Donald Trumps own testimony “I pushed the FDA harder than they’ve ever been pushed before” “I’m the father of the vaccines” “go get your vaccines”
Things that Trump done: instituted Warp Speed, pushed the FDA to forgo the usual safety protocols despite the fact that the testing phase resulted in 100% of animals dying when the testing was abandoned. Trump indemnified Pharma against liability. And, as above, he encouraged everyone to get them.
He is the Charles Manson of the piece, corralling everyone to carry out his evil deeds.
See, here's the thing. Your whole argument is centered around a whataboutism that you will only generally touch with a 10 foot pole.
If you weren't arguing disingenuously, you would use evidence and case examples as to what made Manson innocent even though the population saw him and fam guilty af. The problem for you is, anyone that's spent any time reviewing the details and evidence of that case can easily come to the same conclusion as the jury that convicted him.
But you're a lazy-ass glowie with a shit argument. So instead of making a real case, you're going to disappear because you can't correlate the two without being disingenuous in the process. lol
I don’t and I used the example of him being guilty despite not getting his hands dirty as a direct comparison with Trump whom you argued could not be guilty because he didn’t get his hands dirty.
That’s why I posted the Manson question to you.
If you consider trump guiltless in the vaccines despite the fact that he was the stringpuller then presumably you also consider Manson guiltless on that same basis? Was the meaning behind the question, in expanded form.
You said Manson was guilty, proving my point for me.
I know morons have a hard time keeping track of their own warped and incoherent internal logic but come on to fuck man. You have to be a special kind of bozo to return to your own vomit in this manner.
I reviewed the Manson case years ago. He was guilty. The jury got it right. But on the surface, it's a "good" choice for the "sake" of the argument, so long as you keep it superficial. If you want to correlate the two, then find specifics from each case and correlate the two. The generalization doesn't cut it for someone that knows you're full of shit. Evidence vs. evidence not feelerz vs. feelerz.
If you consider trump guiltless in the vaccines despite the fact that he was the stringpuller
He did what We The People asked of him. So, if you're American, you're the "stringpuller" and you're responsible. That means if you believe the stringpuller should hang... lol Get busy, bud.
Your logic sucks, man. It really does. Trump did what America wanted and for some reason, you want to hold him accountable for the corruption as a result of his executive action.
You haven't presented anything to believe Trump is guilty of anything. Just that you "feel" he is. Okay. Cool. Thanks for sharing your opinion I guess?
No, it is your logic which sucks. Your obfuscation, your extraneous detail.
Let’s keep it simple for you.
You said that the reason Trump can’t be held guilty for the vaccines is because he didn’t get his hands dirty. True, he was merely the director, the string puller, the shot caller. He wasn’t the mid level dealer who goes out into the field himself, he was the godfather who had minions carry out his bidding for him.
If controlling things from the shadows and not getting your hands dirty is enough to render you blameless in the rotten fruits of your Labour then let’s compare it with someone who WAS declared guilty whilst pulling strings from afar and having others carry out their nefarious deeds - just to see if your principles are consistent or whether you are just one of those sycophants who fingerfuck themselves to sleep of a night to thoughts of your Adonis Trump and declare him spotless in all things.
Charles Manson, like Trump, never took part in the sharp end of his plans. But it was his plans, his influence, things carried out at his behest and according to his guidance. If your principles are in fact principles then you must also consider Manson to be guilt free.
But you don’t. And rightly so, because it was under his guidance that these things were carried out. So too with Trump.
The difference is that whilst Manson protested his innocence, Trump DEMANDED the credit. If he gets the credit for the vaccines such as he demands and he thinks they’re great then he also gets responsibility for the damage they wreak, because it was his decision to expedite the process and forgo standard safety protocols and to deny the general public any recourse for any damages they may incur as a result of taking these experimental vaccines.
