Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump attends wake of slain New York officer


docyabut2

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I'm surprised Trump didn't call the dear deceased officer a loser, as he did with crippled military veterans.

I'm sure you have evidence that he said this beyond anonymous accusations? Or is an anonymous accusation that Trump has expressly denied enough for you to deem guilt?

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I'm surprised Trump didn't call the dear deceased officer a loser, as he did with crippled military veterans.

Under normal circumstances he would have, but he was there to kiss ass so saying anything negative would have been inappropriate.:D 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Under normal circumstances he would have 

Perhaps you have evidence that Trump actually called them losers? I mean, actual evidence beyond an anonymous source saying "I heard Trump say it" (a claim Trump has expressly denied). We already know what the answer is going to be, but thanks for sharing :tu: 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Perhaps you have evidence that Trump actually called them losers? I mean, actual evidence beyond an anonymous source saying "I heard Trump say it" (a claim Trump has expressly denied). We already know what the answer is going to be, but thanks for sharing :tu: 

Lets place some round rules upon this. Since you're so sure that there is no proof, let's make a bet, oh say $100 US. If you except this we can set the ground rules, if you don't except it, it obviously means that you don't have much confidence in comments.:yes:

I will wait for your reply!!:tu:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Lets place some round rules upon this. Since you're so sure that there is no proof, let's make a bet, oh say $100 US. If you except this we can set the ground rules, if you don't except it, it obviously means that you don't have much confidence in comments.:yes:

I will wait for your reply!!:tu:

Reminds me of one of the few times I spoke to my step mother after Dad died

She was a BOM lemming irritated I didn't like him, I said thinking I would hit a nerve with her deep Christian values, you know he paid off a porn star who he had an affair with while mel was knocked up how do you support that?

She got cross said that if he even did that which she doubted that's between he and his wife not our ( the American peoples ) business.

My point grimm is when people are both that blind deep head in sand in denial about facts and so quick to make empty lame excuses for his debauchery that most certainly can and has effected how bumbles mctinybutterfingers runs our country it is both our business and a reflection the tub of lard knows no boundaries.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

15 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Lets place some round rules upon this. Since you're so sure that there is no proof, let's make a bet, oh say $100 US. If you except this we can set the ground rules, if you don't except it, it obviously means that you don't have much confidence in comments.:yes:

I will wait for your reply!!:tu:

I won't be giving out my personal information, so there is no way to cash in on that bet. I won't give anyone my bank details, and I won't give an address to send money to. It's a matter of privacy, I've been doxxed on this forum before (an old member back in the day somehow got a picture of me in Star Wars Cosplay and posted it in the Spirituality Section titled "SPACE WARRIOR FOR CHRIST" (back when I was a Christian).

So we can't ever cash in on the bet, but I'll play the game as long as we have a few ground rules - namely, the quality of evidence that I will accept. The evidence I WILL accept include a direct quote from Trump, or an admission from Trump that such a thing happened, whereas evidence I WON'T accept include quotes from disgruntled ex-employees saying "I heard Trump say it" while not providing any other backing information. 

Fair? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

  

I won't be giving out my personal information, so there is no way to cash in on that bet. I won't give anyone my bank details, and I won't give an address to send money to. It's a matter of privacy, I've been doxxed on this forum before (an old member back in the day somehow got a picture of me in Star Wars Cosplay and posted it in the Spirituality Section titled "SPACE WARRIOR FOR CHRIST" (back when I was a Christian).

So we can't ever cash in on the bet, but I'll play the game as long as we have a few ground rules - namely, the quality of evidence that I will accept. The evidence I WILL accept include a direct quote from Trump, or an admission from Trump that such a thing happened, whereas evidence I WON'T accept include quotes from disgruntled ex-employees saying "I heard Trump say it" while not providing any other backing information. 

Fair? 

No there is no game unless there is a bet, so play by yourself.:yes:

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Myles said:

Biden chose to rake in $25 million and eat an extravagant meal instead.  

:lol: Thats true Miles and he is laughing all the way to the bank. But also he wasn’t invited to the wake, so it’s good he didn’t attend.

