The Cult of Trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierzynski4Prez

What a ****ing genius rebuttal.

---

Feel free to rebut what I said...genius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo

Feel free to rebut what I said...genius.

---

What a way to respond to a compliment, Bozo

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blams

What a way to respond to a compliment, Bozo

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

---

Thanks for chiming in bozo. You want to take a stab at refuting what I said, or are you just going to be a triggered poster?

Feisty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo

Thanks for chiming in bozo. You want to take a stab at refuting what I said, or are you just going to be a triggered poster?

---

I just wanted to say bozo lol, don't even know what you did or didn't say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

If they are alleging that he used funds or somehow used his position as the head of the My Pillow company, then they might.

---

Every link I see says HE'S being sued, obviously logical, but the suit itself on your link says his company is...which makes no sense to me. Corporations are separate entities so the same thing that shields an owner from liability for what a company does would also shield a company from what an owner does. I mean if a CEO strikes and kills a pedestrian (only on my mind because our AG is getting away with that right now) HE can be named in a civil suit, but the company can't. I dunno, not my concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

yes there is.

one told people to stay, and left. the other just left. both bad, one was worse.

---

Actually, Cruz told Texans he would fight for them and was elected to help them, then left the moment he actually had to.

What Cruz did was worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

Every link I see says HE'S being sued, obviously logical, but the suit itself on your link says his company is...which makes no sense to me. Corporations are separate entities so the same thing that shields an owner from liability for what a company does would also shield a company from what an owner does. I mean if a CEO strikes and kills a pedestrian (only on my mind because our AG is getting away with that right now) HE can be named in a civil suit, but the company can't. I dunno, not my concern.

---

I don't know about the links. But the actual lawsuit document that I posted refers to the parties in question. Go to page three of the document and see sections 9 & 10. Their allegations are that Mike Lindell was taking his actions in both his personal and professional capacity. Therefore the company would also be liable. Just because my counterpart chooses to refuse to look at the actual underlying facts, doesn't mean everyone has to. You can look at the facts and make up your own mind.

Now whether this legal theory will work, I can't say. But it's certainly what Dominion is alleging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo

Feel free to rebut what I said...genius.

---

Like last time, I'm not sitting here trying to counter what you said whatsoever. Just pointing out once again that you simply can't offer any substance to your argument. One side posts articles (in this case a link to the actual suit being filed) and as usual you just spout insults and garbage. You state you don't even read it, which to me just assumes that you are putting your fingers in your ears because it goes against your simple-minded beliefs.

You keep being you though, nobody here is surprised by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierzynski4Prez

Like last time, I'm not sitting here trying to counter what you said whatsoever. Just pointing out once again that you simply can't offer any substance to your argument. One side posts articles (in this case a link to the actual suit being filed) and as usual you just spout insults and garbage. You state you don't even read it, which to me just assumes that you are putting your fingers in your ears because it goes against your simple-minded beliefs.

You keep being you though, nobody here is surprised by it.

---

I wouldn't even waste your time. I provided a link that provides information that proved what he mentioned was wrong and rather than admit he was wrong, he didn't even open the link an just beat his chest proud in his ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

I don't know about the links. But the actual lawsuit document that I posted refers to the parties in question. Go to page three of the document and see sections 9 & 10. Their allegations are that Mike Lindell was taking his actions in both his personal and professional capacity. Therefore the company would also be liable. Just because my counterpart chooses to refuse to look at the actual underlying facts, doesn't mean everyone has to. You can look at the facts and make up your own mind.

Now whether this legal theory will work, I can't say. But it's certainly what Dominion is alleging.

---

Oh I'm just speculating...not that I've read a lot of these type of documents, but it seems odd to include 'alleged facts' in a law suit that are totally irrelevant to the case like journaling some history of the company and how he spent his advertising budget........but, I'm still struggling to understand how he libelized them 'in a professional capacity' unless he talked about it in My Pillow ads I'm not aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

Oh I'm just speculating...not that I've read a lot of these type of documents, but it seems odd to include 'alleged facts' in a law suit that are totally irrelevant to the case like journaling some history of the company and how he spent his advertising budget........but, I'm still struggling to understand how he libelized them 'in a professional capacity' unless he talked about it in My Pillow ads I'm not aware of.

---

I suppose it will depend on the documentary he made and financed (how was it paid for, with My Pillow money?) along with other statements and claims he has made. It is very likely the judge could dismiss the case on standing or say that they can't sue one of the entities. We don't know that yet. But as it stands now, the case is against him in a personal capacity and as a representative of his company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

This is the silliest piece of crap I ever heard of. No one is free from bias, it just some can't see their own like yourself.

When I state this is a democrat dominant forum, it is just telling you the nature of the beast not what is done is alright. I don't expect to go into a MAGA forum and hear sweet things about my political or social leaders, why, because that isn't how they roll. Do I get pissy about it? No, because that is human nature. I don't give crap about their discourse either.

Do I go to a PTA meeting with my skin flicks movies to be shown? No. Because that isn't how they roll. But you come in here and expect us to cheer Trump, diss AOC, and wet our pants at the mere mention of ANTIFA.

That is why you get the "most silly person" award for unrealistic expectations.

Now go diss your cat for not barking.

Not act like partisan? GTFO with that noise when you are one of the most partisan people here. You even try to diss AOC for raising money for Texas. The most important event on Jan 6. was, only to you and Brett, AOC's over-reactions to a Trumpster get-together at the Capitol Building.

---

I'm less partisan than some people here, multiple times giving credit to something from Democrats. this while PSD left doesn't give credit for anything from Republicans no matter what. that is partisan ********.

it shouldn't make a difference what side is dominant in this forum, when something is wrong, it's wrong period. whether that is domestic terrorists storming the Capitol, or domestic terrorists assaulting people. both are wrong, and I expect people to be able to see that and agree with that. that is bipartisan.

that is why I have said before that we can't have an honest conversation here because some partisan people don't want honestly, they want to support their side no matter what. there isn't any or much push back because as you have said this is a Democrat dominate forum that will support their side and the people on their side no matter what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Actually, Cruz told Texans he would fight for them and was elected to help them, then left the moment he actually had to.

What Cruz did was worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metswon69

Because Ted Cruz went on vacation while millions of people in the state he represents were in immediate need of assistance. He could have used his political influence to help people but decided that wasn't important. It was more important to sit on a beach in Mexico.

What does one have to do with the other? The scenario I brought up has nothing to do with Newsom. Newsom made a choice to go to a party without a mask then go straight back to work. You introduced him into the conversation to "what about" like you always do.

---

bold, you know I haven't denied this, right. what he did was wrong.

how many people have died in Texas? give me that number. then along with that give me the number of deaths in California due to Covi19. do that and get back to me.

Less partisan than some people here? :laugh: