President Trump [Archive] - Page 7

Don Schneider

05-12-17, 10:38 AM

Trump is under investigation by the FBI and now of all times he fires the FBI director... If someone isn't outraged, then what the heck would it take?! It seems clear as day Trump is trying to stifle the ongoing investigation. We all should be outraged. And past grievances about Comey don't matter. (Personally I always gave him the benefit of the doubt, but I know others didn't. Whatever.) This is a big deal.

And as a side note Sessions has recused himself from anything doing with any Clinton investigation and any investigation into Russian interference, yet reportedly he was involved in this decision. How much corruption are we going to tolerate?

What is your source that Trump personally is under investigation by the FBI?

This political farce gets loonier every day! After all these Democrats blasting Comey for months and alleging that he caused Hillary the election with several calling for his removal, now when Trump does exactly that they express outrage? As someone noted, “They give hypocrisy a bad name.” Then again, the left has always been noted for hypocrisy such as Hollywood degenerates crying over the plight of the “little guy” while they live like Indian rajahs. As the pre-repentant Ebenezer Scrooge so succinctly put it: “I shall retire to Bedlam.”

TONGO

05-12-17, 03:11 PM

Trump Threatens Retaliation Against Comey, Warns He May Cancel Press Briefings

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBB3NVS.img?h=0&w=874&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f&x=1297&y=826
President Donald Trump unleashed a new round of tweets Friday morning as the fallout over FBI Director James Comey's firing continues.

President Trump on Friday warned James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director he fired this week, against leaking anything negative about the president and warned the news media that he may cancel all future White House briefings.

In a series of early-morning Twitter posts, Mr. Trump even seemed to suggest that there may be secret tapes of his conversations with Mr. Comey that could be used to counter the former F.B.I. director if necessary. It was not immediately clear whether he meant that literally or simply hoped to intimidate Mr. Comey into silence.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-threatens-retaliation-against-comey-warns-he-may-cancel-press-briefings/ar-BBB3LPR

mark f

05-12-17, 03:20 PM

It's all BS.

donniedarko

05-12-17, 05:22 PM

My casual $0.02 regarding Comey stuffs:
He has had a lot of spotlight first leading up to the election publicly commenting on Clinton's email investigation and then publicly contradicting Trump's tweeted claims of Obama's alleged wiretaps. It frustrated me at the timing of his email comments being right before the election. That seemed deliberate and calculated (to me!), as I could not comprehend why the FBI would make a public comment on something that was at that time and open investigation, especially so close to a presidential election when that comment could affect voter opinion.

Transparency

Camo

05-12-17, 05:35 PM

Personally, i think we should line Trumps Admin and what was going to be Hilary's Admin up against a wall.. then we should run away really fast and leave them there.

Coz, this all happened on an uninhibited island i forgot to mention, i'd also forget to mention it to Trump and Hilary's dude's.

Camo

05-12-17, 08:50 PM

Think i listen to this album way too much but yeah this reminded me of Jim Comey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-fjyEIgWik

Camo

05-12-17, 08:51 PM

Not just coz it's called Oh, Comely BTW!

Kaplan

05-13-17, 06:07 AM

What is your source that Trump personally is under investigation by the FBI?

Comey confirmed Trump's campaign is being investigated. Given that Trump was the center of his own campaign, he has a stake in this investigation. Should the FBI find evidence of cooperation, they will naturally follow the threads to see if they lead to Trump. And likely someone will talk if there's anything to talk about. Is there a separate investigation specifically targeting Trump at the FBI? I don't know. There should be, though. In the context of this discussion board, I did not say anything inaccurate, nor did I accuse him of being guilty.

This political farce gets loonier every day! After all these Democrats blasting Comey for months and alleging that he caused Hillary the election with several calling for his removal, now when Trump does exactly that they express outrage? As someone noted, “They give hypocrisy a bad name.” Then again, the left has always been noted for hypocrisy such as Hollywood degenerates crying over the plight of the “little guy” while they live like Indian rajahs. As the pre-repentant Ebenezer Scrooge so succinctly put it: “I shall retire to Bedlam.”I guess your only point here is that all Democrats are hypocrites and always have been...? Sorry if I can't quite take you seriously when you make those broad assertions, especially given the obscene level of hypocrisy surrounding the Trump White House and coming from a disappointing number of Republican politicians who have tied their political careers to the Trump train.

It should be obvious (I would have figured) that someone can be critical of Comey's actions in the past and still be outraged that Trump would fire him so soon after Comey announced the ongoing FBI investigation into Trump's campaign. I fail to see the hypocrisy. You want to say some Democrats did display some level of hypocrisy, then fine. Call them hypocrites. All that is, though, is a deflection. It doesn't change what fundamentally happened, which was an attempt to obstruct justice.

Trump's camp, and mouthpieces, spent all that time trying to make us buy into the ridiculous and absurd reasoning of the firing, only for Trump to undermine all of them by admitting he was thinking of the Russia investigation the whole time and already had his mind made up. That is worthy of being outraged over. It's the timing and the reasons for the firing. I'm not sure why that is difficult to understand, or how anyone can defend it. Or overlook all the praise Trump gave to Comey, only to now say he's no good. Who cares about the Democrats. This has nothing to do with them.

ynwtf

05-13-17, 01:43 PM

Don Schneider

05-13-17, 02:53 PM

Comey confirmed Trump's campaign is being investigated. Given that Trump was the center of his own campaign, he has a stake in this investigation. Should the FBI find evidence of cooperation, they will naturally follow the threads to see if they lead to Trump. And likely someone will talk if there's anything to talk about. Is there a separate investigation specifically targeting Trump at the FBI? I don't know. There should be, though. In the context of this discussion board, I did not say anything inaccurate, nor did I accuse him of being guilty.

I guess your only point here is that all Democrats are hypocrites and always have been...? Sorry if I can't quite take you seriously when you make those broad assertions, especially given the obscene level of hypocrisy surrounding the Trump White House and coming from a disappointing number of Republican politicians who have tied their political careers to the Trump train.

It should be obvious (I would have figured) that someone can be critical of Comey's actions in the past and still be outraged that Trump would fire him so soon after Comey announced the ongoing FBI investigation into Trump's campaign. I fail to see the hypocrisy. You want to say some Democrats did display some level of hypocrisy, then fine. Call them hypocrites. All that is, though, is a deflection. It doesn't change what fundamentally happened, which was an attempt to obstruct justice.

Trump's camp, and mouthpieces, spent all that time trying to make us buy into the ridiculous and absurd reasoning of the firing, only for Trump to undermine all of them by admitting he was thinking of the Russia investigation the whole time and already had his mind made up. That is worthy of being outraged over. It's the timing and the reasons for the firing. I'm not sure why that is difficult to understand, or how anyone can defend it. Or overlook all the praise Trump gave to Comey, only to now say he's no good. Who cares about the Democrats. This has nothing to do with them.

