- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Way to avoid what was actual said in reply.Both things I quoted were you saying Clinton was trying to skew optics.
Stop with the dishonesty.They were most definitely the same thing.
You provided a quote and made it appear that what the article said was what I said when I did not say it, because you did not distinguish between what was said.
Again.
It is believed that the larger one was built at Clinton’s request to make her appear taller than she is.
Skewing the optics. Figures.So Clinton using a larger podium would have been skewing the optics and Clinton using the smaller podium is skewing the optics.And her using a smaller podium is trying to skew the optics. iLOL Just as others have done.
Geez, it's good to see you're not holding an absurdly stupid position on this.
The part emboldened in red is what the article said, not what I said.
Clearly you were unable to distinguish properly as pointed out.
iLOLJust because you're embarrassed by posting a source which turned out to be a lie, that doesn't excuse the fact your position is ridiculous.
You making something up to believe doesn't fly in debate. But it is funny.
That is not what I related which I again just pointed out above.You posted what the article said and used it as the basis to make your claim. There was no distinction.
You did not distinguish between what I said and what was provided by the article. Period.
Absurdity you have going on.Yes, and whether the article was right or what you "believed" was right, you accused Clinton of trying to "skew' the optics.
Having a different sized lectern made is skewing the optics. Period.
Yay! You got it right.In other words, no matter which podium Clinton had, you were accusing her of skewing the optics.
But for leaving the lectern the same as the other, no matter what size she changed to, is skewing the optics.
iLOL You pointed out your stupid position is all that is.And that's why I pointed out how stupid your position was. Even a 7 year old would understand the blatant bias you were openly displaying.
Purposely having a different size lectern is attempting to skew the optics. Which has already been pointed out by another.
That you do not recognize this says volumes about your thought processes.
Exactly.So no matter what, Clinton is wrong, regardless of which podium she used, right? To quote you from the first post, "Figures".
And if Trump had done it I would have claimed the same or agreed with anyone else that pointed it out. But as we all know there is no information that said he had a different sized lectern made.
iLOL You making things up to believe in your convoluted thoughts does not make for reality.You're the only one playing this game. I'm merely laughing at your undisguised partisanship. Let this be a lesson to you in not rushing to post dubious articles from the Internet just because they let you attack your political opponents.
There is nothing partisan in pointing out that Hillary, like other candidates, purposely skewed the optics, as I showed Dukakis did.
Get back with me when you realize that.
You again show you know not of what you speak.Trump used the larger podium because he's the larger liar. By far.
Figures.
iLOLIsn't Trump using a larger podium also skewing the optics? And if both podiums come up to the respective candidates elbows, as your pucture shows, how are the optics skewed?
1. One lectern would be of regular size while the other was made smaller.
Under those conditions the larger lectern was not made to skew the optics.
2. Had Trump had a larger or even smaller lectern made, yes that would be skewing the optics as well, but there is nothing that would suggest that is the case.