- Nov 14, 2011
- 122,720
- 73,293
- 2,635
what actions?
Trying not to pay her
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
what actions?
When did Hope Hicks do that? And even if true, doesn’t that further undermine your claim?Trying not to pay her
I’ve never heard anyone refer to the Saddam regime as innocent until nowWhy is it people do not get it that "terrorism" is perfectly valid if done for the right reason, against a massively more powerful but evil force.
Like the French Resistance in WWII.
What is immoral is when a superior force used violence and treats against an innocent civilian population, like we did with Shock and Awe.
When did Hope Hicks do that? And even if true, doesn’t that further undermine your claim?
Well I thought we were talking about hicks, but if trump didn’t try to pay then doesn’t that further undermine your arguement he did anything illegal?
I didn't say Hicks did that. I said Trump did that.
Well I thought we were talking about hicks, but if trump didn’t try to pay then doesn’t that further undermine your arguement he did anything illegal?
Because that’s who the thread is aboutDayum, you're slow.
Why would you think I was talking about Hicks when I said HIS actions speak louder than her words??
And no, trying to not pay her is worse for him. It reveals he paid for her silence just because of the election and not for Melania's sake.
Because that’s who the thread is about
Wait how does it show that when you said he tried NOT to pay her??
The Deep State has already been exposed.Doesn't need to expose it?
THAT is Trump's entire re-election campaign.
WrongWhy is it people do not get it that "terrorism" is perfectly valid if done for the right reason, against a massively more powerful but evil force.
Like the French Resistance in WWII.
What is immoral is when a superior force used violence and treats against an innocent civilian population, like we did with Shock and Awe.
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It's somewhat subjective. Look at the Palestine situation, for example. Palestinians are less powerful than Israel, but it's debatable if their terrorism was justified or not. I don't view it as justified, regardless of the fact that Israel is the more powerful force.Why is it people do not get it that "terrorism" is perfectly valid if done for the right reason, against a massively more powerful but evil force.
Like the French Resistance in WWII.
What is immoral is when a superior force used violence and treats against an innocent civilian population, like we did with Shock and Awe.