Hey, Kaplan! You’re a SOB! A swine! A political hack! I question your mother’s ancestry!...Hey, wait a minute! You just got fired by Hillary Clinton? Maybe I was a tad hasty, don’t you know. You can’t be all that bad, after all. Are you free for dinner tomorrow night?

Give me a break! This reminds me of Orwell’s 1984 where Big Brother and the party keeps changing whom the nation is at war with; and when one of the frequent changes occurs, it’s literally done in mid- sentence by one of the party’s propaganda speakers!

From the recent NBC interview with Lester Holt:

Trump: “You know, this Russia thing is a made up story, an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.”

Then he goes on to condemn Russia if they tried to interfere in U.S. elections. Where did I miss that he admitted to having fired Comey over the Russia investigation? He has to get whomever he picks as Comey’s successor through the senate. How is firing Comey going to make whatever Russia related investigations might be ongoing go away?

I’m (and I think a lot of people) fuzzy as to what exactly is the nature of this “scandal”? Putin preferred Trump to Clinton? Well, knock me over with a feather! What is the alleged nature of this “collusion” between Trump or his campaign in this? Someone in Trump’s campaign gave the Russians Podesta’s email address and password? Russian hackers couldn’t have hacked their way in by themselves? And how did this affect the outcome of the race? There’s an old marketing maxim: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Do you think one voter in a thousand could tell you what was in any of Podesta’s hacked emails?

Dani8

05-14-17, 03:08 PM

Is this for real? I dont know what currentcounternews.com is and how credible they are. Trying to take everything with a grain of salt at this point, but if this is legit, fracking why? Are they over populated and this is for a cull?

http://countercurrentnews.com/2017/04/its-done-trump-signs-hjr-69-into-law-allowing-slaughter-of-alaskan-bear-cubs-wolf-pups/

Kaplan

05-15-17, 11:24 PM

WASHINGTON — President Trump boasted about highly classified intelligence in a meeting with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador last week, providing details that could expose the source of the information and the manner in which it was collected, a current and a former American government official said Monday.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-classified-information-isis.html?_r=0

Jesus. What the heck, was he showing off to his Russian friends? Way to undermine national security and alienate our allies.

Yoda

05-16-17, 10:57 AM

Don Schneider

05-16-17, 12:03 PM

In the most predictable sequence imaginable, the White House denied the report...and then Trump confirmed it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/16/trump-acknowledges-facts-shared-with-russian-envoys-during-white-house-meeting/?utm_term=.e2a6d910e8f5).

A lot of things about Trump are bad or shocking, but the one that really gets me--and that I'm amazed his supporters are willing to overlook--is his disloyalty to the people who work for him. He throws them under the bus without a moment's hesitation. He routinely contradicts and humiliates them and, with them, all the people who decide to defend him only to see his position change.

Real leadership means taking responsibility and leading a team, not churning through expendable underlings and enablers and discarding them when it's momentarily convenient.

"President Trump appeared to acknowledge Tuesday that he revealed highly classified information to Russia..." [Emphasis added]

This strikes me as another leftist media organ disguising editorial content as news stories. General McMaster (my “homey”!) has an impeccable reputation for integrity, so much so he was passed over twice for promotion as the brass was piqued at him over his book: Dereliction of Duty In which McMaster recounted lies told by those highly placed in the government under LBJ that led to the debacle of the Vietnam War. McMaster was in the room with the president when these alleged “breeches” of classified information occurred and he denied such occurred.

Secondly, if Trump merely advised the Russians of what had been learned by intelligence sources because he felt it beneficial to the U.S. for the Russians to know, what is wrong about that?

While the U.S. was still neutral in WWII, Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles (obviously acting on orders from FDR through Hull) called in the Russian ambassador to advise him that the U.S. had learned from a highly placed German source that an attack on Russia by Germany was imminent. (I don’t know if Welles told the ambassador how the information was gained.) (On a side note, of course that megalomaniac Stalin ignored the warning as he had countless others—even from his own intelligence sources—because he had stated many times Germany would not attack Russia for some years, if at all; and, of course, Big Brother was never wrong about anything.)

Those striving to bring Trump down might actually have a real story one of these days, rather than just fanning the flames of these imaginary scandals in the absence of facts and proofs.

Yoda

05-16-17, 12:09 PM

"President Trump appeared to acknowledge Tuesday that he revealed highly classified information to Russia..." [Emphasis added]
What do you think he's doing here?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/864436162567471104
Secondly, if Trump merely advised the Russians of what had been learned by intelligence sources because he felt it beneficial to the U.S. for the Russians to know, what is wrong about that?
Gosh, quite a few things, I'd say. But let's say it isn't wrong: why not direct this question to the White House itself? After all, they forcefully denied something that they're now saying isn't wrong. Why deny it, then?

Don Schneider

05-16-17, 12:26 PM

What do you think he's doing here?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/864436162567471104

Gosh, quite a few things, I'd say. But let's say it isn't wrong: why not direct this question to the White House itself? After all, they forcefully denied something that they're now saying isn't wrong. Why deny it, then?

Just what he said. He shared facts with the Russians (in the hope, as he also said, of persuading the Russians to join with the U.S. in greater anti-terrorism measures to fight ISIS and Al-Qaeda).

Was Roosevelt a communist for trying to help the Soviet Union vis-à-vis Nazi Germany? As Churchill, a lifelong virulent anti-communist, so succinctly put matters after the German invasion of the Soviet Union: "If Hitler invaded Hell, I’d at least put in a favorable mention for the devil in the House of Commons.”

Yoda

05-16-17, 12:32 PM

Just what he said. He shared facts with the Russians (in the hope, as he also said, of persuading the Russians to join with the U.S. in greater anti-terrorism measures to fight ISIS and Al-Qaeda).
What I mean is: how do you reconcile this with the insinuation you just made? You emphasized the word "appeared" in that article, implying that he didn't really do it. That tweet seems like a clear admission that he did (since it's a defense, and not a denial).

Was Roosevelt a communist for trying to help the Soviet Union vis-à-vis Nazi Germany.
I daresay there are a few differences between the two, but again, let's assume there was nothing wrong with the action itself (which I find perfectly plausible, by the way): why did the administration deny it?

Don Schneider

05-16-17, 12:55 PM

What I mean is: how do you reconcile this with the insinuation you just made? You emphasized the word "appeared" in that article, implying that he didn't really do it. That tweet seems like a clear admission that he did (since it's a defense, and not a denial).

I daresay there are a few differences between the two, but again, let's assume there was nothing wrong with the action itself (which I find perfectly plausible, by the way): why did the administration deny it?

Here is the entire two-part tweet:

“As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining....

“.to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.”

