President Trump

[donniedarko]

Trumpist fake news (http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2015/oct/05/ben-carson/did-margaret-sanger-believe-african-americans-shou/) debunked, again.

The quote is false but there's no doubt Sanger was a racist

[I. Rex]

First off, Im pretty astonished that Trump apologists have been so bent on taking a line from a simple throw away post and attempted to prove it away with long technical arguments about what was said when and why its all a big misinterpretation when the SPIRIT of the post is fully legitimate and they understand it perfectly. I’ll note nobody has made any excuses about all the other terrible things I said Trump defends so your commentary in the end reminds me of the old joke of the loathsome criminal accused of rape and murder and arson and stealing money from his very own dear old mother to which he protested “I didn’t steal any money! I borrowed it so I could buy a disguise and a ticket to Mexico!”

So keep defending his money borrowing if you like…

But anyway, I know you like to come here to argue just for the sake of arguing but you're behind the ball on this one. Captain and I have already discussed the whole misinterpretation concept to which my response was not “WRONG” but in fact “IT DOESN'T MATTER”. Allow me to quote myself again:

Its the time for EVERYONE, no matter WHAT your opinion on statues or flags to condemn nazis and white supremacists UNIVERSALLY and UNCONDITIONALLY. Period.

Notice the words “unconditionally” and “period” there. Which leads us to your timeline…

On August 12, nearly two hours after the vehicular attack, Trump spoke on camera from his vacation home in Bedminster, New Jersey, saying "We all must be united and condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Let's come together as one!" He said, "we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides."

So here is a perfect example of the kind of dog whistle vagueness Trump likes to make whenever his racist hate mongering fan club is in the cross hairs for doing something racist and hateful. A Nazi just killed an innocent woman with his car. And you are going to use THAT opportunity to condemn "bigots" on BOTH sides? A president of the United States?! How can anyone even DREAM of defending that kind of insensitive bile? Its quite clearly and obviously a direct message to his racist supporters that I still got your back. And they replied in kind by the way:

Andrew Anglin, the creator of the Nazi site The Daily Stormer, praised Trump's response. "He didn't attack us," he wrote in a blog post on the site. "(He) implied that there was hate ... on both sides. So he implied the antifa are haters. There was virtually no counter-signaling of us all."

For this he was widely and roundly criticized by everyone, even by many Republican Senators and Congressmen who normally supported him no matter what. And then after TWO WHOLE DAYS of doing and saying NOTHING he angrily makes his brief condemnation statement where he reads off a prepared cue card and then stomps off like a 4 year old who has been forced to apologize to the butler for calling him something offensive (which he’s probably also done). The overall public reaction to this was largely well what took him so long? Why didn’t he just do this in the first place? But whatever. Lets move on. Then Monday hits and we get his little lobby display where he effectively backtracked from his empty forced condemnation of the Nazis and white supremacists card reading to express how he really felt about the whole situation by going off script much to the chagrin of EVERYONE in his inner circle including a thoroughly disgusted John Kelly who infamously winced and rolled his eyes when he made those comments. Clearly EVEN HIS OWN HANDLERS knew exactly how inappropriate and stupid those words were at that point in time and that trying to emphasize the goodness of people on the “marchers side” was the worst possible thing you could do.

Frankly Im amazed I have to hand hold you guys on this to show you how thoroughly terrible Trump’s actions were during that whole episode. Why all the revisionism and denial on this point? It’s a no brainer. DON’T do ANYTHING that’s going to give even the HINT of appearance that you are defending Nazis and White Supremacists EVEN if you have 100% of their vote. Don’t do it! Its stupid! Nevermind morally bankrupt.

[I. Rex]

The ones he's offering a path to citizenship for 1.8 million of? 3 times the amount of Obama

Oh you mean as long as he gets tons of other extremist immigration demands with it? No. I mean the ones he screwed over by rescinding the DACA program to begin with. If he cared so much about them why screw them over to begin with by taking away their protections? And then refuse to accept a DACA only deal when the democrats propose it to him based on his comments of "I want the dreamers to be protected". Yeah those ones. Holding the Dreamers hostage so he can slash LEGAL immigration and force Americans to pay for the wall he said the Mexicans would pay for is hardly a noble action any more than me holding a gun to your kids head and saying I'll happily let him go free if you just pony up money so I can build a giant wall between my house and your house to keep any more of your nasty kids from coming into my yard.

[Omnizoa]

First off,
Oh joy, rant time.

Im pretty astonished that Trump apologists
Poisoning the Well.

have been so bent on taking a line from a simple throw away post and attempted to prove it away with long technical arguments about what was said when and why its all a big misinterpretation when the SPIRIT of the post is fully legitimate and they understand it perfectly.
You made a specific claim, it was wrong. That's it.

I’ll note nobody has made any excuses about all the other terrible things I said Trump defends
That's cause it takes more time to prove a claim is false than it takes for you to pull one out of your ass.

so your commentary in the end reminds me of the old joke of the loathsome criminal accused of rape and murder and arson and stealing money from his very own dear old mother to which he protested “I didn’t steal any money! I borrowed it so I could buy a disguise and a ticket to Mexico!”
That's cause it takes more time to prove a claim is false than it takes for you to pull one out of your ass.

So keep defending his money borrowing if you like…
What has money borrowing have to do with anything I said?

But anyway, I know you like to come here to argue just for the sake of arguing
I like to bring levity, and I see you continue to keep your finger on the scales while Kaplan's away.

Notice the words “unconditionally” and “period” there. Which leads us to your timeline…
Yes, the ALL CAPS "UNCONDITIONALLY" very effectively dissuades me from signing off on your little purity test, good catch.

So here is a perfect example of the kind of dog whistle vagueness Trump likes to make whenever his racist hate mongering fan club is in the cross hairs for doing something racist and hateful.
That's rather uncharitable, isn't it?

A Nazi just killed an innocent woman with his car. And you are going to use THAT opportunity to condemn "bigots" on BOTH sides?
Of course. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2OA-3IOsVDE)

A president of the United States?! How can anyone even DREAM of defending that kind of insensitive bile?
Excuse me, but defending what? He called out both sides. Since when is attacking the left defending the right? That sounds like partisanship to me. That's so unlike you.

Its quite clearly and obviously a direct message to his racist supporters that I still got your back.
Oh, obviously.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=41714&stc=1&d=1518632205


And they replied in kind by the way:

Andrew Anglin, the creator of the Nazi site The Daily Stormer, praised Trump's response.
Oh, you mean the Wall Street Journal's #1 Fansite?

For this he was widely and roundly criticized by everyone, even by many Republican Senators and Congressmen who normally supported him no matter what.
Citation.

And then after TWO WHOLE DAYS of doing and saying NOTHING
You like putting a lot of emphasis into these sentences, but this is perhaps one of the most mundane possible grievances you could take with the president.

Dude's in charge of so much **** right now and yet he took time out of his vacation to voice his derision towards an incident resulting a single measily casualty a mere two hours after it happens, and you have the gall to not only throw it back in his face, but still remain utterly unmoved by the fact that he acquiesced not once, not twice, but three times.

I would not have done that. I would've told the reporters and PR people in my admin to **** off already, the people they are seeking to please, if you are any indication, can't be pleased.

The overall public reaction to this was largely well what took him so long?
Hate to break it to ya, but smear journalists are not "the overall public".

Frankly Im amazed I have to hand hold you guys on this to show you how thoroughly terrible Trump’s actions were during that whole episode. Why all the revisionism and denial on this point?
Cause the voices in my head told me so.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=41714&stc=1&d=1518632205


It’s a no brainer. DON’T do ANYTHING that’s going to give even the HINT of appearance that you are defending Nazis and White Supremacists EVEN if you have 100% of their vote. Don’t do it! Its stupid! Nevermind morally bankrupt.
If only you knew how funny that was.

[mark f]

It's an historical fact that Margaret Sanger was a racist.
True.
The quote is false but there's no doubt Sanger was a racist
Sources?

[Yoda]

Sources?
Here's one (http://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/). That's a particularly nuanced and sympathetic article (it starts by debunking half-quotes and the like), but you'll find less charitable collections (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-eye-opening-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/) with a quick Googling.

[Kaplan]

Here's one (http://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/). That's a particularly nuanced and sympathetic article (it starts by debunking half-quotes and the like), but you'll find less charitable collections (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-eye-opening-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/) with a quick Googling.

I must be missing something because I don't see any evidence of racism there. Apparently Martin Luther King didn't see her as racist either. I couldn't care less either way, but it does strike me as, um, odd that Trump supporters are hung up on someone from the past being a racist, while vehemently defending Trump and many others today.

[Yoda]

I must be missing something because I don't see any evidence of racism there.
Not sure how much of it you read, but the stuff about the need to push back on the "indiscriminate fecundity" of the "unemployed" is one of those things that would've applied overwhelmingly to minorities at the time. And it's a disparity that remains incredibly lopsided even to this day.

That said, if someone wants to make the case that she was advocating abhorrent eugenic policies (look up the quotes about the "physically and mentally deficient" if you wanna throw up in your mouth a little bit), but that they merely happened to disproportionately target and effect minorities, I guess I couldn't technically prove otherwise.

[I. Rex]

That's cause it takes more time to prove a claim is false than it takes for you to pull one out of your ass.

Especially when they are obviously not false. :p

I like to bring levity, and I see you continue to keep your finger on the scales while Kaplan's away.

Not even sure what this means and you are about as humorous as any other run of the mill internet warrior who likes to hear the sound of his own voice.

Yes, the ALL CAPS "UNCONDITIONALLY" very effectively dissuades me from signing off on your little purity test, good catch.

Well wouldn’t want you to be mistaken when he’s clearly insisting on conditions.

Excuse me, but defending what? He called out both sides. Since when is attacking the left defending the right?

Remind me again how many Nazis were run over and killed by cars being driven by people “on the left”. Remind me again if this was a White Supremacist rally or a rally for people “on the left". Lose the 50/50 argument.

Oh, you mean the Wall Street Journal's #1 Fansite?

Love how you insist its crazy to think the alt righters and racists took his comments as winks and nods and dog whistles and then when I give you a quote proving that fact you shrug it off and distract to something else. :D


Citation.

GOP senators react to Trump’s Charlottesville comments: “Mr. President — we must call evil by its name.” (https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16139144/gop-senators-react-trump-charlottesville)

His words did not go unnoticed — prompting top GOP senators, like Chuck Grassley (IA), Orrin Hatch (UT), John McCain (AZ), Rob Portman (OH), Cory Gardner (CO), and Marco Rubio (FL), to call out the president for sidestepping the force of evil at play.

For context, keep in mind that these are not backbench Republicans. They’re well-known and influential players in Republican politics. They’re also not reflexive critics; they’ve defended Trump in the past. From this perspective, it’s a big deal to see senators buck their party leader so forcefully.

Dude's in charge of so much **** right now and yet he took time out of his vacation to voice his derision towards an incident resulting a single measily casualty a mere two hours after it happens, and you have the gall to not only throw it back in his face, but still remain utterly unmoved by the fact that he acquiesced not once, not twice, but three times.

Not even completely sure you are serious here since its a defensive argument that actually makes Trump look worse. But I'll assume you are. And I'll also assume you cant count since his second statement was the only one where he said he actually unconditionally condemns Nazis and white nationalists (by reading it off a card...). Then that Monday he blew that all up by returning to his false equivalency notions that Nazis and white nationalists who kill innocent women are the same as left wing protesters. So try that math again slick.

the people they are seeking to please, if you are any indication, can't be pleased.

Oh Im pretty easy to please. You could start by resigning.

Hate to break it to ya, but smear journalists are not "the overall public".

Poll: Majority disapproves of Trump's Charlottesville response (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/347416-majority-disapprove-of-trumps-charlottesville-response-poll)

And THAT poll was taken BEFORE he walked back all the statements he made about condemning Nazis. :D

Cause the voices in my head told me so.

Well Im sure Trump appreciates your voices blind loyalty and/or contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism.

[Omnizoa]

Especially when they are obviously not false. :pI guess they're "obviously not false" until they're false, right?

Remind me again how many Nazis were run over and killed by cars being driven by people “on the left”.Red Herring. It's utterly irrelevant because the violence wasn't limited to a single hit and run. Nobody invited leftists to show up armed with bottles of piss to throw at otherwise peaceful event participants, but after multiple occasions of activists outright attacking people on both the right and left, it should come as no surprise that numerous Unite the Right participants arrived openly carrying firearms.

If they wanted violence, someone would've been shot, but no, a rogue idiot plowed through a couple people and so what otherwise could have been fairly described as pure antagonism on part of the protesters, violence instead was attributed to both sides.

Though there are racist hatemongers on both sides of this conflict, it seems to be a rather bold cherrypicking of history to ignore the overwhelmingly greater frequency of left-wing activists breaking the law, causing property damage, and outright attacking people to draw attention to a single hit and run.

Remind me again if this was a White Supremacist rally or a rally for people “on the left". Lose the 50/50 argument.You're right, leftists shouldn't have been there. Actually think about what you say for 2 seconds, I. Rex:

If only right-wingers showed up, who would they run over?

Love how you insist its crazy to think the alt righters and racists took his comments as winks and nods and dog whistles and then when I give you a quote proving that factI'm sorry, where have you proven that? What quote? This quote?:

Andrew Anglin, the creator of the Nazi site The Daily Stormer, praised Trump's response. "He didn't attack us," he wrote in a blog post on the site. "(He) implied that there was hate ... on both sides. So he implied the antifa are haters. There was virtually no counter-signaling of us all."You realize you're quoting Andrew Anglin, right? As in not Trump? As in no one with any authority on what Trump may be secretly intending in any given thing he says whatsoever?

GOP senators react to Trump’s Charlottesville comments: “Mr. President — we must call evil by its name.”
Okay, right off the bat, I have to say; anybody who cites Vox should just stop and concede the argument. You are citing a mass media platform so transparently biased that they outright admit it on their About Us (https://www.vox.com/pages/about-us) page:

We live in a world of too much information and too little context. Too much noise and too little insight. And so Vox's journalists candidly shepherd audiences through politics and policy,

SLAP YO SELF.

As to whether it substantiates your claim? It doesn't. Nowhere in it does it suggest that any of the people mentioned "normally supported him no matter what".

they’ve defended Trump in the past.This line isn't substantiated, and even if it was, it doesn't substantiate your claim. I've defended Trump in the past, but i sure as **** don't "normally support him no matter what".

These are establishment Republicans, they're stuck between towing the party line and maintaining their reputations.

Not even completely sure you are serious here
I am dead serious.

since its a defensive argument that actually makes Trump look worse.
OF COURSE it makes Trump look worse, ANYTHING about Trump that can be uncharitably interpreted looks worse to you.

This is why the principle of charity is valuable, I. Rex. Because an uncharitable person can make anyone and anything look bad.

For example: I could take your presence on this forum to be a malicious conspiracy by establishment SocDem Jews to infiltrate pop culture and secretly skew the conversation towards Cultural Marxism, and as proof I could cite your conspicuously black avatar as a subtle threat against cis-hetero male gamers and the White Genocide which you seek to inflict by defending and obscuring the violence caused by Anarcho-Genderqueer-Transracial-Anti-Fascist-Feminists and their Islamo-Vegan-Globalist agenda.

You disagree? That's what they all say, COMMIE SCUM.

But I'll assume you are. And I'll also assume you cant count since his second statement was the only one where he said he actually unconditionally condemns Nazis
Your pedantry is so predictable.

and white nationalists (by reading it off a card...).
Like I said, uncharitable.

Even the **** he cares about, he gives speeches on by reading off a card. If reading off a card implies insincerity, then I wonder how much dishonesty I can infer from videos of old Democratic presidents?

What's that? It only applies to Trump because reasons? WELL, IN THAT CASE...

Then that Monday he blew that all up by returning to his false equivalency
There's no false equivalency because he didn't equate anything. Stating two sides did the same thing says nothing about the severity of the thing either side did.

Here, let me explain this to you like you're 5 years old:

I ask John and Jane to go pick apples.

Both John and Jane return from picking apples with a bucket each.

John has a bucket with 8 apples. Jane has a bucket with 2 apples.

I say, "Both of you have brought me apples."


Is this a false equivalence, or a blunt statement of fact? "Try that math again, Slick."

Poll: Majority disapproves of Trump's Charlottesville response
Omigosh, YOU ARE SO BAD AT THIS, check this **** out:

The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/347416-majority-disapprove-of-trumps-charlottesville-response-poll), which you linked to, is not the original source,
it cites The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-shows-strong-disapproval-of-how-trump-responded-to-charlottesville-violence/2017/08/21/4e5c585c-868b-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumppoll-503pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.8b1f4cd8ab12), a journal so ****in' butthurt over the election it STILL says "Democracy Dies in Darkness" at the top of the screen, it bases it's survey stating the opinion of over 300 MILLION PEOPLE on a little over 1000 people from what could be a blue state for all we know.

Sooo pretty much worthless information.

But you know what's really special about this totally-fact-based-news-article? Look at this:

The Post-ABC survey found that roughly 1 in 6 Americans either support the alt-right or say it is acceptable to hold white supremacist or neo-Nazi views.

This is a conclusion derived from a question and set of answers this article DOES NOT DISCLOSE about the views of Americans, people who live in a country based on a Constitution ensuring, first and foremost, the right to free speech.

Of course it is acceptable to hold white supremacist views, it is acceptable to hold any view, because you have a legal right to hold it!

Either you're this gullible towards all news, or you're this gullible towards news supporting your bias.

Your citations have not only failed to adequately substantiate your claims, but in fact continue to substantiate MY claim that you traffic in obviously partisan propaganda, such as:

And THAT poll was taken BEFORE he walked back all the statements he made about condemning Nazis. :D
You have no legs to stand on whatsoever, and I made that perfectly clear the last time I argued with you.

You'd sooner accuse other people of being in denial of reality before admitting you're wrong, because the lies make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. The constant stream of propaganda numbs the scream of doubt in the back of your head:

"Don't pay attention to this Omnizoa person, they're a Trump apologist and probably a racist. Ignore what they say. Anyone who disagrees with you is in an echo chamber or a troll."


Well Im sure Trump appreciates your voices blind loyalty and/or contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism.
Right on queue.

https://media.giphy.com/media/fGxNi12EGPC1y/source.gif

[I. Rex]

Though there are racist hatemongers on both sides of this conflict, it seems to be a rather bold cherrypicking of history to ignore the overwhelmingly greater frequency of left-wing activists breaking the law, causing property damage, and outright attacking people to draw attention to a single hit and run.

I love how you continually write off vehicular homicide as completely incidental. It really helps your argument let me tell you. And I love how you attempt to paint the protesters at this Nazi rally as ALL anarchist extremists bent on creating violence, when in fact the vast majority were locals and college kids marching to express their disagreement with the vile racist ideology and out right threats made by the Nazi rally participants. And that’s the point. This was a NAZI RALLY. Not a conservative rally that a few Nazis showed up to. It was a Nazi rally that Nazis showed up to because it was a NAZI RALLY. And really all you have to do is stop at the word “Nazi”. Your attempt to try to twist this into some kind of responsibility contest is completely irrelevant to my overall point that NO MATTER WHAT, if you are the president of the United States, you don’t publicly make excuses for Nazis because there were some antagonists antagonizing them. Under ANY circumstances. You simply take the easiest soft ball ever and condemn Nazism and racism and you stop. That’s what you do. But that’s not what Trump did. He will tweet endlessly about “radical Islamic terrorism” at the drop of a hat (even sometimes when the terrorism is not Islamic) because it benefits his anti-islamic agenda. He will even take out a full page ad screaming about how five black kids need to be strung up by their toes and put to the mob because of his belief that they were guilty of a rape and continue to insist on this EVEN after they are found innocent (because “due process” is only important to him when it involves right wing child molesters and wife beaters). But be a Nazi and it’s a big “meh. There are good people on both sides”.

You're right, leftists shouldn't have been there.

So you are against counter protesters being allowed to protest at a Nazi rally then? What was that long winded sanctimonious speech you made about first amendment rights again?

You realize you're quoting Andrew Anglin, right? As in not Trump? As in no one with any authority on what Trump may be secretly intending in any given thing he says whatsoever?

So you ask me to show that Nazis and white supremacists took his words as a sign of support and when I produce quotes from Nazis and white supremacists saying just that you tell me those don’t count because its not Trump talking? WTF?

You act like Trump doesn’t have a history of winking and nodding and stoking hatred among his base. All you had to do is spend 15 minutes watching his rallies during the campaign to know that’s the case. Or, you know, ANY unscripted speech he makes to his deplorable hoards to this very day (“not clapping for me is treason!”)

Okay, right off the bat, I have to say; anybody who cites Vox should just stop and concede the argument.

A ha ha! I KNEW you would pull the old “biased source” bait and switch. When you cant counter the truth then undermine the source. PLEASE feel free to show how Vox made up the statements that Grassley and Hatch and McCain and all made that they SIMPLY QUOTED. If you cant handle reading it on Vox Im happy to give you the very same information in a dozen other media sources. But undoubtedly you will say it doesn’t matter because EVERY media site that counters any point you make MUST be biased… And if that’s the case then I can produce the actual tweets from the representatives themselves SHOWING THESE VERY SAME WORDS. How far do you want to take this attempt to ignore the obvious truth exactly? Because source is irrelevant to the reality of statements made.

Nowhere in it does it suggest that any of the people mentioned "normally supported him no matter what".

So youre now at the point of trying to pedantically suggest that Im COMPLETELY wrong about this because someone like Orrin Hatch doesn’t normally support Trump “no matter what”? Im guessing the fact that Hatch has supported Trump’s position 97% of the time (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/orrin-g-hatch/) is irrelevant because 3% of the time he didn’t? Welcome to undermining your argument by attempting to argue based on a silly technicality. You’ve lost this point. Give it up.

This line isn't substantiated, and even if it was, it doesn't substantiate your claim. I've defended Trump in the past, but i sure as **** don't "normally support him no matter what".

Are you a “republican senator or congressman”? Just stop already…

This is why the principle of charity is valuable, I. Rex. Because an uncharitable person can make anyone and anything look bad.

Trump needs no help from me to look bad. And as for “charity”, his concept of charity is creating one so he can use it as a slush fund for his own projects and never provide the money he promised to give to the original targets of the campaign. So thanks for bringing that up…

I could take your presence on this forum to be a malicious conspiracy by establishment SocDem Jews to infiltrate pop culture and secretly skew the conversation towards Cultural Marxism, and as proof I could cite your conspicuously black avatar as a subtle threat against cis-hetero male gamers and the White Genocide which you seek to inflict by defending and obscuring the violence caused by Anarcho-Genderqueer-Transracial-Anti-Fascist-Feminists and their Islamo-Vegan-Globalist agenda.

