Trump is an idiot.

[B...@onramp.net]

The Paris Accord was too important to dump. Even big business thinks
so....including Mobil, who has more to lose by staying.

Now the USA is locked in with Syria and Nicaragua, and against 195
other countries. Shameful.

[Dene]

Your opinion is noted and dismissed :-)

[B...@onramp.net]

Only by fools.

[Dene]

text -
Only by fools.

Of whom you are foremost.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:51:57 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:

>text -

>Your opinion is noted and dismissed :-)

>Only by fools.
>
>Of whom you are foremost.

But I didn't note and dismiss my own opinion. You did.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:28:17 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>How is it that none of the global warming whiners are aware that
> temperatures have been virtually flat, sea levels are stable and
> storm severity is as low as it has ever been?
>
>All of the climate models were wrong!

Try to tell the Chinese and Japanese that. They have to wear masks in
order to survive the man-made smog. But they are still in the Paris
Climate Agreement.

https://phys.org/news/2015-12-lessons-japan-smog.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=china+smog&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS743US743&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX2KTOzJ3UAhXGSyYKHRwoDzYQsAQINQ&biw=1160&bih=618
>
>They changed the name from global warming to climate change so the
> idiots would not get wise. It worked.

[John B.]

As usual, everything Mod says here is false.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 19:19:12 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:28:17 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>How is it that none of the global warming whiners are aware that
>>> temperatures have been virtually flat, sea levels are stable and
>>> storm severity is as low as it has ever been?
>>>
>>>All of the climate models were wrong!
>>
>> Try to tell the Chinese and Japanese that. They have to wear masks in
>> order to survive the man-made smog. But they are still in the Paris
>> Climate Agreement.
>

>No shit. The US has to pay. China doesn't have to do shit. Why
> wouldn't they want the US at a disadvantage?
>
>With Obama the world came first. With Trump America comes first.
>>
You have a lot in common with Trump....idiocy is the most prevalent.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 20:17:01 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

>Why is it everytime I prove you wrong you call me an idiot? You
> are an 80 year old child.

Where do you imagine to think you proved me wrong? You ARE an idiot.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 20:50:35 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

>Everyday. Specifically on China's reasons for supporting Paris
> Accord a few minutes ago.

Here's the contents of that post;

>>>How is it that none of the global warming whiners are aware that
>>> temperatures have been virtually flat, sea levels are stable and
>>> storm severity is as low as it has ever been?
>>>
>>>All of the climate models were wrong!
>>

>> Try to tell the Chinese and Japanese that. They have to wear masks in
>> order to survive the man-made smog. But they are still in the Paris
>> Climate Agreement.
>
>No shit. The US has to pay. China doesn't have to do shit. Why
> wouldn't they want the US at a disadvantage?
>
>With Obama the world came first. With Trump America comes first.
>>

Now smart ass where was I proved wrong? I made no comments about
China other than to point out their smog problems.

Nailed again!! You're SOOOOOO easy, because there's no there there,
just an empty cranium.

[toms...@gmail.com]

If this "agreement" was so damn good WHY didn't Obummer have it ratified by Congress?

[B...@onramp.net]

As I said, you're a typical wingnut. It was an agreement made by the
membership of the UN and required no ratification by Congress, just
the signatory of the country agreeing to it.

So you learned something today, raising your IQ to double figures.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 05:23:55 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>It was not as important to the United States as it was to China.
> Glad I was able to correct you yesterday.

Doofus. As it showed perfectly in the text that you wisely edited
out, I made no comment regarding China other than the smog problem.
There was nothing to correct. But nice try, dick head.

Do you actually think that anyone believes you any more? You not only
are a liar but a silly shit.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:12:42 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>Then cancelling it was no big deal.
>
>It was a bad deal for America, because Obama made bad deals.

You obviously know little about the Paris agreement. There was no
"deal", no penalties, any country could take their own pace in
reducing carbon emission, or leave at any time. The idea was that in
agreeing to the overall idea of reduction of such emissions it would
put pressure in the signatory companies to continue that.

It seems that Trump just wants to undo anything that Obama did,
whether or not it was positive. The fact that he did this in the face
of such major companies suggestions to forgo it shows his hard headed
idiocy. Hell, even his daughter and her husband who is part of his
administration were against it.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:19:02 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

>I didn't edit anything.
>
>You certainly touted China for signing the Accord.

