Tweet
The word is unsubstantiated not outlandish. It means unproven. You claimed Trump's not a billionaire recently. Got any proof? Nope. I'd have to reread of your posts about Trump to give you more examples but I'd rather not. I'll wait until you make some more, which shouldn't be long from now and point them out as I see them.
-
Beware of Dog -
Yeah, Trump sued a long term researcher (long before his presidential aspirations) who said he wasn't a billionaire and lost, badly:
Comment
-
I read both articles. Neither one said there was or is proof Trump isn't a billionaire. The judge said this: Nothing suggests that O'Brien was subjectively aware of the falsity of his source's figures or that he had actual doubts as to the information's accuracy."Yeah, Trump sued a long term researcher (long before his presidential aspirations) who said he wasn't a billionaire and lost, badly:
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8100467&page=1
You lose. Want to try again?Beware of DogComment
-
Well, now Cheeto is going to have to prove not only that he has money, but didn't get it from the Russian mob. Or else Sesh might end up owning his golf courses in Scotland.....
Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992Comment
-
You're stupid. It's a factual based opinion, no one is claiming to be clairvoyant. Hey, Trump can just show us his 1040's buddy! But he doesn't, also many actual billionaires laugh at his ventures that they would never bother with.
If the guy was full of shit, Trump would have won! Simple as that, Trump has a horrible record in court. Can you show any court proceedings Clinton has gone through and lost?Comment
-
Watch him lose his next suit against the NY Times!Comment
-
It's a bullshit based opinion. Based on a bad case of TDS.
Bullshit again. The judge tossed the case because the person who made the claim wasn't aware it was bullshit when he made it. . The judge said."Nothing suggests that O'Brien was subjectively aware of the falsity of his source's figures or that he had actual doubts as to the information's accuracy."
What part of falsity don't you get?Beware of DogComment
-
Did you even bother to read the article before you made that claim? Here's what it actually says:
Patrick Harvie MSP, co-leader of the Scottish Greens, said there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the US president, or people he is connected with, “have been involved in serious crime.”
He has called on ministers to apply to the Court of Session to seek answers as to how Mr Trump’s bankrolled his multimillion acquisitions of land and property in his mother’s homeland.
Responding at First Minister’s Questions, Nicola Sturgeon stressed she was “no defender” of Mr Trump, but said any allegations of criminality were a matter for Police Scotland and the Crown Office.
Where does it say Trump has to prove anything?Beware of DogComment
-
-
What she was saying, dropout, is that it's not libelous to call someone a millionaire rather than a "billionaire". The Judge said it doesn't matter whether it's true or false, are you a fucking paralegal now? She never said anything one way or another.
Trump admitted:
...that his sense of financial worth depends on his feelings day-to-day. Asked whether it was really true that his "net worth goes up and down based upon [his] own feelings," here's Trump's funny response:
"Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day. Then you have a September 11th, and you don't feel so good about yourself and you don't feel so good about the world and you don't feel so good about New York City. Then you have a year later, and the city is as hot as a pistol. Even months after that it was a different feeling. So yeah, even my own feelings affect my value to myself."
Keep lapping that asshole!Comment
Comment