It’s a fair cop. I had a bulldog named “Karl Marx” once. But his constant barking about the Theory of Alienation got old after a while so I gave him to an old girlfriend and got a parakeet which I named Noam Chomsky. As for The Ladies Man icon, I only chose that because of an old very ironic nickname I got back in the 90’s. But take from it what you will…

Your pedantry is so predictable.

LOL this from the king of pointless pedantic internet arguing. All this effort to “prove” Trump TECHNICALLY is not a “defender” of the Third Reich and ignore the clear and obvious spirit of the original throw away snarky post. Yeah, you may want to talk to someone about that. Either a doctor or a law school admissions officer. Assuming you haven’t burned all the social bridges in your life by now.

Even the **** he cares about, he gives speeches on by reading off a card.

Nice of you once again to focus on the tiny embellishment I made and not the meat of the point. And no, when he’s passionate about something its full on unscripted verbal diarrhea explosion much to the delight of the deplorables and the chagrin of his handlers. If you couldn’t tell the clear difference between his approach with the “condemnation” remarks he made and the free association “good guys on both sides” nonsense he spouted before and after then you may want to get your eyes and ears checked.

There's no false equivalency because he didn't equate anything. Stating two sides did the same thing says nothing about the severity of the thing either side did.

Wait wait… when did the counter protestors run over Nazis again? And by the way while we are at it, when did the left wing protesters kill millions of people because of their religion or their race (and please spare us of the argument “those were completely different Nazis”)? But oh, that’s right, piss balloons… Yep definitely equal…

I ask John and Jane to go pick apples.

Both John and Jane return from picking apples with a bucket each.

John has a bucket with 8 apples. Jane has a bucket with 2 apples.

I say, "Both of you have brought me apples."

Here, let me help you with the correct analogy. You forgot to add that John is a known Nazi/Klansman who has a history of genocide, racial terrorizing and is responsible for the murder of millions. And Jane is a counter protester who doesn’t like Nazis. And that Johns bucket included another murder and outrageous acts of intimidation and “blood and soil” revelry. Janes bucket includes hundreds of protest signs and… piss balloons… and only maybe 2% of her is actually responsible for the piss balloons. 98% of her was just locals and college kids wanting to counter John’s virulent public display of apple picking hatred and intimidation. And 100% of John is Nazi since 100% of Nazis are Nazis… Now you can say they are both exactly the same but I would think that would push even your level of technical pedantism.

"Try that math again, Slick."

Um yep, 1 still doesn’t equal 3. (and apples don’t equal oranges… especially nazi oranges). But Im willing to wait for you to show me otherwise.

Sooo pretty much worthless information.

So again with the “source” argument? The Washington Post just makes things up? That’s really your main tactic whenever anyone brings up anything supporting their point? Its so tired and lazy. And I can only conclude from your response to the numbers in that poll that you actually think the TRUE results are the opposite? That the majority of americans whole heartedly endorsed the way Trump handled Charlottesville? Ok if you want to play that game let me show you another poll…

A FOX NEWS poll…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/08/30/fox-news-poll-results-830.html

Lots of interesting data in there. But lets get to the questions about Charlottesville… here, let me highlight the most relevant parts for you…

https://snag.gy/iCzapj.jpg

Huh. What do you know. the EXACT same number of people in the FOX poll “disapprove of how the President responded to events in Charlottesville”. Imagine that… But hey please feel free to educate me on how Fox News is clearly a Trump hate site. My thinking is if Post polls AND Fox polls BOTH show that MOST americans think Trump bungled Charlottesville then its hard to argue otherwise. But I know truth never stops you from trying. So I’ll wait for your TRULY unbiased (magic) media sources that show clearly that most Americans think that Trumps handling of Charlottesville was just peachy. Knock yourself out…

Your citations have not only failed to adequately substantiate your claims, but in fact continue to substantiate MY claim that you traffic in obviously partisan [anti Trump] propaganda

…like Fox News :laugh:

You have no legs to stand on whatsoever

You live in a contrarian dream world where you refuse to accept even the most obvious and clear notions about reality and how events unfold just so you can continue to argue. It makes you look absurd and quite sad honestly but I don’t expect you to stop now. My prediction is you will ignore/shrug off everything I have said in this post as well and continue to dig yourself into that hole where Trump didn’t prove himself to be an utter insensitive boob in his handling of this event. And ALL over a single word in a throw away post meant, by its shock value, to make a more general point about Trumps nature. But here you come to rescue the internet from such EGREGIOUSLY untechnical statements of opinion from days ago. I bet you feel quite righteous don’t you Don Quixote. Thank goodness you are here to save us all! And to clear the Presidents good name!

You'd sooner accuse other people of being in denial of reality before admitting you're wrong

Too bad this theory hasn’t been tested in this case. But let me know when you pick a subject that you aren’t in denial about (or as I suspect here, just purposefully counter arguing against because you can).

[Omnizoa]

I love how you continually write off vehicular homicide as completely incidental.I love how you continue to ignore the violence on both sides.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=41772&stc=1&d=1518725780


I love how you attempt to paint the protesters at this Nazi rally as ALL anarchist extremists bent on creating violence, when in fact the vast majority were locals and college kidsOf course there were college kids.

This was a NAZI RALLY.
I've actually been cutting you some slack up to now on the whole "Nazi" buzzword, but Nazi is not the same thing as "Identitarian". Were there Neo-Nazis there? Yeah, probably. But Neo-Nazis are not the same thing as National Socialists, National Socialists are not the same thing as the KKK, the KKK are not the same thing as Ethno-Nationalists, and Ethno-Nationalists are not the same thing as Identitarians.

Not a conservative rally that a few Nazis showed up to. It was a Nazi rally that Nazis showed up to because it was a NAZI RALLY. And really all you have to do is stop at the word “Nazi”. Your attempt to try to twist this into some kind of responsibility contest is completely irrelevant to my overall point that NO MATTER WHAT, if you are the president of the United States, you don’t publicly make excuses for Nazis because there were some antagonists antagonizing them. Under ANY circumstances.
Again, with the "excuses". He condemned them, quite plainly. Multiple times. You're only throwing a **** fit cause your side got called out. And what did it get called out for?

FOR STOOPING TO THE LEVEL OF NAZIS.

You simply take the easiest soft ball ever and condemn Nazism and racism and you stop.
He did. Multiple times. Prior to the election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoXThCb8EZA


You have invented this bogeyman in your head, accused him of countless unfathomable evils and demanded he apologize over and over, and he has, over and over, and yet you continue read the most unreasonably malicious motives into him with absolutely no evidence beyond your dogmatic political certitude which these media organizations you so trust have mercilessly beaten into you non-stop on the very corporate dollar you think you're opposing.

You're a hypocrite.

That’s what you do. But that’s not what Trump did. He will tweet endlessly about “radical Islamic terrorism” at the drop of a hat (even sometimes when the terrorism is not Islamic) because it benefits his anti-islamic agenda.
I should hope we all have an anti-Islamic agenda.

He will even take out a full page ad screaming about how five black kids need to be strung up by their toes and put to the mob because of his belief that they were guilty of a rape and continue to insist on this EVEN after they are found innocent (because “due process” is only important to him when it involves right wing child molesters and wife beaters). But be a Nazi and it’s a big “meh. There are good people on both sides”.
Another conflation, and an inadvertent validation of my "hypocrite" accusation: You're quick to correct generalizations targeting the protesters, but equally hasty to generalize their targets.

So you are against counter protesters being allowed to protest at a Nazi rally then?
X shouldn't have done Y =/= Y should be illegal

What was that long winded sanctimonious speech you made about first amendment rights again?
Probably back wherever you left your integrity.

So you ask me to show that Nazis and white supremacists took his words as a sign of supportYou sneaky little weasel, I see what you did there:
here is a perfect example of the kind of dog whistle vagueness Trump likes to makethe alt righters and racists took his comments as winks and nods and dog whistlesyou ask me to show that Nazis and white supremacists took his words as a sign of supportThat is a Moving the Goalposts fallacy. The original claim was that Trump deliberately dog whistles for his audience. You can quibble that line all you want, but you reiterated it clear as day:

Its quite clearly and obviously a direct message to his racist supporters that I still got your back. And they replied in kind by the way:You even made it clear in the following sentence that the reply is distinct from the alleged dog whistle. A couple seconds Google searching confirms this is what dog whistling means:

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=41773&stc=1&d=1518728565


You have now dishonestly shifted your claim that Trump deliberately sent a secret message to Nazis interpreted a secret message.

You are WRONG. You have contradicted yourself by failing to maintain a consistent narrative and because when challenged to substantiate a one of your bull**** claims, you commit the very thing you accused me of: revisionism.


You're a hypocrite.

You act like Trump doesn’t have a history of winking and nodding and stoking hatred among his base. All you had to do is spend 15 minutes watching his rallies during the campaign to know that’s the case.
https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=41774&stc=1&d=1518729133


A ha ha! I KNEW you would pull the old “biased source” bait and switch.
At least I rose to your expectations, I didn't expect you to stoop to ****in' VOX.

When you cant counter the truth then undermine the source. PLEASE feel free to show how Vox made up the statements that Grassley and Hatch and McCain and all made that they SIMPLY QUOTED.
Maybe you left your reading comprehension back where you left your integrity too. I am not disputing those, and in fact you know this, because you quoted the point of contention immediately following:

If you cant handle reading it on Vox Im happy to give you the very same information in a dozen other media sources. But undoubtedly you will say it doesn’t matter because EVERY media site that counters any point you make MUST be biased… And if that’s the case then I can produce the actual tweets from the representatives themselves SHOWING THESE VERY SAME WORDS. How far do you want to take this attempt to ignore the obvious truth exactly? Because source is irrelevant to the reality of statements made.
Nowhere in it does it suggest that any of the people mentioned "normally supported him no matter what".So now you're leaving arguments in your posts,
which you invalidate,
in your post.

If you cant handle reading it on Vox Im happy to give you the very same information in a dozen other media sources. But undoubtedly you will say it doesn’t matter because EVERY media site that counters any point you make MUST be biased… And if that’s the case then I can produce the actual tweets from the representatives themselves SHOWING THESE VERY SAME WORDS. How far do you want to take this attempt to ignore the obvious truth exactly? Because source is irrelevant to the reality of statements made.The same information does not substantiate your claim. You literally JUST SAID:

"...source is irrelevant to the reality of statements made."


The statements you cited do not substantiate the claim that these senators and congress officials "normally supported him no matter what".

You could link me a million articles with the exact same thing, and every single time I could counter with:

"...source is irrelevant to the reality of statements made."


You are a hypocrite.

So youre now at the point of trying to pedantically suggest that Im COMPLETELY wrong about this because someone like Orrin Hatch doesn’t normally support Trump “no matter what”? Im guessing the fact that Hatch has supported Trump’s position 97% of the time (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/orrin-g-hatch/) is irrelevant because 3% of the time he didn’t? Welcome to undermining your argument by attempting to argue based on a silly technicality. You’ve lost this point. Give it up.
This argument fails on three fronts:

1.) This is one person, hardly the "many" original claimed.

2.) This only concerns legislation, which this incident has nothing to do with.

3.) This chart only tracks whether the person votes in favor or against the same things, not whether they "support" the person. There are plenty of contemptible people who vote similarly to you, do you support them?

Are you a “republican senator or congressman”? Just stop already…
Failure to recognize Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Trump needs no help from me to look bad.
You're right, so stop doing him favors.

And as for “charity”, his concept of charity is creating one so he can use it as a slush fund
Failure to recognize Appeal to Intellectual Honesty.

LOL this from the king of pointless pedantic internet arguing.
Calling you out for conflating different things for the purposes of pushing a political narrative isn't pedantry, it's parenting.

All this effort to “prove” Trump TECHNICALLY is not a “defender” of the Third Reich and ignore the clear and obvious spirit of the original throw away snarky post.
Aaaaaaaand backpedal. "IT'S JUST A JOKE, MANG, WHY U GOTTA BE HARSHIN' ON ME, HOMEY????"

I seem to recall somebody doing something similar, who was it?

I'm speculating

You're a hypocrite.

Nice of you once again to focus on the tiny embellishment I made
Admitting you embellished a point, GOSH, I should be ****in' flattered to witness such an event.

Wait wait… when did the counter protestors run over Nazis again?
Did he condemn both sides for running over people in vehicles?

NO.

It was for
"this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence
on many sides,"


And by the way while we are at it, when did the left wing protesters kill millions of people because of their religion or their race (and please spare us of the argument “those were completely different Nazis”)?
See, you already know your arguments are bad, spare me the trouble of debunking you by debunking yourself.

Here, let me help you with the correct analogy. You forgot to add that John is a known Nazi/Klansman who has a history of genocide, racial terrorizing and is responsible for the murder of millions. And Jane is a counter protester who doesn’t like Nazis. And that Johns bucket included another murder and outrageous acts of intimidation and “blood and soil” revelry. Janes bucket includes hundreds of protest signs and… piss balloons… and only maybe 2% of her is actually responsible for the piss balloons. 98% of her was just locals and college kids wanting to counter John’s virulent public display of apple picking hatred and intimidation.
Aw yeah, that's an honest representation of things. OH HEY, look at that, YOUR OWN SOURCE CONTRADICTING YOU (https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138246/charlottesville-nazi-rally-right-uva):

The recent right-wing resurgence has fed a rise in an American “antifa” (short for “anti-fascist”) movement, dedicated to violent resistance of ideologies that it sees as inherently violent (or, in simpler terms, dedicated to punching Nazis). While the counter-protesters to Saturday’s Unite the Right rally planned peaceful resistance, some were prepared for self-defense; local activist Emily Gorecenski told the Guardian that she was carrying a gun because “The second amendment is one of the few civil rights I have left as a trans woman.”Jeez, it's almost like it's an immutable fact of reality that there was violence on both sides, so weird!

Um yep, 1 still doesn’t equal 3. (and apples don’t equal oranges… especially nazi oranges). But Im willing to wait for you to show me otherwise.
You're not worth the effort of typing out a fruit analogy to demonstrate the category error you're making.

So again with the “source” argument?
Neat how you skipped over my explanation on why it's a bogus poll just to strawman me, again, by doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing in this very post: "...you once again to focus on the tiny embellishment I made and not the meat of the point."

You're a hypocrite.

The Washington Post just makes things up?
Yes, The Washington Post flat-out lies to it's readers. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/)

That’s really your main tactic whenever anyone brings up anything supporting their point?
You would notice that I addressed each of those articles on their merits in addition to my criticism of your use of them as a source, but you've apparently gone selectively blind while reading my post, how curious.

Ok if you want to play that game let me show you another poll…

A FOX NEWS poll…
Fox News is a **** source too. If you think you've done anything here but expose your own partisan assumption of my political affiliations, you are profoundly mistaken.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/08/30/fox-news-poll-results-830.html

Lots of interesting data in there. But lets get to the questions about Charlottesville… here, let me highlight the most relevant parts for you…

Huh. What do you know. the EXACT same number of people in the FOX poll “disapprove of how the President responded to events in Charlottesville”. Imagine that…
THIS ONE HAS EVEN FEWER PEOPLE!

OH MY GOD, can't you be bothered to LOOK at your own ******* sources before you paste them into the editor!?

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ImpassionedWeepyGuernseycow-size_restricted.gif


But hey please feel free to educate me on how Fox News is clearly a Trump hate site.
You're a moron.

My thinking is if Post polls AND Fox polls BOTH show that MOST americans think Trump bungled Charlottesville then its hard to argue otherwise.
So combine them. Here, I'll even do you favor, shall I? Let's round up those polling numbers to 3000, and round down the US population to 300 million. We're just going to ignore a good 20 million people for the sake of your argument, this is what a charitable interpretation is, I. Rex, so pay attention:

You are STILL attempting to substantiate a claim on what the majority opinion of the population is... based on a sample representing 0.00001% of the population.

But I know truth never stops you from trying.
The irony certainly doesn't stop you.

So I’ll wait for your TRULY unbiased (magic) media sources that show clearly that most Americans think that Trumps handling of Charlottesville was just peachy. Knock yourself out…
I don't have to disprove your claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Have you really crossed the event horizon into guilty-until-proven-innocent?

That explains a lot. You're a regressive. SO regressive in fact that the ancient Romans were better than this.


ALRIGHT, so let's tally up the casualties:

I've caught you dead changing your argument,

I've caught you making multiple logical contradictions,

I've pressured you into backpedaling your entire original post by calling it a "throw away", despite the fact that you continue to argue it (if it's a throw away, why argue?),

and on top of all of that I've demonstrated several times over that you are a hypocrite of the highest order. I think the debate floor is sufficiently bloodied, I'll let you have the final word:

You live in a contrarian dream world where you refuse to accept even the most obvious and clear notions about reality and how events unfold just so you can continue to argue.

[Omnizoa]

Someone wanna clean up this corpse? I'm done with it.

[Captain Steel]

Someone wanna clean up this corpse? I'm done with it.

Kudos to all. Some good points on all sides.
A great read and wildly entertaining!

[Yoda]

We moved this thread off the public forums for a bit, because some of the responses were getting pretty inflammatory (and were deleted).

I'm going to leave this closed for at least a few days to let everyone simmer down, then I'll re-open it.

Would strongly implore everyone to turn the temperature down on this stuff whenever possible.

[ashdoc]

Trump tries but fails to put Pakistan on terror finance watch list . Pakistan used it's friends like China Turkey and Saudi Arabia to outmanuever Trump.

https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.newsweek.com/did-trump-fail-put-pakistan-terror-finance-watch-list-816972%3famp=1

[I. Rex]

Oh this is finally back on now? Yoda am I allowed to reply back to that silly nonsensical chest thumping rambling in omnizoa's last post? so many basic errors sitting there unchecked for over a week...

[Yoda]

Yes, but I'd like to advise everyone to try to take it down a notch. I'll be sending private warnings relating to some of the things that were posted just before the thread closure.

[I. Rex]

Well I wont go into a long rambling response at this point since its been a while and he was desperately backing away from the discussion in his last post. But we all know that chest thumping while backing away is always a sure sign of defeat while trying to save face so I wont embarrass him further by chasing after him and his weaker and more desperate and more and more emotional counter arguments. Although I will note that he apparently doesnt have even the most rudimentary knowledge about how basic statistics work. YES 1000 people certainly CAN reliably represent a country of 300 million. Its simply a matter of math and proper sampling. And it produces a margin of error of about 3% which is widely considered more than sufficient in polling and mathematical circles. Don’t believe me? Check it yourself: https://www.checkmarket.com/sample-size-calculator/. The Pew Research Center has also made a very informative video:
very informative video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sonXfzE1hvo) on this basic math concept as well. I can only assume his counter to this is that math is bogus. Its just one big liberal conspiracy like science. I have to admit Im still chuckling that Fox News came up with the VERY same number as ABC/WP. Hilarious…

[matt72582]

More background checks, banning bump stocks, mental health, raising the age limit to 21 for assault weapons is more than Obama did.. And he had the same as Trump, both houses, 60 votes, did nothing.... And of course he wouldn't do anything for the liberals - they'd make excuses for him regardless, so he became Republican-lite with perpetual war, resigning the "patriot" act, going after whistleblowers more than anyone, droning 6x as many as W., no habeus corpus, etc etc..

Maybe it's because the average median income in Parkland is $300,000? Wasn't it time 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago?

[Camo]

How did Ashdoc know it was open? :laugh: I'm guessing Yoda posted about it somewhere but it's just funny that he posted first after the reopen and not Yoda.

I saw one of the deleted posts before it was and it was pretty ugly but surprisingly i think most of the time this is one of the more civil Trump discussions on the internet.

[ashdoc]

Trump tries but fails to put Pakistan on terror finance watch list . Pakistan used it's friends like China Turkey and Saudi Arabia to outmanuever Trump.

https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.newsweek.com/did-trump-fail-put-pakistan-terror-finance-watch-list-816972%3famp=1

So finally Trump did succeed in putting Pakistan on terror finance watch list . One thought this US power was waning in front of China , but US did force China to back out of it's opposition to placing Pakistan in the terror finance watch list.

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/world/asia/pakistan-terror-finance-list.amp.html

[Captain Steel]

How did Ashdoc know it was open? :laugh: I'm guessing Yoda posted about it somewhere but it's just funny that he posted first after the reopen and not Yoda.

I saw one of the deleted posts before it was and it was pretty ugly but surprisingly i think most of the time this is one of the more civil Trump discussions on the internet.

Yeah, two individuals enjoying a rousing, witty and scathing debate... so ugly!

Must... stop... communication... and humorous... insults... shut... down... now.
Feelings... of... willing... participants... maybe getting...hurt... (despite the fact that they continue participating in clever repartee) ...can't... allow... such... free... expression... ;)

Reading it made me as unable to cope as the idea of Ben Shapiro coming to speak at a local university! I had to take time off, find a service dog and get out all my coloring books. I still haven't fully recovered.

[Yoda]

Yeah, two individuals enjoying a rousing, witty and scathing debate... so ugly!
What part of "I deleted some posts" didn't you understand?

It's amazing to me that people will come into a situation like this, look at the things we specifically decided didn't need to be removed, and go "hey, what's the big deal? Nothing in here looks too bad."

Must... stop... communication... and humorous... insults... shut... down... now.
Not really humorous so much as cloyingly sarcastic. And it sure seems like you hide behind "humor" a lot to justify what are just glib, self-serving jabs.

[Captain Steel]

What part of "I deleted some posts" didn't you understand?

It's amazing to me that people will come into a situation like this, look at the things we specifically decided didn't need to be removed, and go "hey, what's the big deal? Nothing in here looks too bad."


Not really humorous so much as cloyingly sarcastic. And it sure seems like you hide behind "humor" a lot to justify what are just glib, self-serving jabs.

It was a TRUMP debate - the single most controversial figure of our time. People are divided on the subject so of course debates will get heated. The thing is you had 2 individuals who were CHOOSING to be heated with each other - then they let their argument run its course - and THEN 24 hours after activity ceased, you closed the thread.

It doesn't sound like the participants were offended, but you were and a day later you close the thread to punish someone - that's pretty self serving.

[Yoda]

Captain Steel: all of that completely ignores what I just said, which I'm going to reproduce below:

What part of "I deleted some posts" didn't you understand?

It's amazing to me that people will come into a situation like this, look at the things we specifically decided didn't need to be removed, and go "hey, what's the big deal? Nothing in here looks too bad."

Oh, and this:

It doesn't sound like the participants were offended, but you were and a day later you close the thread to punish someone - that's pretty self serving.
First: punish who?

Second: I wasn't the one that chose to close the thread. So there goes your whole theory.