I certainly did not and you can't point out where I did...
just another one of your statements that there is no way to back up.
Your ability to correct anyone is amazingly weak.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 13:23:30 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

>You obviously haven't read the Paris Accord.

Yes I have. If you disagree with anything above then you are more than
an idiot. Basically a gentleman's agreement between the signatories,
each country sets its own goals and there' no penalty for not reaching
them. There's no cost to belong and all that is expected is that each
country do it's best to reach the goal that they have set. In a
nutshell that's it and unarguable. Google it and you'll learn
something. Now, if you read Breitbart and that ilk they talk doomsday
as usual, but their thinking is as small as yours.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 13:26:38 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

>Try to tell the Chinese and Japanese that. They have to wear
> masks in order to survive the man-made smog. But they are still
> in the Paris Climate Agreement.

You are making a fool of yourself and should stop. There is nothing
there that touts China. The sentence, if read by a person with a
brain, says that even though they are suffering from pollution they
haven't left the agreement. That's neither a plus or a minus in my
opinion, but a fact.

Fool.

[John B.]

China is doing far more than the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Of course, that's not saying much because the U.S. isn't doing
anything.

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

China is doing far more than the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Of course, that's not saying much because the U.S. isn't doing
anything.

Hmmm....so the solar panels I see everywhere in Arizona and wind farms in Oregon and Washington state do not amount to anything.

Perhaps the rest of the world need to catch up to us.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 18:19:19 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

>I read the Accord.

Then you owe me an apology....oh, wait. You didn't understand it.
>
>So when you said, 'The Paris Accord was too important to dump'
> what did you mean?
>
>You now say it is nothing.

Wrong again. That was never said.

You're such a dick. How Mike and Greg can say that Alan just looks
for an argument and never calls you on it I don't understand.
So wrong so much, you should be ashamed to try this any more.

[-hh]

Greg wrote:

Perhaps you need to go see the rest of the world to see how extant wind & solar
has become, particularly relative to the US. I can recall a drive from Brussels
to Stuttgart which had wind turbines on ridge after ridge...a decade ago. And a
Colleague was building a new house for himself on a design that was energy neutral.
Think about how much your monthly heating + AC bills sum to ... and now cut it by 90%.
Just how much would this save you per year? Probably $1K-2K?

Well, that is where the rest of the world is going, Greg...and the USA is behind, let alone being in the lead.


-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

Trump ran on calling wind turbines an eyesore and bird killers. The
largest wind farm in the world is in Kern County, CA.

I don't recall him criticizing solar panels but wouldn't be surprised.
>

[John B.]

I meant the US government.

[John B.]

They are bird killers actually.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 20:56:57 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 18:19:19 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I read the Accord.
>>
>> Then you owe me an apology....oh, wait. You didn't understand it.
>

>You don't understand it, because you didn't read it.

>
>>>So when you said, 'The Paris Accord was too important to dump'
>>> what did you mean?

Exactly what I said. It was too important to dump. That's basic
English.

>>>
>>>You now say it is nothing.
>>
>> Wrong again. That was never said.

Again...I never said it was nothing.

>>
>> You're such a dick. How Mike and Greg can say that Alan just looks
>> for an argument and never calls you on it I don't understand.
>> So wrong so much, you should be ashamed to try this any more.
>>
>

>It is a direct quote from you in the post that started this thread.
>
The quote about too important, yes. But you added that I now said it
was nothing, which is not true. Just something you made up.
>You can't stop lying.

There was no lie, but you can't stop being a dick, that too is the
truth.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 21:05:10 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
wrote:

>Dene <gds...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

>How can global warming enthusiasts be so ignorant?
>
>https://tinyurl.com/y9d2atn9

Your site doesn't pertain to your stupid statement.

[Dene]

Uh....most of the time I don't see what moderate says, since he's banned on GG. He may very well be trolling you. Why not put him on full ignore?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 19:31:01 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:

>They are bird killers actually.

Yes they are. I don't like that part either, but then look what those
big pipelines are doing. I guess we have to weigh the consequences.

Hey John. Please put some of the post to which you're replying in
your return posts. I knew that this was responding to one of mine,
but the other two didn't explain your answer.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 19:35:54 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:

>Uh....most of the time I don't see what moderate says, since he's banned on GG. He may very well be trolling you.
>Why not put him on full ignore?

I know he's trolling. Not only didn't he make a point in this thread,
he made a fool of himself.

