Violent Trump parody video shown at supporters conference in Miami

[haymarket]

That... that is more like (5 * 2) + 2 = 4.


kind of devoid of any logic.

I do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I already did, several posts ago. You have a history in this thread of simply ignoring what you don't want to see, and this is no exception.

^^ LIE. You have not explained why, without knowing whether or not the conference attendee who recorded the video of the fake trump rampage scene sent it to The Times from the conference at the time he/she was there or later, you asserted that that event was not a “contemporary account”.

Now, you want to try again and actually explain why that couldn’t have been a “contemporary account”, or will you just fess up to being full of ****.

Yes.

I’m no lawyer, and it’s really beginning to look like you aren’t one either, but I believe you’d have a hard to convincing a judge or jury that a video played over and over, over the three days of a conference was not the responsibility of those who organized and oversaw the event.

Even if I were to grant you that they're "responsible," which they aren't, this is not in any way the same thing as what you claimed earlier, that the video was run by the organizers as part of the conference.

You made that false accusation several times, after being presented with evidence which contradicts it.

More nonsense. Factually, the organizers of the conference were responsible for running the video. Irrefutably true. That they might not have known the Trump rampage video was part of the montage is the only factor in question.

No, I accepted it as evidence of fact, so my factual assertion was backed by evidence. You made the bald-faced claim that he's LYING, with no evidence whatever, only speculation that they must have known because of your assumptions, again without evidence, as to who did what.

You really don't understand the difference, do you?

I understand that you willfully accept as “evidence of fact” (absurd), without any other supporting/substantiating evidence, a denial letter written/released after the shocking video is made public because that’s what you wish it to be to support your pathetic sham of an argument. At least my theory is based on the actual facts surrounding the event.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

All of your answers are in the official statement you didn't read.

I'll wait.

You mean AMP’s denial letter? No.

 

[Harshaw]

^^ LIE. You have not explained why, without knowing whether or not the conference attendee who recorded the video of the fake trump rampage scene sent it to The Times from the conference at the time he/she was there or later, you asserted that that event was not a “contemporary account”.

Now, you want to try again and actually explain why that couldn’t have been a “contemporary account”, or will you just fess up to being full of ****.


I’m no lawyer, and it’s really beginning to look like you aren’t one either, but I believe you’d have a hard to convincing a judge or jury that a video played over and over, over the three days of a conference was not the responsibility of those who organized and oversaw the event.


More nonsense. Factually, the organizers of the conference were responsible for running the video. Irrefutably true. That they might not have known the Trump rampage video was part of the montage is the only factor in question.


I understand that you willfully accept as “evidence of fact” (absurd), without any other supporting/substantiating evidence, a denial letter written/released after the shocking video is made public because that’s what you wish it to be to support your pathetic sham of an argument. At least my theory is based on the actual facts surrounding the event.

This is pointless. Go on thinking whatever you want, I guess. :shrug:

 

[RaleBulgarian]

This is pointless. Go on thinking whatever you want, I guess. :shrug:

Pointless when you’re cornered by your own absurd and false assertions.