Anything else you're totally ignorant of that you'd like to opine about?

[Captain Steel]

Captain Steel: all of that completely ignores what I just said, which I'm going to reproduce below:



Oh, and this:


First: punish who?

Second: I wasn't the one that chose to close the thread. So there goes your whole theory.

Anything else you're totally ignorant of that you'd like to opine about?

You're not the one who chose to close the thread? What does that mean?
So who "chose" it and mandated that you execute it?

[Yoda]

You still haven't replied to the thing I just quoted to you. And since it completely invalidates your entire complaint, you should probably do that. Or, you know, apologize for pontificating about something you know nothing about. Either is fine.

You're not the one who chose to close the thread? What does that mean?
It means several people here have the ability to close threads.

So who "chose" it and mandated that you execute it?
First, I'm not going to subject one of my mods to your sarcastic harassment and unfounded complaints. We stand by our decisions collectively, and the specific person is totally immaterial.

Second, I found out about it the next morning. At that point I can overrule it or not, but we discussed it as a group and decided not to. But the mere fact that I didn't choose it myself (or "execute" it) is sufficient to show that whatever quasi-conspiracy you're floating about "punishment" is totally invalid.

[Captain Steel]

If you wanted to delete something that didn't meet site guidelines, fine. But why close a thread, especially long after the debating parties had ceased?
It's like Las Vegas - if you don't want conspiracy theories then stop doing weird covert things like closing threads "temporarily."
What the heck is that supposed to do? That's like asking for a conspiracy theory - people have been PM'ing each other since trying to figure it out.
As soon as a closed thread re-opens you've got members now feeling like they have to ask your permission to resume talking about the topic. Gosh!

"Very uncomfortable atmosphere... very suspicious, believe me... very uncomfortable."

[Yoda]

First, I'd like some kind of response on what I've been pointing out to you. Because you've issued opinions about posts you never saw, and made baseless accusations of stealth "punishment" that don't even fit the basic timeline. You don't get to accuse me of a bunch of stuff and then never even acknowledge it (let alone apologize) when the facts contradict it. That's crappy.

If you wanted to delete something that didn't meet site guidelines, fine. But why close a thread, especially long after the debating parties had ceased?
I explicitly answered this shortly after the thread closed:

I'm going to leave this closed for at least a few days to let everyone simmer down, then I'll re-open it.

Would strongly implore everyone to turn the temperature down on this stuff whenever possible.
Far from being "weird," this is the advice everyone gives when people are angry: sleep on it, count to ten, blah blah blah. That's, like, the universal remedy when things get heated.

It's like Las Vegas - if you don't want conspiracy theories then stop doing weird covert things like closing threads "temporarily."
What the heck is that supposed to do? That's like asking for a conspiracy theory - people have been PM'ing each other since trying to figure it out.
Right, it's my fault that you engaged in conspiracy theories. What choice did you have? Taking me at my word? Asking? Not having an opinion about it? Clearly none of those will do!

The situation was explained, and you exhibited zero effort to learn more about it. So the fact that you somehow still ended up floating conspiracies--and somehow barely even see it as a choice on your part--is pretty revealing.

[seanc]

Bet Yoda is thrilled he opened this back up.

Whining about anyone anywhere in any facet of life asserting the tiniest amount of authority is usually the liberal move these days Captain. Feels like a college campus in here today.

[Powdered Water]

Wish this f*ckin thread would have stayed closed.

[Citizen Rules]

How about someone suggesting a Trump topic and we can debate the pros and cons of Trump's specific actions.

I have one. How about debating Trump's response & plans to deal with gun violence, which was prompted by the recent school shooting.

Does Trump have any worthwhile plans to help deal with school shootings? What has he proposed so far? What has he rejected? What should he do?

[Chypmunk]

More like a kindergarten than a college campus if you ask me.

[Omnizoa]

Well I wont go into a long rambling response at this point since its been a while and he was desperately backing away from the discussion in his last post.
Maybe tag Omnizoa in the the discussion before you call me a coward when I'm not around, eh?

But we all know that chest thumping while backing away is always a sure sign of defeat while trying to save face so I wont embarrass him furtherYou mean you won't address my arguments because you couldn't refute them even if you tried.

The only thing you evidently feel confident in challenging in the point on statistics, which I will happily deconstruct for you:

he apparently doesnt have even the most rudimentary knowledge about how basic statistics work. YES 1000 people certainly CAN reliably represent a country of 300 million. Its simply a matter of math and proper sampling. And it produces a margin of error of about 3% which is widely considered more than sufficient in polling and mathematical circles. Don’t believe me? Check it yourself: https://www.checkmarket.com/sample-size-calculator/.
Interesting how you're married to this assertion of what constitutes the only reasonable margin of error based on literally no evidence apart of a site which is designed to spit out a % margin of error without any explanation as why that margin of error is reasonable.

At the bottom of the page it even offers a calculator for calculate what I presume you would consider to be a reasonable margin of error with the only "Confidence Level" variables being 99% and 95%.

Do you have 95-99% confidence in Fox New's ability to accurately represent the facts, I. Rex? I didn't think so.

Your citation is trash.

The Pew Research Center has also made a very informative video:
Which ironically validates my skepticism within a matter of seconds:

"Of course, if you wanna measure what the entire nation thinks you can't just stand on a street corner and wave people over. That type of haphazard sample would only represent the people at that street corner at that particular time and you wouldn't get the people that didn't necessarily want to talk with you."


But you know what, that pot of soup analogy was super persuasive, so let's extend it a little farther. Clearly you think I'm an idiot:

I can only assume his counter to this is that math is bogus.So let's do a little math here:

Let's find a stove pot. Here we go, this one looks like the one in the video, what a bargain! (https://www.target.com/p/t-fal-3-qt-stainless-steel-covered-saucepan/-/A-52478416) This pot is 3 quarts deep. Now what was that ratio again? Oh yes:

"a sample representing 0.00001% of the population."


Okay, so 3 quarts is 96 fluid ounces. I just took one of my big spoons and I can fill it with about a tablespoon of water, a tablespoon is half a fluid ounce, so that means it takes 192 tablespoons to fill a 3 quart pot.

That makes a ratio of spoon (sample size) to pot (population size) 0.005%.

Now let's reverse that and see what a more accurate analogy would be in this particular circumstance:

192 x 0.00001 = 0.00192


That is almost 2 thousandths of a tablespoon with which you have to test that you got that soup right. And that's if you mixed it thoroughly.

Let's shift that back to ounces, 0.00096, and convert to milligrams which gives us...

27.2155


SO...

...what you're telling me, I. Rex, is that this poll was not only taken as a random sample... but that it is can be considered as reliably accurate and representative of the whole as is your ability to detect the proper composition of an entire pot of soup with little more than an eighth of an Advil worth of soup to taste.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=42200&stc=1&d=1519492453


Damn that inconvenient math!

But you know...? Pew Research is considered pretty reliable, so you know what? I'm gonna concede to your claim. Yep. I totally accept that that is an accurate representation of the country's reaction to Trump after Charlottesville. Why not?

Besides, as long as we're appealing to the authority of Pew Research, let's take a looksee at this poll, eh?:

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/08/29092950/3_4c.png


Wow, would you look at that. It looks like the people bitching about Trump are more ruffled by his personality than the **** that tangibly affects the country! Interesting that.

I'm sure that doesn't perfectly accurately describe you at all, of course, after all, you've ascended to a plane of enlightenment far beyond that of my own:

I learned long ago you cant argue someones mind into changing.Foolish me, still clinging to that childish notion of having an open mind.

Nah, I'm not trying to convince you of anything I. Rex, I just see that you've been running your hysterical jaw non-stop since I've been away and I'd just like to demonstrate for all the other kind folks in this thread
how you're wrong,
to what degree you are wrong,
and in how ever many different ways I can show you are wrong.

Because as far as I'm concerned, you're a sideshow. As much as a political wingnut as Kaplan with his ceaseless Russia conspiracy. But at least Kaplan didn't flat out admit he wasn't receptive to counter arguments. That special title goes to you, and that's why you and I will never hold a serious political discussion.

[Omnizoa]

@Captain Steel (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=87640)

Let it go, man.

[Omnizoa]

Whining about anyone anywhere in any facet of life asserting the tiniest amount of authority is usually the liberal move these days
Don't make it a "Liberal" thing. I see Conservatives pull the same **** on a daily basis.

How about someone suggesting a Trump topic and we can debate the pros and cons of Trump's specific actions.
CERTAINLY. Thank you, CR.

I have one. How about debating Trump's response & plans to deal with gun violence, which was prompted by the recent school shooting.
All I'm familiar with is that he called out video games.





....which is really ****in' stupid.

[Omnizoa]

More background checks, banning bump stocks, mental health, raising the age limit to 21 for assault weapons is more than Obama did.. And he had the same as Trump, both houses, 60 votes, did nothing.... And of course he wouldn't do anything for the liberals - they'd make excuses for him regardless, so he became Republican-lite with perpetual war, resigning the "patriot" act, going after whistleblowers more than anyone, droning 6x as many as W., no habeus corpus, etc etc..
I believe the popularly accepted pejorative is "Neo-Liberal".

[I. Rex]

Maybe tag Omnizoa in the the discussion before you call me a coward when I'm not around, eh?

LOL! Like everyone here doesn’t know youll be hovering over this thread just waiting for an opportunity to engage in more hopeless useless arguments like the predictable conflict seeking head case that you are. And what you miss Im sure some will be happy to report to you in private. I never had a doubt you wouldn’t reply…

You mean you won't address my arguments because you couldn't refute them even if you tried.

No actually it was me being the bigger man in a discussion that had been on ice for over a week and in which you were teetering backwards off balance with emotion and had been relegated to citing garbage points and just hurling insults which to me is a sign of no longer being in control of the discussion. Not to mention insisting you were done discussing it as I recall. Basically your logic here is I can say Im done and slam the door closed and if you dont come running after me and drag me back in then I win.

The only thing you evidently feel confident in challenging in the point on statistics

Since you hung your hat on that point in your last post it just SCREAMED for a correction so I was happy to provide it. The rest was equally as silly, pedantic and emotional but not quite as egregious as making a freshmen level error in basic statistics.

Do you have 95-99% confidence in Fox New's ability to accurately represent the facts, I. Rex?

I have full confidence in Fox burying a survey on their site that makes Trump look bad in regards to Charlottesville (a truth that EVEN FOX probably didn’t find too surprising) and then cherry picking other numbers from it to make him look better elsewhere. I think we all do. Which makes the Charlottesville stats all the more definitive in my book.

I will happily deconstruct for you: (insert long rambling meaningless garbage post about pots and pills and decimal points here)

Dude you cant argue with basic statistics. This kind of surveying (numbers AND methodology) is WIDELY held ACROSS THE BOARD to be a perfectly valid approach from politics to industry to scientific to legal fields. That’s why similar techniques are used so often and have been for so long. But you just go on ahead and try to disprove foundational elements of statistics that have been in place for over half a century. Be my guest…

But you know...? Pew Research is considered pretty reliable, so you know what? I'm gonna concede to your claim. Yep. I totally accept that that is an accurate representation of the country's reaction to Trump after Charlottesville.

Ah. So you ARE admitting then that all that nonsense you JUST spouted was in fact Just bluster and hot air. Good to know.

Wow, would you look at that. It looks like the people bitching about Trump are more ruffled by his personality than the **** that tangibly affects the country!

Im not at all sure why this is relevant in any way. What does that have to do with Trumps self inflicted wounds after Charlottesville exactly?

Foolish me, still clinging to that childish notion of having an open mind.

Giving you good advice that humans, by their very nature, cant be pummeled into changing their minds on something through argument is not having a “closed mind”. That’s psychology 101. In fact people generally react in the very opposite direction. The more hostile you are with people, the more likely they are to stick with their belief systems no matter how ridiculous they may be. But then all you have to do is look in the mirror to realize that… :D

I just see that you've been running your hysterical jaw non-stop since I've been away

So making one post yesterday is “non-stop”? LOL! And choosing to just reply on one specific point and not continue your back and forth from sewer level is “hysterical”? Again, you seem to need a little basic help with language son. But go ahead and keep up the hypocrisy.

But at least Kaplan didn't flat out admit he wasn't receptive to counter arguments. That special title goes to you, and that's why you and I will never hold a serious political discussion.

Ha ha! Frankly Ive never seen you have a “serious political discussion” with anyone here. You simply exist to seek out conflict and “win” at all costs, truth be damned. And that’s the sign of a person that’s lost their soul and their moral bearings somewhere along the way. I wonder what the sad story behind that is exactly? You seem incapable of normal discourse. If anyone dares to challenge your challenges you quickly escalate to scorched earth ad hominin attacks and endless nonsensical spin and that’s not “winning”. That’s an empty dominance display. Well sorry, that kind of garbage doesn’t impress me at all.

[Captain Steel]

Ahhh... back to normal. :)

[Yoda]

Yeah, I figured other people carrying on would be used as some sort of cover to avoid taking any accountability for your accusations. Sadly, that is what passes for "normal" in these interactions.

[Omnizoa]

Ahhh... back to normal. 😊Yeah, I figured other people carrying on would be used as some sort of cover to avoid taking any accountability for your accusations. Sadly, that is what passes for "normal" in these interactions.
For what it's worth, Captain, I agree with Yoda. If something was deleted while we were offline, we can't exactly be informed judges of how "heated" it might have been.

[Yoda]

Worse still is filling that vacuum with some conspiracy about me stealth-punishing someone, followed by a complete refusal to acknowledge the error when I point out I didn't even make the initial decision.

[Omnizoa]

LOL! Like everyone here doesn’t know youll be hovering over this thread just waiting for an opportunity to engage in more hopeless useless arguments
They're only hopeless because you aren't receptive to them.

No actually it was me being the bigger man in a discussion that had been on ice for over a week and in which you were teetering backwards off balance with emotion
People always accuse me of being the emotional one. This is just one of multitudinous arguments I get into with people over all kinds of different subjects. I frankly wouldn't have the stamina to get emotional over each of them.

Course, if you mean "in which you were teetering backwards off balance with laughter", then yeah, I'll admit you've given me a few giggles. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard for that.

and had been relegated to citing garbage points
Which you can't substantiate.

and just hurling insults which to me is a sign of no longer being in control of the discussion.
It's not an ad hominem if I address your argument and insult you.

But let's be real, you don't really need my help to make you look bad, though I fancy myself quite good at it.

Not to mention insisting you were done discussing it as I recall.
And you said you can't argue people's mind into changing, yet here we are.

"I learned long ago you cant argue someones mind into changing."


Basically your logic here is I can say Im done and slam the door closed and if you dont come running after me and drag me back in then I win.
You can stop this anytime you'd like, I. Rex. Just do what Kaplan did: stop engaging me.

Since you hung your hat on that point in your last post it just SCREAMED for a correction so I was happy to provide it.Yes, I am often tempted to get the last word in as well.

The rest was equally as silly, pedantic and emotional but not quite as egregious as making a freshmen level error in basic statistics.Which you can't substantiate.

I have full confidence in Fox burying a survey on their site that makes Trump look bad in regards to Charlottesville (a truth that EVEN FOX probably didn’t find too surprising) and then cherry picking other numbers from it to make him look better elsewhere. I think we all do.
I think you trust Fox more than I do. I would say that's strange, if not for the obvious fact that people will lend credibility when it's convenient to their narrative.

Which makes the Charlottesville stats all the more definitive in my book.
I'm sorry, what? You think the Charlottesville poll is "more definitive" because... "Fox probably cherry-picked numbers from it"? That says nothing about the credibility of the poll or the pollsters. Why do you trust Fox to take a credible poll if they've no intention of presenting the information accurately anyway?

(insert long rambling meaningless garbage post about pots and pills and decimal points here)

Dude you cant argue with basic statistics.I haven't. I've argued with the credibility of two of your citations.

If your only response to that is "Statistics tho.", then I'll take that as a win.

This kind of surveying (numbers AND methodology) is WIDELY held ACROSS THE BOARDImplying that I should trust the numbers and methodology of the media across the board.

http://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/sam_wang.png?itok=PIuc88wN

"But he's a Princeton scientist, you can't argue with science!"


Something you should know about me, I. Rex, in case it wasn't already brutally apparent, I don't care what is "widely held across the board".

you just go on ahead and try to disprove foundational elements of statistics
Yet again you are conflating YOUR SOURCES with "Statistics".

This is the same thing that got me my first strike on Twitter; a couple of idiots cite a case study of a single guy suffering brain damage and thereafter expressing hypersexuality towards children as proof-positive that pedophilia is caused by brain damage.

I point out the transparently obvious fallacy they are committing and you know what they say to me?

"Did you read it?"

"So you're a science denialist?"

"What do you mean, 'address my argument'? You never made an argument!"

I held those two stubborn losers' feet to the fire for 6 straight hours, and it ended when they mass reported my posts getting me temporarily suspended from Twitter.

I hold you in the same high esteem as people who like to namedrop "science" into their justifications but can do nothing but trip over their own egos in perpetual motion at the drop of a hat.

Was that worth 6 hours of my time? Sure wasn't. Is this post worth my time? Sure isn't. But you know what, I'm going to do it anyway, because the prospect of people spreading falsehoods under the name of science unchallenged strikes me as a profound injustice.

Ah. So you ARE admitting then that all that nonsense you JUST spouted was in fact Just bluster and hot air. Good to know.Yep, get it outta your system, skip my long boring refutation of your point and bask in the meager reward of my insincerity.

It's about all you're gettin' from me so take advantage of it.

Im not at all sure why this is relevant in any way.Of course you don't.

What does that have to do with Trumps self inflicted wounds after Charlottesville exactly?I think that's rather obvious provided a fluent comprehension of the English language, but what do I know, I just post long rambling meaningless garbage.

Giving you good advice that humans, by their very nature, cant be pummeled into changing their minds on something through argument is not having a “closed mind”. That’s psychology 101.That's you. Speak for yourself. Don't drag me down to your level.

So making one post yesterday is “non-stop”?You've been giving your hot takes since September. (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1783423#post1783423)

LOL! And choosing to just reply on one specific point and not continue your back and forth from sewer level is “hysterical”?It's easy to make someone look foolish when you misrepresent what they said. The trick is making someone look foolish by quoting them verbatim.

"Its the time for EVERYONE, no matter WHAT your opinion on statues or flags to condemn nazis and white supremacists UNIVERSALLY and UNCONDITIONALLY. Period."


Again, you seem to need a little basic help with language son. But go ahead and keep up the hypocrisy. I'll just let that one sit. That's a good one.

Ha ha! Frankly Ive never seen you have a “serious political discussion” with anyone here.Who here is even interested?

Kaplan noped out.
Powdered Water only has the guts to throw insults from the sidelines.
And you've told me you're not receptive to arguments (and yes, I will forever hold that against you now).

The only other person who has seriously argued against me in this thread is Yoda and while I still disagree with him on the particular issue we discussed, I'm still here, he's still here, and we both still get along... despite the fact that I'm obviously pushing buttons by continuing to hold this conversation with you.

You simply exist to seek out conflict and “win” at all costs,The only cost to me is time, which I have an undistributed surplus of. Knockin' your cocky ass down a few pegs is just a satisfying way to blow an hour or two.

truth be damned.
Ah, that is brilliant.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=42210&stc=1&d=1519522251


And that’s the sign of a person that’s lost their soul and their moral bearings somewhere along the way.Now you're starting to sound like the trans-autist that got me banned from Twitter. Said I should kill myself. Lovely person.

I wonder what the sad story behind that is exactly?Awww... you gonna psycho-analyze me, Doc?

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=42211&stc=1&d=1519522489


Alright, I guess I'll tell you my life story then...

I'd never given much thought to how I would die - though I'd had reason enough in the last few months - but even if I had, I would not have imagined it like this.

I stared without breathing across the long room, into the dark eyes of the hunter, and he looked pleasantly back at me.

Surely it was a good way to die, in the place of someone else, someone I loved. Noble, even. That ought to count for something.
I knew that if I'd never gone to Forks, I wouldn't be facing death now. But, terrified as I was, I couldn't bring myself to regret the decision. When life offers you a dream so far beyond any of your expectations, it's not reasonable to grieve when it comes to an end.

The hunter smiled in a friendly way as he sauntered forward to kill me.

You seem incapable of normal discourse.
https://media.giphy.com/media/7x0eVXQ3hJqbC/giphy.gif


You are too fun.

If anyone dares to challenge your challenges you quickly escalate to scorched earth ad hominin attacks and endless nonsensical spin and that’s not “winning”. That’s an empty dominance display.You mean like how you completely failed to address several dozen arguments (https://www.movieforums.com/community/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1868326) and are now morally grandstanding about how you're a "bigger man" and how I've "lost my soul"?

[cat_sidhe]

Worse still is filling that vacuum with some conspiracy about me stealth-punishing someone, followed by a complete refusal to acknowledge the error when I point out I didn't even make the initial decision.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/glee/images/6/64/SantanaHOT.gif/revision/latest?cb=20121123192825

[Dani8]

Worse still is filling that vacuum with some conspiracy about me stealth-punishing someone, followed by a complete refusal to acknowledge the error when I point out I didn't even make the initial decision.

I've lost track of the number of times you've allegedly been in stealth mode just since my time here. Are you a wizard? Oh...wait...

[Omnizoa]

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/glee/images/6/64/SantanaHOT.gif/revision/latest?cb=20121123192825
https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=42212&stc=1&d=1519523968

[cat_sidhe]

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/glee/images/6/64/SantanaHOT.gif/revision/latest?cb=20121123192825
https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=42212&stc=1&d=1519523968


Is there a Steve model? Asking for a friend. :blush:

[Captain Steel]

I've lost track of the number of times you've allegedly been in stealth mode just since my time here. Are you a wizard? Oh...wait...

Well, you won't have ol' Cap to kick around anymore - I'm going to where the Sexy Celebrities end up.

[Omnizoa]

Well, you won't have ol' Cap to kick around anymore - I'm going to where the Sexy Celebrities end up.
Don't be a sour-puss, it's unbecoming of a superhero.

[Captain Steel]

Don't be a sour-puss, it's unbecoming of a superhero.

You still have the best siggie out there, Omni! ;)

[Captain Steel]

Is there a Steve model? Asking for a friend. :blush:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBYYQLKNUdo

[ynwtf]

OMG STRONGBAD!!!!!!!!1!!!1!!

[Omnizoa]

In case, it needs reminding, I'm not just here to make a point, I'm also here to bring some levity to an otherwise overwhelmingly miserable thread. There's too much negativity in here, we need more Twilight excerpts and Star Wars butt paddles.

[ynwtf]

Team Jacob or Team Edward?
choose your next two words carefully.