KF doesn't allow me to point this type of crap out.

[Dene]

It's a quagmire. Yesterday Baker told a bold face lie that he never calls me names, conveniently disregarding that the word "bigot" is a name. Though it's tempting to call him on his many lies, it's best for me to never directly respond to him under any circumstance. Just let his troll bait dangle. Perhaps that would work best for you. After all, there has to be a compelling reason why he is banned from Google groups. Perhaps he's not worth your time, especially since you have me and Mikey to bicker with. :-)

[John B.]

Sorry. The only way I see Moderate's posts are when someone
else responds to them. Apparently he's been banned from
Google Groups.

[Dene]

- hide quoted text -

I'm not sure that's something to be sorry about. I just wonder how it happened.

[B...@onramp.net]

As I understand it only an owner or manager of a Google group can ban
members or remove posts from that group's news server. Anyone can
report abuse to the address for such in the header for his posts. I
don't know if that does any good or not.

[Carbon]

On 06/02/2017 10:35 PM, Dene wrote:

> Uh....most of the time I don't see what moderate says, since he's banned on GG. He may very well be trolling you. Why not put him on full ignore?

Agree. GG has excellent taste.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-03 4:16 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Dene <gds...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

>>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 19:31:01 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry. The only way I see Moderate's posts are when someone
>> else responds to them. Apparently he's been banned from
>> Google Groups.
>>
>> I'm not sure that's something to be sorry about. I just wonder how it happened.
>>
>

> I decided to stop having my posts appear on Google Groups. There
> is no ban.
>

And how did you do that, exactly?

[Alan Baker]

> You obviously haven't read the Paris Accord.
>

And what have you read that you'd like to share with us?

[Alan Baker]

> I read the Accord.

So when you said it was a "bad deal" what specifically did you mean?

>
> So when you said, 'The Paris Accord was too important to dump'
> what did you mean?
>

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 16:31:23 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

Well, he uses the aioe server, but PiaoHong.Usenet.Client. as his
news reader. That might be because he's using an Android smartphone.
But why would one stop using Google? Because he couldn't? :-)

[Dene]

Well, he uses the aioe server, but PiaoHong.Usenet.Client. as his
news reader. That might be because he's using an Android smartphone.
But why would one stop using Google? Because he couldn't? :-)

Yeah....even somebody as low techy as me ain't buying Mod's story about GG.

FWIW.... I'm glamping near a pretty little town called Lone Pine CA, having gone through Death Valley. At 3 pm, 115 degrees at the valley floor....but it was a dry heat. :-)

[toms...@gmail.com]

"You obviously know little about the Paris agreement. There was no
"deal", no penalties, any country could take their own pace in
reducing carbon emission, or leave at any time."

Which is EXACTLY what Trump did.

[Alan Baker]

Let's put back in what you (deliberately) snipped:

> As I said, you're a typical wingnut. It was an agreement made by the
> membership of the UN and required no ratification by Congress, just
> the signatory of the country agreeing to it.
>

>> Then cancelling it was no big deal.
>>
>> It was a bad deal for America, because Obama made bad deals.

If there were no penalties... ...how exactly was it a bad deal that the
US needed to get out of?

[toms...@gmail.com]

How about shipping ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR overseas? And this doesn't count the cost of reducing OUR emissions by 28%.

[Dene]

How about shipping ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR overseas? And this doesn't count the cost of reducing OUR emissions by 28%.

Good reply but facts are irrelevant when dealing with the RAT. His response will be designed to perpetuate an argument. Watch...

[Alan Baker]

How about proving that...

[-hh]

$100B/yr? Why didn't Greg notice the huge factual error?

[Dene]

$100B/yr? Why didn't Greg notice the huge factual error?

Don't care. $1 is too much.

[B...@onramp.net]

It gets pretty hot here in Texas too. You realize that asphalt has a
liquid state in July.

[B...@onramp.net]

You can leave at any time.....if you're stupid.

[B...@onramp.net]

A little proof for the billion comment please, and the cost of
reducing emissions by 28% are well worth it.

[Dene]

And humid....so I hear.
Ever consider heading north then?
One nice thing about Arizona. North is not that far away. I went from 100° weather to 70° weather within two hours driving time.

[John B.]

Whatever he did, it's fine with me.

[John B.]

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 10:53:54 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> $100B/yr? Why didn't Greg notice the huge factual error?
>
> Don't care. $1 is too much.

