Dershowitz to Newsmax: Dems Would 'Trash the Constitution' to 'Get Trump'

I do know how it works .. and clearly you are the one who does not .. You dismissed Dershowitz claims on the basis of "Dershowitz is cranky" - as if this shows his claims were false.

Classic Ad Hom fallacy mate.

 

You should tell the idiots y'all sent to Washington to read it

 

A pity you don't hold the government to that standard when they offer their official conspiracy theories.

 

For six or so years now and counting it had been as obvious as the nose on one's face that the Democrats will latch onto anything -- anything at all -- they find that they think they can get away with to get Trump.

 

I don't recall many of the candidates I voted for actually making it to Washington, but nice dodge. If you are done dodging, however . . .

 

No, I dismissed his claims because there was no basis for his claims. THEN I poked fun at his relationship with a well-known pedophile and his "I kept my underwear on" underage massages. The latter has nothing to do with other claims being false. Read up, mate.

 

Ya'll doesn't mean just you.

 

But if you are quoting me, then "ya'll" would include me . . . and it doesn't. It doesn't mean JUST me, but it DOES mean that you intend to INCLUDE me, which is just blatantly dishonest. And all I did was ask you to read what the Constitution actually says . . . and you've been running away ever since. What would I have to offer in compensation for you to read the Constitution? Hell, I'm just trying to get you to read a couple of sentences of the Constitution, and you refuse to do it and try shifting the spotlight to your favorite leftist boogeymen instead.

 

You're more full of projection than a Christmas turkey.

 

Can you be specific or are you just dodging and hiding again?

 

If you don't actually have anything to say why do you even bother to post?

I'm "hiding" right here...

 

I've posted. Do you have an actual response? For example, you still refuse to read that Constitution. Why?

 

Have you stopped beating your dog yet?

 

Never have. I treat all three of my dogs just fine. Now, if you are done running away . . . AGAIN . . . I'll ask you to please read the Constitution. Here, I'll even try to make it easier for you: try reading the 12th Amendment. Now I'm not even asking you to read the whole Constitution. I'm just asking you to read one amendment. And since I already know that will be too tall of an order, let me make it even easier on you. Can I at least convince you to read a fraction of a sentence? Is that really too much to ask for? I have a feeling we will quickly find out that the answer is, yes, that's too much to ask for, but I'll try anyway.

 

You failed to explain why there was no basis for his claims .. relying on Ad Hom fallacy in hopes of proving your claim true.

What part of his relationship with a pedophile -- has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of his claim .. are you failing to understand.

A joke of a post .. you now trying to back track on nonsensical fallacious gibberish - but failing

 

Setting aside your fallacious shifting of the burden of proof, I did explain. Would you like me to do it again?

 

Since when does the constitution matter to Dems? That second amendment thingy….who needs it

 

Shifting what burden of proof ? You are the one making the claim .. where does the burden of proof lie .. if not on you ?

 

Dershowitz made the claim. You are defending his accusation, for which he has not satisfied a burden of proof. Regardless, I already explained why his claim is dumber than a pet rock.

 

Not talking about Dershowitz claim .. talking about your claim. need to get on the right page mate

 

Then you need to read the thread, mate. Because I've already covered it. You'd know that if you had read the posts you are quoting. I even offered to explain it again. Would you like to take me up on that now?

 

You can't seem to figure out what you are supposed to be explaining .. but do try

 

Third response to the OP, and here it is. Trump based whataboutism. lol

 

Let me know when you figured out what you are asking. Meanwhile, you can educate yourself a bit by reading post #46. It explains all you need to know. Try actually reading it this time. It's just a couple of sentences; shouldn't be a huge lift.

 

The look when one lives vicariously.