[Captain Steel]

In case, it needs reminding, I'm not just here to make a point, I'm also here to bring some levity to an otherwise overwhelmingly miserable thread. There's too much negativity in here, we need more Twilight excerpts and Star Wars butt paddles.

That's been my intention all along.

[Yoda]

I'm pretty amazed, and genuinely sad, that you have the gall to keep replying without acknowledging anything or trying at all to make it right.

But no, wait, I know: when you accused someone who runs a site of violating their moderation rules secretly to punish people, it was just a joke man.

[I. Rex]

People always accuse me of being the emotional one. This is just one of multitudinous arguments I get into with people over all kinds of different subjects. I frankly wouldn't have the stamina to get emotional over each of them.

Oh just mine then? Should I feel special?

It's not an ad hominem if I address your argument and insult you.

If you have no ability to debate a point without resorting to insults it’s a sign you are more dominated by emotion then logic. Especially so when most of your points are desperate, irrelevant or ignorant. Its also a sign you may not be "winning" no matter how many times you scream it to everyone in ear shot.

And you said you can't argue people's mind into changing, yet here we are.

Wait you think responding to your attacks is trying to change your mind? You think I care about changing your mind?

You can stop this anytime you'd like, I. Rex.

If you address me I will respond. Its pretty simple. Its on you not to dredge up an old snarky venting post not addressed to you and use it to seek a conflict with the writer on a personal level. So don’t put it on me. Look in the mirror.

Why do you trust Fox to take a credible poll if they've no intention of presenting the information accurately anyway?

So are you saying they created a bogus poll at Fox that INCORRECTLY makes the President look bad on Charlottesville? Why would they do that? You can fuss all you like about how Fox isn’t a trustworthy news source but unless you think they are a liberal news source (which was the WHOLE point of citing them since that was your argument about the Washington Post) then it makes no sense for them to admit that Charlottesville blew up in Trump’s face according to most Americans.

Implying that I should trust the numbers and methodology of the media across the board.

Because The Washington Post and Fox News are clearly in cahoots to come up with the EXACT same number on the same question in two independent studies. :D

Something you should know about me, I. Rex, in case it wasn't already brutally apparent, I don't care what is "widely held across the board".

Yes I know, you enjoy being a faux rebel and a contrarian and rejecting everything based on source alone and/or because most people think that way. Ive noticed that. Its really a limiting approach to life though. Sometimes the majority is right you know. Sometimes Nazis are bad and sometimes presidents really shouldn’t say anything otherwise according to most americans. No sense trying to prove otherwise just for the sake of it. Pick a better less ridiculous wind mill to go after is my advice.

I held those two stubborn losers' feet to the fire for 6 straight hours, and it ended when they mass reported my posts getting me temporarily suspended from Twitter.

Yes yes… weve heard your tales of your little war battles before. What you don’t seem to get is that most people aren’t looking to be impressed by some anonymous nobody on the internet getting into a flame war on Twitter to “win” a useless argument over nothing. To many people that’s just sad. And considering the sewer Twitter is, it takes a real crank to get even them to feel you aren’t the type of element they want using their system.

I hold you in the same high esteem as people who like to namedrop "science" into their justifications

LOL! Because citing basic statistical truths is “name dropping science”. Im glad that Newton fellow had the balls to “namedrop” Kepler and Galileo’s scientific concepts for his Laws of Motion or else we would all be floating off the planet today.

I think that's rather obvious provided a fluent comprehension of the English language, but what do I know, I just post long rambling meaningless garbage.

Be that as it may, the question is genuine. Why dodge it with yet more insults?

You've been giving your hot takes since September. (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1783423#post1783423)

Really now. So that one sentence humorous post from September galled you so bad that you’ve been waiting 5 months to try to prove it wrong somehow? Again, how sad.

"Its the time for EVERYONE, no matter WHAT your opinion on statues or flags to condemn nazis and white supremacists UNIVERSALLY and UNCONDITIONALLY. Period."

You think this is a hysterical statement?

And you've told me you're not receptive to arguments (and yes, I will forever hold that against you now).

You seem to think this is some kind of insult! :D Its simply a psychological truth about humans. We don’t change our minds by people telling us our point of view is stupid and that we should think like them. We only change our minds because WE experience things that make us decide one point of view is more legitimate then another. Otherwise places like facebook would be filled with people constantly changing their minds about issues considering how many people have heated political discussions on there. But the opposite is true. Thats why we are in the mess we are in right now in fact. People just hunker down even in the face of overwhelming evidence and refuse to budge. We are a tribal species not a logical species. Defending our own is more important evolutionarily then making reasoned careful judgments about every issue. That’s why the internet is filled with endless useless arguing. And that’s also why it can be so hard for people to tell people they look up to that they are actually wrong about something.

The only cost to me is time, which I have an undistributed surplus of.

Which is somehow not surprising at all. :p

Now you're starting to sound like the trans-autist that got me banned from Twitter.

Youre fairly fixated with that aren’t you. Well don’t worry. Im not looking to get you banned from this site. If you knew me at all youd know Im not much on banning or limiting free speech. But I also don’t roll over and take it when someone seeks me out to pick a fight with so they can chest thump like a 9 year old and distract themselves momentarily from whatever insecurity it is that gnaws at their withered soul to make them act so sad.

morally grandstanding about how you're a "bigger man" and how I've "lost my soul"?

Oh believe me it doesn’t take grandstanding to reflect the obvious. Just someone with the guts enough to say it.

[Camo]

Yeah, two individuals enjoying a rousing, witty and scathing debate... so ugly!

Uh...the ugly comment i was talking about was someone (at least i thought) earnestly saying they wanted to meet someone to beat them up :shrug: Guess you missed that

[cat_sidhe]

Team Jacob or Team Edward?
choose your next two words carefully.

Why choos...oh my god. If you don't choose, JEDWARD hapoens. :eek:

[Loner]

You're not the one who chose to close the thread? What does that mean?
So who "chose" it and mandated that you execute it?

I closed the thread, it had nothing to do with you.

[Dani8]

I closed the thread, it had nothing to do with you.

As I recall you said you closed it in shoutbox at the time. That's how respectable forums have worked ever since I got on the net - when the forum owner is out of the house one of the admin closes a thread for a round table discussion and clean up or permanent closure when owner returns . Otherwise known as Baby sitting which this place sure needed. Far out, what a storm in a tea cup! Thanks for taking care of matters.

[Omnizoa]

How many times do I have to tell you to tag me, I. Rex?

Oh just mine then?
Keep dreamin'.

If you have no ability to debate a point without resorting to insults
You have no ability to debate, period.

it’s a sign you are more dominated by emotion then logic.
If I don't provide arguments, which I have.

most of your points are desperate, irrelevant or ignorant.
Which you will not substantiate at all because you cannot substantiate them.

Wait you think responding to your attacks is trying to change your mind? You think I care about changing your mind?
You clearly don't care about changing anyone's mind, if you actually had a case against me, you'd present it, but you haven't, cause you don't. The only reason you're still dragging this out is to posture, and the only reason I'm still responding to you is to call you out for posturing.

You've got nothing, else you'd have responded to any of my points besides the bit about polling (which I've also addressed). You've dropped the ball, I've called you out for dropping the ball, and now you're scrambling to salvage any dignity you have left by condescending to me with flat contradictions instead of arguments.

"You're wrong because X, Y, and Z."

"Errr, you're just making desperate, irrelevant, and ignorant points!"


"Prove it."

*DEAD ****ING SILENCE*


If you address me I will respond.
If you tag me, it will appear less like you're trying to hide your replies to me. If you have something to say to me, I. Rex, say it to my face, don't make me manually search back through the thread to find your weasily excuse for a post.

Its on you not to dredge up an old snarky venting post
Which we've established comprises the entirety every argument you make and fail to substantiate post-hoc.

You've not only admitted you have no intention of changing your mind or anyone else's, but you've backpedaled on damn near everything you've said as "an old snarky venting post" or "a throwaway post". All this is is you attempting to push blame away from you making terrible arguments onto others taking your posts "too seriously". It's a transparently vain attempt to preserve your bruised ego.

You make very serious and inflammatory posts, I. Rex, I will address them as such. And if you can't even stand by your own words, then grow a ****ing spine and admit when you're wrong.

So are you saying they created a bogus poll at Fox that INCORRECTLY makes the President look bad on Charlottesville?
This is a very revealing sentence because it suggests that people responding negatively to something makes that thing look negative. Does popular opinion commonly color your perception of reality? I think I could make a safe bet.

You can fuss all you like about how Fox isn’t a trustworthy news source but unless you think they are a liberal news source (which was the WHOLE point of citing them since that was your argument about the Washington Post)
Nothing I said about The Washington Post had anything whatsoever to do with whether they were "liberal" or even any political affiliation they may have had.

This may be a shock to you, but a news provider can both have a political opinion and present news in an accurate, honest, and objective manner.

it makes no sense for them to admit that Charlottesville blew up in Trump’s face according to most Americans.
Again, you are imposing a stereotype on me which has done nothing but cement your position as a partisan.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not even right-wing. You're just wrong.

You don't have to occupy any political affiliation to understand it's in Fox New's best interest to hold Trump at arm's length, if that is in fact what this poll exists to do. Trump is unpopular, Fox needs popularity to maintain viewership. It can't suck Trump's dick off all the time, it's just not in their interest as a company.

Because The Washington Post and Fox News are clearly in cahoots to come up with the EXACT same number
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, I'm the one coming up with stupid conspiracies.

No, I simply see two similarly weak polls arriving at a similarly weak conclusion.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=42398&stc=1&d=1519961038

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=42399&stc=1&d=1519961061


I mean, let's even be generous and assume you meant only adults in your original generalization. You think 56% of adults not only give a **** about politics, but keep up with the news, were aware of the Charlottesville incident specifically, and on top of that cross-checked it against Trump's opinions? I think that's highly doubtful.

Especially because neither of these polls require those to have an opinion even be well informed of exactly happened at Charlottesville or exactly what Trump said, let alone whatever bias might color their interpretation of such events.

I mean, I'm 1 for 0 in getting your sources to contradict your narrative already, let's go 2 for 0, OH HEY, WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT! Most people only read headlines according to the Washington Post. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/06/16/six-in-10-of-you-will-share-this-link-without-reading-it-according-to-a-new-and-depressing-study/?utm_term=.c3daf79c96f4) DAMN, it's almost as if you could manufacture public opinions through mass media, who would have guessed!?

Yes I know, you enjoy being a faux rebel and a contrarian and rejecting everything based on source alone
Absolute lie, which anyone reading my posts can confirm.

Sometimes the majority is right you know.
Of course, but that's cause you said "sometimes". SOMETIMES the majority is profoundly ****ing wrong. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials)

Sometimes Nazis are bad
And sometimes you say the most absurd **** on the ****ing planet. AS IF, anyone here needs any sort of reminder of that. That you think anyone does, let alone, that anyone need go out of their way to publicly DISAVOW Nazism just goes to show that you are completely out of your mind.

You are incapable of even conceiving that anyone like me might disagree with you without being some raging hateful bigot, your mind scrambles to concoct some rationalization for why you shouldn't feel bad when someone calls you out for making terrible arguments and this is the sort of **** it cranks out.

"DERP, MAYBE IF I SHOW YOU A FOX NEWS SOURCE..."

You know what you do when you do that? You reveal yourself a partisan. You're functionally saying, "Anyone who disagrees with me must be my political opposition, so I'm going to assume what your political affiliation is to obfuscate the uncomfortable reality that people who want the same things as me might criticize my methods."

It's easier to cast people into an outgroup that you can simply condemn on principle, it's what you did when you called me a "Trump apologist", there was nothing in that accusation but a profound admission of personal failure to assess what I'm saying objectively.

and sometimes presidents really shouldn’t say anything otherwise
Which I've proven, many times over, that he didn't.

You are perpetuating a filthy lie to serve a malicious political narrative.

Nazis are indeed bad, but you know what else is bad? THIS. This head-in-the-ground political partisanship, this is dogma, you are literally no better, and no less hateful, than the alt-right.

It is people like you, who went to Charlottesville, to start a fight in the first place.

LOL! Because citing basic statistical truths is “name dropping science”.
You just now did it.

You just conflated specific polls with "basic statistical truths".

Have you no self-awareness? Do you look both ways before you cross the street? Are you aware that a bodily collision with a vehicle can hurt you?

Be that as it may, the question is genuine.
I'm very sorry to hear that. Perhaps I should repeat myself louder:

Wow, would you look at that. It looks like the people bitching about Trump are more ruffled by his personality than the **** that tangibly affects the country! Interesting that.

I'm sure that doesn't perfectly accurately describe you at all,
See, what I was doing here is a linguistic trick called "sarcasm", in which I implied I was not drawing attention to the fact that your general complaint about Trump's response to Charlottesville was trivial, when in actuality, that was exactly what I was doing.

Looking back on that now, it does seem very difficult to comprehend, I apologize for not catching myself earlier and tailoring my responses to your entirely competent faculties.

Why dodge it with yet more insults?
That's my line.

Really now. So that one sentence humorous post
It's not funny, and it's clearly not insincere because you claimed the same thing in this very post I'm replying to.

Once again you are backpedaling.

you’ve been waiting 5 months to try to prove it wrong somehow? Again, how sad.
That's a Strawman, Dorothy.

You think this is a hysterical statement?
If that's not a hysterical statement then you have absolutely no grounds on which to accuse me of getting "emotional".

You seem to think this is some kind of insult! :D
Based on what? I've told you what it is, it's a confession of your close-mindedness. It was only an insult when you threw it into the ass-end of a debate.

Its simply a psychological truth about humans.
Evidently I'm not human then, either that or you're factually wrong.

Thats why we are in the mess we are in right now in fact. People just hunker down even in the face of overwhelming evidence and refuse to budge.
Oh, yes, I would agree. Except you have budged. You performed multiple full-body cartwheels back over your own arguments.

You seem to think you can do that while maintaining a pretense of knowing better. You can't.

We are a tribal species not a logical species.
Remember what I said about outgroups? Yeah, you're describing yourself right now.

Defending our own is more important evolutionarily then making reasoned careful judgments about every issue.
I'm sorry you feel that way.

That’s why the internet is filled with endless useless arguing.
Yes.

YES.

I wholeheartedly agree, I. Rex, people refusing to make reasoned careful judgments is exactly why we are having an endless useless argument right now.

I also don’t roll over and take it when someone seeks me out to pick a fight with so they can chest thump like a 9 year old and distract themselves momentarily from whatever insecurity it is that gnaws at their withered soul to make them act so sad.
Whoa, you're changing your story. Do I have a withered soul, or am I soulless? Which of these statements is true, I. Rex? I DEPEND ON YOUR WISDOM!

Oh believe me it doesn’t take grandstanding to reflect the obvious. Just someone with the guts enough to say it.
Have the guts to tag me.

[Captain Steel]

Uh...the ugly comment i was talking about was someone (at least i thought) earnestly saying they wanted to meet someone to beat them up :shrug: Guess you missed that

That's "ugly," Camo? For me it's just a daily fact of life - people are always wanting to meet me just to beat me up (and the fact is they have!). If I felt someone wanting to meet me to beat me up was ugly, then everyday would be pretty ugly - plus, sometimes, someone wanting to meet just to beat the stuffing out of me is the ONLY attention I get!!!
I've been beaten up several times by people I'd barely just met or, worse yet, people whom I was never even introduced to at all. ;)

[I. Rex]

Which you will not substantiate at all because you cannot substantiate them.

Why do I need to substantiate your “desperate, irrelevant or ignorant” points exactly? Keep up.

You clearly don't care about changing anyone's mind, if you actually had a case against me, you'd present it, but you haven't, cause you don't.

A “case” against you? why do you keep treating this as some kind of trial or contest? You are the only one doing that. Again, dragging yourself through the internet looking for fights to pick where there aren’t any is a sign of insecurity. Since you refuse to provide any speculation as to why you are so insecure I can only make my own conclusions.

The only reason you're still dragging this out is to posture, and the only reason I'm still responding to you is to call you out for posturing.

LOL! Sad empty internet warrior seeks out conflict with random person because of a one sentence venting post from 5 months ago and I’M the one that’s posturing? You are the poster child of posturing.

You've got nothing, else you'd have responded to any of my points

Ive been responding to your silly posts but theres zero reason to keep repeating myself when you refuse to get the obvious and then simply turn around and say I haven’t responded. Keep running your gears if you cant deal with reality. Nor do I care about your silly “contest” you so desperately need to make with me on a meaningless point. Again, ram your own head into the wall if it makes you feel better about yourself. But you just come off looking silly and sad. Seems to be a theme with you…

If you tag me, it will appear less like you're trying to hide your replies to me.

Again Im laughing in your face. Did you not respond? Did anyone doubt you wouldn’t respond? So shove your dictates. You sought out an obscure post from weeks ago to respond to to start all this, you can find these gigantic posts at the end of the thread a lot easier Im assuming. So spare me directions on how to correctly respond to you. I couldn’t be in the least interested in following your rules in this sad joke of a “debate” you keep attempting to keep inflated like your flaccid ego. And if you have a problem with that then too bad. Im sure you know what you can kiss.

you've backpedaled on damn near everything you've said as "an old snarky venting post"

Its not back peddling when ive said it from the start and its glaringly obvious that its true if you simply look at the context of the original post which was actually more a venting statement about how he handled domestic violence among his administration (which was the news of that particular day) rather than nazis. But you will happily ignore that and declare my statement was made as the ultimate thesis of some strange term paper on Trump’s inability to deal correctly with nazi marches. And you talk about ME making up straw men.

You make very serious and inflammatory posts, I. Rex, I will address them as such.

Trump does all the inflaming all on his own. Havent you noticed yet? He doesn’t need me to make that true. I just made a comment on one of the many many examples of that fact. That he bungled Charlottesville and didn’t outright condemn Nazism without feeling the need to equivocate it with ANYTHING or ANYONE else before and after. That’s simply a fact. You can spin and distort and tie yourself into all sorts of linguistic solipsistic knots trying to prove that away but it hasn’t worked yet and it wont work no matter how many times you declare yourself right.

This is a very revealing sentence because it suggests that people responding negatively to something makes that thing look negative.

What the heck does this even mean and how in the world is this any kind of response to the question: “So are you saying they created a bogus poll at Fox that INCORRECTLY makes the President look bad on Charlottesville?” Again with the dodges and the linguistic gymnastics. That’s not a ploy that works on me. Try speaking directly to the question.

This may be a shock to you, but a news provider can both have a political opinion and present news in an accurate, honest, and objective manner.

Gee that sure wasn’t your argument when you nearly had an epileptic seizure when I posted a Vox article, not because they weren’t being “accurate” but because, as you stated yourself, they were “so transparently biased” that anything they say cant be taken seriously. Gosh that sounds like you were attacking them for having a political opinion. You did the same exact thing to the Post by the way by stating it was “a journal so ****in' butthurt over the election it STILL says ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’”. So which is it exactly? Is it about “accuracy” of the source or the political leanings of the source? It sure seemed to be about the latter when you first got into this point until I found that Fox poll for you and then all of a sudden its “political leaning doesn’t matter. Its about accuracy!” Talk about back tracking. I suggest you give up trying to explain away polls from media sources who occupy the opposite extremes on the political spectrum COMING TO THE SAME CONCLUSION on the same question as sheer coincidence.

Youre really digging your hole deeper and deeper on this one slick. I can barely see you anymore.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not even right-wing. You're just wrong.

When did I say anything about YOU? I believe the pronoun I used was “THEM” referring to Fox News.

You don't have to occupy any political affiliation to understand it's in Fox New's best interest to hold Trump at arm's length, if that is in fact what this poll exists to do. Trump is unpopular, Fox needs popularity to maintain viewership. It can't suck Trump's dick off all the time, it's just not in their interest as a company.

Well you’ve topped yourself now. I have to admit this one gave me the biggest laugh yet. Are you really seriously with a straight face trying to make the argument that Fox is in any way shape or form in opposition to Trump? Trump is NOT unpopular with Fox viewers. That’s their base! That’s what the deplorables watch! Trump even calls in daily and DICTATES CONTENT ON THE CHANNEL HIMSELF while the hosts nod happily like the empty sycophants they are. And when things make Trump look bad (generally by his own doing as in Charlottesville) they either spin them as not his fault or largely ignore them all together. How in the WORLD is it not in their interest to present Trump in a better light then CNN or MSNBC?

You think 56% of adults not only give a **** about politics, but keep up with the news, were aware of the Charlottesville incident specifically, and on top of that cross-checked it against Trump's opinions? I think that's highly doubtful.

Ah so now your argument is “americans are stupid/lazy therefore whatever they conclude (if it goes against my point) is irrelevant”. Even two different sets of americans coming up with the EXACT SAME number of conclusions… Sheer coincidence I tell you! :D

Especially because neither of these polls require those to have an opinion even be well informed of exactly happened at Charlottesville or exactly what Trump said

So are you concluding here that people who had no idea what happened in Charlottesville decided to disapprove Trump’s reaction just for the heck of it? 19% of republicans who were ignorant on the event disapproved of Trump because… why not? My thinking is those people would be in the “no opinion” group (or the slam the door in their face group). And anyway people responding based on “ignorance” works both ways so why would you conclude it would all work against Trump exactly?

let alone whatever bias might color their interpretation of such events.

What “bias” are you referring to here? Not having a rosy image of Nazis? So should we automatically disqualify anyone who has heard of World War II then?

OH HEY, WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT! Most people only read headlines according to the Washington Post. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/06/16/six-in-10-of-you-will-share-this-link-without-reading-it-according-to-a-new-and-depressing-study/?utm_term=.c3daf79c96f4)

So are you trying to say the people who took that survey only read a headline that made them think badly of Trump’s reaction to Charlottesville and never read about it in detail? And that’s why they didn’t completely change their minds and decide Trumps reaction was perfect? By the way, youll note Im ignoring the ridiculous irony of you using the Washington Post as a source for something to support one of YOUR points after spending half a dozen posts vilifying it and writing it off completely as biased... err… I mean “inaccurate”. But then hypocrisy is your middle name as you’ve made quite clear…

DAMN, it's almost as if you could manufacture public opinions through mass media

Then Fox really needs to work on doing that better. :P

Absolute lie, which anyone reading my posts can confirm.

Which? Being a “faux rebel and a contrarian” or “rejecting everything based on source alone”? because, yes, anyone reading the tirades you call posts would most certainly realize the former and anyone that read your responses to my original responses BEFORE you decided to back track and say “oh its not about bias after all” would also conclude the latter.

And sometimes you say the most absurd **** on the ****ing planet. AS IF, anyone here needs any sort of reminder of that. That you think anyone does, let alone, that anyone need go out of their way to publicly DISAVOW Nazism just goes to show that you are completely out of your mind.

