<Mod Warning> Kelly denouces politics then gets political

I simply have no doubt that Kelly remembers exactly what he conveyed. Knowing Rep Wilson it is a totally believeable claim even if the details have been lost from memory.

Trump was perfectly in his right to attack a claim made that is a lie of omission. In politics if you let the opposition define you then you are done. Ask Mitt Romney about that. There is simply no doubt that Trump learned from what Mitt suffered at the hands of the Marxist Democrats of today. And Trump isn't going to let it happen to him!

 

I sincerely doubt Kelly was LYING. His memory of the details may have faded with time but there is simply little doubt that her actions at that commemoration were such as to cause Kelly to be disgusted.

Having seen Rep Wilson's actions today, Kelly's impressions were probably right on point!

Trump is *NOT* a congenital liar. Neither is Kelly.

The statement "he knew what he signed up for" is completely different from "he knew what he signed up for and went ahead anyway".

The first is callous and not empathetic. The second is empathetic and respectful.

Now ask yourself exactly which statement you heard from Wilson and the MSM all day today!

A lie by omission *is* a lie. And all we've heard for the past 48 hours are lies by omission being used to attack Trump.

 

May I answer? No. There are some so twisted and obsessed, no rational shred of intelligence is left.

 

When you call trump a moron its obvious thst you are not thinking rationally about trump or this topic

 

And I have reasonable doubt based on his words:

“And a congresswoman stood up, and in a long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise, stood up there in all of that and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call, he gave the money, the $20 million, to build the building, and she sat down.”

and the evidence of the Sun Sentinel video.

 

So in other words, no, you don't care to answer it. You just ignore it and run away.

 

Why is the left so adamant over the past week for using the argumentative fallacy of Argument from Silence?

Kelly was *SILENT* on the issue of permission. Silence is not proof of *anything*. You don't know whether Kelly gave his permission or not! Nor did Trump mention Kelly's dead son, he mentioned the call Kelly never got!

The President can call who ever he wants to express condolences. There is *NO* official protocol.[/QUOTE]

Next time just type "I adore President Trump and it makes my head explode when anyone picks on him". It would be more honest.

 

If you knew the technology was there, you wouldn't have made those two stupid posts. You either knew grabbing a speakerphone was no big deal, meaning you think she and the soldier's mother were lying, or you didn't know it was available, and now you're pretending you did.

I'm not insulting you. I'm reading your posts. If you are posting without any logic, foresight, or credibility, that's on you, not me.

 

If you could read, you wouldn't expose the considerable struggle you have in comprehending simple English. Understandable that deficit may impact your ability to absorb logic, foresight, and recognize credible information. That's your cross to bear, not mine.

 

I can read just fine.

Okay, so then go ahead and explain what you decide was wrong with the Congresswoman saying she wanted to take the phone.

 

True.

Most of these pro-Trump RW Social Media Trolls are absolutely convinced that 1+1=3 because they heard it from Trump.

That is why they are easily ignored and nobody takes them seriously.

 

Why should I do that? I've explained it a dozen times. Please don't ask me to expend a bunch of time and energy because you can't comprehend what you read. If you have a problem, find a way to address it, don't make others do it for you.

However, because I am sensitive to the problems others might have, let me give you a hint. They were in a car, a limo apparently. They were not in a living room, or out in public, where those listening could be quite a distance away from the phone.

Ever had a speakerphone conversation in a car? Is it private? Is it difficult for anyone else in the car to speak to the caller? If that is too complex a concept, how big a space is the inside of a car?

Are you familiar with the sensitivity of the microphone on today's cell phones? Are they omnidirectional, or are they unidirectional?

Sorry if I'm asking technical questions that may be over your head.

 

So you can't explain yourself. Got it.

 

You lost all credibility in this thread a long time ago.

Why are you wasting keystrokes making yourself look even more foolish?

Oh, and on topic, Kelly is a DISGRACE to the uniform.

 

LOL. Again, I've already acknowledged your reading comprehension issues, so not sure it's necessary to lean on that again.

Again, I think you're asking too much when you demand people work around that deficit. I suspect this will continue, so any additional investment of time will likely result in the same "blank stare" from you.

I guess we will have to leave it at that.

 

So we're leaving it as you not being able to explain your comments. Got it.

 

Really? How so? Explain.

 

"We're" as in your team? LOL. At least your acknowledging you can't pull your own weight. Good move.

Should I assume then that you are not familiar with hands free conversations inside a car? You didn't comprehend that point.

Assuming that is the case, I should warn you about California. If you're driving, it's illegal to hold a phone to your ear. You'll have to learn how to take a call in speakerphone mode if you ever travel here, and while driving, need to take a call. Given your deficit, you may not understand what I just wrote, so just know the cell phone laws, should you ever be driving in this state. Other states have similar laws, so you might check on it. I understand the fines are quite large.