My interpretation of this is the president chose to share facts with Russia (just as FDR chose to share facts with the Soviet Union despite our neutrality at the time) that he thought was in the interest of the U.S. to do so. Although Trump's not explicitly saying this, It might be that the facts were gained through classified intelligence the same way that FDR’s warning to Stalin had been. If so, I don’t see why the president cannot share such facts with any nation we are not currently at war with thus learned if in his judgment such is beneficial to our nation.

Watch or listen to the McMaster statement and tell me where Trump contradicts his NSA's in-person account.

Yoda

05-16-17, 01:06 PM

My interpretation of this is the president chose to share facts with Russia (just as FDR chose to share facts with the Soviet Union despite our neutrality at the time) that he thought was in the interest of the U.S. to do so.
This is, of course, not mutually exclusive with the idea that he revealed classified information. And the question was about emphasizing the word "appeared." Only reason to do that, that I can see, would be if you're disputing the idea that this took place at all.

Watch or listen to the McMaster statement and tell me where Trump contradicts his NSA's in-person account.
This part:

"At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed. The president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known."

This simply can't be reconciled with the tweets. He was sharing important information even thought it was already publicly known? That doesn't make sense. Nor does the idea that he was somehow helping them fight terrorism/ISIS but somehow not discussing "intelligent sources or methods."

Yoda

05-16-17, 01:09 PM

Also, let's flip that question for a bit: where does McMaster deny that Trump revealed classified information? Seems to me he artfully avoids saying that. He opens by simply saying the report is false, but when he expounds on that, it's only to deny accusations the WaPo report didn't actually make (re: sources and methods).

Don Schneider

05-16-17, 01:17 PM

This is, of course, not mutually exclusive with the idea that he revealed classified information. And the question was about emphasizing the word "appeared." Only reason to do that, that I can see, would be if you're disputing the idea that this took place at all.

This part:

"At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed. The president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known."

This simply can't be reconciled with the tweets. He was sharing important information even thought it was already publicly known? That doesn't make sense. Nor does the idea that he was somehow helping them fight terrorism/ISIS but somehow not discussing "intelligent sources or methods."

Once again, Trump might well have shared information, facts that came from classified sources without saying what those sources were and how the information was collected in line with the first part of the McMaster quote. The second part of McMaster’s quote appears to refer to U.S. anti-terrorism military posturing that is already publicly known and perhaps not related to the first part with seems to deal with possible civilian airline terrorism threats (which were learned through classified sources).

The Washington Post’s usage of the word “appeared” seems to concede that such cannot be determined definitively.

Yoda

05-16-17, 01:27 PM

Once again, Trump might well have shared information, facts that came from classified sources without saying what those sources were and how the information was collected in line with the first part of the McMaster quote.
If that's the case, then McMaster's "denial" was a straw man, because the initial story (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.6ec05c9ace30) simply contends he revealed classified information. In fact, it even points out the dissonance between their contention, and the "denial" McMaster and others offered:

"In their statements, White House officials emphasized that Trump had not discussed specific intelligence sources and methods, rather than addressing whether he had disclosed information drawn from sensitive sources."

In other words, they just wanted to be in a position to be denying something, even though they didn't bother denying the thing they were actually being accused of.

"Did you rob that man?"
"I absolutely, definitely did NOT, under any circumstances, kill him."

The Washington Post’s usage of the word “appeared” seems to concede that such cannot be determined definitively.
I'm pretty sure it's just standard journalism to add a qualifier any time someone stops short of a full, perfectly literal, explicit confirmation. For example, as absurd as it would be, Trump could technically say he was just musing in general about how he has the right to share info and pretend the timing is totally coincidental, even though it clearly isn't. Hence, "appeared."

seanc

05-16-17, 02:01 PM

For example, as absurd as it would be, Trump could technically say he was just musing in general about how he has the right to share info and pretend the timing is totally coincidental, even though it clearly isn't. Hence, "appeared."

And he probably will. Then Nostro will be in to tell us how you only pick on Trump, hate republicans, and love democrats.

NEXT!!!

Don Schneider

05-16-17, 06:24 PM

If that's the case, then McMaster's "denial" was a straw man, because the initial story (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.6ec05c9ace30) simply contends he revealed classified information. In fact, it even points out the dissonance between their contention, and the "denial" McMaster and others offered:

"In their statements, White House officials emphasized that Trump had not discussed specific intelligence sources and methods, rather than addressing whether he had disclosed information drawn from sensitive sources."

In other words, they just wanted to be in a position to be denying something, even though they didn't bother denying the thing they were actually being accused of.

"Did you rob that man?"
"I absolutely, definitely did NOT, under any circumstances, kill him."

I'm pretty sure it's just standard journalism to add a qualifier any time someone stops short of a full, perfectly literal, explicit confirmation. For example, as absurd as it would be, Trump could technically say he was just musing in general about how he has the right to share info and pretend the timing is totally coincidental, even though it clearly isn't. Hence, "appeared."

What is the point here? If my bookkeeper has the authority to refuse to ship to a customer due to credit concerns, wouldn’t I as the owner of the company or its president likewise or to countermand that decision? After all, it was I who delegated the authority to him. The president is the head of the executive branch of government. If information has been classified by some functionary within the executive branch, that precludes the president, his or her boss, from effectively, at least on a case by case basis, declassifying it in the interests of the country? Isn’t that what appears to be the case here? This entire tempest in a teapot appears to be over just that. Truman told Stalin that we had an atomic bomb after Truman received the news of its first successful test while in Potsdam.

Don Schneider

05-16-17, 06:35 PM

If that's the case, then McMaster's "denial" was a straw man, because the initial story (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.6ec05c9ace30) simply contends he revealed classified information. In fact, it even points out the dissonance between their contention, and the "denial" McMaster and others offered:

"In their statements, White House officials emphasized that Trump had not discussed specific intelligence sources and methods, rather than addressing whether he had disclosed information drawn from sensitive sources."

In other words, they just wanted to be in a position to be denying something, even though they didn't bother denying the thing they were actually being accused of.

"Did you rob that man?"
"I absolutely, definitely did NOT, under any circumstances, kill him."

I'm pretty sure it's just standard journalism to add a qualifier any time someone stops short of a full, perfectly literal, explicit confirmation. For example, as absurd as it would be, Trump could technically say he was just musing in general about how he has the right to share info and pretend the timing is totally coincidental, even though it clearly isn't. Hence, "appeared."

Here, I just found this link regarding this issue on my first try. Trump is on solid legal and
Constitutional grounds just as I suggested:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

Yoda

05-16-17, 06:38 PM

What is the point here?
I think I've made the points pretty clear, but I'll be happy to repeat/summarize them:

1. Trump revealed classified information.
2. Trump's administration lied when they suggested it didn't happen.

Notice that neither point is affected by the legalistic defenses you're offering. I haven't claimed he was outside of his authority to do it: only that it happened, and there appears to have been a very clumsy, obvious attempt to claim it didn't. And as a general rule, I tend to think people only bother forcefully denying things they understand are bad in some way.