You cannot have it both ways. As you are laying in bed tonight, thumbing your bumhole amidst your Trump fantasies, just ask him “daddy why did you do it? Why did you release the vaccines so” - see what he says. Press him on the danger aspect, see if he responds
Donald Trumps own testimony “I pushed the FDA harder than they’ve ever been pushed before” “I’m the father of the vaccines” “go get your vaccines”
Things that Trump done: instituted Warp Speed, pushed the FDA to forgo the usual safety protocols despite the fact that the testing phase resulted in 100% of animals dying when the testing was abandoned. Trump indemnified Pharma against liability. And, as above, he encouraged everyone to get them.
He is the Charles Manson of the piece, corralling everyone to carry out his evil deeds.
He begs to be given credit, give him it.
What have I said that’s untrue?
See, here's the thing. Your whole argument is centered around a whataboutism that you will only generally touch with a 10 foot pole.
If you weren't arguing disingenuously, you would use evidence and case examples as to what made Manson innocent even though the population saw him and fam guilty af. The problem for you is, anyone that's spent any time reviewing the details and evidence of that case can easily come to the same conclusion as the jury that convicted him.
But you're a lazy-ass glowie with a shit argument. So instead of making a real case, you're going to disappear because you can't correlate the two without being disingenuous in the process. lol
tl;dr - Let's go, Brandon!
Who said I viewed him as innocent?
I don’t and I used the example of him being guilty despite not getting his hands dirty as a direct comparison with Trump whom you argued could not be guilty because he didn’t get his hands dirty.
That’s why I posted the Manson question to you.
If you consider trump guiltless in the vaccines despite the fact that he was the stringpuller then presumably you also consider Manson guiltless on that same basis? Was the meaning behind the question, in expanded form.
You said Manson was guilty, proving my point for me.
I know morons have a hard time keeping track of their own warped and incoherent internal logic but come on to fuck man. You have to be a special kind of bozo to return to your own vomit in this manner.
I reviewed the Manson case years ago. He was guilty. The jury got it right. But on the surface, it's a "good" choice for the "sake" of the argument, so long as you keep it superficial. If you want to correlate the two, then find specifics from each case and correlate the two. The generalization doesn't cut it for someone that knows you're full of shit. Evidence vs. evidence not feelerz vs. feelerz.
He did what We The People asked of him. So, if you're American, you're the "stringpuller" and you're responsible. That means if you believe the stringpuller should hang... lol Get busy, bud.
Your logic sucks, man. It really does. Trump did what America wanted and for some reason, you want to hold him accountable for the corruption as a result of his executive action.
You haven't presented anything to believe Trump is guilty of anything. Just that you "feel" he is. Okay. Cool. Thanks for sharing your opinion I guess?
what a moran
No, it is your logic which sucks. Your obfuscation, your extraneous detail.
Let’s keep it simple for you.
You said that the reason Trump can’t be held guilty for the vaccines is because he didn’t get his hands dirty. True, he was merely the director, the string puller, the shot caller. He wasn’t the mid level dealer who goes out into the field himself, he was the godfather who had minions carry out his bidding for him.
If controlling things from the shadows and not getting your hands dirty is enough to render you blameless in the rotten fruits of your Labour then let’s compare it with someone who WAS declared guilty whilst pulling strings from afar and having others carry out their nefarious deeds - just to see if your principles are consistent or whether you are just one of those sycophants who fingerfuck themselves to sleep of a night to thoughts of your Adonis Trump and declare him spotless in all things.
Charles Manson, like Trump, never took part in the sharp end of his plans. But it was his plans, his influence, things carried out at his behest and according to his guidance. If your principles are in fact principles then you must also consider Manson to be guilt free.
But you don’t. And rightly so, because it was under his guidance that these things were carried out. So too with Trump.
The difference is that whilst Manson protested his innocence, Trump DEMANDED the credit. If he gets the credit for the vaccines such as he demands and he thinks they’re great then he also gets responsibility for the damage they wreak, because it was his decision to expedite the process and forgo standard safety protocols and to deny the general public any recourse for any damages they may incur as a result of taking these experimental vaccines.
You cannot have it both ways. As you are laying in bed tonight, thumbing your bumhole amidst your Trump fantasies, just ask him “daddy why did you do it? Why did you release the vaccines so” - see what he says. Press him on the danger aspect, see if he responds
Like I said. False Equivalence.