Right, I'm only going off of stuff that Trump has said...I have not repeatedly listed his actions (sarcasm for the illiterate).
You're mocking somebody by calling them Mr. Constitution and then showing that you yourself don't know the Constitution by making a fake claim based on something Trump said. If you think we can't see through the passive aggressive crap, then you think you're way more clever than you actually are. And yet you try and make yourself the victim by claiming that I attacked you with my mean words because you were "defending" yourself? I pointed out your repeated lies and your hypocrisy of claiming somebody else was misinformed. If you don't want me pointing out your lies, well stop lying.
YOU didn't start this thread, so we've all inserted ourselves despite your entitlement to determining who gets to post.
Really? Mr. Constitution was passive aggressive? I thought it was a pretty direct counter to me being called out as being against the constitution. Sorry if that seemed like an attempt at being clever to you. Maybe you aren't as clever as you think, and are more passive aggressive and hypocritical than you realize.
Second, I am not a "victim" here. But I am not the one who made claims (anyone supporting trump is stupid) and then when asked for any reasoning for this, couldn't respond, then when asked who else to support was told "the constitution" which is a second insult (I will speak slowly since your reading comprehension is lacking - this implies that you cannot support trump and the constitution, just like it was already implied you cannot support Trump and be intelligent, caught up?) and still a total lack of any reason being provided.
Then, Trump is called a criminal and it is said that people are coming out of the woodwork to testify about him being a criminal -except people like "the whistleblower" are not testifying because they won't even be revealed. It should be of no suprise that most people don't put a lot of weight in anonymous claims.
And so I pointed out, what I thought was pretty direct, with Mr. Constitution..not sure how that is anything but direct...that if Trump is such a criminal, he has the right to face his accusers. Maybe I should have typed more clearly for you (was that passive aggressive? Let me clear that up, your reading comprehension is lacking, is your name Tyrone?)
You did not understand the nature of the post and could not interpret the logic appropriately - and came to the mistaken conclusion I have not read the constitution (because you apparently missed the claim Trump is a criminal).
So I pointed out it was claimed he was a criminal. I am sorry. I missed it, what was he convicted of Mr. Constitution Scholar? Guilty until proven innocent? Wait, while we are at it, what exactly is your definition of a "lie"?
If you want this to start going into insults and be direct, ok. I am sure you stopped comprehending after the second line anyway.
So, now that you have made claims I am lying...and given us your definition of a lie....where are my "lies"?.
And how does claiming Trump showed a video that was made up by someone else and implying he knew about the video, watched it, and showed it to supporters fall in your definition of a lie?
Finally, anyone can post. I have no issue with you disagreeing. Just because you missed it, the issue is that YOU chose to attack by claiming I haven't read the constitution and then turned around and when I respond to you, you say I am blaming you? Come on.
I am all for you bringing some logic to this. I am begging.
Sorry if all that reading gave you a headache. Excedrine can help.