Also, as an extension of point #1, it seems pretty unlikely this was the thoughtful, strategic decision you're speculating about. McMaster's quote, for example, makes it pretty clear it was off-the-cuff. Could it turn out to have been a good decision? Sure! But it does not appear to be a considerate one, and the administration's reflexive denial about it shows as much.

Don Schneider

05-16-17, 06:56 PM

I think I've made the points pretty clear, but I'll be happy to repeat/summarize them:

1. Trump revealed classified information.
2. Trump's administration lied when they suggested it didn't happen.

Notice that neither point is affected by the legalistic defenses you're offering. I haven't claimed he was outside of his authority to do it: only that it happened, and there appears to have been a very clumsy, obvious attempt to claim it didn't. And as a general rule, I tend to think people only bother forcefully denying things they understand are bad in some way.

Also, as an extension of point #1, it seems pretty unlikely this was the thoughtful, strategic decision you're speculating about. McMaster's quote, for example, makes it pretty clear it was off-the-cuff. Could it turn out to have been a good decision? Sure! But it does not appear to be a considerate one, and the administration's reflexive denial about it shows as much.

Well, we’re going around in circles. Again, the way I read both Trump and McMaster is that they acknowledged that Trump provided facts gained from classified intelligence while denying they divulged the source of that classified intelligence. Even if Trump had divulged the source, I still don’t see where that would be outside his authority pursuant to my last response.

The real point here is that the political and media left are desperately trying to at least delay the implementation of the Trump and GOP agenda (perhaps past the 2018 elections) by creating constant distractions, aided and abetted by a few GOP politicians such as McCain and Graham who dislike Trump on a personal basis. I don’t like Trump on a personal basis either. I didn’t vote for him in my (I think our) state’s GOP primary and literally held my nose when I voted for him in the general election. Why? Because we live in a representative, republican democracy, and by all logic one votes for the candidate who most likely and most closely will vote or act as one would if one held the office in question.

mark f

05-16-17, 07:18 PM

Don Schneider

05-16-17, 07:34 PM

You need to pay more attention to the real point. It's been going on since Trump has ever made political statements and proven himself ignorant of practically everything about American history or basic ethics. I've been aware of it for 40 years.

Even if what you say is true, it is irrelevant to the discussion. Additionally, it is, at least in this case, wrong. I see no reason why sharing this particular classified intelligence dealing with potential terrorist threats to civilian airline traffic to be untoward. After all, even if we don’t give a hoot about innocent Russian lives (which, by the way, we should!), Americans might be flying aboard a Russian airliner that gets blown out of the sky.

ash_is_the_gal

05-16-17, 09:27 PM

sorry, how is our President being totally and completely incompetent irrelevant to the point here? Don Schneider

Yoda

05-16-17, 10:06 PM

Again, the way I read both Trump and McMaster is that they acknowledged that Trump provided facts gained from classified intelligence while denying they divulged the source of that classified intelligence.
Where was this acknowledged? Also, how can they be said to acnkowledge this when they claimed the report was false...even though this is what the report said?

Even if Trump had divulged the source, I still don’t see where that would be outside his authority pursuant to my last response.
I still don't see why being within his authority is a defense of the wisdom of the decision, or explains the clumsy, seemingly reflexive attempt to deny it.

I don’t like Trump on a personal basis either. I didn’t vote for him in my (I think our) state’s GOP primary and literally held my nose when I voted for him in the general election. Why? Because we live in a representative, republican democracy, and by all logic one votes for the candidate who most likely and most closely will vote or act as one would if one held the office in question.
You don't have to justify your vote for me, but I empathize with anyone who voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils. But let's not make the mistake of thinking that most of what he's saying or doing is fine just because it's opposed by people we disagree with more. One gets the impression a lot of people are sticking up for this guy because he's "hated by all the right people," as the old quote goes.

Disliking how people react to Trump has no logical relation to whether or not you defend his actions. They are not mutually exclusive. Both his actions and the response to them can be absurd (and usually are).

Kaplan

05-17-17, 05:16 AM

As it was reported, Israel gave the U.S. super sensitive, top secret information. The U.S. was not supposed to share this information, and certainly not to Russia. So Trump blurts it out to his Russian buddies in a meeting that in and of itself was rather shady. Trump, in the process, is possibly undermining our own intelligence community, our national security, and our relations with information sharing allies. That is a problem, to say the least. McMaster's latest defense is Trump wasn't aware of where the information came from or how it was gathered, which is nice... the old incompetence defense. Sadly, that part of their defense I believe.

Kaplan

05-17-17, 05:20 AM

But wait, we have a new controversy. And this one is pretty big.

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html

President Trump asked the F.B.I. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
That's a problem.

Don Schneider

05-17-17, 10:44 AM

sorry, how is our President being totally and completely incompetent irrelevant to the point here? Don Schneider

Because your characterization is subjective and doesn’t bear on the issue being discussed, the president’s de facto decision (in perfect accordance with his constitutional authority as established by Supreme Court case law--see the Politico article to which I linked) to partially declassify intelligence to share with the Russians because he feels it is in the interest of the U.S. to do so for reasons I stated in my reply to the poster.

Don Schneider

05-17-17, 10:46 AM

But wait, we have a new controversy. And this one is pretty big.

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html

That's a problem.

Yes, this one could get sticky. We need more facts and time to consider them. Is this going to come down to a "He said, he said" scenario?

Don Schneider

05-17-17, 11:38 AM

Where was this acknowledged? Also, how can they be said to acknowledging this when they claimed the report was false...even though this is what the report said?

I still don't see why being within his authority is a defense of the wisdom of the decision, or explains the clumsy, seemingly reflexive attempt to deny it.

You don't have to justify your vote for me, but I empathize with anyone who voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils. But let's not make the mistake of thinking that most of what he's saying or doing is fine just because it's opposed by people we disagree with more. One gets the impression a lot of people are sticking up for this guy because he's "hated by all the right people," as the old quote goes.

Disliking how people react to Trump has no logical relation to whether or not you defend his actions. They are not mutually exclusive. Both his actions and the response to them can be absurd (and usually are).

I explained why one can discern wisdom in the president’s decision. There is a credible threat to civilian airline traffic, a matter that is a concern for all, including the Russians.

Yoda, I greatly appreciate your measured and evenhanded approach to moderating this forum, which is one reason I’ve posted here more frequently lately after initially being granted by another poster my request for a name of a movie awhile back and in record time! Too many forum owners and moderators become afflicted with “moderatoritis,” succumbing to the first taste of power of any kind in their lives. Thus, they become petty tyrants. Undoubtedly as a result of your influence, the level off discourse here is most civil, which I also greatly appreciate.