Easy there with the hysterics… :D And YES the President of the United States absolutely does have to go “out of his way” to disavow Nazis, especially when Nazis openly hold a rally on state school grounds that results in the deaths of innocents. The fact that YOU think otherwise seems either the height of ignorance or denial to me.

You are incapable of even conceiving that anyone like me might disagree with you without being some raging hateful bigot

So what part of “you enjoy being a faux rebel and a contrarian” and “contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism” and “as I suspect here, just purposefully counter arguing” do you not understand exactly? Nice try though.

"DERP, MAYBE IF I SHOW YOU A FOX NEWS SOURCE..."

You know what you do when you do that? You reveal yourself a partisan. You're functionally saying, "Anyone who disagrees with me must be my political opposition, so I'm going to assume what your political affiliation is to obfuscate the uncomfortable reality that people who want the same things as me might criticize my methods."

Nope. Showing you a Fox News source with the same result was in direct response to you saying the Washington Post was biased because it was “butt hurt about the election” and therefore had it out for Trump. So logically, an opposite leaning source concluding the same thing makes PERFECT sense as a response to that complaint you had. But then we’ve already covered that here quite a bit…

Which I've proven, many times over, that he didn't.

You sure haven’t. But if you keep repeating it enough Im sure youll begin to believe it.

Nazis are indeed bad, but you know what else is bad? THIS. This head-in-the-ground political partisanship, this is dogma, you are literally no better, and no less hateful, than the alt-right.

Gosh Im a terrible person for having a political point of view about how Presidents should react to nazi rallies and nazi murder! Shame on me. Course there is one difference, I don’t run people over with my car. Or castigate minorities (or majorities) as naturally inferior and subhuman. There’s that… I don’t even hold tikki torch rallies to try to intimidate people based on their skin color or culture. But speak word one about my disappointment for the joke of a way our president handled the event and Im a screeching hateful dogmatic liberal terrorist apparently. :D

It is people like you, who went to Charlottesville, to start a fight in the first place.

Nah its people like me that turn to a message board to write a sentence about how disappointing the presidents actions have been only to be attacked for doing that by someone who cant seem to find any other purpose in their life but countering every opinion they see on the internet.

You just conflated specific polls with "basic statistical truths".

You were wrong on both the specific polls AND the basic statistical truth. And that’s why I mentioned both. Understand?

See, what I was doing here is a linguistic trick

Yes Ive noticed you try to do those a lot actually.

in which I implied I was not drawing attention to the fact that your general complaint about Trump's response to Charlottesville was trivial, when in actuality, that was exactly what I was doing.

Ah so then you are admitting the citation of that statistic was meant simply as a distraction and not any kind of evidence for anything at all. Again, good to know.

Evidently I'm not human then

Oh have you been publicly bludgeoned into changing your opinion? Poor you.

either that or you're factually wrong.

Yes, me and most psychologists and sociologists. But then I know you have a problem with that whole “educated majority” thing. Feel free to google “facts don’t change peoples minds” if you want to learn otherwise though. Who knows… It might even get you to… change your mind… Ah what delightful irony!

Oh, yes, I would agree. Except you have budged.

Oh I wasn’t talking about THIS mess. I was talking about the country in general. And the effect social media has had on us. But keep thinking you’ve gotten me to change my opinion on anything Ive said if it makes you feel any better.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Its not a matter of “feeling”. Its simply evolution.

I wholeheartedly agree, I. Rex, people refusing to make reasoned careful judgments is exactly why we are having an endless useless argument right now.

Nope, “people” deciding to argue for the sake of it and seeking to “win” rather than to admit the clear and obvious intent of the original post is why we are having an endless useless argument.

Whoa, you're changing your story. Do I have a withered soul, or am I soulless? Which of these statements is true, I. Rex? I DEPEND ON YOUR WISDOM!

The metaphor works either way. try thinking about it. Your soul is vacuous and, existent or not, you’ve decided to ignore it because being hostile and contrarian online is more important to you then being civil and reasonable and honest.

[gandalf26]

Wish people would get back to GOAT discussion instead of writing LOTR length arguments.

[Omnizoa]

@I. Rex (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=98449)
Have the guts to tag me.

[Omnizoa]

Why do I need to substantiate [my claim]?
Your entire post history in one sentence.

[Omnizoa]

I see two of you keep upvoting I. Rex. Show yourselves.

You gonna hide behind this?

[Cobpyth]

The tarrifs Trump is proposing will harm both the economy of the USA as the economy of the trading partners that are being targeted. An unnecessary lose-lose siutation. One of his worst policy proposals so far, even though the proposal is consistent with his campaign rhetoric.

[Camo]

I see two of you keep upvoting I. Rex. Show yourselves.

You gonna hide behind this?

*Reps I. Rex without reading his post*

[Yoda]

The tarrifs Trump is proposing will harm both the economy of the USA as the economy of the trading partners that are being targeted. An unnecessary lose-lose siutation. One of his worst policy proposals so far, even though they are consistent with his campaign rhetoric.

Yeah, this is really embarrassing stuff. Just straightforward economic illiteracy. I'm not exaggerating at all when I say that I don't think Trump has any idea how trade deficits work.

[Omnizoa]

*Reps I. Rex without reading his post*
Bastard.

[Citizen Rules]

Wish people would get back to GOAT discussion instead of writing LOTR length arguments.

Wish people...Appropriate for a wizard to wish. But which people do you wish to be more direct?

would Don't you mean wood, as in wooden responses that don't say anything, but do utilize a lot of silly arguments by dissecting post down to a few words, then lobbing a number of dissentious comments that don't move forward a serious discussion about said topic.

get back A great Beatle song, but you forget to capitalize it;)

to GOAT discussion Don't you mean too GOAT, or even two GOATS?

instead of writing LOTR length arguments.I actually agree with your original post Gandalf. I just thought I'd demonstrate how counter productive it is when members make dozens of quotes per post. And instead of discussing issues, turn this thread into a grade school playground. Dissecting someone's post and then 'poking holes' in it, while completely avoiding any serious discussion is ruining this thread.

[cat_sidhe]

Don't you mean too GOAT, or even two GOATS?


Guys, stop teasing me with mentions of goats. Getting all my hopes up for nothing. :mad:

[Omnizoa]

Yeah, this is really embarrassing stuff. Just straightforward economic illiteracy. I'm not exaggerating at all when I say that I don't think Trump has any idea how trade deficits work.

"Before I had ever read a line of political economy, I happened once to hear a long and well-put argument in favour of a protective tariff. Up to that time I had supposed that 'protection to domestic industry' was a good thing; not that I had thought out the matter, but that I had accepted this conclusion because I had heard many men whom I believed wiser than I say so. But this particular speaker had, so far as one of his audience was concerned, overshot his mark. His arguments set me thinking, just as when a boy my companion's solution to the iron ship mystery had set me thinking.
I said to myself: The effect of a tariff is to increase the cost of bringing goods from abroad. Now, if this benefits the country, then all difficulties, dangers and impediments which increase the cost of bringing goods from abroad are likewise beneficial. If this theory be correct, then the city which is hardest to get at has the most advantageous situation: pirates and shipwrecks contribute to national prosperity by raising the price of freight and the cost of insurance; and improvements in navigation, in railroads and in steamships are injurious. Manifestly this is absurd.

And then I looked further. The speaker had dwelt on the folly of a great country like the United States exporting raw material and importing manufactured goods which might as well be made at home, and I asked myself: What is the motive which causes a people to export raw material and import manufactured goods? I found that it could in this way get the goods cheaper, that is, with less labour. I looked to transactions between individuals for parallels to this trade between nations, and found them in plenty: the farmer selling his wheat and buying flour; the grazier sending his wool to a market and bringing back cloth and blankets; and the tanner buying back leather in shoes, instead of making them himself.
I saw, when I came to analyse them, that these exchanges between nations were precisely the same thing as exchanges between individuals; that they were, in fact, nothing but exchanges between individuals of different nations; that they were prompted by the desire and led to the result of getting the greatest return for the least expenditure of labour; that the social condition in which such exchanges did not take place was the naked barbarism of the Terra del Fuegians; and that just in proportion to the division of labour and the increase trade were the increase of wealth and progress of civilization. And so, following up, turning, analysing, and testing all the protectionist arguments, I came to conclusions which I have ever since retained.

Now, just such careful operations as this are all that is required in the study of political economy. Nothing more is needed (but this is needed) than the habit of careful thought - the making sure of every step without jumping to conclusions. This habit of jumping to conclusions - of considering essentially different things as the same because of same superficial resemblance - is the source of the manifold and mischievous errors which political economy has to combat."

[Yoda]

Yep. Source (https://books.google.com/books?id=uzxSk18LMW0C&pg=PT100&lpg=PT100&dq=%22Before+I+had+ever+read+a+line+of+political+economy,+I+happened+once+to+hear+a+long+and+well-put+argument+in+favour+of+a+protective+tariff%22&source=bl&ots=Qe_Gj_Zu7B&sig=GVEWjejHpd-ks-UjmsBBCeVNu3E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqpcmG5tDZAhWPNd8KHUUgDfIQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Before%20I%20had%20ever%20read%20a%20line%20of%20political%20economy%2C%20I%20happened%20once%2 0to%20hear%20a%20long%20and%20well-put%20argument%20in%20favour%20of%20a%20protective%20tariff%22&f=false), for anyone interested.

I think there are lots of complicated issues about which many reasonable people may disagree, but Trump's position on tariffs is not one of them. It's just wrong. It's wrong and it's clearly based on wild, scandalous ignorance.

And it's being cheered on by ignorant people who can't even be bothered to spend 30 seconds Googling a freakin' counterargument and couldn't even give you a rough sketch of the issue if their lives depended on it. It's horrendously depressing on all levels.

[Omnizoa]

Dissecting someone's post and then 'poking holes' in it, while completely avoiding any serious discussion is ruining this thread.
I rather prefer peoples' claims be challenged than to be cast, unsubstantiated and wholesale, into a fiery pit of frenzied outrage and masturbatory virtue-signalling.

This thread's been an orgy of misinformation and terrible arguments since it's inception. If you think I'm ruining it, I don't think you've been paying much attention.

[Omnizoa]

BREAKING NEWS: Donald Trump Polymorphs Into Hillary Clinton on Camera

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni5V-61-wec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3GTJOZLaPY

[Powdered Water]

British Data Company Admits Meddling In U.S. Elections w/Lee Camp



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMqIU2ue0eE


British-Russians then? It has to be the Russians tho!!!

[Yoda]

A little more on why the tariffs are total nonsense (https://www.cato.org/blog/reciprocal-trade-demands-defy-basic-economics-common-sense).

[Slappydavis]

A little more on why the tariffs are total nonsense (https://www.cato.org/blog/reciprocal-trade-demands-defy-basic-economics-common-sense).

I bet we more or less agree on tariffs and protectionism in general. But I do want to pop off a bit and say that targeted tariffs are often a by-product of the asymmetrical political power given to certain regions by the electoral system. This is (in part) a downside to giving specific areas more say in elections.

That classic attempted steel tariff by bush (make PA :)) is being brought up again, where the EU responded with tariff on oranges (make Florida :(). But the fact that the incentives were so apparent and manipulable bug me.

(To the bush administration's credit, I've been reading that his former staff is saying the tariff was a mistake and trump shouldn't do it)

[Yoda]

While I agree that the electoral college may increase how often something like this happens, it seems to happen pretty regularly for other reasons, too (close votes in Congress necessitating special concessions, party in power trying to pay back some union or interest group), so I assume the effect is marginal. But point taken.

Re: the Bush comparison. Yeah, there are two huge distinctions between what Bush did and what Trump's proposing. First, as you already alluded to, is that we have the benefit of having already tried it and can learn from it, and the people involved now say it was a bad idea (and, indeed, had already concluded that by the following year).

The second is that it was a mix of a concession to political reality and a bargaining chip to secure more free trade in general (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-02/trump-s-trade-tariffs-are-far-scarier-than-george-bush-s). Neither is the case here. Trump is not trying to increase free trade, and he's not doing this because he has to. It's totally elective, and completely about restricting trade.

[Yoda]

https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/971477954558644225

https://twitter.com/KT_So_It_Goes/status/971481491107713024

[Slappydavis]

While I agree that the electoral college may increase how often something like this happens, it seems to happen pretty regularly for other reasons, too (close votes in Congress necessitating special concessions, party in power trying to pay back some union or interest group), so I assume the effect is marginal. But point taken.

Yeah, agree that it's similar to a special interest group, and that tariffs would still occur regardless of electoral college.


The second is that it was a mix of a concession to political reality and a bargaining chip to secure more free trade in general (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-02/trump-s-trade-tariffs-are-far-scarier-than-george-bush-s). Neither is the case here. Trump is not trying to increase free trade, and he's not doing this because he has to. It's totally elective, and completely about restricting trade.

Thanks for the link, that was pretty informative actually. When the example is used in classes on trade it's to highlight the function as a retaliatory gesture and not the domestic political situation (which I don't blame the course for, because that doesn't matter for the example to work). But it didn't provide that context of basically appeasing protectionists for a (possibly) large gain of free trade, appreciated.

[Omnizoa]

Trump may exempt Canada, Mexico from tariffs
See, the only point I see in favor of tariffs is to deliberately punish the international economies of other countries. Why don't we do that to Mexico instead of building a fricken' wall?

Why are we playing best buds with a government which apparently runs their country so ******* poorly that it either A.) drives people to flee across our borders or B.) just lets other countries walk across their lawn to get to ours?

If Mexico is a big enough problem to build a giant ****-off wall, why aren't we holding them to task?

"Solve your immigration problem, and we lift the tariff."

This seems to me to be a very obvious method of getting different countries to coalesce into legal harmony with each other.

[Yoda]

It punishes us as much or more than the people we're allegedly punishing. Rhetoric about trade deficits seems to forget that all transactions involve two parties: they think "we're punishing foreign steel sellers" but don't think "we're punishing domestic steel buyers."

Or, put another way:

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/971476926555705344
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/971476930754240513

[Gangland]

I agree that the imposition of tariffs will be Trump's first yuuuuuge economic mistake.

Not only does this not make economic sense, but maybe both sides of the aisle will finally wake up and realize the executive branch has usurped too much power over the past two decades and reel the imperial presidency in (not holding my breath). Only Congress should have the authority to impose tariffs, not the president.

[Yoda]

Yes, yes, yes. Please.

There's a horrible executive overreach arms race going on where, if the other guys engaged in it, it only feels fair that it's our turn now, and somebody needs to break that cycle. And it should be conservatives, and it should be now.

And to my liberal friends, every time you cheered on something Obama did with an executive order, you should know that you were cheering the precedent that's letting Trump do a lot of these things now. When you advocate for a policy or program, start imagining what it might be like when someone you don't agree with has control of it.

Start caring about process and not just results.

[seanc]

Yeah but our policies REALLY matter. If you were smart you would realize that.

[Camo]

The executive orders wiki is awesome, i'm going to spend a lot of time here. FDR made 3728 :rotfl: Closest to him was Woodrow with 1803. Even considering the length of his presidency that's insanity, not surprising from the Supreme Court packer though. Obama made less than Clinton and Bush II, that's surprising to me as often as i heard about Obama's executive orders i figured he probably had the most since FDR who i already figured had the most because of course.

[Yoda]

That's because the objection isn't really about the number of orders, but whether or not they reach beyond the President's authority. Technically a President could issue just one that oversteps their bounds, and be compared unfavorably to another who issued 20,000 that didn't.

[Gangland]

Yes, I'm sure Bush and Clinton did the same, and Trump will follow, but Obama seemed to use executive orders as a way to sidestep legislation when the Democrats lost the majority.

[Camo]

That's because the objection isn't really about the number of orders, but whether or not they reach beyond the President's authority. Technically a President could issue just one that oversteps their bounds, and be compared unfavorably to another who issued 20,000 that didn't.

I think my awareness of executive orders being in relation to Obama has more to do with him becoming President when i was 15 meaning he was (now Trump obviously) President pretty much the whole time i was politically aware, i'm sure there was plenty of complaints about Bush's and every President before his use of them, i'm aware of some controversial historical ones as i'm interested in the history of the US Presidency i just wasn't aware of how often it was used since there's a few made a big deal of.

I'll have to read both Obama's and Bush II's executive orders to see if i agree with you, and i'm definitely going to do that like i said the executive orders wiki is awesome.

Obviously if i think one is significant i'll look beyond wiki haha.

[Yoda]

I think my awareness of executive orders being in relation to Obama has more to do with him becoming President when i was 15 meaning he was (now Trump obviously) President pretty much the whole time i was politically aware
That makes a lot of sense, yeah.

I'll have to read both Obama's and Bush II's executive orders to see if i agree with you, and i'm definitely going to do that like i said the executive orders wiki is awesome.
I'd never heard of it before, I don't think! Cool. I'll check it out. Thanks.

FWIW, I wasn't arguing that Obama overreached compared to Bush II (I'd probably end up there based on memory, but I'd definitely want to read more before making that kind of claim). Just saying that the scope is the thing to consider when weighing it, rather than the sheer number.

But regardless of which President or party is generally worse, it's definitely something all modern Presidents seem to avail themselves of sometimes, and it needs to stop. It requires conservatives refusing to take their "turn" at it and liberals caring more about precedent than short-term policy or cultural war victories, probably at the same time. Needless to say, I'm not optimistic.

[Camo]

I'd never heard of it before, I don't think! Cool. I'll check it out. Thanks.

I was just talking about the wikipedia page listing them not some usexecutiveorders.wikia.com haha. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

FWIW, I wasn't arguing that Obama overreached compared to Bush II (I'd probably end up there based on memory, but I'd definitely want to read more before making that kind of claim). Just saying that the scope is the thing to consider when weighing it, rather than the sheer number.

Yeah, i know you're always fair and yield to facts on this sort of thing. I think you probably remember i'm not a fan of Obama at all so i'm not entering this biased and i understand overreach is the issue not whether i personally agree with the order or not.

Needless to say, I'm not optimistic.

Yeah, it'll never change in any not run by a brutal dictatorship country ever.

[Captain Steel]

So... Trump and Kim Jong Un are now supposed to actually meet!
I hope they sit down and watch Threads (1984) together!

[matt72582]

So... Trump and Kim Jong Un are now supposed to actually meet!
I hope they sit down and watch Threads (1984) together!

Why not "Hell in the Pacific"? :)

[Citizen Rules]

So... Trump and Kim Jong Un are now supposed to actually meet!
I hope they sit down and watch Threads (1984) together! They need to chum up together and see A Boy and His Dog (1975), even the movie poster is apt.

[Camo]

So... Trump and Kim Jong Un are now supposed to actually meet!
I hope they sit down and watch Threads (1984) together!

Yeah, everyone should watch threads.

[Captain Steel]

I'm wary of a meeting between the two "leaders" without intercession by Dennis Rodman!

http://entertainment.ie//images_content/rectangle/620x372/Untitled2017981923705.jpg

[Camo]

Yeah, everyone should watch threads.

This was a BBC thing:

https://i.imgur.com/Ngj27Ms.gif

[d_chatterley]

Yes, I'm sure Bush and Clinton did the same, and Trump will follow, but Obama seemed to use executive orders as a way to sidestep legislation when the Democrats lost the majority.

That's the key word. I think it just might be fresh in your memory. If you read through both Bush and Clinton executive orders and try to figure out exactly what was going on in the Senate at the time, you would probably reach the same conclusion for all of them.

[I. Rex]

Yeah, everyone should watch threads.

They can borrow my copy.

[Omnizoa]

It punishes us as much or more than the people we're allegedly punishing.
I'm saying if the costs outweigh the benefits. I mean if you deign to trade with someone who's causing you trouble, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me to raise your prices to cover the cost of inconveniencing you.

Rhetoric about trade deficitsThose arguments have never made sense to me.

Not only does this not make economic sense, but maybe both sides of the aisle will finally wake up and realize the executive branch has usurped too much power over the past two decades
Only the last two?

[Yoda]

I'm saying if the costs outweigh the benefits.
What do you think the benefits are?

I mean if you deign to trade with someone who's causing you trouble, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me to raise your prices to cover the cost of inconveniencing you.
This is difficult to respond to unless words like "trouble" and "inconveniencing" are converted into something more specific, but I'm not sure how a tariff would "cover the cost" of anything. There is no tariff that harms a foreign seller that does not simultaneously harm a domestic buyer.

If someone wants to argue that tariffs can be used to apply diplomatic pressure, or something, fair enough, but that's a non-economic argument.

[Cobpyth]

Costs: Pauperizing the car and construction industry + unleashing a trade war, all on the backs of the American consumers.

Benefits: Artificially protecting a waning Midwest industry.

It's a classic example of how electoral opportunism causes bad policies.


The only argument I'd buy is that the purpose is to make other countries lower their import tarrifs. That's usually not how other countries react on this kind of sanctions, though. They're not stupid.

[Gangland]

I'm saying if the costs outweigh the benefits. I mean if you deign to trade with someone who's causing you trouble, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me to raise your prices to cover the cost of inconveniencing you.

Those arguments have never made sense to me.


Only the last two?

The Preisdency has usurped power since its inception, but its been far worse in a post 9/11 world under the guise of national sercurity. I can think of nothing that describes Obama's legacy better than as a Nobel Peace Prize winner saying "I'm really good at killing people" (with drones) while reflecting on his Presidency.

[Cobpyth]

Does anyone here know a good source that shows how large the import tariffs on steel are in the EU/China/Japan/Australia/etc.? Trump keeps saying that he wants equal treatment, but I can't find the actual numbers. I'd like to see if he has a point.

[Loner]

So... Trump and Kim Jong Un are now supposed to actually meet!
I hope they sit down and watch Threads (1984) together!

Sorry to interrupt the epic PT debate to the death, but Threads is going to released on Netflix in April.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLDXrhiXqgE

[Omnizoa]

What do you think the benefits are?
Well they could be anything. You might be talking about a country that you do a fair amount of trade with, but causes an overwhelming illegal immigration problem.

Or you might hold a big stake in the economy of another nation, but that nation just so happens to indulge is profound human rights abuses. You could hang their economy over their head.


This is difficult to respond to unless words like "trouble" and "inconveniencing" are converted into something more specific, but I'm not sure how a tariff would "cover the cost" of anything. There is no tariff that harms a foreign seller that does not simultaneously harm a domestic buyer.
Oh, sure, it must necessarily come at the cost of being able to do frictionless business with the other country, but if the other country is causing you more significant problems, like say if you need to pressure them into a war-averting treaty for example...

If someone wants to argue that tariffs can be used to apply diplomatic pressure, or something, fair enough, but that's a non-economic argument.
Well that's basically what I'm saying.