The Paris Accord did not commit the US to send $100b/year overseas. It
didn't commit the US to send 5 cents overseas.

[toms...@gmail.com]

I am STILL WAITING for you to supply the PROOF that Trump lied!

[toms...@gmail.com]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434412/paris-climate-agreement-americans-foot-bill-no-effect-climate

[Alan Baker]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether you think your example is
true or false...

[B...@onramp.net]

He lies so much that he lies about his lies. Here's one source and
there are dozens of others.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien

That's just one story by one source. You have a computer so Google
"Donald Trump's Lies". You'll find five or six pages of stories
listing his lies...by magazines, Newspapers, TV news plus various and
sundry other sources.

You know very well that he lies constantly so stop the bullshit.

[B...@onramp.net]

Load of crap.

[MNMikeW]

B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:10:55 -0700 (PDT), Dene<gds...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The Paris Accord was too important to dump. Even big business thinks
>> so....including Mobil, who has more to lose by staying.
>>
>> Now the USA is locked in with Syria and Nicaragua, and against 195
>> other countries. Shameful.
>>
>> Your opinion is noted and dismissed :-)
>
> Only by fools.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MNMikeW]

B...@Onramp.net wrote:

>>
>> How is it that none of the global warming whiners are aware that
>> temperatures have been virtually flat, sea levels are stable and
>> storm severity is as low as it has ever been?
>>
>> All of the climate models were wrong!
>
> Try to tell the Chinese and Japanese that. They have to wear masks in
> order to survive the man-made smog. But they are still in the Paris
> Climate Agreement.
>
> https://phys.org/news/2015-12-lessons-japan-smog.html
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=china+smog&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS743US743&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX2KTOzJ3UAhXGSyYKHRwoDzYQsAQINQ&biw=1160&bih=618
>>
>> They changed the name from global warming to climate change so the
>> idiots would not get wise. It worked.

That should show you what a fucking joke the Paris agreement is.

[B...@onramp.net]

That was written by Moderate, so it's wrong.

[John B.]

Have you read it, Mike?

[John B.]

So you've read one opinion piece written by a right-wing
pundit who doesn't know anything about climate change and
your mind is made up.

[Carbon]

Good one!

[Tom2G]

Pure bullshit, no substance - YOU'RE STUMPED!!!!

[Alan Baker]

So why won't you take a stand?

I told you, I'm making a logical proof.

[David Laville]

But that wasn't your argument, now was it? You said the Paris Accord
did not commit the US to send $100b/year overseas and when proven
wrong you changed it into an argument about what the author said about
climate change.

And you have the gonads to call Moderate clueless?

[Alan Baker]

Where in that (highly biased) article (from a radical right-wing) source
does it actually show that the US is COMMITTED to sending $100 BILLION
anywhere, David?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:43:42 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>David Laville <dlav...@bellsouth.net> Wrote in message:

>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 08:11:27 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>>>

>>>So you've read one opinion piece written by a right-wing
>>>pundit who doesn't know anything about climate change and
>>>your mind is made up.
>>
>> But that wasn't your argument, now was it? You said the Paris Accord
>> did not commit the US to send $100b/year overseas and when proven
>> wrong you changed it into an argument about what the author said about
>> climate change.
>>
>> And you have the gonads to call Moderate clueless?
>>
>

>BK has no gonads. She is a woman.


Again your stupidity shows, LaVille was responding to John, not me.

There are classes in English as a second language in Arkansas. Take
one and learn to read.
\

[toms...@gmail.com]

There's nothing logical about your "proof" - there IS NO proof. I asked for evidence and you CAN'T provide it. You're STUMPED!

[Alan Baker]

In which case, why are you so reluctant to answer?

[toms...@gmail.com]

The ONLY issue here is WHERE IS THE PROOF? Answer: there IS NO PROOF!

[-hh]

No proof?

Well, here's the text:

<http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf>

Now kindly show us how the USA's NDC is determined by anyone other than the USA.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

So why are you so afraid to answer my question?

[toms...@gmail.com]

Not only is that NOT proof, it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!

[toms...@gmail.com]

Your question is just another libtard move to dodge the fact that you HAVE NO PROOF AND NEVER DID!

[Alan Baker]

Again,

If that is the case, answer the question.

[-hh]

LOL! The actual accord is highly relevant to debunking your claims.

