..he put our President in his place. Yikes.
Don't necessarily care for Michael Moore, but..
- Thread starter millah_22
- Start date
I personally blame this all on the Federal Reserve Act. Went into effect in 1914. Just so you know, I'm a smart libertarian who read Rothbard. Unlike all those dumb statists who lived the last 100 years.
A
anon_01irjibf16qqj
Guest
MM is a doosh pig, but that was an epic takedown. When it comes to being a loudmouth troll, you have met your match Mr. President.
Moore would never do that to a Dem, but pretty cool to see the presidency disrespected in such a manner. And why throw facts back in Donny's face; he doesn't do facts.
Not cool to see the presidency disrespected in such a manner, but cool to see this President disrespected in such a manner.
(Side note: And cool to live in a place where this is allowed).
The man sitting in the Oval Office has done more to disrespect the presidency than ten Michael Moores.
Trump should be the last person to complain about disrespecting the President. He did it for years with Obama, but when MM or anyone else does it he a whiney little bitch so typical Trump. He such a child.
Michael Moore is a fat slob who would rather see the country divided than united. My guess is he suffers from some sort of mental illness as well.
Fixed it for you.
Are you talking about Roger Ailes? You should have more respect for the deceased even though Ailes does not merit any respect.
He joined Trump's campaign in March 2016 and was campaign manger from June to August 2016 when all the Russian collusion stuff was going down. Allegedly.
This was before it was known who was indicted. Just sub administration with campaign. Why do you insist on nitpicking the stupidest stuff?
Because I hate faked sophistication. Moore comes out with this list that he thinks makes himself appear so smart and edgy, and non-critical thinkers lap it up.
If you really want to be (and appear to be) smart and edgy, be 100% accurate and logical.
There is no group of people with less critical thinking skills than Trump supporters. It's hard to fathom criticizing a statement that is 99% true aimed at somebody who's statement was 99% false.
An actual critical thinker would look for the meaning behind the point and not try to play "gotcha" with something as trivial as what you have an issue with.
Why does meaning have to be looked for and behind something? If well thought out and factual, the meaning is right there and so much more compelling.
His post was before it was known it was Manafort. Sure he could have worded it differently to cover all the bases of possibilities it could be but you just come off as a little bitch. This isn't a one time thing. You do this a lot.
The next time you throw up some ridiculous distraction post I really hope you remember this one.
How about this thread. Trump says something that is completely false. Moore responds with a series of points, all of which are true with the lone exception being that Mannafort is not actually in Trump's "administration" but was rather simply part of his campaign staff. As I said, Trump was 99% wrong and Moore was 99% correct.
Given the nature of the exchange, it seems doubtful that a person whose only concern is "the truth" would choose to criticize Moore, rather than Trump.
(EDIT)
Okay, I admit I'm not very familiar with your posting history, so I took a quick look. It appears you are one of the more rational posters here. I do, however, disagree with your angle in this thread. Trump is the less truthful between he and Moore, particularly in that exchange.
Last edited:
It may surprise you to know that I think Trump is a lying POS. I held my nose and voted for him last November, as the lesser of two viable evils. Not sure who is a bigger liar between Trump and Moore, but I think both are awful. I would give Moore some leeway, I suppose, because he is at least in an art field; Trump should be in a facts world.
But, with that said, Trump's tweet here was either not about a fact ("bombed" is an opinion I suppose) or was about a fact I do not know the truth of ("forced to close").
Whereas Moore's number 4. was a fact statement, and one I knew to be false. And, I suspect, one Moore knew to be wrong, but "close enough" in his mind to include it. I don't think a good argument ever uses "close enough". It takes away from the overall point.
I also appreciate you bothering to check my posting history a bit, and that I seem reasonable.
Please. Time for this to stop.
Moore's statement was that this was the first criminal indictment from Mueller of the Trump administration. Not IN the Trump administration. NOT that a member of the Trump administration was indicted.
While I agree MM could have been more clear, his intent was obvious - and wasn't what you say he claimed. Which doesn't comport well with your alleged allegiance to accuracy and truth.
I don't mind you capitalizing "Trump Administration" but it isn't necessary. Not sure it's even technically right, but certainly not necessary.
..he put our President in his place. Yikes.
That is indeed pretty damned funny.
And I'm no MM fan, either.
Moore is a terrific American. I'm surprised at the number of people distancing themselves from him before saying they like what he did here.