Costs: Pauperizing the car and construction industry + unleashing a trade war, all on the backs of the American consumers.

Benefits: Artificially protecting a waning Midwest industry.
Those are highly specific consequences for a very non-specific attitude towards tariffs.

The Preisdency has usurped power since its inception, but its been far worse in a post 9/11 world under the guise of national sercurity. I can think of nothing that describes Obama's legacy better than as a Nobel Peace Prize winner saying "I'm really good at killing people" (with drones) while reflecting on his Presidency.It exacerbated things, no doubt, but I believe the biggest problems with the US go much further back.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-federal-debt-by-president-political-party.jpg

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-federal-debt-percentage-gdp-by-president-political-party.jpg

[Cobpyth]

Those are highly specific consequences for a very non-specific attitude towards tariffs.

Those are the consequences of the tariffs on steel Trump is imposing, so I'm not sure what you mean with "non-specific attitude towards tariffs".

[Yoda]

Well they could be anything. You might be talking about a country that you do a fair amount of trade with, but causes an overwhelming illegal immigration problem.

Or you might hold a big stake in the economy of another nation, but that nation just so happens to indulge is profound human rights abuses. You could hang their economy over their head.
Oh, sure, it must necessarily come at the cost of being able to do frictionless business with the other country, but if the other country is causing you more significant problems, like say if you need to pressure them into a war-averting treaty for example...
Well that's basically what I'm saying.
Okay, we're on the same page then. I'm pretty skeptical that this works with any reliability (at all?) in practice, for several reasons, but it theoretically could. Though the benefits are theoretical and nebulous and the costs are tangible and inevitable. To my mind, that's usually a bad spot to be in.

Anyway, it's not being done (or supported) for the nebulous promise of diplomatic leverage, but simply because of economic myopia/ignorance.

[Yoda]

https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/975874188597743616

[Yoda]

By complete coincidence that same reporter retweeted this, heh:

https://twitter.com/JoePerticone/status/976080573306458112

[cat_sidhe]

By complete coincidence that same reporter retweeted this, heh:

https://twitter.com/JoePerticone/status/976080573306458112

OMG, QUICK! Hide the Omni! :shifty:

[Tugg]

Oh, sure, it must necessarily come at the cost of being able to do frictionless business with the other country, but if the other country is causing you more significant problems, like say if you need to pressure them into a war-averting treaty for example...
Tariffs work as war promoting measure. War itself is extreme case of tariffs becoming no trade at all.

In other words: higher tariffs make war more likely and lower tariffs make war less likely.

Warring countries tend to have self sufficient economies as opposed to free trade economies.

Punishing a country with tariffs makes war more likely.

[Yoda]

Yup. There's an old joke about how "no two countries with a McDonald's have ever gone to war."

[ynwtf]

https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/975874188597743616

This is off topic, but that pic is kind of messing with me. It appears that the T was designed specifically for a mirror-selfie post, in that the text is readable through the reflection. So to the average Joe walking the street, the text would be reversed where most wouldn't get it. If that's true, then the commentary isn't for broad public display, but for very specific social media post types.

Iderno. There may be some unintentional layered social commentary there as well. I'm not mocking, just it got my attention and has me curious now of where that goes.

[Yoda]

https://twitter.com/danwlin/status/976920055631015937

[Slappydavis]

This is off topic, but that pic is kind of messing with me. It appears that the T was designed specifically for a mirror-selfie post, in that the text is readable through the reflection. So to the average Joe walking the street, the text would be reversed where most wouldn't get it. If that's true, then the commentary isn't for broad public display, but for very specific social media post types.

Iderno. There may be some unintentional layered social commentary there as well. I'm not mocking, just it got my attention and has me curious now of where that goes.
You can just horizontally flip the photo after you take it in any editing software. You can do it right now to any picture of mirrored text you want. And some cameras have a mirror option up front.

[ynwtf]

You can just horizontally flip the photo after you take it in any editing software. You can do it right now to any picture of mirrored text you want. And some cameras have a mirror option up front.

grrrr!
You ruined my rant!

;)

[Captain Steel]

grrrr!
You ruined my rant!

;)

The girl in it is cute, though. ;)

[gandalf26]

Looks like the GOAT has pushed through his transgender ban for the military. Think he is leaving discretion for connected agencies. I will have to read finer points later.

[Omnizoa]

Tariffs work as war promoting measure. War itself is extreme case of tariffs becoming no trade at all.

In other words: higher tariffs make war more likely and lower tariffs make war less likely.
IIIIII find that to be a very tenuous assertion.

Yes, in a probabilistic sense introducing any degree of conflict between countries increases the probable odds of warfare, but you could just as easily assert that any even remotely negative association between states leads to war and that war is the culmination of such a thing by the same reasoning.

"[Reducing immigration] work(s) as a war promoting measure. War itself is an extreme case of [immigration] becoming no [immigration] at all."

"[Reducing foreign aid] work(s) as a war promoting measure. War itself is an extreme case of [foreign aid] becoming no [foreign aid] at all."

"[Refusing to extradite] work(s) as a war promoting measure. War itself is an extreme case of [extradition] becoming no [extradition] at all."

[neiba]

Not so funny when he's creating a 3rd world war now, is it, Trump voters?

[gandalf26]

Nah, hopefully my town doesn't get Nuked.

[I. Rex]

My take on recent events:

Trump (multiple times during campaign): We will never telegraph our military plans! Only bad leaders telegraph their military plans!

Trump (during one of his red meat deplorable rallies 2 weeks ago): We are pulling ALL our troops out of Syria tomorrow! Im awesome!

Pentagon: Hey! What happened to not telegraphing our military plans?

Syria: Trumps says hes pulling his troops out! Break out the chemical weapons!

*BOOM*

Trump: That’s it! We are attacking Syria!

Syria: What? Why?! We didn’t do nothing!

Russia: Any aggression against the noble and peaceful Syrian regime will be a violation of international law. Something we would never ever do ourselves… And anyway, if you attack Syria we will shoot down all your missiles.

Trump: OH YEAH?! MISSILES ON THE WAY RUSKIES!!! LOOK FOR THEM ANY MINUTE NOW!!!

Pentagon: Hey! Hey! Hey! Telegraphing again!

*BOOM*

Russia: We shot down all your missiles. No damage at all. Chemical weapon attacks never happened. Was all fake news and crisis actors. And we didn’t poison any former spies with soviet nerve agent that only we have either. Iz all capitalist lies.

Pentagon: The strikes were effective and precise. But we reserve the right to continue strikes as needed based on recon from these attacks.

Trump: Mission Accomplished!!

Pentagon: *slaps forehead*

[Dani8]

Not so funny when he's creating a 3rd world war now, is it, Trump voters?

I just cANT get the footage of the kids being hosed down from the chemical attack out of my head. That drained me so much I dont even know what I think any more, neiba. They're ALL ass hats.

[CiCi]

Heck, I'm struggling to keep up with everything surrounding Trump. I can't help but smile though that one of main people making him sweat at the minute is a porn star, I'm curious to see the evangelicals spin that one.

[Iroquois]

I think the main reason I stopped posting in here is because I realised that everything I'd written and was ever likely to write was just going to be a more verbose variation on "f*ck this guy" so I figured that I was ultimately better off focusing elsewhere.

[gandalf26]

Well done to the GOAT for bringing North and South Korea to the table.

[I. Rex]

This amuses me so much. I cant watch it enough. :D:D:D:D:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CV2N71W0FQ

[Captain Steel]

I'm very enthused about the potential of NK doing a turnaround (from their past behavior that is).

This is just speculation, but it occurred to me that perhaps Trump's persona appeals to Un's ego.

We know that Un has eclectic tastes for certain western forms of entertainment. He's attracted to Dennis Rodman who is a flamboyant celebrity figure, so I wouldn't put it past him to be attracted to Trump in the same way. Trump is also a flamboyant celebrity figure - and Un gets a double dose of "celebrity" as Trump is now also a President (providing Un a good reason now to hobnob with such a figure).

I don't find it far fetched that a personality like Un's may have been largely motivated to the negotiating table (not as much by Trump's tough talk or by UN sanctions but) by Trump's global recognition and celebrity status as a billionaire entertainer who rocked the world with the surprise of becoming President of the United States!

Perhaps if the President had been Clinton, Sanders, Kasich or Cruz... none of them may have held enough attraction for Un to make him decide to talk to the U.S. which he is now apparently planning to do (just for the fact that they are boring old politicians and not loudmouthed, TV stars like Trump, whose immature threats and name-calling may actually appeal to Un as belonging to somewhat of a kindred spirit).

It could be that for all Trump's obvious flaws, he may have been the only President able to bring Un to the table.

Speaking of eclectic tastes, Un's father (Kim Jong-il) was said to have had a gigantic porn collection. Perhaps Un is looking forward to asking Trump if he can get him a good deal on the Stormy Daniels Box Set!

[donniedarko]

Not so funny when he's creating a 3rd world war now, is it, Trump voters?

Where's the world war? Russia is all talk

[donniedarko]

In other news, I think Gulliani might be senile

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/05/03/us/dc-rudy-alpha/merlin_137622846_05dafe96-f141-4d48-83ae-d2b1ef7b2ddf-master768.jpg

"Following Giuliani's performance with Sean Hannity on Fox News, the advisers feared he was winging it and not fully prepared, sources said. Even if Giuliani had devised a plan with the President, he had not run it by all other legal advisers, according to a source familiar with the President's legal team."

[matt72582]

Heck, I'm struggling to keep up with everything surrounding Trump. I can't help but smile though that one of main people making him sweat at the minute is a porn star, I'm curious to see the evangelicals spin that one.

To be evangelical, you have to be constantly spinning.

[matt72582]

Where's the world war? Russia is all talk

Dear Darko, you provide the prose poems, and I'll provide the war :)

[Yoda]

I think the only coherent/reasonable evangelical opinion is "we were wrong, you can't vote based on character, politicians are mostly all terrible so we're just going to be pragmatic and policy-focused."

That's not my position, but it's a reasonable one.

[Tugg]

Guiliani Today Reacts To Giuliani Yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haHACHm2HhU

[ynwtf]

I think the only coherent/reasonable evangelical opinion is "we were wrong, you can't vote based on character, politicians are mostly all terrible so we're just going to be pragmatic and policy-focused."

That's not my position, but it's a reasonable one.

I think that position is a reasonable one, but I find (in my experience with friends, coworkers, family, and having spent part of my life as one myself) evangelicals lead far more with emotion than reason.

Faith (and being taught to believe in something unquestioning) effects how one perceives the world IMO. I don't mean that to sound judgmental or condescending. Honest. Faith in God, spirituality, or of something greater is a beautiful concept and I would not want that to ever be broken for someone. But in that, somewhere, I believe is a spider's silk of a fragile and wavy line that can easily bend to the pressing fluid currents of society. Or, inversely, to one's own biases.

Faith in a higher power is so strong that I am now questioning using the term "higher power" as opposed to simply typing "God." And I've not been a practicing Christian since probably before college. Even still, that is a well of gravity that always pulls at me, as technically removed from that life as I am today. My point is though, once taught to place faith into something that scientifically cannot be proven, then that ...method(?) may very well influence how we view other, more observable and measurable experiences. Faith-based healing is very much alive and well (hm. Is that an unintended pun?), and practiced. Side-stepping from religion, anti-vaxxers have faith in their perception that vaccines may cause harm. Granted that is not religious based, but it is a low-hanging example of how faith in one's belief can sway us to turn away from counter arguments that do not fit our expectations, assumptions, and to a lesser, morbid extent, hope that we are right.

That line falls somewhere between faith (which again is such a wonderfully precious thing) and arrogance. I am always fascinated by how often one mistakes arrogance for faith, and for how easy it is to attribute to our egos that, that should be reserved for God (if you believe in God). This is a very weird modeling that I see play out.

We learn through societal observations. We witness some action, we retain memory of that action, we then recall and replay that action, modeling (now for others) what we have learned and practiced in a constant cycle: learning and teaching and learning. I see so often individuals practice the learned behavior of placing confident faith into God, but then modeling that same level of faith into one's self as if to imply, "I have absolutely faith in God; therefore, I have absolute faith in myself and my other beliefs." That stance is undisciplined, and ironic to me in that once any of us step into that trap of believing in our own biases and assumptions of society, it is so very easy to convince ourselves that we are right simply because we project our faith onto our own self-righteousness. That effectively perpetuates the original misstep, and on we go unquestioning our views or avoiding honest self-reflection.

As long as one can justify a stance, then that is really all it takes. "Infidelity? Arrogance? Blasphemy? Well, those are acceptable because what I believe to be most important is the single wedge issue of the unborn! (as an example)" Just maintain faith that one topic takes priority over all others, and that your believe is absolutely right (because how can you possibly be wrong?), and there will never be a need to back-step from any position. I mean, you have faith. One doesn't just question faith.

Hell and good intentions and all that.

Anyway. My apologies for going knee deep in text all for a one-line trigger ;) One thought led to another and to another and so it began. Again, I agree that your post would be a reasonable, face-saving, position (if I read you right?). I just very much doubt most will question anything enough to ever consider it an option mostly for what I comment on above.

Also, I have to vent my longer winded thoughts from time to time, else people here might think I'm an idiot peppering these forums with my random ribbings when I'm bored.

*in through the nose; out through the mouth*
*in through the nose; ...out through the mouth*

[Yoda]

No worries.

My opinion is that pretty much everyone makes decisions the way you're describing, evangelicals are just less likely to try to rationalize it. But hey, maybe that itself is a rationalization. ;) Even though I'm not evangelical (maybe I am definitionally, but I find it has a modern connotation that narrows the functional definition considerably).

Anyway, I think the evangelicals making excuses for Trump are just falling into run-of-the-mill political tribalism. When you combine people's opinions on Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, it's pretty amazing how many principles turn out to be highly contingent.

[ynwtf]

Pretty much. Yup.

[Captain Steel]

The way I look at it: you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.

We need a peaceful North Korea, and Trump may be the only person who can deliver that (or maybe he won't).

The point is: Neville Chamberlain may have been a very nice guy... but sometimes, depending on who or what you're dealing with, a nice guy may not be what you need right now.

[Velvet]

The way I look at it: you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.

We need a peaceful North Korea, and Trump may be the only person who can deliver that (or maybe he won't).

The point is: Neville Chamberlain may have been a very nice guy... but sometimes, depending on who or what you're dealing with, a nice guy may not be what you need right now.

Its not really compareable because north korea isnt a superpower like germany was at the time

[Yoda]

Hey, could be.

It's also possible what he's doing is totally reckless, significantly increases the chance of a nuclear war...and still works out for the best, anyway.

There's not a lot of precedent for this stuff.

[Guaporense]

Its not really compareable because north korea isnt a superpower like germany was at the time

Not crazy as Hitler was as well.

North Korea objectives appear to be clear: they want to preserve their dynasty in power. Getting nuclear weapons and showing then off was a way to show that in the event of a war the costs on South Korea and on the US would be catastrophic. Hence inducing the US and South Korea or negotiate. Now they already achieved some conclusive peace talks and I guess NK hopes that they will be able to get a formal peace treaty with the US. In this way their regime is preserved from the next couple of decades at least.

Hitler was a very different case. He took power with the objective of executing a massive war of aggression and imperialistic expansion over Europe and had as primary objectives the extermination of foreign ethnic groups in Europe to make up space for German colonists. He was aiming for a world war and genocide from the very beginning of his government. Hitler is pretty much an isolated case in modern world history: over the past 200 years I think Hitler was the only person who actually tried to do something like imperialistic wars of aggression on foreign powers. He basically though he could be a modern version of Genghis Khan. Nobody in the UK suspected that he would be as crazy as he turned out to be, not even the German generals expected him to be that crazy (as they were already traumatized by WW1).

[Velvet]

I think thats all right. I would like to mention also how nuclear warfare wasn't as prevalent in WWII especially earlier on, allowing Hitler to be much more aggressive during fighting. In turn this is just another point that Germany during WWII is a completely different beast and IMO not all that compareable.

[Captain Steel]

Not that I oppose it, but boy, do you guys know how to go off on an unintended tangent. ;) More power to you!

My only point was perhaps only Trump could attract Un to the table (and maybe "only Nixon could go to China" let's see what kind of tanget THAT produces!).
See my former post a couple days back for the reasons why Trump might be the U.S. President most attractive to Un.
Or perhaps that's wrong - all that really matters is the outcome and we'll have to wait to see what happens.

[Omnizoa]

I've still yet to see evidence that Trump got Russia to hack the DNC.

Or that Assad committed a gas attack on his own citizens.

Or that Kevin Spacey is a rapist.

[Omnizoa]

Sooo, I saw this article by Vox, (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/13/17226566/obamacare-penalty-2018-individual-mandate-still-in-effect) celebrating the end of Obamacare's individual mandate and I thought to myself: "Wow, Vox is actually going against their partisan narrative that changing Obamacare in any way will murder hundreds of thousands of people?"

Then I read this:

The individual mandate had actually emerged decades earlier in the right-leaning think tank world as a market-based means to achieve universal coverage.

OF-****ING-COURSE, partisans will walk back anything if it means taking a stab at the opposition.

Here's the same damn writer fear-mongering in other articles:

Repealing the mandate means millions more uninsured and higher premiums.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16651698/obamacare-individual-mandate-republican-tax-bill
The president wants to pay for tax cuts by increasing the uninsured.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/1/16591854/trump-individual-mandate-tax-reform
Ah yes, higher premiums and more uninsured.
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/30/16953506/trump-state-of-the-union-2018-individual-mandate
Undoing the individual mandate means millions more uninsured people
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/6/16612742/trump-obamacare-individual-mandate-executive-order-repeal

Vox is such a transparent pile of ****.

[UpgradeYourDad]

In other news, I think Gulliani might be senile

You’re only having that thought now? ;)

[donniedarko]

If TRump didn’t constantly shoot himself in the foot I’d love this man. Good job on keeping your word and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. Was a shmuck job

[Powdered Water]

I've still yet to see evidence that Trump got Russia to hack the DNC.

Or that Assad committed a gas attack on his own citizens.

Or that Kevin Spacey is a rapist.


Do you feel like if he did have something to do with it that he'd just tell us? I mean, he literally says just about anything that seemingly pops into his head. I kinda feel like he'd just tell us.

As far as Assad goes... do you ever watch Jimmy Dore?


Award Winning Journalist Debunks Douma Gas Attack w/Carla Ortiz



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jERWeylLH-s

"The offer is on the table..." Ah government.

[Omnizoa]

Do you feel like if he did have something to do with it that he'd just tell us?
No, I feel like due process requires a preponderance of evidence, of which you have none.

As far as Assad goes...
Hey, how 'bout that, you stumbled upon a legitimate criticism of Trump. I knew you could do it.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/55716192/you-did-it-so-proud-of-u.jpg

[ash_is_the_gal]

Or that Kevin Spacey is a rapist.what's that got to do with Trump

[Citizen Rules]

No, I feel like due process requires a preponderance of evidence, of which you have none.


Hey, how 'bout that, you stumbled upon a legitimate criticism of Trump. I knew you could do it.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/55716192/you-did-it-so-proud-of-u.jpg


You're not debating the points, you're just smarting off and trying to make fun of another member. If this is your rebuttal, then you lose the debate.

[Powdered Water]

No, I feel like due process requires a preponderance of evidence, of which you have none.


Hey, how 'bout that, you stumbled upon a legitimate criticism of Trump. I knew you could do it.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/55716192/you-did-it-so-proud-of-u.jpg



So I guess that's a no then. Is this how you talk to everybody? I guess we had a little dust up in the past. Can we move on? You seem like a smart guy capable of doing so. I'm interested in your thoughts on my first question.

[Omnizoa]

what's that got to do with Trump
What's Trump got to do with movies?

[Omnizoa]

You're not debating the points, you're just smarting off and trying to make fun of another member. If this is your rebuttal, then you lose the debate.
First off, the mental image of Powdered Water debating anything is in and of itself a comedy.

Secondly, I have challenged Powdered Water multiple times at length in this very thread to substantiate their claims and they have consistently failed to do so. And in this case, Powdered Water isn't even making a point. They are, in your own words, "making fun" of the target of their criticisms (Trump).

The irony here, which I didn't even point out, is that if Trump's lack of a filter is to be exploited to gather evidence against him, then it is telling that he hasn't admitted to being a Russian butt-monkey yet.


The only other way I can conceive of you feeling this criticism of me is justified is if you feel I've failed to elaborate on my specific objections to the video he posted. The fact is, I don't object to the video. I feel it highlights a genuine criticism of Trump and the legacy media which I have been alluding to for months on this very thread and in particular with my arguments with Kaplan, who also has consistently failed to substantiate their various claims.

Is this how you talk to everybody? I guess we had a little dust up in the past. Can we move on?
No.

[ash_is_the_gal]

What's Trump got to do with movies?

nice dodge.

keep the movie stuff out of the Trump thread and stop trying to instigate if you can help it

[Captain Steel]

nice dodge.

keep the movie stuff out of the Trump thread and stop trying to instigate if you can help it

Kevin Spacey being accused of rape is "movie stuff"? Yes, he's a movie star, but what individuals have accused him of doing in his private life has nothing to do with movies. ;)

[donniedarko]

keep the movie stuff out of the Trump thread and stop trying to instigate if you can help it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXE3Ku-mGrk

[Sedai]

Omnizoa - Thanks for the recommendations for both Matt Christiansen as well as StyxHexenHammer666. I watch both channels on the regular these days.

[Powdered Water]

No.

Aw come on, why so mad bro? Not very christian of you. As you say I've got nothing. Or, maybe I don't see the point in arguing with someone who already knows everything and consistently attacks me and others in this thread. As you just pointed out. This is a movie forum. And I am no master debater. Maybe you are maybe you aren't. Doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

And you're right, I wasn't making a point. I was asking you a question because I've moved on. Would like to think maybe you can be the bigger man and do the same. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts. I guess you thought I was trying to trap Trump with your own thoughts on the matter or something? Not true. I've decided we should be friends on the board and I wanted to know what you think is all. But its cool. I see you get rep pretty consistently for your scathing and just downright mean ass (and long) posts, so good for you I reckon.

From now on tho, I'm gonna talk to you like we're friends and you can ignore me if you want or don't. As I said in the grand scheme of things this thread really doesn't matter.

[Powdered Water]

@Omnizoa (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=89138) - Thanks for the recommendations for both Matt Christiansen as well as StyxHexenHammer666. I watch both channels on the regular these days.

Double post... heh.

Thanks for these by the way. I meant to look those up the last time he talked about them and I forgot or got busy or am an assh*le or something. Good stuff. Do either of you watch David Pakman?