As I said, we now have gone around in circles regarding whether or not Trump and McMaster have denied the newspaper report and, if so, what exactly they denied. Since the president has the unquestioned authority to declassify classified material at his sole discretion, there is no story here, let alone scandal. I respectfully suggest we move on to the recent Comey and his memorandum story which has the potential to become a big story and is potentially scandalous. Time will tell. Neither Trump nor Comey are particularly blessed with credibility right now. One question, as many have already raised, is why didn’t Comey raise this issue when he previously testified before the senate, Why did he wait so long?

Yoda

05-18-17, 11:46 AM

Thanks for the kind words. Always happy to have civil discussions, even if they're disagreements, and you've certainly been very civil. Thank you for that. :) But I don't think we're actually at some kind of impasse here.

For example, I don't follow the syllogism which says "it's within his authority, therefore there is no story." Most stories are about things within the President's authority, and this is certainly true of unilaterally (McMaster implies it was basically off the cuff!) revealing classified information to any country, let alone one that attempted to interfere in the election. You can speculate about how this decision may have been a good one, but it's just as reasonable to speculate that it was a bad one, and those kinds of judgments are exactly what we use to evaluate our elected officials. Which makes it news.

And the key point here--which is why I've mentioned it a few times now--is the administration trying to deny the report. That's the giveaway. Why deny it if there's nothing wrong with it? People don't forcefully deny things they believe to be perfectly acceptable. So even if you think the President was not reckless (and why give him that benefit of the doubt, given his well-established track record of blurting things out?), we're still left with the fact that the administration will deny something out of pure reflex.

What, really, is there to untangle about the denial? McMaster said the report was false. It isn't. So either they're lying about that, or they're deliberately misleading people (read: lying) by denying something other than what they've been accused of.

Yoda

05-18-17, 11:48 AM

All that said, I agree that the Comey issue is more serious.

I suppose that might come down to he said/he said in a very technical sense, but it sounds like Comey actually sent a memo about this at the time, which is a pretty significant piece of evidence. Regardless, it sounds like an investigation is coming, so we'll know more soon.

Kaplan

05-18-17, 04:43 PM

Robert Mueller being hired as special counsel is great news and what I've been waiting for all along. He's a former F.B.I. director and he's got a great record.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html

Powdered Water

05-19-17, 01:16 PM

Why wasn't this guy hired before he became President? I love how Trump supporters won't even talk about the fact that he wasn't even fit to be President in the first place. Will anything come of this "special" investigation. Probably not. If the system still worked Trump would already be in jail. But we don't really like putting white folks in jail in America. I sure hope that changes someday.

So where's all the supporters telling me that a President in his first 6 months getting a special investigation against him is totally fine? Still think he's gonna make us great? Great at being a bunch of ****** people maybe. Not much else.

Powdered Water

05-19-17, 11:17 PM

Wow. 9 hours later and no Trump supporters in here telling me what a jerk I am for not waiting for all the facts? Where's the "**** black lives matter" guy? I need to be put back in my place. I'm actually getting my hopes up over here.

Omnizoa

05-22-17, 11:40 AM

Omnizoa

05-22-17, 11:48 AM

Why wasn't this guy hired before he became President? I love how Trump supporters won't even talk about the fact that he wasn't even fit to be President in the first place.
He wasn't. America has low standards.

Will anything come of this "special" investigation. Probably not. If the system still worked Trump would already be in jail.
If the system "worked" Hillary would be in office making things worse.

But we don't really like putting white folks in jail in America.
Unsubstantiated.

So where's all the supporters telling me that a President in his first 6 months getting a special investigation against him is totally fine?
It's not, it's a waste of tax dollars.

Still think he's gonna make us great? Great at being a bunch of ****** people maybe. Not much else.
Pleasant as always.

Omnizoa

05-22-17, 11:55 AM

Powdered Water

05-22-17, 02:58 PM

Your game is getting tired Omni. This is obviously more work than you anticipated.

Kaplan

05-22-17, 04:09 PM

Why.

Why what? Why is Trump intent on stifling the investigations into his own campaign's possible involvement in Russia's interference in our election? Hmm, I wonder ...

mark f

05-22-17, 04:19 PM

I think he meant why should anyone be outraged?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGf4EePPQ60

Omnizoa

05-23-17, 12:09 AM

Your game is getting tired Omni. This is obviously more work than you anticipated.
When someone makes an extraordinary claim, I expect evidence. I hold myself to the same standard and I'll expect no less of you.

https://twitter.com/Omnizoa/status/864190939065176064

Omnizoa

05-23-17, 12:23 AM

Why what? Why is Trump intent on stifling the investigations into his own campaign's possible involvement in Russia's interference in our election? Hmm, I wonder ...
What Mark said, why should I be outraged?

This claim is predicated on weight you give to this investigation. Why do you give weight to this investigation? You've just now suggested that there is reason to believe that Trump colluded with Russia to get elected, I would assume, by means of the DNC leak.

Why? Where is your evidence?

I think he meant why should anyone be outraged?
And, Mark, in response to your not-so-subtle implication, I strongly reject the repeated un-provoked attacks on Syria as well as the multi-billion dollar arms deal Trump just made with Saudi Arabia. I think these are horrifically terrible ideas with consequences well beyond the immediate scope of their involvement and I think this is once again exemplary of how and why our government is in such desperate need of reform.

...as if there were any shortage of examples.

Kaplan

05-23-17, 09:09 AM

This will be my only response to you, Omni, and just for fun, I'll make it in a style you like so well. Otherwise, I'm not going to be dragged down that rabbit whole of nonsense you seem to love so much.

What Mark said, why should I be outraged?

I knew what you were asking. I'm not dumb, but I saw no point in answering it because I made it clear in the post you quoted. Okay, I'll explain it again. Trump's campaign is being investigated. Can we agree on this fact? Trump has on several occasions tried to impede the investigation. We should be outraged when politicians try to interfere in investigations that they have personal involvement in. It's self-explanatory to me, and that's making no judgment about guilt or innocence. If you don't want to be outraged, then that's on you.

This claim is predicated on weight you give to this investigation.What claim did I make? I made no claim. None.

Why do you give weight to this investigation?There are several investigations. What reason do I have to doubt the validity or weight of these investigations? Especially since they're ongoing. I feel like this is your lightweight version of Gish Gallop nonsense.

You've just now suggested that there is reason to believe that Trump colluded with Russia to get elected,Is this the claim you think I made? Where did I make it? Where did I suggest there was reason to believe Trump colluded with Russia? My exact words were: "Why is Trump intent on stifling the investigations into his own campaign's possible involvement in Russia's interference in our election?" [Emphasis added.] That makes no claim of guilt or innocence. But why do you think this is something not worthy of being investigated? Have you already made up your mind and think there's no reason for an investigation? See, I do have an opinion (as you obviously have), and my opinion is based on hours spent reading about and listening to various sources spell out all the Russian connections and circumstantial evidence that very clearly shows the need for an investigation.

