Author Topic: Do people actually support Donald Annoying Orange?  (Read 5187 times)

Yeah, I guess you're right. It is pretty normal for every person who stands against the DNC and Hillary to end up dead,


More of that bombastic slam statements you're notorious for. I already explained that I had gotten the impression that I did from the few times I had watched corespondents debate over Annoying Orange's statements. But I know this explanation won't be good enough for you. Interpreting words to mean something completely different is quite common for Annoying Orange supporters

That's a fancy way of saying "I made an assumption without verifying it and it turned out I was completely wrong" but hey don't let that get in the way of your ego.

I am everyone and I do not Support Donald Annoying Orange,

for a decade wikileak's leaks have never been debunked, and always been trusted. especially by democrats when all that anti bush dirt.

now democrats and their new's start claiming wikileaks make stuff up and work for russians lol.
all the proof of hillary's bullstuff they trying to ignore.

you have had people who were gonna testify against the clintons that were found dead, and the same thing has happened to other people close to them
Hundreds of people were involved in those hearings, most of whom were old, male politicians and public employees who have spent their entire lives in high-stress jobs. For a couple of them to die during the several-month-long investigations is seriously not an absurd coincidence. I doubt there were any signs of foul-play either.

Her Decisions still are hers, and the results are her fault, This still makes up her character.
I don't think you understand how anything works. The State Department has tens of thousands of employees, and there are hundreds of whom who work strictly on embassy security. Clinton hires those people, oversees them (or more likely, oversees their overseers), but it's not the Secretary of State's job to micromanage embassy security.

Yeah, I guess the DNC just arbitrarily decided to be pro-Hillary.
No, they supported her because she was the establishment candidate and far more likely to win than Bernie. Don't get me wrong, the DNC is guilty of plenty of shady stuff, but Hillary does not work for the DNC. She benefited from their corruption but had no direct hand in it, which means you can't really blame her for it.

Yeah, I guess you're right. It is pretty normal for every person who stands against the DNC and Hillary to end up dead, so I guess it would be more strange if someone didn't die.
You really like hyperbole, don't you? There were thousands of people involved in these cases, and as I said above, a large portion of them are old men. The Benghazi investigation took months, and it's really not a small probability that people working on the case would die from natural causes.

That's a fancy way of saying "I made an assumption without verifying it and it turned out I was completely wrong" but hey don't let that get in the way of your ego.

It's called making a tongue-in-cheek joke with anecdotal reference. I outright said I don't follow the Fox network enough to have a competent grasp on their stance on recent issues. You're the only one who took it seriously because you got butthurt over it.

But by all means, continue trying to dissect it. It's not like it bothers me that my stupid joke was supposedly wrong.

Alright Red Spy, lets try your logic with this:
for a decade wikileak's leaks have never been debunked, and always been trusted. especially by democrats when all that anti bush dirt.

now democrats and their new's start claiming wikileaks make stuff up and work for russians lol.
all the proof of hillary's bullstuff they trying to ignore.


Now everyone will dismiss his statement because 'lol tinfoil hat'.
Without even using their own damn head.
Be a Sheep if you want, But going and claiming something is a 'conspiracy theory' because you, A. Disagree with it or B. Don't have DAMNING evidence, but only small leads.

It's so damn obvious Hillary covers stuff up, and she has NO Boundaries on when to stop.

for a decade wikileak's leaks have never been debunked, and always been trusted. especially by democrats when all that anti bush dirt.

now democrats and their new's start claiming wikileaks make stuff up and work for russians lol.
all the proof of hillary's bullstuff they trying to ignore.

Wasn't some news network claiming it was illegal to read wikileaks recently or something? It's like a goddamn circus.

Be a Sheep if you want, But going and claiming something is a 'conspiracy theory' because you, A. Disagree with it or B. Don't have DAMNING evidence, but only small leads.
There is literally no overlap between the truth, and 'the truth' posited by people who use the term 'sheep' as an insult. Step back and reassess.

Wasn't some news network claiming it was illegal to read wikileaks recently or something? It's like a goddamn circus.

cnn claimed only the news is allowed to see it and thats how you should learn about them.

all lies of course lol

There is literally no overlap between the truth, and 'the truth' posited by people who use the term 'sheep' as an insult. Step back and reassess.

So instead of actually countering my point, you focus on one word I said as an 'insult' and move on?

Okay. Yeah Okay.

cnn claimed only the news is allowed to see it and thats how you should learn about them.

Scary part is people most definitely believe them :cookieMonster:

there are like 100s of scandals a year. and every one of them began as a conspiracy theory that people were called nuts for discussing.

its getting more embarrassing to be a non believer nowadays. always getting proven wrong.
it dosnt even take any faith, you can just see the evidence yourself.

Be a Sheep if you want, But going and claiming something is a 'conspiracy theory' because you, A. Disagree with it or B. Don't have DAMNING evidence, but only small leads.

It's so damn obvious Hillary covers stuff up, and she has NO Boundaries on when to stop.
So instead of actually countering my point, you focus on one word I said as an 'insult' and move on?

Okay. Yeah Okay.

If you want to put forward the claim that Clinton is assassinating people who could harm her, then you better have some proof to back it up. It's a pretty tall claim to accuse someone of murder.

So instead of actually countering my point, you focus on one word I said as an 'insult' and move on?
I countered four of your points in my previous message, which you haven't responded to at all.

Also, you didn't even really make a 'point'. You just called him a sheep and proceeded to argue that it was 'obvious' that Clinton murdered people, without any evidence whatsoever. I can't just conjure a substantive, facts-driven retort when your central argument is, "LOL, SHE TOTALLY DUNNIT, RIGHT GUYS?".