[Sedai]

Double post... heh.

Thanks for these by the way. I meant to look those up the last time he talked about them and I forgot or got busy or am an assh*le or something. Good stuff. Do either of you watch David Pakman?


I've not heard of him. Will check him out!

[Dani8]

Aw come on, why so mad bro? Not very christian of you. As you say I've got nothing. Or, maybe I don't see the point in arguing with someone who already knows everything and consistently attacks me and others in this thread. As you just pointed out. This is a movie forum. And I am no master debater. Maybe you are maybe you aren't. Doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

And you're right, I wasn't making a point. I was asking you a question because I've moved on. Would like to think maybe you can be the bigger man and do the same. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts. I guess you thought I was trying to trap Trump with your own thoughts on the matter or something? Not true. I've decided we should be friends on the board and I wanted to know what you think is all. But its cool. I see you get rep pretty consistently for your scathing and just downright mean ass (and long) posts, so good for you I reckon.

From now on tho, I'm gonna talk to you like we're friends and you can ignore me if you want or don't. As I said in the grand scheme of things this thread really doesn't matter.

IKR. I've enjoyed playing a bit of tennis but he just does not play ball, PW That hurts my feels. No good cheer over a Pimms and ribbon sandwiches of the Monarchs top ten list at the australian Open (I will be servi9ng this at the royal wedding.Powder, I implore thee, make a reservation. Comfy seats are filling up fast), where we happen to still have beens,and bees and beans.i have ncknamed him Mr BeeLee Cose with a cottage in Beelandia. I hope that helps smooth the waters so he doesnt drown like a refo just off xmas island.
He should atleast be happy I didnt portray him as living in tofulandis

[Kaplan]

Just some of the latest signs of White House corruption...

First, you have this whole situation with Qatar, when Trump suddenly decides to go after a vital Middle Eastern ally very possibly because Kushner's father's business was turned down for a loan...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/weeks-before-blockade-qatar-denied-money-to-kushners-firm.html

Then Trump softens his stance on Qatar and a company with ties to the Qatar government is making a deal with the Kushner business to laon them the money they need for their building.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/nyregion/kushner-deal-qatar-666-5th.html

See, the thing about conflicts of interest is that they are conflicts of interest regardless of how honorably everyone is conducting themselves, but this situation stinks.

Then you have Trump's bizarre endorsement of ZTE, a Chinese telecommunications company sanctioned by the U.S. for violating trade sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Of course, there is this: But it also happened the same week a Chinese state-owned company came through with hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, some of which will go to facilitate the construction of Trump-branded properties in Indonesia. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/15/17355202/trump-zte-indonesia-lido-city

Talk about brazen. The question that needs answering is whose interests is Trump looking out for?

Now the story is Trump has tried to get the USPS to increase their shipping charges for Amazon, the company owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post, which Trump hates. This is such a disgusting abuse of power. And here is the Washington Post's article on it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-personally-pushed-postmaster-general-to-double-rates-on-amazon-other-firms/2018/05/18/2b6438d2-5931-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html?utm_term=.a378e7ba5e94


And none of that is including this whole situation with Michael Cohen, because who knows how all that is going to shake out and what personal connections Trump may have in all of Cohen's shady dealings.

[Omnizoa]

nice dodge.
It's not really a dodge, it's the reason I mentioned Spacey in the first place. There's a strong overlap between the people who think Trump is Literally Hitler and the people who think we should disregard due process in favor of "Listen and Believe". From the perspective of protecting marginalized people, both narratives can and are repeatedly rationalized under the Kyriarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy).

Believe it or not, there's a method to my madness.

@Omnizoa (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=89138) - Thanks for the recommendations for both Matt Christiansen as well as StyxHexenHammer666. I watch both channels on the regular these days.
No problem.

Not very christian of you.
Nope.

I've decided we should be friends on the board and I wanted to know what you think is all. But its cool. I see you get rep pretty consistently for your scathing and just downright mean ass (and long) posts, so good for you I reckon.

From now on tho, I'm gonna talk to you like we're friends and you can ignore me if you want or don't. As I said in the grand scheme of things this thread really doesn't matter.
Okeedoke.

Do either of you watch David Pakman?
The first time I saw David Pakman I instantly disliked him. I think it's his Socialist bent. I've no doubt that if we were to both lay out what we want in a country we'd have pretty similar end goals, but his idea of how to attain that state, I would argue, drives it further away.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...esia-lido-city (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/15/17355202/trump-zte-indonesia-lido-city)

Talk about brazen.
I know, right? You'd think Trump'd be easy enough to criticize without stooping to Vox. Again.

[John McClane]

Trump is a chump: he ain’t a hunk. Who’d a thunk?

I’ve been trying to think of this administration as one big Russian joke.

“In Trump’s America...Russia elect you!”

[Sedai]

Double post... heh.

Thanks for these by the way. I meant to look those up the last time he talked about them and I forgot or got busy or am an assh*le or something. Good stuff. Do either of you watch David Pakman?

Not sure if I just picked the wrong video or if this guy is as bad as my first viewing would suggest. His handling of the "Animals..." narrative this week was underhanded and downright dishonest. The clever editing he used to paint the comments in a light that supported his "Trump is a fascist dictator" narrative is the very definition of the oft-used "fake news".

Either he is trying to paint MS-13 as "People who are just trying to make a better life for themselves", or he deliberately skewed the facts in an effort to infer that Trump was talking about run-of-the-mill immigrants, and not the vicious gang members he had been asked to comment on by the woman asking him the question at the time.

Either way, was not impressed by this guy.

[Kaplan]

I know, right? You'd think Trump'd be easy enough to criticize without stooping to Vox. Again.


What the hell does Vox have to do with anything? I didn't link to an opinion piece or to some Vox exclusive. There's two relevant facts to the story and both facts are well established (the one by Trump's own tweets) but of course you act the typical mentally stunted Trump apologist you are by attacking a source for which my point is not dependent on. Next time I guess I'll post a link to some anonymous dude on the internet because he confirms what I've already chosen to believe.

[Omnizoa]

What the hell does Vox have to do with anything?
I should like to think that we collectively ask that question more often: "What DOES Vox have to do with anything?"

The answer: It doesn't. It is so far divorced from reality that citing it as a news source should be an embarrassment greater that farting in a crowded elevator.

I didn't link to an opinion piece
That's even WORSE, Kaplan. There's literally a line in this article that says: "This is a ridiculous answer."

That's an opinion, Kaplan. And look at this:

Is the president of the United States revising American trade policy — and possibly jeopardizing national security — because his family received a large cash bribe from the Chinese government?

Under normal political circumstances, it would be an outrageous accusation to level. But under the political circumstances of 2018, there is suggestive evidence that it possibly happened —but the 24/7 din of controversy and scandal meansthat very little attention is being paid to the possibility.
This is the article outright ****ing admitting to your face that "scandalous speculations are really popular, so here's some more scandalous speculations for you".

This is Hillary Clinton doing the dab.

https://i.imgflip.com/1pfdfk.jpg


It's ****ing soul-crushing that anyone even took this seriously in the first place.

Next time I guess I'll post a link to some anonymous dude on the internet because he confirms what I've already chosen to believe.
I guess he's more credible if his name is Matthew Yglesias and he's a writer for an internet tabloid?

[matt72582]

I think this is hilarious
https://i.imgflip.com/1pfdfk.jpg

[Kaplan]

I should like to think that we collectively ask that question more often: "What DOES Vox have to do with anything?"

The answer: It doesn't. It is so far divorced from reality that citing it as a news source should be an embarrassment greater that farting in a crowded elevator.


That's even WORSE, Kaplan. There's literally a line in this article that says: "This is a ridiculous answer."

That's an opinion, Kaplan. And look at this:


This is the article outright ****ing admitting to your face that "scandalous speculations are really popular, so here's some more scandalous speculations for you".

This is Hillary Clinton doing the dab.

https://i.imgflip.com/1pfdfk.jpg


It's ****ing soul-crushing that anyone even took this seriously in the first place.


I guess he's more credible if his name is Matthew Yglesias and he's a writer for an internet tabloid?


You're still blathering on about Vox? So you don't like Vox, no one cares. I made it perfectly clear that the two relevant facts were widely reported outside of Vox, one being Trump's own tweets of supporting ZTE and the other being that he was personally benefiting from a Chinese loan to a project in Indonesia. I used the Vox link because I wanted a quote I could use to summarize the situation. And it's not wild speculation, it's corruption. It's corruption because there's a conflict of interest because Trump never divested of his businesses. Whether or not there was an overt agreement made, I don't know, and never pretended to know, but it's immaterial, because it's still corruption and no doubt China sees it as a quid pro quo.


But sure, keep ranting on about your usual nonsense.

[Kaplan]

There you go, Trump is following through on his promise to help ZTE.

President Trump said late Friday he had allowed embattled Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE Corp. to remain open despite fierce bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill, defying lawmakers who have warned that the huge technology company should be severely punished for breaking U.S. law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/congress-threatens-to-block-deal-between-white-house-china-to-save-telecom-giant-zte/2018/05/25/1db326ba-604a-11e8-9ee3-49d6d4814c4c_story.html?utm_term=.0ba34b645e92


He's not just going against bipartisan opposition, but also against years of his own anti-China rhetoric.

[Guaporense]

So far Trump has greatly declined in my view: moving out of Iran deal, not meeting with NK and imposing tariffs on imports which can lead to a trade war with China and the European Union. He was truly incredibly bad in the last couple of months. So far he is on the route of becoming the worst president that a major democratic country has ever had since Dilma was impeached in Brazil in 2016 ;)

Also I don't care much about Trump's scandals in part because he is always involved in scandals so I guess it's part of his marketing strategy.

[Guaporense]

There you go, Trump is following through on his promise to help ZTE.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/congress-threatens-to-block-deal-between-white-house-china-to-save-telecom-giant-zte/2018/05/25/1db326ba-604a-11e8-9ee3-49d6d4814c4c_story.html?utm_term=.0ba34b645e92


He's not just going against bipartisan opposition, but also against years of his own anti-China rhetoric.

Of course, because my phone is ZTE so better they still have technical support in here. ;)

[Powdered Water]

With all the things Trump tweets about its a bit of a surprise he hasn't banged a few tweets out about his new favorite show being cancelled.

[Sexy Celebrity]

With all the things Trump tweets about its a bit of a surprise he hasn't banged a few tweets out about his new favorite show being cancelled.

Never you fear, your President is here!

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=44819&stc=1&d=1527702022

[d_chatterley]

Thank you Senator McCain.
https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/1005614491768360960

[Captain Steel]

I'm wishing good luck to Trump on the upcoming summit with N.K.
Whatever happens, it is an unprecedented moment in history - if things go well, it has the potential to positively change the entire planet.

He should start out by saying, "You know, Un... if we do this right... we could be heroes... for ever and ever... not just for one day!"

A while back (I think it was on this thread somewhere) I made jokes about Denis Rodman acting as a go-between, seems now, that joke is actually a possibility.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Oh my God, you guys. I just saw President Trump shaking hands and meeting with Kim Jong Un.

It was like watching man land on the moon.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Can you guys believe this?

1. Donald Trump is the President of the United States.

2. He just met with Kim Jong Un of North Korea.

[Sexy Celebrity]

And apparently Dennis Rodman was just on CNN being interviewed about this meeting.

President Donald Trump
Kim Jong Un
Dennis Rodman

All came together at the same time to make history.

[cricket]

Rodman was fantastic, not eloquent and maybe lacking stability, but very passionate.

[matt72582]

Rodman was fantastic, not eloquent and maybe lacking stability, but very passionate.


It's unthinkable, especially for me, who loved Rodman in the 80s, even though he air-balled layups and FT's.


I think it's so interesting he's been the Ambassador to North Korea.. Out of all the people for Kim, he got The Worm? And Dennis knows Trump.


I think the meeting was done so Kim can say "We didn't have peace because of past politicians, but today we have a pragmatist" and Trump can say "Gosh, this was so easy! Past Presidents (not just Obama) are responsible for this mess. I said this in 1999! Democrats have told me they are GLAD that Crooked Hillary wasn't elected. I alone have saved the world, again."

[mark f]

Have you guys seen this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFuNLxOpQvo

[Sexy Celebrity]

Apparently, Trump and Kim Jong Un had “a really fantastic meeting.”

[Powdered Water]

I wonder if they played Nintendo together?

[Iroquois]

I hope not. It'd be especially absurd if war broke out because they couldn't figure out who would get to be Player 1.

[Monkeypunch]

Can you guys believe this?

1. Donald Trump is the President of the United States.

2. He just met with Kim Jong Un of North Korea.

It's like a nightmare you can't wake up from...:eek:

Do you think Trump and Kim Jong Un are sexting each other already?

[I. Rex]

I wonder if they played Nintendo together?

I'm thinking "Missile Command" maybe? Or "Burger Time"? Am I dating myself?

[ashdoc]

Happy birthday Donald Trump . It's 14th of June in my country already :)

[Mr Minio]

Happy birthday Donald Trump . It's 14th of June in my country already :) Hey, it's 14th in my country too! And in Washington too! Not yet in e.g. Los Angeles, though!

[d_chatterley]

"...New York's attorney general is suing the Trump Foundation, as well as Donald Trump and his children, alleging "extensive and persistent" lawbreaking."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44486250

Is this really a surprise though?

[Dani8]

"...New York's attorney general is suing the Trump Foundation, as well as Donald Trump and his children, alleging "extensive and persistent" lawbreaking."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44486250

Is this really a surprise though?

It gives the interns something to play with, I guess.

[Captain Steel]

"...New York's attorney general is suing the Trump Foundation, as well as Donald Trump and his children, alleging "extensive and persistent" lawbreaking."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44486250

Is this really a surprise though?

Not when it comes out on the same day as the IG report on Hillary! ;)

[Nostromo87]

"...New York's attorney general is suing the Trump Foundation, as well as Donald Trump and his children, alleging "extensive and persistent" lawbreaking."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44486250

Is this really a surprise though?

Let's see how the Democrats' 896th attempt at ruining the President works out for them

http://image.ibb.co/ic6U7y/ezgif_1_93a1a93e3d.gif

Happiest of Birthdays President Trump!

http://image.ibb.co/f2VwKd/flag_of_america_smiley_emoticon.gifhttp://image.ibb.co/f2VwKd/flag_of_america_smiley_emoticon.gifhttp://image.ibb.co/f2VwKd/flag_of_america_smiley_emoticon.gifhttp://image.ibb.co/f2VwKd/flag_of_america_smiley_emoticon.gif

http://image.ibb.co/b944pd/ezgif_1_380661703c.gif

[d_chatterley]

Not when it comes out on the same day as the IG report on Hillary! ;)

Not really sure what you mean. Also, I would not exactly call it a report on Hillary. It's more like a report on Comey if I was going to call it by a simplified name. This is what I gathered from a few articles:

• FBI hurt Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump
• Comey used a private email for gov. business
• Comey acted insubordinate and purposely concealed his intentions from his superiors, the attorney general and deputy attorney general
• IG found Comey's decision not to recommend prosecution for Clinton appropriate
• Comey bla, bla, bla...

Sooo.. not sure why focus on Clinton.

[Iroquois]

http://image.ibb.co/b944pd/ezgif_1_380661703c.gif

this Dorian Gray remake sucks

[gandalf26]

My boy Trump approval ratings on the up! 87% within his own party. 43% in general though which still isn't great but that's on the up at least.

Roll on 2020!

[I. Rex]

Curious what happens as his "trade war" eats away at the short term benefits of his tax bill. And as more and more core Trump voters start associating him and the republicans with their failing overpriced health care situation than the democrats. Obamacare is more popular than its ever been despite Trumps attempt to gut it.

[Powdered Water]

So, I've made it clear I'm not a big Trump supporter but I think it really needs more mention that what he did with North Korea was in fact a great thing. He's going to probably win a Nobel Peace Prize. Crazy stuff considering the sh*t that came out of the guy's mouth during the "negotiation phase" of their relationship.


No, what has always and still bothers me is the war crazy owner's of this country that can't let an event, (not for one hour even) like this go by without starting up the war rhetoric again and trying to screw their own guy from behind.


Please watch this video. This is what goes on even during the supposed very BEST of times in this fine country of ours. He is literally being nominated right now for the Nobel Peace Prize and this is the kind of people that are in our media...


Yeah, that's Rachel Maddow on one of the biggest and finest news networks in the land. Give it a listen, see what ya think.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH-vUgLGo20

[matt72582]

So, I've made it clear I'm not a big Trump supporter but I think it really needs more mention that what he did with North Korea was in fact a great thing. He's going to probably win a Nobel Peace Prize. Crazy stuff considering the sh*t that came out of the guy's mouth during the "negotiation phase" of their relationship.


No, what has always and still bothers me is the war crazy owner's of this country that can't let an event, (not for one hour even) like this go by without starting up the war rhetoric again and trying to screw their own guy from behind.


Please watch this video. This is what goes on even during the supposed very BEST of times in this fine country of ours. He is literally being nominated right now for the Nobel Peace Prize and this is the kind of people that are in our media...


Yeah, that's Rachel Maddow on one of the biggest and finest news networks in the land. Give it a listen, see what ya think.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH-vUgLGo20


^5 for the Jimmy Dore Show

[hell_storm2004]

http://memeshappen.com/media/created/2018/06/With-this-latest-upset-against-Mexico-Germany-will-pay-for-the-wall.jpg

[matt72582]

I must admit I'm addicted to Trump in certain unrehearsed situations. He's been speaking at the NFIB, and he's been pretty hilarious when he gets sarcastic.. At one point he said, "I was hearing so much bad advertising about me, I started to dislike myself!"


"If you put one foot in America, not both feet, just one, it's 'WELCOME TO AMERICA' - come back to court in a year, and they never come back!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU2n6JHq29s

[TONGO]

Well its about damn time......

Governors Refuse to Send National Guard to Border

Republican and Democrat governors are refusing to deploy their state’s National Guards to the border in protest at the Trump administration’s “inhumane” policy of separating migrant children from their families.

Democrat governors Andrew Cuomo and John Hickenlooper, and Republican governor Charlie Baker have all said they will not be sending troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, citing concerns of the "zero tolerance" immigration policy resulting in around 2,000 children being separated and placed into detention centers over a six-week period.

"The administration's unconscionable treatment of families at our border is a moral outrage and an affront to the values that built this state and this nation,” New York Governor Cuomo said.

"In the face of this ongoing human tragedy, let me be very clear: New York will not be party to this inhumane treatment of immigrant families. We will not deploy National Guard to the border, and we will not be complicit in a political agenda that governs by fear and division.”

In April, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation ordering the deployment of the National Guard to help protect the border with Mexico. Defending the decision, homeland security adviser Tom Bossert described the perimeter as a “leaking boat.”

Baker, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, previously announced that he would send a UH-72 Lakota helicopter and two military analysts to the border in support of Trump.

However, following the outcry over the separation policy and conditions of the detention centers in South Texas, Baker has reversed his decision, saying the federal government's actions are “resulting in the inhumane treatment of children," his communications director Lizzy Guyton said in a statement, as reported by WBUR.

“It’s cruel and inhumane and we told the National Guard to hold steady and to not go down to the border—period,” Baker added to NBC 10 Boston. “We won’t be supporting that initiative unless they change the policy.”

Jay Gonzalez, the Democratic candidate hoping to unseat Baker, said the governor should have “never offered our state's resources to enforce Donald Trump's inhumane immigration policy in the first place.”

“Trump's actions at our borders make it clear that we cannot trust his administration, now or ever,” he tweeted. “It isn't enough for Charlie Baker to say that he won't send our resources to the border to help Trump "today." Governor Baker should be clear that Massachusetts will never be a partner to Donald Trump in enforcing his racist immigration policy.”

Colorado governor Hickenlooper also signed an executive order limiting use of state resources "to separate children from parents or legal guardians on sole ground of immigration status."

Defending the immigration policy, Trump said the U.S. “will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility. Not on my watch."

Trump also defended the policy in a series of tweets while falsely claiming that crime in Germany has risen due to immigration.

“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition,” he wrote.

“Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture."

"We don’t want what is happening with immigration in Europe to happen with us!” he added in another tweet.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/governors-refuse-to-send-national-guard-to-border/ar-AAyQC2s?li=BBnb4R7#image=AAyCZZ0|1

[I. Rex]

Good to see many of his evangelical supporters openly against this as well. Although I think they sold their soul a while ago frankly.

[Captain Steel]

Trump's policy?

Did people miss the story that exposed how the children in cages photos were from during the Obama administration?

Meanwhile, Trump is building giant, comfortable, beautiful, fully-stocked facilities for these children to be sheltered in while their irresponsible parents who involve & endanger their own children in their illegal trespassing activities are processed by law enforcement. (Families who are legitimately seeking asylum and do not attempt to enter the country illegally are not being split up - something the left doesn't want you to know - they'd rather show you photos of Auschwitz and say this is somehow the same.) No matter the outcome or final status, all parents are ultimately reunited with their children, even if it's to deport them, they get deported together.

Of course, this doesn't account for the thousands of unaccompanied minors sent here by either totally desperate or completely irresponsible parents, but Trump is building facilities for them to be sheltered as well instead of putting them in cages as they were under Obama.

The big difference between the Trump and Obama administrations is that under Trump children aren't being put into cages!
And that under Trump, the left is weaponizing a human rights issue about a situation that they were more than aware of and which was occurring, but which they couldn't have cared less about when it was happening to much worse extents under Obama.

[gandalf26]

Wonder if it's like Europe with all the "children" actually being 38 year old men.

[hell_storm2004]

Trump's policy?

Did people miss the story that exposed how the children in cages photos were from during the Obama administration?

Meanwhile, Trump is building giant, comfortable, beautiful, fully-stocked facilities for these children to be sheltered in while their irresponsible parents who involve & endanger their own children in their illegal trespassing activities are processed by law enforcement. (Families who are legitimately seeking asylum and do not attempt to enter the country illegally are not being split up - something the left doesn't want you to know - they'd rather show you photos of Auschwitz and say this is somehow the same.) No matter the outcome or final status, all parents are ultimately reunited with their children, even if it's to deport them, they get deported together.

Of course, this doesn't account for the thousands of unaccompanied minors sent here by either totally desperate or completely irresponsible parents, but Trump is building facilities for them to be sheltered as well instead of putting them in cages as they were under Obama.

The big difference between the Trump and Obama administrations is that under Trump children aren't being put into cages!
And that under Trump, the left is weaponizing a human rights issue about a situation that they were more than aware of and which was occurring, but which they couldn't have cared less about when it was happening to much worse extents under Obama.