The kook claim has been that the USA had to get "out" of the Paris Accord
because it was an extremely bad deal for America.

But as the above illustrates, the terms of the Paris Accord are 100% voluntary
and 100% self-imposed, which means that Trump could have changed the
alleged $100B/yr to $1/yr (or zero, and so forth) without leaving the Accord and
with zero tangible penalty for making any such change.

Gosh ... zero penalties. That's really _harsh_! /S



-hh

[Willie Brennan]

wrote in message
news:93f3634c-b1cd-424a...@googlegroups.com...

IT and the other little Shit Stain speak through their assholes. Nothing of
substance there but fetid, hot air.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Again, provide the PROOF! But you CAN'T because you DON'T HAVE ANY!!!

[Alan Baker]

Again, if that's the case, why are you getting so agitated by the
request to answer my question?

:-)

[toms...@gmail.com]

Again, why aren't you providing the PROOF that you PROMISED? Answer: you don't HAVE ANY! Libtards blow hard, end up sucking...

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-21 11:07 AM, toms...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Again,
>>>>
>>>> If that is the case, answer the question.
>>> Again, provide the PROOF! But you CAN'T because you DON'T HAVE ANY!!!
>>>
>> Again, if that's the case, why are you getting so agitated by the
>> request to answer my question?
>>
>> :-)
> Again, why aren't you providing the PROOF that you PROMISED? Answer: you don't HAVE ANY! Libtards blow hard, end up sucking...

I already told you: it's a logic proof, and it starts with you answering
my question...

So why do you fear it so much?

[toms...@gmail.com]

A "logical" proof? There IS NO such thing. What you have is an ILLOGICAL proof, and you are saying you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER!

[Dene]

11:39 AMtoms...@gmail.com
- show quoted text -

A "logical" proof? There IS NO such thing. What you have is an ILLOGICAL proof, and you are saying you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER!

Reasoning with the RAT is illogical. He is not interested in the truth/facts. Only perpetuating the argument into infinity.

[Alan Baker]

Of course there are logical proofs.

<https://www.google.ca/search?q=logical+proofs&oq=logical+proof&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.3421j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8>

[toms...@gmail.com]

Your "logical" proof goes something like this:

1. Trump says the sky is blue.
2. I know the sky to be red.
3. Therefore Trump is a liar.

I gave you early on what matters: the FACTS. You don't have any FACTS.

[Alan Baker]

Nope. That's not at all how it goes.

But it starts with you answering my question.

:-)

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:07:21 -0700 (PDT), toms...@gmail.com wrote:
I am STILL WAITING for you to supply the PROOF that Trump lied!

Here you go, five sites listing lies that Trump has told. If you
google "Trump's Lies" you'll find over 13 pages with at least 12 sites
on each page of them. Pick one.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

http://www.newsweek.com/neil-buchanan-thousand-and-one-lies-donald-trump-611858

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-12/trump-s-history-of-lies-according-to-biographer-timothy-o-brien

http://www.essence.com/news/politics/100-days-donald-trumps-lies-and-failed-promises

https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-intentionally-lies-to-us/

[toms...@gmail.com]

No, it starts with you providing the PROOF! If you had a logical proof you would have provided it, but you don't. Your SILENCE is DEAFENING!!

[toms...@gmail.com]

I already picked one - you guys CAN'T PROVEN EVEN ONE!

[Alan Baker]

No. The logical proof starts with your answer. I already told you that.

Why can't you answer? What prevents you?

[B...@onramp.net]

You are a blithering idiot. You asked for proof of one Trump lie.
I've shown hundreds. ESAD

[toms...@gmail.com]

I haven't seen proof of ANYTHING.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Your so-called "proof" is as non-existent as Dimocrats victories...

[DumbedDownUSA]

That's a lie.

Pretending to be the little monkey with hands over his eyes is still
lying.

[B...@onramp.net]

Then you really are stupid. Blind to reality is more like it.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Yeah, just LIKE Trump's lies: all in your little brain.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Typical libtard response: total crap.

[B...@onramp.net]

No crap at all. He's been outed by dozens of people, the TV media and
newspapers. Anyone that doesn't believe that he is a liar is full of
shit.

In your case it's obvious. You're brain dead. Unbelievable!

[DumbedDownUSA]

Me,everyone you know of and around a billion or two more.

You're just a little Trumpet; singing from the same c-rap sheet.