|
| Grasping at straws again I see. LMAO.
You said that I used the term a witch hunt, I said I did not, you insinuated that I changed the wording to remove that term which I did not do because there was no need to and now you are claiming that “the judicial targeting of Trump” is the same term.
To put it in simple enough terms in hopes you can understand you screwed up when you accused me of saying something I didn’t say. You screwed up again when you could have easily cleared the air by referring to it just being your interpretation of a different terminology as being equal to what I said but oh no, you are never wrong, so instead you doubled down with an accusation. And now you screwed up again by not coming just clean and what, tripling down??, by saying it is still in my post up above, which it is not and never has been.
Now I am left with the task of having to explain to you that we are on this topic because YOU made a false accusation. There certainly is something interesting about you finding it interesting that we are discussing the topic that you introduced. LMAO.
To add yet another interesting layer to all of this it was actually the post where you deflected away from a clear answer to a question I asked that started this tangent. And to think you find it interesting that the conversation got sidetracked away from the deflection topic. lol.
Anyways, can you now answer this question that I asked that you deflected away from? Or are you sticking with an I don’t know. Which is basically admitting that even you don’t feel your character has the constitution to be consistent and unbiased.
Here’s the question again:
I may as well add this: There will be no one found guilty of the current corruption being talked about. Does that mean it isn’t happening also? Or does that concept only apply to the corruption you choose to not see? Can you be consistent and make an unbiased assessment or will you want to change the rules of judgement? Lol | |
|
Somethings rotten in Denmark