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

No there is no game unless there is bet, so play by yourself.:yes:

I'd love to take your money. If you lived in NSW, Australia, I'd consider meeting up for a coffee, you could shout me lunch, that would be better payment than $100 cash. But even if the site rules allowed for a bet like this (arguably it doesn't, the rules don't allow money-making schemes) I will not be providing any personal information. I suspect you knew this which is why you made the bet, knowing you'll never have to be proven wrong. But since you asked me to play by myself, I will: 

Source - Trump's campaign spokesman denied Trump said these things, calling Kelly's comments "debunked stories". 

 

Quote

Reached for comment by NBC News, Steven Cheung, Trump campaign spokesperson, said: "John Kelly has totally clowned himself with these debunked stories he’s made up because he didn’t serve his President well while working as Chief of Staff."

Source 2 - Trump's campaign team describes this as "has no basis in fact". 

 

Quote

The White House did not return earlier calls for comment, but Alyssa Farah, a White House spokesperson, emailed me this statement shortly after this story was posted: “This report is false. President Trump holds the military in the highest regard. He’s demonstrated his commitment to them at every turn: delivering on his promise to give our troops a much needed pay raise, increasing military spending, signing critical veterans reforms, and supporting military spouses. This has no basis in fact.”)

You don't have to play the game, those reading along can see the evidence for themselves. You should be glad I don't want to take your $100! 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'd love to take your money. If you lived in NSW, Australia, I'd consider meeting up for a coffee, you could shout me lunch, that would be better payment than $100 cash. But even if the site rules allowed for a bet like this (arguably it doesn't, the rules don't allow money-making schemes) I will not be providing any personal information. I suspect you knew this which is why you made the bet, knowing you'll never have to be proven wrong. But since you asked me to play by myself, I will: 

Source - Trump's campaign spokesman denied Trump said these things, calling Kelly's comments "debunked stories". 

 

Source 2 - Trump's campaign team describes this as "has no basis in fact". 

 

You don't have to play the game, those reading along can see the evidence for themselves. You should be glad I don't want to take your $100! 

Lol, how many times have his handlers said those exact same words,  have been proven they lied for their master?

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Lol, how many times have his handlers said those exact same words,  have been proven they lied for their master?

I'm sure you can provide proof he's lying! That's sarcasm, you're justifying why you don't believe the available evidence!

Do you think this would be enough to win (or lose) the $100 if I accepted the bet, and why do you think this?

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, who to trust: the retired 4-star Marine general or a sexual abuser con man who has lied for 4 straight years about the outcome of the 2020 election.

Well, at least we know who our favorite Aussie cultist picks in that scenario!

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Perhaps you have evidence that Trump actually called them losers? I mean, actual evidence beyond an anonymous source saying "I heard Trump say it" (a claim Trump has expressly denied). We already know what the answer is going to be, but thanks for sharing

The source isn't anonymous anymore, so perhaps you're just misinformed.

Also, in his "express denial" of the story, Trump provably lied by saying he didn't call John McCain a loser. Except Trump did do so.

I mean, you obviously know Trump is a liar, so why would you trust him on this?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm sure you can provide proof he's lying! That's sarcasm, you're justifying why you don't believe the available evidence!

The 'evidence' you have is the denials of a proven liar, Trump, and his spokespeople. In Trump's own denial of the statements, he lied. He's been lying about the election for 4 years now.

The 'evidence' other people have is a retired general telling them what Trump said. 

If anything that evidence slants in favor of the guy who isn't a shameless public liar. 

32 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Do you think this would be enough to win the $100 if I accepted the bet?

No.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

  

17 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Yeah, who to trust: the retired 4-star Marine general or a sexual abuser con man who has lied for 4 straight years about the outcome of the 2020 election.

Well, at least we know who our favorite Aussie cultist picks in that scenario!

The source isn't anonymous anymore, so perhaps you're just misinformed.

Also, in his "express denial" of the story, Trump provably lied by saying he didn't call John McCain a loser. Except Trump did do so.

I mean, you obviously know Trump is a liar, so why would you trust him on this?

I realise it's not anonymous anymore. I hadn't realised there was an update in 2022 when I made my post #28. By the time post #31 was written I had checked the information just to be certain that @Grim Reaper 6 didn't have evidence that I wasn't aware of. Naming Kelly as one of the sources doesn't change the fact that the Trump team has denied it, and that there is no evidence that it happened outside of these individuals claiming without evidence that he said it. 

You can say the Trump team is lying, but why the fork should someone accept that as evidence when $100 is allegedly at stake (which it would have been had I trusted the internet enough to share private details about myself)!?!?!?!?!?

