Comments by "" (@GoatZilla) on "The Damage Report" channel.

  1. Please dont make us watch so many clips of her.
    3
  2. They can see the polls.
    3
  3. bye, den
    3
  4. Car people gonna car it up
    2
  5.  @c.j.giordano2129  You used 1 declarative statement out of all of that on the main sticking point. "He leads with extraverted [sic] thinking". You never substantiated that one. You substantiated a bunch of other temperaments which I didn't even address. Justify the "thinking". Forget all the others, just justify the "thinking".
    2
  6.  @c.j.giordano2129  You are "Chauncey Gardner"ing Trump's statements. The thinking half of that always focuses on facts and logic. Trump's statements are devoid of facts and logic. His style is transactional and he contradicts himself all the time, and I can easily find counter-examples for all your examples where he contradicts himself. Facts and logic don't matter. His statements are designed to appeal to his "group". Those relationships to him are more important than facts or logic. Fe.
    2
  7.  @c.j.giordano2129  I think you have bought into the character that NBC created and not reality. You know less about him than you let on. There are numerous, numerous stories of Trump actually being very personable. However that is completely besides the point. In a deposition in 2007, (i.e. not public performance), when asked about his net worth, he indicated his net worth went up and down with feelings, including his own. And I don't much care for the rest of your Jungian pigeonholes because they're: 1. pseudoscience, and 2. probably have a hard time sticking to people that are just crazy. What I do know is that thinking is predicated on facts and logic. Thinking without facts and logic isn't thinking at all. That's the kill shot right there. Everything indicates this man does not deal with facts and logic. So we've come to the part where knowledge should be tested. After all, what good is this model of you've formed of Trump if it can't make a prediction? So based on this model you've constructed, predict how he's going to behave next month. There's some external stimulus -- what does your model predict his response will be?
    2
  8. Are you an engineer? Or have any sort of technical background?
    2
  9.  @johndorian4078  If you don't have to be a regular viewer then don't pretend to be a regular viewer, Mr. "Both Sides".
    2
  10. Ooh maybe he can bring his good friends Joe Rogan and Dave Chappelle with him!
    2
  11. I dunno I'm not inclined to believe the religious guy who supports Trump for obvious reasons.
    2
  12. Somehow "lack of instruction book" just doesn't register as a convincing justification.
    2
  13. Except for, you know, IRS trouble.
    2
  14. Solid Christian.
    2
  15. Don't crime fraud me, bro!
    2
  16. If the lie leaves your mouth, you lied.
    2
  17. Um
    2
  18.  @CitizensBriefing  So you think those are stupid words?
    2
  19. Post-Trump era would be great for Fox because it would put their viewership back in a frenzy.
    2
  20. So who do you support?
    2
  21.  @kurtsakslsvideosaks9185  Around 25% of Clinton primary voters voted for McCain in 2008. You can't leave that out.
    2
  22. feelsgoodman
    2
  23.  @peopleschampgarage7869  Agree
    2
  24. This segment was a little light on facts.
    2
  25. oh, bobo...
    2
  26. Heh kind of a clever question actually.
    2
  27. At what point do they realize that a bunch of those people don't actually vote?
    2
  28. Now would be the perfect time for him to change to the Republican party.
    2
  29.  George Woodard  A straight ACA repeal isn't reform. You don't repeal a healthcare plan without a replacement ready to go.
    2
  30. ​ @Deborah Barnes Right, and Trump repeatedly claimed a health care plan was coming, even after McCain was dead. So  George Woodard  here is literally blaming someone who has long been dead for the lack of existence of an actual health care plan.
    2
  31. Those guys are dead now FYI.
    2
  32. Uh, I'm not sure they're going to like the "proof"...
    2
  33. Or maybe they only did the bare minimum because they saw you as their little biological annuity.
    2
  34. 4:14 OK I call immediate bullshit on some glaring omissions.
    2
  35.  @nicholasnicholas3306 Join date Jan 2022
    2
  36. I'm sure Bill Maher is rock hard right now.
    2
  37. Holy shit. Someone mentioned engineering.
    2
  38. Yuuuuuuuge
    2
  39. I thought there was a limit in Texas on lawsuit damages. Also I suspect his net worth is... not that much.
    2
  40. #feelsgoodman
    2
  41. Not quite yet.
    2
  42. Well, as the lawyers would say, volenti non fit iniuria.
    2
  43.  @salvadorteran5181  Well why don't you name one?
    1
  44.  @salvadorteran5181  Those guys don't seem to be old enough to be founders.
    1
  45. @Arthur Fox-Aches Soros is apparently a very, very busy guy.
    1
  46. lol
    1
  47.  @c.j.giordano2129  Do you look at him vetoing the recent bills a matter of T or F?
    1
  48.  @c.j.giordano2129  Just put it in practice with a concrete example.
    1
  49. And that is how you deal with these Jungian fan fiction writers.
    1
  50.  @c.j.giordano2129  Not interested in your Jungian fan fiction.
    1