But it's just an opinion, and not a claim, and I've made no claims on this forum about Trump's role or the role of his campaign with regards to Russia's interference in our election. I want an investigation, an honest, unimpeded investigation. What is you want? And if you don't want an investigation, then you're obviously biased and not interested in what the facts are, and all your talk about truth and what have you is just that, talk.

I would assume, by means of the DNC leak.Which has been determined to have been done by Russia. That wasn't their only means of interference by the way. But you do realize that Russia has done this to other countries, most recently France, right? But the scope of this story and the overall context is much broader than just leaking hacked emails and documents. You seem to not understand the motives of Putin to stir up chaos in the West.

Why? Where is your evidence?Again: why what? And what evidence do I need when I've made no claim, other than there being a need for an investigation, which Trump has tried to impede? Why don't you want an investigation? Where is your evidence that Trump's campaign is totally clean? Have you conveniently ignored everything that's been going on? There appears to be criminal investigations going on with Flynn and Manafort...do you think those should be shut down too? How can you be so certain there doesn't need to be any investigations?

Omnizoa

05-23-17, 09:38 AM

@Omnizoa (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=89138): why break down paragraphs and dispute individual sentences when they all say the same thing
I've been repeating myself from the start.

and/or you just end up replying to them as a group later? What purpose does that serve, other than perhaps encouraging the other person to tap out and end the argument?
See now you're reading ulterior motives into me. The purpose of my format is very clear: to elaborate on individual points so there can be no confusion as to what I mean.

It doesn't make the argument stronger, or increase mutual understanding.
Well, that was literally the whole point. Responding in general text blocks tends to fail on a rather consistent basis.

This is a pretty weird thing to say after 1,000 words of parsing and arguments.
I could say the same thing now. Suddenly you want me to be less specific. How does that serve either of us?

Usually if someone wants to move past something, they present some summarized version of their position,
Do I really have to dreg up the numerous times I've tried to do that?

and the other person does the same. They generally don't atomize the whole thing even further (particularly with lots of flat contradiction and repetition)
I can't make it any simpler, Yoda, all I can do now is refer you back to the same arguments I've already made. I'm being short with you specifically because I've already taken the effort to be long with you. I've elaborated all of my points to death and your arguments don't sway me for reasons I've also elaborated on to death.

I will now elaborate the death to death for the death's death's time.

1) Your list of three things about the "context" that changes his meaning. The first seems to be based only on the fact that he later said "I wasn't saying that."
It's not. It's referring to other sentences immediately surrounding those you've taken issue with. The context here being the entirety of his original grievance.

I've said this already. Your argument is not compelling.

The second, "The situation in which they were said," which is just another way of saying "context," which makes it a tautology.It's not. It's referring to the physical scenario in which he was literally present in. The context is the real-world situation itself which prompted the above grievance.

I've said this already. Your argument is not compelling.

The third is just "sometimes people use these words badly, for emphasis," which is yet another version of "he didn't mean it,"
It does, because all words in the English language are subject to their standard usage. "Gay" means "joyful", but today it more frequently refers to "homosexual", this is relevant to any conflict in which we are judging the meaning of someone's use of the word "gay". The context here is the way in which "absolute" and "inherently" are commonly used.

I've said this already. Your argument is not compelling.

2) I really don't know what to say to the suggestion that there's a meaningful distinction between "literally spoke" and "literally said."
I've also explained this in painful detail. I will quote again:

Spoke: Used words.
Said: Used words to express intention.
Meant: Expressed intention.

"Literally" Said: Used exact words to express intention or used words to express exact intention.

If I agree that X "literally said" Y in reference to what was spoken, then I can inadvertently validate the claim that X "literally said" Y in reference to what was meant.You see this paragraph above? I will quote it again in larger text so it does not go unnoticed:

If I agree that X "literally said" Y in reference to what was spoken, then I can inadvertently validate the claim that X "literally said" Y in reference to what was meant.Now watch as this argument I pre-empted manifest in 3... 2... 1...

You're saying you'd have totally agreed with me if I'd just said "spoke" instead? :skeptical:
The smiley here implies your meaning hasn't changed while the wording has, suggesting you believe the distinction is semantic. This is exactly why I made the distinction. You're acting confused when there's absolutely nothing to be confused about.

If I say "YES", now, what are you gonna do? Go "okay, so we agree he said, er 'spoke', what I think he said, er 'spoke'"? No. I set a low bar of honesty here and you've just kicked it over.

It's a particularly bizarre thing to say after all these replies, when it could have been clarified at any point.
I clarified this! At the time!:

you said no, he didn't literally say it either.No, he DID literally say that.
No one here is disputing the fact that the words were spoken, what's been disputed since day ****in' one is what was meant. "Say" is a non-specific amalgamation of these two terms.

We both agree on what was spoken.
We don't agree on what was said.
Therefor we don't agree on what was meant.

The only apparent difference between our positions is the acknowledgment and inclusion of all 3 forms of context, which I've explained repeatedly, into our assessment of what was said.

To extend the metaphor:
You're reading "gay" as "joyful". Because dictionary.
I'm reading "gay" as "homosexual". Because of the sentences it was used in, because of the situation it was used in, and because of the standard it was used in.

Context. It's really very simple.

And remember, this all started because you said the claim was a "Lie."
I still claim it is a lie.

That is a stark claim, and a high bar to clear, and "I don't think he meant it" just doesn't get over it.
Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, the English language is not purely beholden to literalism.

If I say "Kill me now", you're not gonna look at that with a straight face and go "well, it's literally what they said..."

Are you really not allowed to approximate my meaning through context? It's a fundamental part of our language that meaning is partly derived through context, whether it be how it's said, where it's said, when's it said, or whatever face you happen to be making at the time.

Your argument only applies where there is not already substantial evidence to suggest that it could in fact mean what you are disputing.

There is. As I've explained. Re-pea-ted-ly.

Omnizoa

05-23-17, 09:40 AM

It strikes me as a form of the Gish Gallop method of debating.
It is for specificity's sake. No more. No less.

Omnizoa

05-23-17, 10:25 AM

Okay, I'll explain it again. Trump's campaign is being investigated. Can we agree on this fact?
Yes.

Trump has on several occasions tried to impede the investigation. We should be outraged when politicians try to interfere in investigations that they have personal involvement in.
Assuming the investigation is warranted.

What claim did I make? I made no claim. None.
You're implying the investigation is warranted. Or are you just fond of investigations in general?

There are several investigations. What reason do I have to doubt the validity or weight of these investigations?
The hypothesis upon which these investigations are rationalized.

Is this the claim you think I made? Where did I make it?
Either you automatically grant faith to any investigation, regardless of the cause, or you believe this particular one is warranted. Which is it?

But why do you think this is something not worthy of being investigated?
Because I've yet to see something which suggests it is.

