On 28/07/2019 15.22, Geeam wrote:
> On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 1:37:06 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> In this case it was caught with its pants down. You basically
>> admitted as much.
>
> Now you start trolling. What did I admit?
I pointed out the lie in the article you posted. You never bothered with
any of that, no objections, no nothing. Instead you said it was "tit for
tat. Now you know how I feel". (Kinda pathetic, BTW)
I'll take that to mean you're willing to knowingly go to any lengths to
get your tits. Including outright lying.
> That everyone is biased?
> That's just common sense! You know common sense, that weird thing
> you're completely lacking!
>
>> But you haven't named your source. And how on earth do you know
>> which estimate is "realistic"?
>
> That's a dumb useless question.
How could I possibly assume you posses the keys to all knowledge. You've
so far proved to be a zero.
> It's my opinion based on my
> knowledge.
And I asked where that knowledge comes from.
> How do you know what's realistic?
I never said I do. You did.
> I guess the difference
> is that I have my own opinion while you're just parroting talking
> points that other people have made.
That's not the difference. The difference is that you say your sources
are more "realistic" than others. So far, I have committed to none. I
have only listed several other estimates.
Compared to those, your "knowledge" is a bit on the high side. Nor have
I ever heard of the 1.8M before. Which begs the question: "where is it
from?".
This is the difference. HTH.
So. How about spitting it out.
>> Why am I even talking to you?
>
> I certainly wish you wouldn't. Maybe it's because I completely own
> you, but you're still unwilling to surrender?
>
>> Trump had $25B billion in the pocket, now has $2.5B. Everything
>> else is the same! That's shitty dealmaking if you ask me.
>
> Nobody asks you, because you don't know anything. You compare two
> things that can't be compared: a flawed $25 billion deal vs. $2,5
> billion of free money on the table.
There was nothing flawed in the first deal. Except that Trump didn't
want to compromise on the DACA issue. Had he taken that deal, he would
have had a good chunk of a wall, would have been the hero of all
xenophobists around the world. Nobody would remember a DACA compromise.
One and 1/10th are of course very well comparable. The other is 10 times
bigger.
> If that was the deal, I'd prefer
> the free money every time. Your only intention with this nonsense
> thread is to downplay Trump's victory, but you can't.
Trump got a shitty deal, but declares it a victory. That's what Trump
does. And little Trumpskies swoon.
>> The quote is a real quote.
>
> How stupid are you? The quote is a real quote, but it doesn't prove
> anything except that you're a mentally deranged conspiracy theorist.
> Got it this time?
The Sater email proves what the intent of these guys were.
>> You jump into conclusions. I prune out only the lies you guys
>> peddle. Reasonable people, I listen to. The Chumps, no.
>
> Your delusional narrow-minded definition of "reasonable people":
> That's your bubble!
Like I said, I prune out the liars.
>> They were business associates. Trump distanced himself from Sater
>> after their real estate "developing" went bust but then re-hired
>> him.
>
> And how many "business associates" did Trump have over his 50 year
> career? Tens of thousands! Exactly! LOL
The tens of thousands didn't build Trump SoHo for example. Bayrock did.
Sater was a manager at Bayrock. And Trump worked with Bayrock on SoHo.
Unlike the tens of thousands, Sater had his office on "Trump floor" in
Trump Tower. Unlike the tens of thousands, Sater was a friend of Cohen.
Unlike the tens of thousands, Sater and Cohen were pushing Project
Moscow during Trump campaign, ...