Unfortunately, putting it on Obama is not right. This move is exclusively a part of the May ruling. There were stuff said that it was a move back in 1997. That is false too.
There would be a few cases once in a while, where family ties were harder to trace.

The facilities are just to sugar coat the harsh truth. The kids might be put in Trump tower, but that is beside the point. But separating kids is just weird. 16-17 olds just maybe. 7-8 year olds not to much.

Heck even Europe they don't do it, where the countries are smaller and immigration is at a far higher rate than here.

[TONGO]

Trump's policy?

Did people miss the story that exposed how the children in cages photos were from during the Obama administration?

Meanwhile, Trump is building giant, comfortable, beautiful, fully-stocked facilities for these children to be sheltered in while their irresponsible parents who involve & endanger their own children in their illegal trespassing activities are processed by law enforcement. (Families who are legitimately seeking asylum and do not attempt to enter the country illegally are not being split up - something the left doesn't want you to know - they'd rather show you photos of Auschwitz and say this is somehow the same.) No matter the outcome or final status, all parents are ultimately reunited with their children, even if it's to deport them, they get deported together.

Of course, this doesn't account for the thousands of unaccompanied minors sent here by either totally desperate or completely irresponsible parents, but Trump is building facilities for them to be sheltered as well instead of putting them in cages as they were under Obama.

The big difference between the Trump and Obama administrations is that under Trump children aren't being put into cages!
And that under Trump, the left is weaponizing a human rights issue about a situation that they were more than aware of and which was occurring, but which they couldn't have cared less about when it was happening to much worse extents under Obama.

Proof please. Links?

[I. Rex]

Did people miss the story that exposed how the children in cages photos were from during the Obama administration?

been on the right wing conspiracy sites again captain? Obama never sought to separate kids from their parents and throw them in cages like Trump thanks. when there was a spike in 2014 in unaccompanied minors the border patrol utilized chain link fencing to deal with the overcrowding. But what you are seeing now is ALL Trump. and rather then "temporary crowd reduction facilities", Trump wants to use these tactics for intimidation against the immigrants he loaths to scare them from entering the country AND as a means of forcing the democrats to give him what he wants on immigration. pay for my wall or we keep tormenting children is apparently the latest Trump immigration "negotiation" tactic. if he keeps that up until November maybe that blue wave will happen after all.

while their irresponsible parents who involve & endanger their own children in their illegal trespassing activities

Yes because running for their lives is so incredibly irresponsible. how dare they not just sit at home and suffer or die in the hell hole they came from. what kind of caring parent would risk life and limb to get their child out of that situation in the hopes of getting them to a safer place? Hm well since you put it that way, hopefully EVERY parent on earth would. I would. Would you force your child to stay in a situation where gangs and criminals threaten their very existence just out of respect for the noble righteous laws of the rich and important United States of America? Or would you find the choice a no brainer and openly walk up to a boarder crossing point and declare asylum in the hopes of getting your child to a better safer place?

Families who are legitimately seeking asylum and do not attempt to enter the country illegally are not being split up

They are being refused entry as a blanket rule. And their choice becomes go back to the dangerous hell they are running from or refuse to leave and get arrested for committing a "crime". And of course that "crime" of not leaving allows Trump to swoop in and snatch their children away where they may find themselves in a shelter or worse without their parents and often separated from their siblings or at least told they are not allowed to hug and comfort their sibling.

In April, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered prosecutors along the border to "adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy" for illegal border crossings. That included prosecuting parents traveling with their children as well as people who subsequently attempted to request asylum.

White House officials have repeatedly acknowledged that under that new policy, they separate all families who cross the border. Sessions has described it as deterrence.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection explains on its site (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/zero-tolerance-immigration-prosecutions-family-fact-sheet) and in a flyer (https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-Jun/next-steps-for-families.pdf) that border-crossing families will be separated.



The big difference between the Trump and Obama administrations is that under Trump children aren't being put into cages!

please site your evidence for the repeated assertions that there was an Obama administration policy dictating children be put in cages thanks. And while you are at it show me where Trump and Sessions and the rest of the administration has stated this policy is NOT meant to be a means of deterrence. If you cant then youve found the ACTUAL difference between Obamas policies and Trumps.

[Kaplan]

So, I've made it clear I'm not a big Trump supporter but I think it really needs more mention that what he did with North Korea was in fact a great thing.

And what, pray tell, did he do with North Korea? Are you referring to a "deal" that in fact isn't a deal at all? Or are you referring to how he allowed himself to be used as a tool of propaganda for Kim to broadcast on his state run TV? Trump got played by Kim, and from the look of things he doesn't mind at all, as he fawns over Kim and repeats every chance he gets how he's saved "millions of lives" from a nuclear war that was never going to occur. What a joke. Have you listened to Trump? Have you heard him blathering on about how great it is that Kim's people sit at attention when he speaks and Trump wants that from "his people?" Or how amused he is that when Kim "fires someone" it's really just a nice way of saying he has them killed? Or how N. Korea's state-run TV lavishes Kim with all this praise and it's too bad Fox news doesn't lavish Trump with as much praise?

But hey, it doesn't matter what kind of deal Trump got out this joke of a summit, it only matters that he can use it to boast about how great he is and how he's this great savior of the world. Meanwhile, this is the image that will live on in infamy:

https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/trump-salute-714x387.png

[TheUsualSuspect]

Yeah, this North Korea thing is ambiguous. It sounds great, like a nice sound bite that Trump loves so much, but when you look at it, it's accomplished what? "Work towards"...okay? Classic Trump line that at first glance sounds good, then when you think about it means nothing.

The deal offers little proof that North Korea will follow through with any of it. Haven't they made similar promises to previous administrations and then backed out?

He got a sit down with the guy. Good for him. But when you want to model yourself after a dictator, it doesn't seem that great anymore. If TRUMP gets the Nobel Peace Prize, then the USA will be an even bigger joke than it is now. (Sorry to say that, but it is true)

[Mr Minio]

*wants to vilify Trump cuz he's a Republican*

*remembers Obama was a Democrat yet a war criminal anyway*

*decides to vilify America because heard it's cool*

*can't find any reason so "they're fat and stupid" and "capitalism sucks lol" should do* ( Velvet where are you?)

*remembers most people here are Americans*

*hesitant to submit reply*

*remembers the current political situation in Poland*

*cries*

[gandalf26]

Yeah, this North Korea thing is ambiguous. It sounds great, like a nice sound bite that Trump loves so much, but when you look at it, it's accomplished what? "Work towards"...okay? Classic Trump line that at first glance sounds good, then when you think about it means nothing.

The deal offers little proof that North Korea will follow through with any of it. Haven't they made similar promises to previous administrations and then backed out?

He got a sit down with the guy. Good for him. But when you want to model yourself after a dictator, it doesn't seem that great anymore. If TRUMP gets the Nobel Peace Prize, then the USA will be an even bigger joke than it is now. (Sorry to say that, but it is true)

It was a huge joke when Obama got the Nobel peace prize before actually doing very much.

Maybe nothing will come of Trump/Kim talks but at least they are talking. Or it could hopefully be the beginning of NK rejoining the world.

[Iroquois]

*wants to vilify Trump cuz he's a Republican*

*remembers Obama was a Democrat yet a war criminal anyway*

*decides to vilify America because heard it's cool*

*can't find any reason so "they're fat and stupid" and "capitalism sucks lol" should do* ( Velvet where are you?)

*remembers most people here are Americans*

*hesitant to submit reply*

*remembers the current political situation in Poland*

*cries*

*thinks about how badly the Australian government treats its own asylum seekers and whether or not the Americans took some inspiration*

[TheUsualSuspect]

It was a huge joke when Obama got the Nobel peace prize before actually doing very much.

Maybe nothing will come of Trump/Kim talks but at least they are talking. Or it could hopefully be the beginning of NK rejoining the world.

Why is every Trump supporter's go to:

But OBAMA did this....But OBAMA did that....just give it a rest.

I don't care about Obama, I'm talking about TRUMP.

[Captain Steel]

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Tuesday dismissed a legislative proposal backed by Republican leaders to keep immigrant families together at the border, arguing that President Trump could fix the problem more easily with a flick of his pen.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/393069-schumer-rejects-gop-proposal-to-address-border-crisis

Democrats want to keep the pressure on Trump instead of having Congress assume responsibility for the growing crisis.

[Captain Steel]

Maintaining problems to ensure maximum anti-Trump hatred for desired political advantage is far more important to the left than enacting solutions.

[hell_storm2004]

Why is every Trump supporter's go to:

But OBAMA did this....But OBAMA did that....just give it a rest.

I don't care about Obama, I'm talking about TRUMP.




That is what is labeled as "Whataboutism", isn't it? You turn on FOX (a propaganda channel IMO, not a news channel), all you hear is "What about this..", "What about that..." its like they committed a murder, we should be allowed to do so as well. MSNBC is no better either.

[hell_storm2004]

Maintaining problems to ensure maximum anti-Trump hatred for desired political advantage is far more important to the left than enacting solutions.


That is politics for you. If it was the other way around, it would have been the same. The end goal is to get back as the ruling party. But if Trump can really do it with a signature, why doesn't he? Win a few swing voters over maybe in the process.

[Iroquois]

Why is every Trump supporter's go to:

But OBAMA did this....But OBAMA did that....just give it a rest.

I don't care about Obama, I'm talking about TRUMP.

Because they think it's some kind of clever gotcha that exposes the absolute hypocrisy of the left as if somehow Obama being unable or unwilling to solve a problem gives Trump carte blanche to either perpetuate or exacerbate it.

Maintaining problems to ensure maximum anti-Trump hatred for desired political advantage is far more important to the left than enacting solutions.

Meanwhile, exaggerating or even fabricating problems in order to justify disturbingly extreme "solutions" is way too important to the right.

[Yoda]

Whataboutism is, indeed, not an excuse for anything. But it also can't be brushed off. You can't ignore what someone is doing while they're doing it, and then when it's over say "well, that's done, so I don't have to account for my support (or tacit/silent approval) of it at the time."

Whataboutism is not a defense of what's happening, but it also can't be ignored just because it's not a defense of what's happening.

[Captain Steel]

Why is every Trump supporter's go to:

But OBAMA did this....But OBAMA did that....just give it a rest.

I don't care about Obama, I'm talking about TRUMP.

Part of the reason is because the left operates on double standards as its regular tactic.

Some people would like the public to know the level of hypocrisy these folks engage in, so they use comparisons of how they behaved when their champion was in office and how their behavior suddenly does a 180 when someone they don't like is in the same position.

We're seeing it in this current "crisis" which, for the same people up in arms, was a complete non-issue before Trump took office. But now that they've seen how using the emotional impact (which they themselves were somehow devoid of when Obama was in office) can serve them as a weapon, they are suddenly activists for those they are now designating as victims of this President whom they are now comparing to a Nazi on a daily basis.

[Sedai]

Border-crossers have been treated poorly for years and years. The main reason I see people getting angry about it now is because the TV is telling them to be angry. Just the latest edition of The Morning Hate, IMO.

[Yoda]

The interesting thing is that ignoring an argument because it's whataboutism is, itself, operating on the exact same logic as whataboutism: you're not being consistent, therefore I don't have to address the problem you're presenting.

For a Trump defender, it's "Obama/Clinton did this, so I don't have to defend Trump for it."

For the person they're arguing with, it's "you're not offering a defense of Trump, so I never have to reconcile this contradiction."

[Iroquois]

I can be both critical of pre-Trump liberal complacency and Trump himself for making things so much worse that said complacency has been considerably disrupted as a result.

[7thson]

This all makes me think of the wizards first rule:

“People are stupid. They will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true.” “Sometimes, making the wrong choice is better than making no choice."

[Yoda]

I can be both critical of pre-Trump liberal complacency and Trump himself for making things so much worse that said complacency has been considerably disrupted as a result.
"Can be" is distinct from "was," and possibly from "will be in the future."

The implied argument here is that this stuff only happens after the fact, when there's nothing at stake and no political sacrifice in admitting something. It's reasonable to expect that, while a politician still holds power or has the potential to gain power, they'll benefit from all the same rationalizations and circle-the-wagons special pleading as before.

I hope I'm wrong. But tribalism is a helluva drug.

[Iroquois]

Probably - I guess I'd have to do some digging to prove "I am" or whatever. In any case, it'd be fine if it meant that various left-wing sub-groups actually did self-reflectively unify and evolve into something better than their current states rather than stay divided enough to be defeated by a right wing that created a significant enough unity through some genuinely toxic ideals - still would've been a lot better to not have to bear witness to this level of government-ordained callousness first, though.

[I. Rex]

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Tuesday dismissed a legislative proposal backed by Republican leaders to keep immigrant families together at the border, arguing that President Trump could fix the problem more easily with a flick of his pen.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/393069-schumer-rejects-gop-proposal-to-address-border-crisis

Democrats want to keep the pressure on Trump instead of having Congress assume responsibility for the growing crisis.

This is akin to holding a child hostage with a gun because you can, then the hostage taker blaming the democrats for not tackling him and stopping him but instead just shouting "put the gun down!". How about put the gun down... Or dont take the kid hostage to begin with.

[Captain Steel]

Exposed: the Dems LOVE having these children suffer.

It's their latest weapon against Trump and they absolutely REFUSE to give it up.

It is Congress' job to create laws (not the President's)... so what happens?...


1. The Dems claim what's happening is horrible (despite their completely ignoring it in past administrations, but okay...)

2. Republicans agree and almost immediately (since the Dems turned this long running policy into a sudden "crisis") present a bill to stop it.

3. Dems refuse to sign it because they openly admit they want to "keep the pressure on Trump."

(Again, passing laws is the Congress's job!)

They outright refuse to stop the very thing they say is horrible because it would mean they couldn't use it against one single individual. They'll allow thousands of children to suffer just to try to hurt one single person.


They want to horror to continue. Their hatred for Trump trumps everything else, even their own double standards of morality. They prefer little children to suffer and keep on suffering if it means they can daily & nightly barrage the public with some false blame placed on one man.

It is unbelievable. The left are not Nazis as they now accuse anyone who respects the U.S. rule of law as being - they're worse.

[ash_is_the_gal]

Whataboutism is, indeed, not an excuse for anything. But it also can't be brushed off. You can't ignore what someone is doing while they're doing it, and then when it's over say "well, that's done, so I don't have to account for my support (or tacit/silent approval) of it at the time."

Whataboutism is not a defense of what's happening, but it also can't be ignored just because it's not a defense of what's happening.

i do agree with this, but it's also annoying when it's clearly a deflection tactic and nothing more and the person doing it doesn't actually care.

[Yoda]

This is akin to holding a child hostage with a gun because you can, then the hostage taker blaming the democrats for not tackling him and stopping him but instead just shouting "put the gun down!". How about put the gun down... Or dont take the kid hostage to begin with.
This analogy fails on a couple pretty basic levels. Laws are not (or shouldn't be) elective the way taking a hostage clearly is. And even ignoring that, Democrats clearly aren't being asked to make some herculean or heroic effort akin to tackling a shooter: they're being asked to vote yes on a bill that does exactly the thing they say must be done. As far as I can tell it's a "clean" bill, so why wouldn't they vote for it?

[Yoda]

i do agree with this, but it's also annoying when it's clearly a deflection tactic and nothing more and the person doing it doesn't actually care.
Yes, it is very annoying! It also feels like you're letting a thoughtless person off the hook, to address their contradiction when they so clearly refuse to address their own.

Best option, I think, is to call their bluff by admitting things when necessary and putting it on them to do the same. They usually don't, which condemns them more than most of what I would say to them, anyway.

[I. Rex]

This analogy fails on a couple pretty basic levels. Laws are not (or shouldn't be) elective the way taking a hostage clearly is. And even ignoring that, Democrats clearly aren't being asked to make some herculean or heroic effort akin to tackling a shooter: they're being asked to vote yes on a bill that does exactly the thing they say must be done. As far as I can tell it's a "clean" bill, so why wouldn't they vote for it?

Clean? It insists on $25 billion for funding in his silly wall. Thats absolutely holding the kids hostage. And honestly, ALL he has to do is STOP ripping kids away from their families. He can do that ALL by himself. Thus the analogy. So I JUST dont understand ANY level of arguing about how this is all on the democrats to make things stop. How about telling Trump to stop! And anyway, there is grumbling from the extreme wing of the republican party that this "compromise" might not be draconian enough for them so may not end up being the democrats "fault" either way.

[Iroquois]

What Steel fails to acknowledge is that the link he posted has Schumer citing concerns over the probable outcome that Republicans would add disagreeable provisions to what is on the surface a seemingly agreeable bill aiming to reunite broken families ("unacceptable additions have bogged down every piece of legislation we've done"), but I guess that doesn't fit Steel's "petty Democrats are worse than Nazis" narrative.

[Yoda]

Not clean? It insists on $25 billion for funding in his silly wall. Thats absolutely holding the kids hostage.
As is typical in these situations, there seem to be a lot of rumors and half-done versions floating around, which people pretend are "real" long before anything actually comes to a vote. The last I've heard is that we're getting a clean, simple bill that allows families to stay together while the situation is reviewed.

I for one hate it when people load up bills with unnecessary stuff and then accuse people who vote no of being against X, where X is the one unobjectionable thing in it. But then, I remember this happening to Republicans countless times before, too. It always sucks. I'd love to believe that, if that happens here, that the turnabout will lead to a cease fire on this shameless, hacky rhetorical move even when power changes hands again, but I'm not optimistic.

And honestly, ALL he has to do is STOP ripping kids away from their families. He can do that ALL by himself. Thus the analogy.
If someone is in the country illegally, we're legally obligated to detain them, yes? At that point, you either detain them the way you would anyone else (nobody gets to takes their kids to jail), or you have some special facility or exception for families in this situation so they can stay together while being detained/reviewed/whatever. The argument here is that there is no real current legal exception, and to whatever degree this didn't happen before was the degree to which we were just sort of making up the law as we went (though many have pointed out that these things were happening before, only they didn't get as much attention).

Anyway, I can't tell from your response if you're genuinely unaware of the debate here, or if you dispute the premises it's based in, or what, so please clarify.

So I JUST dont understand ANY level of arguing about how this is all on the democrats to make things stop.
Will you understand it if they get a clean bill and still vote no?

[I. Rex]

Well we are actually talking about this as its going on apparently. I JUST heard a "breaking news" report that Trump is going to go ahead and reverse this by executive order? Can anyone confirm?

[Yoda]

Ugh.

There is zero reason to keep expecting Presidents to resolve these things. If the problem is the law, change the law. If a law has so much ambiguity in it that different Presidents can make it seem like entirely different laws based on what they choose to enforce or how, then we've fundamentally undermined the separation of powers.

If this is true, it's an awful situation being resolved via the continuation of an awful precedent.

[I. Rex]

While I largely agree with that, Im for anything that stops the child torment NOW. Although, if true, this will be a hit against Trump with his base who are full on anti-immigrant. Never thought Id actually see that happen so Im curious what the wording is exactly.

[Yoda]

Respectfully, that first sentence is the whole problem here: trying to make exceptions to the integrity of the process because this time it's important. It's important every time. And every time someone will make the case that yeah yeah, the process matters, but not when anything is actually at stake! Even though the process exists almost entirely for those situations, where we're most tempted to cut those corners.

Replace the nouns about immigration with nouns about terrorism and imagine a Republican is otherwise making the same case, to write around existing law because the issue is so important. Does it still sound good?

[matt72582]

This is all politics, each side knowing that Hispanics will vote for Democrats. Trump wants to show his base, especially since he hasn't built a wall, but the Democrats wants Trump to hold on to the firecracker as long as possible. It's never about what it's supposed to be about... I just heard Fox urging Trump to sign the EO, but not because of kids, but because of the "mid-terms, and then impeachment".

[I. Rex]

Respectfully, that first sentence is the whole problem here: trying to make exceptions to the integrity of the process because this time it's important. It's important every time. And every time someone will make the case that yeah yeah, the process matters, but not when anything is actually at stake! Even though the process exists almost entirely for those situations, where we're most tempted to cut those corners.

Replace the nouns about immigration with nouns about terrorism and imagine a Republican is otherwise making the same case, to write around existing law because the issue is so important. Does it still sound good?

Well you still have the courts who can check anything they feel is too much of an overreach remember. Thats what happened to many of Obama's executive actions as I recall, specifically regarding immigration. And in this case I cant imagine theres anyone (other than sadists and Jeff Miller) who actually thought the act of separating children from their parents was a GOOD thing. So I dont see the problem with stoping that by any means necessary then immediately sitting down and working on immigration legislation while the stove is still hot. I mean I dont even think he needs to actually go this far even. He could just give the word to Sessions to STOP. And interpret it like ALL the other presidents had. To me its really just that simple.

[Yoda]

Well you still have the courts who can check anything they feel is too much of an overreach remember.
That's inconsistent at best and incoherent at worst. Just off the top of my head, Obama issued an executive order on immigration, which was allowed by the courts, yet Trump's reversal of said executive order was blocked.

Having people govern by "feel" is the whole problem. We're a nation of laws, not of men, and I'm genuinely shocked to hear otherwise reasonable people be so blasé about this.

And in this case I cant imagine theres anyone (other than sadists and Jeff Miller) who actually thought the act of separating children from their parents was a GOOD thing.
If Congress is constantly falling back on the other branches to correct horribly or vaguely written laws, there is no zero incentive to put serious debate and thought into the laws in the first place.

So I dont see the problem with stoping that by any means necessary
That depresses the hell outta me. Anyone should be able to see the problem, both in theory, and in the way it's already manifesting itself throughout these debates.

then immediately sitting down and working on immigration legislation while the stove is still hot.
Except we may or may not get around to that part, and the incentives'll be all messed up by then.

This isn't how it's supposed to work, and for good reason, and it really doesn't take much imagination to think of how this can (nay, will) be used in situations where you don't like the result.

I mean I dont even think he needs to actually go this far even. He could just give the word to Sessions to STOP. And interpret it like ALL the other presidents had. To me its really just that simple.
From what I can tell, that's not how "ALL the other presidents" interpreted it. There was a photo circulating recently of some child behind a fence, looking miserable. It got halfway around the Internet before someone noticed it was taken years ago. I'm guessing this is one of those things where the curation of our news outlets and friends determines whether we've heard about this over or over, or somehow not heard about it at all. The fact checks on this seem to just be that it was rare before, and is common now.

Laws should not look like totally different laws depending on who's President. I can't believe I have to actually defend this idea.

[matt72582]

The Democrats could have accepted the 1.8 million who'd be CITIZENS (DACA + close family members)... Sounds like they want ammunition for the mid-terms. I don't see anything wrong with ending the lottery, or some security. A wall would be a waste of money. Nothing wrong with bringing in people from Norway - diversity!