Have you already made up your mind and think there's no reason for an investigation?
There is none until there is one. Provide me a reason.

See, I do have an opinion (as you obviously have), and my opinion is based on hours spent reading about and listening to various sources spell out all the Russian connections and circumstantial evidence that very clearly shows the need for an investigation.
That is the claim I am disputing.

But it's just an opinion, and not a claim,
You are claiming the investigation is warranted. It is a claim.

And if you don't want an investigation, then you're obviously biased
It's called parsimony. I would rather the government not waste peoples' money unless odds were to suggest that the probable benefits outweighed the probable costs.

Whatever you are taking to be compelling enough evidence for an investigation I either A.) haven't seen it, or B.) have seen it and deemed it to be inconsequential.

I welcome you to put up your most damning evidence of collusion so I can confirm for myself whether the concern is in fact warranted.

and not interested in what the facts are, and all your talk about truth and what have you is just that, talk.
Fair warning: circumstantial evidence and guilt-by-associations are not reason enough to condemn someone.

Which has been determined to have been done by Russia.
Show me evidence.

That wasn't their only means of interference by the way. But you do realize that Russia has done this to other countries, most recently France, right?
:) Evidence please.

what evidence do I need when I've made no claim,
All of your claims in chronological order:

"all the Russian connections and circumstantial evidence that very clearly shows the need for an investigation."

"[the DNC leak] has been determined to have been done by Russia."

"Russia has done this to other countries, most recently France,"

Why don't you want an investigation?
Why should I want one?

Where is your evidence that Trump's campaign is totally clean?
That would be proving a negative and I haven't made that claim.

Have you conveniently ignored everything that's been going on?
You're welcome to inform me of anything you think I'm unaware of.

There appears to be criminal investigations going on with Flynn and Manafort...do you think those should be shut down too?
Why are they being investigated?

How can you be so certain there doesn't need to be any investigations?
I'm not. I'm open to investigations if there is probable cause. Show me probable cause. How can you be so certain Russia's responsible for the DNC leak?

Yoda

05-23-17, 11:42 AM

See now you're reading ulterior motives into me. The purpose of my format is very clear: to elaborate on individual points so there can be no confusion as to what I mean.
Well, that was literally the whole point. Responding in general text blocks tends to fail on a rather consistent basis.
I could say the same thing now. Suddenly you want me to be less specific. How does that serve either of us?
I'm not really seeing how responding to four consecutive sentences the same way is being more "specific." Hell, even just quoting them together and replying at once would be better, and it wouldn't change a word of your response. I'm reading ulterior motives because many of these decisions have absolutely no discernible point other than throwing more text at the other person.

Case in point: would my position be any clearer to you if I'd said this same thing three times in response to each of the quotes above?

It's not. It's referring to other sentences immediately surrounding those you've taken issue with. The context here being the entirety of his original grievance.
What in those sentences changes the meaning? I see literally nothing. It hasn't been remotely explained, for example, how him thinking the judge has it in for him is in any way mutually exclusive with what I've said, even though you've tried to advance it as an explanation.

I've said this already. Your argument is not compelling.
Saying an argument is not compelling is, itself, not a compelling argument.

It's not. It's referring to the physical scenario in which he was literally present in. The context is the real-world situation itself which prompted the above grievance.
This is a meaningless distinction: "context" already encompasses the "real-world situation itself," and the mere fact that you're explaining it as context is conceding the point, because I asked you for examples of how context changes his meaning. So it's circular when one of your examples is to say "there is context."

It does, because all words in the English language are subject to their standard usage. "Gay" means "joyful", but today it more frequently refers to "homosexual", this is relevant to any conflict in which we are judging the meaning of someone's use of the word "gay". The context here is the way in which "absolute" and "inherently" are commonly used.
They are commonly used for emphasis for general things in casual settings. They are not commonly used, for benign reasons:

1) in regards to ethnicity.
2) in the midst of serious professional accusations.
3) in formal written statements.

So if you're so against literalism, and so in favor of context, that means considering the context of when this word is actually used that way. Because the scenarios in which it is are obviously nothing like this one, and simply pointing out that it can or has been used that way in completely different situations is a type of literalism, itself.

Also, this is still "he didn't mean it." I really can't figure out why you keep trotting out variations on "he didn't mean it" well after it's been established that we're not just talking about what he meant.

The smiley here implies your meaning hasn't changed while the wording has, suggesting you believe the distinction is semantic.
No, the smilie implies that I don't believe you'd have responded any differently if I'd used the word "spoke," and that I think this distinction is post hoc, for reasons elaborated on below.

If I say "YES", now, what are you gonna do?
If you were able to say yes, wouldn't you have done it rather than asking me what I'd do if you did?

I clarified this! At the time!:
you said no, he didn't literally say it either.No, he DID literally say that.
You also contradicted it at the time:

"What he literally said? No."

And at other times:

"But it's literally not what he said."

I'm pretty sure it's things like this--not an insufficiency of having paragraphs broken up into quotes--that's leading to confusion.

No one here is disputing the fact that the words were spoken, what's been disputed since day ****in' one is what was meant.
So then how do you explain trotting out the exact same arguments about meaning even after I made it clear I was asking only about what he said?

This is the circle we've gone in:

"He didn't mean it."
"Okay, but did he say it?"
"No."
"But here he is saying it."
"When I say 'said,' I mean 'mean.'"

Making a distinction between spoke and say is objectionable for a few reasons, but even if I accept it, it's a totally nonsensical response in the context of making a distinction between his spoken words and his meaning. If I'm making that distinction--and it was perfectly clear that I was, and you appeared to understand it--why on earth would you take the new word ("said") to be a synonym of the old one ("meant")? If they meant the same thing, there'd be no reason to make the distinction in the first place!

I still claim it is a lie.
Your claim is not compelling.

Really, dude, we should be able to agree that anything which requires parsing "spoke" and "said" is obviously not clear cut enough to be called a "lie."

Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, the English language is not purely beholden to literalism.
Since this isn't my position, and I haven't argued for it, it's not unfortunate for me at all.

Omnizoa

05-23-17, 01:35 PM

What in those sentences changes the meaning? I see literally nothing.
That's peculiar, because I see:

I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,It hasn't been remotely explained, for example, how him thinking the judge has it in for him is in any way mutually exclusive with what I've said, even though you've tried to advance it as an explanation.
*sigh* I don't even know what you expect by this point. You wanna somehow wring bigotry from a conflict of interest? Because "race" was involved? I've gone over this. You say I "tried" to explain otherwise. In no way do I believe you've refuted that. I don't know how you can honestly look at the above quote and not immediately understand exactly what is being conveyed. Especially after he's elucidated on it.

Saying an argument is not compelling is, itself, not a compelling argument.
Well, by all means then, ignore everything I prefaced this with.

