Trump

[PumaG]

That's weird!

That headline you quote from The Long Room "Trump campaign manager exonerated over 'battery' of female reporter after prosecutors find she started altercation and lied about touching Trump first" is just a link and quote to a Daily Mail piece that doesn't say any such thing.

It doesn't use exonerate at all. In fact it says:

State Attorney Dave Aronberg and his chief assistant Adrienne Ellis considered Spellman's statement along with those of other witnesses, ultimately finding that there was conflicting evidence that would kill their chances of convicting Lewandowski.

After the police passed it as worthy of consideration of prosecution and passed it upstream. That doesn't mean he isn't innocent but that's certainly an unwarranted headline. From the DA himself

I've made the decision that this office will not be filing charges against Corey Lewandowski for battery, we agree that probable cause exists but as prosecutors, our standard is higher than probable cause and we must prove each case beyond reasonable doubt.

Must be some kind of admin error I guess! Shame the world is full of unthinking mugs swallowing this kind of 'mistake' whole

It's a circus! which I stated at the top of the page I posted that headline.

the name under the article has history with Weinstein, I swallowed nothing whilst watching this unfold on Twitter. This was other's childish shit that you managed to turn into a personal attack on me, slow hand clap for you.

I take it you're happy then with the calls and the letter, insisting for Lewandowski to be sacked prior to an investigation?
and happy with Ted Cruz claiming Trump's campaign was built on violence? Even though we now know he was being protected by the FBI.

Dm's headline was changed but does indeed as of now still use 'exonerate' in the context of it being a Trump quote.

Those comments you made are fucking obnoxious and well suited to the shower of SHIT playing this out on twitter. Apparently Weinstein is a 'beta male, dork' , Im swallowing that.

[tufty]

So, on the one side it's "childish shit", and the other side he's exonerated because Trump says so.

That's that settled then.

[gravy]

the name under the article has history with Weinstein, I swallowed nothing whilst watching this unfold on Twitter. This was other's childish shit that you managed to turn into a personal attack on me, slow hand clap for you.

It isn't an article. It's a slab of text from the Daily Mail that links to the entire Daily Mail piece coupled with an incorrect headline. That you copied in BIG TEXT

It doesn't say exonerated. You've just gulped down a load of shit and then threw up it all back up with some borderline MRA nonsense like this:



Lewandowski has in no way been exonerated of being a thug and a bully, in fact the police and state attorney specifically call him out on his lies of having "never touched her". The truth is Trump is happy to employ a liar to run his campaign and when there's an investigation into the guy he doesn't suspend him until the issue is cleared like most organisations would. What a surprise

I take it you're happy then with the calls and the letter, insisting for Lewandowski to be sacked prior to an investigation?
and happy with Ted Cruz claiming Trump's campaign was built on violence? Even though we now know he was being protected by the FBI.

Why would you assume that? He's an idiot too, doesn't give a fuck about the issue and making political hay. That doesn't mean Trump isn't a dangerous fuck knuckle.

You've got to realize that someone else being a terrible person doesn't make Trump any better. I have no idea why you keep taking that tack.

It's not unfair he's treated worst than others when he is worst than others.

Are you a socialist? That's a political point of view often criticised for seeking the same treatment for wildly different cases.

[gravy]

Liar surrounds himself with liars shock

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

[PumaG]

So, on the one side it's "childish shit", and the other side he's exonerated because Trump says so.


That's that settled then.

q

?

I'm not a Trump supporter, so you can start making sense if you like.

I couldn't give a shit about DMs initial wild headline or who thinks he "WILL be exonerated"
The video is clear, he didn't 'batter' her. He didn't even look at her. The audio also shows her vile exaggeration which was repeated by her boyfriend, who as I pointed out, has history with the guy who did the mail article. His website slated him last year. Yet the key issue and offence being caused here, is that the daily mail of all media, souped up their initial headline. Well worth posting initially and well glad I did now, looking all the knickers in a twist.

[PumaG]

the name under the article has history with Weinstein, I swallowed nothing whilst watching this unfold on Twitter. This was other's childish shit that you managed to turn into a personal attack on me, slow hand clap for you.

