Trump told & shown evidence in Jan 2017 that Putin directly ordered the attack

Legion said:
Think so? How is that relevant to what he called a 'Bi-Partition Statement'?
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't get the memo -- but simply adding or removing contractions to a statement also changes everything else wrong with the statement -- thus, bi-partition becomes bi-partisan.....respect the power of "n't"
 
rhym3pays said:
Maybe you didn't get the memo -- but simply adding or removing contractions to a statement also changes everything else wrong with the statement -- thus, bi-partition becomes bi-partisan.....respect the power of "n't"
Click to expand...

Is that so?
 
rhym3pays said:
Try it out...Next time your wife asks you if she looks fat in this dress -- say, "Yes, I would think so" When she is about to throw a frying pan at you, tell her you meant to say wouldn't -- and all will be well again.
Click to expand...

So you think "bi-partition becomes bi-partisan" due to a "contraction"?
 
Legion said:
So you think "bi-partition becomes bi-partisan" due to a "contraction"?
Click to expand...

Wit is hard for you I see.

I assume being a part-time sycophant for Trump clouds the brain a bit so I will help you out

Trump spent 99% of his press conference sucking off Putin and throwing his own intelligence agency under the bus solely for the gratification of his love daddy -- then he felt simply changing "would" to "wouldn't" was supposed to erase all of that.

So in the same sense, no, a contraction doesn't change the fact the guy said bi-partition instead of bi-partisan
 
rhym3pays said:
Try it out...

Next time your wife asks you if she looks fat in this dress -- say, "Yes, I would think so"

When she is about to throw a frying pan at you, tell her you meant to say wouldn't -- and all will be well again.
Click to expand...

Come on man.

No way that guy is married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top