Could be Trump?

[odeon]

I know I make more sense than you, Odeon.

Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this.

[benjimanbreeg]

Trump's 

Trump's smart enough to put Pence as his Vice for some kind of insurance.  It's like 'if you kill me, you get him'.

I saw this article and thought of you and you love of Trump

Why Donald Trump Could Be the Most Pro-Israel President in a Generation

here is still plenty of uncertainty surrounding what exactly a Trump administration will look like, but one thing is not up for debate: Donald Trump could be the most pro-Israel commander in chief in modern history.

Jewish state has long held a “special relationship” with the United States, however that relationship has been put under immense strain by the Obama administration's controversial policies toward Israel. The outgoing administration has regularly clashed with the leaders of the Jewish State, demanding territorial concessions to the Hamas-led Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, bluntly snubbing Netanyahu in the White House, brokering the deeply unpopular Iran Nuclear Deal and refusing to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, a huge victory for the Palestinian State which lays claim to the Holy City.

  Link

Touched that you're thinking of me 

I don't love Trump.  He was the better choice by a mile and actually represented some kind of change.  His stance on Russia and Syria was more than enough to want him elected.  I know he's an Israel dick sucker, but that's just what it takes for any US politician to get near power.  I wonder if he'll change his mind if he comes across the FBI file regarding the Israelis arrested on 9/11 though. 

I'm not sure what Obama did wrong exactly.  His influence is very overplayed.  It seems that not doing everything Israel demands is seen as anti-Israel.  The US was under pressure from Europe to form that Iran deal.  Israel isn't a Jewish state and yes, Hamas agreed to form a unity government with the PA which meant they agreed to the US and the EU's terms to settle the conflict.  This was just Obama wanting to score points and get some credit for settling the conflict, same as Clinton.

"a huge victory for the Palestinian State which lays claim to the Holy City."

It lays claim to East Jerusalem, which would be its capital if Palestine became a state.  But Israel won't allow that to happen. 

[odeon]

In other words, you love him.

[Al Swearegen]

I know I make more sense than you, Odeon.

Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this.

I do not "feel like I have to" post anything. What a completely vacuous thing to say. I ACTUALLY post out of no sense of obligation nor sense of duty. I post what i post because that is what I think at the time and I have no problem sharing it.

See THAT above? That is called reasoning and sense. Being that what I said is sensible and reasonable, why does it run so counter to what you post? Follow the most reasonable logical conclusion.

[odeon]

If you say so.

[Al Swearegen]

If you say so.

I do. Reasonable smart people could follow that reasoning. I think it is beyond you.

[odeon]

It's "reasonably".

[Al Swearegen]

It's "reasonably".

Or its "reasonable, smart people"

But you are not falling to trying to contest a point by picking on grammar or spelling are you Odeon? Because that would be the height of weakness.

[odeon]

What point would that be?

[Al Swearegen]

What point would that be?

By virtue of what force or obligation do I "feel like I HAVE to respond" to anything here? Because the truth is I don't. I may choose to or not and there is no force or obligation compelling me to.

"Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this."

So you get to rationalise and explain it now. Your stage. Your opportunity to prove your reasonableness and critical thinking.

[odeon]

You posted it. Fact. Me, I don't think you had a point to begin with. You so rarely do.

[Al Swearegen]

You posted it. Fact. Me, I don't think you had a point to begin with. You so rarely do.

Posting it does not mean one is "compelled", "had to" or "needed to".

Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this.

I post....unsurprisingly....not from a sense of "need" "compulsion", or "obligation". To suggest this would be beyond stupid. But trying to say that the Fact that I had posted something was proof there was such a compulsion is even stupider.

Why are you posting really stupid things and why do you get progressively more stupid when backing your claims?

[odeon]

Al, you were the one to post it, not me. Why you choose to post something is for you to explain and defend. Dimwit.

[Al Swearegen]

Al, you were the one to post it, not me. Why you choose to post something is for you to explain and defend. Dimwit.

I posted that I make more sense than you. (I do too).

Your claim (not mine...let's not get confused) is:

Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this.

Now DID I "feel I HAD" to post it? Was there any compulsion/obligation/duty/requirement/necessity? No there wasn't and only a moron would say there was. One can (and presumably would USUALLY) post without such forces coming into play. So in most cases

Hilarious. I especially love the fact that you felt you had to post this.

this would be wrong. Not just here and now but in most cases. In fact not only does this make your claim redundant but really really moronic.

Why are you posting moronic retorts?

[odeon]

You do know that your argument doesn't magically improve if you copy and paste quotes, right? Idiot.