It isn't an article. It's a slab of text from the Daily Mail that links to the entire Daily Mail piece coupled with an incorrect headline. That you copied in BIG TEXT

NO.
It was the initial headline of THE ARTICLE that of which I copied. PLAIN ENOUGH ENGLISH?

found via Weinstein's post on twitter. . It was real, then it was changed, after Weinstein had a go on twitter. I NEVER claimed it was true at any point, nor did I 'gulp it down' . Weinstein pointed it was shit on Twitter, your intervention is too late.
What the fucks your problem anyway? I didn't write it, or judge it, I called it a circus given the twitter furore

It doesn't say exonerated. You've just gulped down a load of shit and then threw up it all back up with some borderline MRA nonsense like this:

stop being a total cunt. Ive listed the order of events at no time did I gulp, belive anything. Why would I call it a circus above the copied headline?
again .....how it was printed on the mail's website. It did say 'exonerated' in the initial headline, then after that was changed it was bullet pointed later. You could have looked, but went on the personal attack again instead.

Just either call me liar, or fuck off with the 'you gulped down' 'mug' type cheap shots. pathetic.

Lewandowski has in no way been exonerated of being a thug and a bully, in fact the police and state attorney specifically call him out on his lies of having "never touched her". The truth is Trump is happy to employ a liar to run his campaign and when there's an investigation into the guy he doesn't suspend him until the issue is cleared like most organisations would. What a surprise

Thug and a bully? so you've got your knickers in a twist and not even watched the video he didn't even look at her, his priority was clearly to get to Trump's side. as the FBi said he was entitled to do and they expected it.+ That wasnt bulling, my my are you a sensitive boy, too much dinner money stolen?

I take it you're happy then with the calls and the letter, insisting for Lewandowski to be sacked prior to an investigation?
and happy with Ted Cruz claiming Trump's campaign was built on violence? Even though we now know he was being protected by the FBI.

Why would you assume that? He's an idiot too, doesn't give a fuck about the issue and making political hay. That doesn't mean Trump isn't a dangerous fuck knuckle.

because you could have commented on that part of my post instead of going on the attack with the wrong end of the stick. Cruz made a twat of himself whilst youre 100 percent focused on Trump

You've got to realize that someone else being a terrible person doesn't make Trump any better. I have no idea why you keep taking that tack.

cunt again because that didn't even cross my mind.
It seemed strange why you didn't tackle Cruz's comment after I quoted it rather than concentrating hard on your personal attack, with the wrong end of the stick

Are you a socialist? That's a political point of view often criticised for seeking the same treatment for wildly different cases

am I fuck

[gravy]

the name under the article has history with Weinstein, I swallowed nothing whilst watching this unfold on Twitter. This was other's childish shit that you managed to turn into a personal attack on me, slow hand clap for you.

It isn't an article. It's a slab of text from the Daily Mail that links to the entire Daily Mail piece coupled with an incorrect headline. That you copied in BIG TEXT

NO.
It was the initial headline of THE ARTICLE that of which I copied. PLAIN ENOUGH ENGLISH?

This one yeah?

https://www.longroom.com/discussion/345 ... rump-first

It's not an article. It's a slab of the Daily Mail article with a misleading headline at the top. That's why it says "excerpt" at the bottom.

Hey I'm assuming it's a point of view you have gulped down and agreed with because you went on some idiotic victory lap calling others mentally ill, disputing any harm done, blaming gender politics and posting that embarrassing mock mag cover nonsense.

Why would anyone use a headline they don't believe to act like an arse?

I don't think you're a liar but that's probably the unkindest thing I've posted in this thread if you consider what the alternative is.

Thug and a bully? so you've got your knickers in a twist and not even watched the video he didn't even look at her, his priority was clearly to get to Trump's side. as the FBi said he was entitled to do and they expected it.+ That wasnt bulling, my my are you a sensitive boy, too much dinner money stolen?

O'rilly?

[gumboot]

That's the same video as posted on Daily Fail, so I guess you're both seeing the same thing and interpreting it differently.

And by the way, fuck you both for making me open that fucking site.


As I understand it, that's definitely assault in the legal sense, but I can't imagine it ever going to court without political motivation.

OTOH, he's a campaign manager, not a bodyguard, so he had no right at all.

Cruz made a twat of himself whilst youre 100 percent focused on Trump

But Cruz isn't anywhere near the eternal trainwreck that Trump is. Comments like that are inevitable and every candidate has alluded to the situation one way or another.

