Reasoning with the trumpster

"

Crackmonster wrote:

Actually, i removed this thread once because i questioned the value of that news.
I even suspected it to be entirely bullshit news, based on nothing at all.

Yet in the opening post of this thread you are still linking to fake news that claims "Trump denies the key reason Tangier Island is doomed" and "the president dismissed the primary cause, rising seas;" these are lies. It then goes on to make the mayor look like a fool with "According to Eskridge, it’s just erosion that is destroying Tangier," when that statement is practically accurate.

You still missing the point.

"

It's the way it was handled that reveals the intentions behind the trumpster.

It's not this case that's interesting, it just serves to highlight how he acts. He didn't as you seem to be implying, argue well for this or that.

Can link the original articles too, but it doesn't change shit. You get it? It's how he chooses to act and this article actually only qoutes that i believe. Don't really know, don't really care.

You are all so sentitive up your ass that you overanalyze extremely hard, but so hard you can't see shit in the end and miss the simple point. Like want anyone to write a book explaining the meaning of life in absolute detail before you can't find something dumb to shoot it down with. And as i said many times, you all blind as fuck in your big misinformation web, so when someone points out the obvious you can't see it.

What did you expect Trump to say? "Fuck your islands, I hope they are eventually swallowed by the bay and your community splintered?"