Thread 937964034

I trust him.
It's that simple.

>>937964034 (OP)
Good for you, retard

>>937964034 (OP)
*you're* that simple
https://youtu.be/_0fQxFj03aM?t=102

>>937964034 (OP)
It's not a good idea to trust a spoiled snowflake whose only loyalty is to himself.

>>937964034 (OP)
Where's the damage to his ear?

>>937964216
>falling for bait
ngmi

>>937964348
It's not a cult.

>>937964034 (OP)
I trust him.
It's that simple.

Something's comming. It's big.

>>937964034 (OP)
>retard trusts another retard
oh wow, breaking news!

>>937964034 (OP)
>trusting a pathological liar

>>937964034 (OP)
> I suck his cock when he says so
> it's that simple

>>937965047
how do you trust him? how do we know for sure that he isn't leading us all astray without us realizing it?

i guess this is kinda the point.

The assassination attempt was a hoax, and the shooter they killed was a patsy. This was done to win the election, and it worked.

>>937964034 (OP)
What kind of a retard trusts a politician?

>>937965377
dubs checked, but it's like anne frank leading the blind at this point.

>>937965561
This. You'd have to a colossal fucking retard to trust a politician

>>937965561
Apparently entire USA?

>>937966309
No, only 77 million retards. That's a pretty good retard ratio out of a population of 340 million. That's only like, 22.5% retarded.

>>937965561
>>937966272
your lack of trust is how we got trump tho

>>937964034 (OP)
Doesn't he look tired?

>>937966757
>your lack of trust
My lack of trust in politicians in general is how Trump got elected? Please, educate me. It's gonna be hard to convince me to trust a politician. They're corrupt by nature

>>937964034 (OP)
you trust a rapist?
you trust a convicted fraud?
who ran a fake university
who ran a fake charity?

>>937965455
this>>>

>>937967583
Because you did nothing to stop him. You believe the bullshit about Harris to be that they're the same

You're a useful idiot.

>>937964034 (OP)
>I trust him.

The most generic answer which avoids being obviously wrong by making specific claims is that IE Bell Beakers spoke a dialectal form of late, nuclear PIE that branched out of the Corded Ware Indo-European dialect. Where we go from here is where everyone disagrees.
Many say there was an Italo-Celtic phase. This may be necessary in order to explain similarities between Italic and Celtic, but IEs kept moving west all the way to the Atlantic coast. The biggest issue that leaves what precise language they spoke open to debate is the long linguistic dark age where we have no writings, not even inscriptions. Did Western IE Bell Beakers speak some form of Celtic then? To a great extent, the answer to this question may involve semantics over the definition of "Celtic". One objection is that the birth of Proto-Celtic is often said to be quite late. Two rebuttals may be given:
1. How can we be confident of a strict date range for a reconstructed language without written records?
2. If it wasn't Proto-Celtic specifically, then why not "pre-Proto-Celtic"? This raises the question of what we even mean by "Proto-Celtic", because if pre-Proto-Celtic is the direct ancestor of Proto-Celtic and nothing else, why not just call it Proto-Celtic?
Some insist that the original center of Celtic culture was Hallstatt, and Celtic languages radiated out from there. This idea isn't sufficient to explain all Celtic languages. Central and Eastern continental Celtic culture can explain Gaulish and Brythonic, since the evidence suggests a late Brythonic colonization of Britain. It cannot explain, however, Goidelic and Celtiberian. Without genetic studies indicating late population movements which would have brought continental Celtic speech, we may be forced to consider that Celtic languages developed naturally out of whatever IE dialect Bell Beakers spoke along the Atlantic coast. Evidence of linguistic colonization is necessary to refute this idea. Celtic denialism isn't an argument.

>>937967889
So, my only option was to not vote? I had to vote between two polished turds, as usual. There was no good vote

>>937968105
were we being honest?

>>937965330
>>937967960
Yeah you're right, I WOULD suck his dick if he told me to. You know why? Because he's my leader.
Now would I ENJOY sucking his cock? No, that's not what I'm saying. Nor am I saying that I wouldn't enjoy it (that being said I wouldn't enjoy it, I'm not gay) but the point is I would indeed suck his cock if he ordered me to. Would I get turned on from it? Maybe. Sucking a penis is inherently a sexual act, and sexual acts (no matter who you do it to) is going to activate a certain part of your brain that's going to make you turned on. That's just biology, it's not about being gay or being attracted to men, it's just sucking a cock (even if you're not gay, which I'm not) is going to give you an erection because of the inherent sexual nature of the act itself. And I admit that he is an attractive man, he's an alpha male, there's no shame or gayness in admitting that objectively a man like Trump is attractive. I'm secure enough in my sexuality to admit this and embrace it.

Do you think this is a gotcha? Because it's not. I have enough love for him as my president that I would do this act for him. It shows how much of a patriot I am and how much I'm willing to sacrifice for my country. Can you say the same?
I doubt it.

>>937969258
>do you think this is a gotcha you boys
>no! I LOVE TRUMPS COCK
>I LOVE IT I LUB IT I LUB Putin's cock too
cringe

>>937969258
>Yeah you're right, I WOULD suck his dick if he told me to. You know why? Because he's my leader.
Thanks for being honest with us.