[gravy]

Well I do see an assault, and to be fair I don't think there's a disagreement about that. It's about whether you feel a little assault is okay or not.

The reason this shit blew up is it's a small part of a bigger story about Trump being complicit in the violence at this rallies. IMHO he clearly is but yeah, silly everyone for not forgetting all of that and concentrating on an idiotic sentence Cruz said in response as that's the real issue here obviously

The reason I posted that video though is ot clearly shows Casey Ex Cop staring straight at the journo, something PumaG said didn't happen. I was wondering if he'd actually seen it or was just channelling neocon mra activists off of twatter.

[tufty]

I was wondering if he'd actually seen it or was just channelling neocon mra activists off of twatter.

Doesn't matter if he'd seen it or not. Once you've decided it's all the fault of fucking feminist cunts trying to get victim status, little things like "facts" stop mattering.

[merman]

14 delegates for Ted Cruz in Wyoming, Trump chose not to campaign there.

Gives Teddy Boy 559 to Dunderhead's 743, and makes a contested convention even more likely.

[Baggypants]

Is Trump King of America yet?

[gumboot]

Well I do see an assault, and to be fair I don't think there's a disagreement about that. It's about whether you feel a little assault is okay or not.

I think there's supposed to be some space between OK and prosecution. Stern warnings from HR and all that. Obviously that's not going to happen in the Trump campaign, which, i guess, is the whole point.

That said, if one wanted to actually prove that that were the case, one would have to attempt to resolve it that way. I don't think that happened, so nothing of any consequence has been demonstrated. Prejudices reinforced and nothing more.

Except that the literal wording of her complaint (if that whole "pulled to the ground" thing is really what she said, I haven't checked) was a crock of shit, of course. Making up shit like that is a great way to discredit not only yourself but your cause as well.

[pogo]

14 delegates for Ted Cruz in Wyoming, Trump chose not to campaign there.

Gives Teddy Boy 559 to Dunderhead's 743, and makes a contested convention even more likely.

Yes. Wyoming is another odd state. They don’t hold primaries or caucuses. Instead what happens is much more like what happens here for selecting MPs, local party activists get together and choose their delegates.

Normally it would not matter. It is far too small to have an impact, far too late to swing anything. Or at least that’s normally the case by now. But with no-one having wrapped up the contest, with Trump in particular only a handful of delegates short of being unstoppable, every state counts.

It’s not though as Trump has suggested undemocratic. He just chose not to take it seriously and paid the price. Besides if the contest were more democratic like e.g. the Democratic Party one with all states proportional then Trump’s delegate count would be much lower.

New York on Tuesday. A big state and a significant one for Clinton, Sanders and Trump who all have links there.

[PumaG]

the name under the article has history with Weinstein, I swallowed nothing whilst watching this unfold on Twitter. This was other's childish shit that you managed to turn into a personal attack on me, slow hand clap for you.

It isn't an article. It's a slab of text from the Daily Mail that links to the entire Daily Mail piece coupled with an incorrect headline. That you copied in BIG TEXT

NO.
It was the initial headline of THE ARTICLE that of which I copied. PLAIN ENOUGH ENGLISH?

This one yeah?

https://www.longroom.com/discussion/345 ... rump-first

It's not an article. It's a slab of the Daily Mail article with a misleading headline at the top. That's why it says "excerpt" at the bottom.

below is what you get when you click on Weinstein's post. It is from he daily mail.co.uk not the site you linked to (although the author is the same) . Your link is still displaying the headline that I saw yes.

Im not sure why 'excerpt' , 'slab' and 'misleading headline' prove your accusations agains me. Ive told you the version of events twice, now there times..

It has now been changed at least 3 times. Ive also noticed this on the Telegraph's sport articles.

Like I said, it's interesting that these two have history. This latest headline is equally 'circus like' she now appeared drunk and slipped! is alcohol allowed in there? but hey Im not gulping it down

The headline I copied was the actual one Weinstein was contending and he provided the link...it isn't long room.com "This is total hackery @dmartosko. She lied? " so after reading that, Im supposed to have gulped something down, at the same time as calling it a 'circus'?

Both Weinstein and fields have made claims she was pulled towards the ground... then accused others of lying. .