 

 

12 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

The 'evidence' you have is the denials of a proven liar, Trump, and his spokespeople. In Trump's own denial of the statements, he lied. He's been lying about the election for 4 years now.

The 'evidence' other people have is a retired general telling them what Trump said. 

If anything that evidence slants in favor of the guy who isn't a shameless public liar. 

No.

What evidence would win (or lose) the $100 bet? Keeping in mind that the evidence I WILL accept include Trump's own words, or an admission from Trump's team. Evidence I WON'T accept include comments by disgruntled ex-employees making statements that are explicitly denied by Trump! 

Obviously $100 isn't on the line, so it's a moot point, but what evidence do you think I should accept to wager $100 on this? What evidence do you think Reaper should accept?

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

  I realise it's not anonymous anymore. I hadn't realised there was an update in 2022 when I made my post #28. By the time post #31 was written I had checked the information just to be certain that @Grim Reaper 6 didn't have evidence that I wasn't aware of. Naming Kelly as one of the sources doesn't change the fact that the Trump team has denied it, and that there is no evidence that it happened outside of these individuals claiming without evidence that he said it. 

As I said, I assumed you were misinformed. I'm helping you learn things, as usual. You're welcome, bud!

Your standard is apparently that Trump saying something is evidence, yet Kelly saying something is not evidence.

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

You can say the Trump team is lying, but why the fork should someone accept that as evidence when $100 is allegedly at stake (which it would have been had I trusted the internet enough to share private details about myself)!?!?!?!?!?

I'm not saying you must accept it as evidence, I'm simply saying that the words of the Trump team, as proven liars, are worth less than that of others.

The statements of liars are simply not trustworthy. That's pretty simple to objective observers.

Well, I guess John Kelly was a part of that team of liars at one point, of course. What tangled webs we weave.

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

What evidence would win (or lose) the $100 bet? Keeping in mind that the evidence I WILL accept include Trump's own words, or an admission from Trump's team. Evidence I WON'T accept include comments by disgruntled ex-employees making statements that are explicitly denied by Trump!

So, only the words of the proven liar Trump are acceptable evidence to you? I am skeptical you would accept even Trump's own words, since Trump already lied in a Twitter post he "explicitly denied" these allegations in.

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Obviously $100 isn't on the line, so it's a moot point, but what evidence do you think I should accept to wager $100 on this? What evidence do you think Reaper should accept?

I'd say you should accept audio of Trump saying the statements. You still wouldn't, obviously, but that's what I think would be acceptable evidence. Reaper should accept John Kelly stating that he lied. I actually believe Reaper would accept that.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Myles said:

Biden chose to rake in $25 million and eat an extravagant meal instead.  

Yes, Biden's campaign funds are plush indeed.  Florida Man however is going cap in hand to real billionaires begging for handouts, while wondering if he'll look good in an orange jumpsuit.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

  

I realise it's not anonymous anymore. I hadn't realised there was an update in 2022 when I made my post #28. By the time post #31 was written I had checked the information just to be certain that @Grim Reaper 6 didn't have evidence that I wasn't aware of. Naming Kelly as one of the sources doesn't change the fact that the Trump team has denied it, and that there is no evidence that it happened outside of these individuals claiming without evidence that he said it. 

You can say the Trump team is lying, but why the fork should someone accept that as evidence when $100 is allegedly at stake (which it would have been had I trusted the internet enough to share private details about myself)!?!?!?!?!?

 

 

What evidence would win (or lose) the $100 bet? Keeping in mind that the evidence I WILL accept include Trump's own words, or an admission from Trump's team. Evidence I WON'T accept include comments by disgruntled ex-employees making statements that are explicitly denied by Trump! 

Obviously $100 isn't on the line, so it's a moot point, but what evidence do you think I should accept to wager $100 on this? What evidence do you think Reaper should accept?

Thís is getting under skin man, let me say right now you should really relax. :yes: I can't for the life of me understand why an Australian is so very very concerned with a non-descript American running for political office, I mean you don't even have dog in the hunt it boggles the mind!!!!!!:lol:

I am honestly done with conversation, I tried to make it interesting but you have used excuse possible to avoid. But that's because when you lost and there is no doubt you would lose, it would seriously shake you up. And I don't want to be responsible for that so it's best to leave it be or make the bet!:D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, the13bats said:

I wonder did BOM present the grieving families with a free copy of his for profits version of the Bible?

