War veteran gave his purple heart to Trump today for taking a bullet in Butler, Pennsylvania

@Noflaps said in #44:
> Knowing that, the notion that Trump is a "Russian asset" is LAUGHABLE.
Then answer me this:

Why DID Putin (and we know he did) spend so much resources in helping Trump getting elected?

Are you saying Putin is stupid? Or that he willingly acts against his own interests?

In #48, @bfchessguy writes "Let's hope attacks bringing nothing to debate will stop."

And then, in #49 (the very next post) he writes: "You must be gullible to think 45th is not an asset to putina because he invaded after 45th left the Office."

No, bfchessguy, I'm not remotely gullible. And my posts are not unintentionally ironic, either.

@awkward-aardvark , if you want to tell yourself that Putin loves the only president (Trump) who ACTUALLY acted against one of Russia's lifeblood pipelines NEVERTHELESS loves that president, i acknowledge that you can.

But THAT would make Putin seem stupid in a very real, HIGHLY consequential sense, since the pipeline was worth BILLIONS to Russia. But apparently, I can't get this across to those who are invested in believing the old "Russian asset" nonsense.

Putin ALSO praised Ms. Harris. So do you think Putin was just be "being clever" THEN by appearing to favor Harris, but we wasn't just "being clever" before?

Well, believe what you want. I'll stick with the belief that Trump (who worked against a VAST monetary interest of Russia) is NOT working in Russia's best interests.

People who apparently sympathize with your political beliefs ALSO told us the laptop wasn't real and that the "pee tapes" were. And I could go on and on about OTHER nonsense that is even more recent and more obvious, but I don't want to disrespect living politicians, out of kindness. Literally. So I shall not.

@Noflaps said in #52:
> No, bfchessguy, I'm not remotely gullible.

You claim the following - Trump took a bullet to the ear, and that you are not gullible. This is a contradiction.

Bullets leave permanent scars and damage, particularly in areas with low blood circulation like ear cartilage. Please show us a picture of this damage to prove that you are in fact not gullible?

@Noflaps said in #52:
> In #48, @bfchessguy writes "Let's hope attacks bringing nothing to debate will stop."
> [...]
I guess you can't read sarcasm.

For years you've been gaslighting others whining they do not contribute to a healthy debate. I have no problem with personal attacks as long as you do not effing belittle others and gaslight them.

Sure, lads, whatever.

So you DON'T "hope that attacks bringing nothing to debate will stop" ? That was "sarcastic," was it? So you actually hope purposeless attacks DON'T stop? Oh. Fascinating.

And now we learn from @sleepygary" in #53 that it's "gullible" to believe Trump was actually hit in the ear? Seriously?

I'd say "you're kidding, right" but I fear you are not.

So, do you think the blood splashed across his face was fake?

Thanks for illustrating, gentlemen. THIS is the state of politics today.

The crowds CAN be steered into believing almost anything. Over and over and over.

@Noflaps said in #55:
> Sure, lads, whatever.
>
> So you DON'T "hope that attacks bringing nothing to debate will stop" ? That was "sarcastic," was it? So you actually hope purposeless attacks DON'T stop? Oh. Fascinating.
>
> And now we learn from @sleepygary" that it's "gullible" to believe Trump was actually hit in the ear? Seriously?
>
> I'd say "you're kidding, right" but I fear you are not.
>
> So, do you think the blood splashed across his face was fake?
>
> Thanks for illustrating, gentlemen. THIS is the state of politics today.

You explicitly said he was shot in the ear. There’s no bullet wound. Hence you are gullible.

lol. I knew it. You really AREN'T kidding, @Sleepy_Gary . And you think I'm the one being gullible.

So it was chicken blood, then? How did he put it on in an instant without the Secret Service catching on? I'll await the knowing lecture, eagerly.

@Noflaps said in #57:
> lol. I knew it. You really AREN'T kidding, @Sleepy_Gary . And you think I'm the one being gullible.
>
> So it was chicken blood, then? How did he put it on in an instant without the Secret Service catching on? I'll await the knowing lecture, eagerly.

Getting scratched by something that’s not a bullet is not equal to being shot.

Here’s some more proof you’re gullible: you believe a man that has literally stolen money from a children’s cancer charity has your best interests at heart. Hence, you are gullible.

Something scratched him! That explains it. Something. The rifle shots were coincidence, then? Thanks for clearing it up.

I come to this forum eagerly to be educated, and I'm seldom disappointed.

@Noflaps said in #59:
> Something scratched him! That explains it. Something. The rifle shots were coincidence, then? Thanks for clearing it up.
>
> I come to this forum eagerly to be educated, and I'm seldom disappointed.

The rifle shots obviously led to whatever material hitting him, but what hit him was not a bullet. I invite you to actually look at a bullet wound to the ear, and compare that to Trump’s (which has 0 scar).

Also, you dodged another facet of your gullibility - you have no problem that the guy you support stole money out of the hands of children with cancer. This is the person you choose to spend so much time defending. Take a look inward my friend.