him being called one during the campaign doesn’t matter. Had the Epstein files released under Biden there would’ve been evidence and that would make him unfit.
The only reason I “defended” Trump is because I was actually defending all presidents. Nobody should be considered unfit because of a baseless accusation, regardless of what you personally feel about the candidate. And just to be clear for your republican brain, because you think I’m wrong because you don’t like me, I don’t think Trump is fit to be president. He wasn’t fit the first time around and based on his first presidency he definitely wasn’t fit the second time around.
Fuck off you imbecile. Its not about bias its about severity. You truly lack critical thinking skills if you cant parse the rule that is vaguely being applied in the title. I cant give those to you. Please, kindly, fuck the fuck off.
Well then, please do a breakdown of your rule and explain how you get severity instead of bias. Show me how I’m wrong.
But somehow I doubt you’re going to do that because deep down you know you’re wrong and you just can’t admit being wrong. Instead you’re going to make some vague excuse how you can’t be bothered to try and explain to an imbecile like me who truly lacks critical thinking and is intellectually dishonest. Don’t be like every dipshit I’ve had the displeasure of talking to, be special, take a stand.
Do you understand the word severity? How about risk? Do you know any of these words little one?