Hey Bats

Good to see you again

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the13bats said:

Reminds me of one of the few times I spoke to my step mother after Dad died

She was a BOM lemming irritated I didn't like him, I said thinking I would hit a nerve with her deep Christian values, you know he paid off a porn star who he had an affair with while mel was knocked up how do you support that?

She got cross said that if he even did that which she doubted that's between he and his wife not our ( the American peoples ) business.

My point grimm is when people are both that blind deep head in sand in denial about facts and so quick to make empty lame excuses for his debauchery that most certainly can and has effected how bumbles mctinybutterfingers runs our country it is both our business and a reflection the tub of lard knows no boundaries.

Hey bats good to see you mate.

I was saying this last week, it upset a couple orange sycophants. When it comes to Maga Trump could rape their wife, empty their wallets and then I kick them in the nuts and they wouldn't just say thank you to the expired orange, they would brag about it to other Magats. Like an honour 

It's in his best interests to deny the comment, however, he also said he didn't say that about McCain and he can't lie about that confirmed garbage talk. We also know he got upset about the flags at half mast. 

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLotV6-vRgVidPutNPclx

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

As I said, I assumed you were misinformed. I'm helping you learn things, as usual. You're welcome, bud!

Your standard is apparently that Trump saying something is evidence, yet Kelly saying something is not evidence.

I'm not saying you must accept it as evidence, I'm simply saying that the words of the Trump team, as proven liars, are worth less than that of others.

The statements of liars are simply not trustworthy. That's pretty simple to objective observers.

Well, I guess John Kelly was a part of that team of liars at one point, of course. What tangled webs we weave.

So, only the words of the proven liar Trump are acceptable evidence to you? I am skeptical you would accept even Trump's own words, since Trump already lied in a Twitter post he "explicitly denied" these allegations in.

I'd say you should accept audio of Trump saying the statements. You still wouldn't, obviously, but that's what I think would be acceptable evidence. Reaper should accept John Kelly stating that he lied. I actually believe Reaper would accept that.

 

So no evidence exists to change either of our opinion! I'm comfortable with that! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Thís is getting under skin man, let me say right now you should really relax. :yes: I can't for the life of me understand why an Australian is so very very concerned with a non-descript American running for political office, I mean you don't even have dog in the hunt it boggles the mind!!!!!!:lol:

I am honestly done with conversation, I tried to make it interesting but you have used excuse possible to avoid. But that's because when you lost and there is no doubt you would lose, it would seriously shake you up. And I don't want to be responsible for that so it's best to leave it be or make the bet!:D

I'm tempted to take the bet, though I won't force you to pay up when you lose!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm tempted to take the bet, though I won't force you to pay up when you lose!

I will force you to pay up, but that isn't necessary because Saru would not look kindly upon.

So what do I need to prove wrong exactly?

1. You say that Trump called a military member a loser?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I will force you to pay up, but that isn't necessary because Saru would not look kindly upon.

I don't think Saru would allow a bet between members. I partially suspect that's why you offered, knowing that even if I called you on it, we'd never be allowed to go through with it. 

It's OK, I've already shown there's no proof of what you are claiming, so if money was going out, it's only going my way, and I've already said you can keep it!

39 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

So what do I need to prove wrong exactly?

1. You say that Trump called a military member a loser?

No, Trump denies calling anyone in the military a loser! The only evidence we have that Trump said this is an ex employee with an axe to grind. Trump categorically denies the claim, and so far the response from you guys is to cast doubt on Trump's truthfulness, as if that somehow proves Trump said it. 

If you have something else, share it. You're the one who claimed to have conclusive proof sufficient to win a $100 bet!

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't think Saru would allow a bet between members. I partially suspect that's why you offered, knowing that even if I called you on it, we'd never be allowed to go through with it. 

It's OK, I've already shown there's no proof of what you are claiming, so if money was going out, it's only going my way, and I've already said you can keep it!

No, Trump denies calling anyone in the military a loser! The only evidence we have that Trump said this is an ex employee with an axe to grind. Trump categorically denies the claim, and so far the response from you guys is to cast doubt on Trump's truthfulness, as if that somehow proves Trump said it. 

If you have something else, share it. You're the one who claimed to have conclusive proof sufficient to win a $100 bet!

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

 

Cool. Can you elaborate on what your point is, and how does this relate to the discussion we are having? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.