This is a meaningless distinction: "context" already encompasses the "real-world situation itself,"
Not if I distinguish different forms of context.

They are commonly used for emphasis for general things in casual settings. They are not commonly used, for benign reasons:
Now you're assuming what Trump means. Again, what makes you think Trump, of all people, is that articulate and choosy about his words? I've made this argument already. It's nothing but dishonest to take a guy you know can't articulate himself well and then credit him with as much self-awareness as it takes to infer malicious intent from him.

You rebounded last time with the assertion that someone in his position ought to be that clear, but you and I both know that there are many things Trump ought to be, but is not.

So if you're so against literalism,
It's not a matter of being against literalism, there are more and less plausible interpretations of any text or speech. It depends on the speaker, what is being spoken, where it is being spoken, and when it is being spoken.

In some cases the literal interpretation is all you need, there's not much reason, for example, to expect a great deal of nuance when it comes to the instruction manual for installing your air conditioner.

However when it comes to Monty Python, you better adjust your expectations.

Also, this is still "he didn't mean it."
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/picard_facepalm.jpg

"IT" here being what you think it is, not what the evidence suggests it is.

I really can't figure out why you keep trotting out variations on "he didn't mean it" well after it's been established that we're not just talking about what he meant.
*slams desk* WHAT are we even talking about then?

If you were able to say yes, wouldn't you have done it rather than asking me what I'd do if you did?
NO, because it's a leading question. It's already been established what words he's used, it was inarguable from the outset, I've never disputed it, so what purpose does it serve to ask me this if not to conflate it with meaning?

I cannot imagine any train of thought that would arrive at that question that wasn't a rhetorical gambit to get me to agree, in some sense, to your version of events.

Literally what else could be the point? Why would you ask me to reiterate the only facts I must necessarily accept to be true to even have this argument?

You also contradicted it at the time:

"What he literally said? No."
This is not a contradiction, this has been my position from the very beginning of the argument.

And at other times:

"But it's literally not what he said."
This doesn't contradict anything I've said either, I said this in direct response to the statement:

"being Mexican renders the judge incapable of impartiality, that's what he literally said."

That is false. This never happened. He never spoke those words, and we've established that you don't even care what he means.

So then how do you explain trotting out the exact same arguments about meaning even after I made it clear I was asking only about what he said?
BECAUSE:

Said: Used words to express intention.Ergo meaning.

"He didn't mean it."
"Okay, but did he say it?"
"No."
"But here he is saying it."
"Here he is 'speaking' it."

He's uttered those words. This indisputable. I've never disputed this.

He SAID the words "inherent" and "absolute".

You're asking whether I acknowledge this. OF COURSE I acknowledge it, there would be no argument if I did not acknowledge it.

What's malicious is taking that acknowledgment of an obvious statement of fact, and substituting what we both agree was spoken, with what only you think was said: "being Mexican renders the judge incapable of impartiality".

He did not say that. I completely disagree with that interpretation for reasons I've probably repeated a dozen times now.

Making a distinction between spoke and say is objectionable for a few reasons, but even if I accept it, it's a totally nonsensical response in the context of making a distinction between his spoken words and his meaning. If I'm making that distinction--and it was perfectly clear that I was, and you appeared to understand it--why on earth would you take the new word ("said") to be a synonym of the old one ("meant")? If they meant the same thing, there'd be no reason to make the distinction in the first place!
I don't even know what you're talking about now. "Said" refers to both speech and meaning. I've explained this. You're the one who's using it non-specifically forcing me to clarify.

Your claim is not compelling.
Neither is yours. Whatever it is. I don't even know anymore, you tell me you don't care what he means, which, why even have the argument anymore then? Like, you act like I'm somehow, inexplicably, in denial over the fact that he used the very words I'm arguing over! That doesn't make any sense!

That's like arguing whether Santa Claus exists and then halfway through the debate I'm like "WHAT'S SANTA GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING?"

Really, dude, we should be able to agree that anything which requires parsing "spoke" and "said" is obviously not clear cut enough to be called a "lie."
It really didn't require that. The entire fricken' argument revolves around reading meaning into what is obviously not intended.

If I said "I love kids" on the news and the news outlet prints an article going "OMG PEDOPHILE COMES CLEAN ON NATIONAL TELEVISION" that's pretty fricken' dishonest, and I have no qualms calling it a lie.

Powdered Water

05-23-17, 02:01 PM

Any truth to the rumor that Trump can't tell the difference between Hamas and Hummus?

mark f

05-23-17, 03:13 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUTXb-ga1fo

Yoda

05-23-17, 05:49 PM

That's peculiar, because I see:

I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest
How does "I'm building a wall" in any way tell you that "absolute" and "inherent" shouldn't be taken at face value?

*sigh* I don't even know what you expect by this point. You wanna somehow wring bigotry from a conflict of interest?
No, it's from the part where the conflict of interest is that he's a Mexican.

Because "race" was involved? I've gone over this. You say I "tried" to explain otherwise. In no way do I believe you've refuted that. I don't know how you can honestly look at the above quote and not immediately understand exactly what is being conveyed.
Well, for starters, you've excised the parts where he mentions the judge's race. Kinda galling that you'd talk this much about context and then exclude the bit the entire disagreement has been about, and then rhetorically wonder how anyone can look at the "above quote" and come to a different conclusion.

Also, race was not "involved." He specifically mentioned the judge's race as being the reason for the conflict of interest. Multiple times.

Now you're assuming what Trump means.
Nope, I'm simply applying context. It works both ways: if it's reasonable to look at how these words are sometimes used by others, you have to also look at the circumstances under which they're used that way. And while people use lots of literally incorrect words for emphasis, they don't usually do so when talking about people's race, questioning their professional conduct, or in semi-formal, written communication, let alone reiterate it later under questioning. This is not something he blurted out and then walked back or qualified, it's something he put out in writing, used more than one adjective for, and then doubled down on again later.

It's not a matter of being against literalism, there are more and less plausible interpretations of any text or speech. It depends on the speaker, what is being spoken, where it is being spoken, and when it is being spoken.
Agreed. And the context of a press release and subsequent defense from someone who's been a public figure their entire adult life should not be compared to the tweets of two random people.

This doesn't contradict anything I've said either, I said this in direct response to the statement:

"being Mexican renders the judge incapable of impartiality, that's what he literally said."

That is false. This never happened. He never spoke those words
Yeah, we did this part already (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1689976#post1689976): I pointed out that you can literally say something through logical inevitability, and you (seemingly) agreed.

and we've established that you don't even care what he means.
This isn't true; half the arguments I'm making are still about what he means. And I also think that his intellectual and verbal habits are such that saying he doesn't "mean" a thing isn't saying much, anyway. At minimum, you're left with someone who's willing to make unfounded assumptions about other people based on their race if he thinks it benefits him. I don't know exactly how I'd draw the line between being racist and exploiting race for personal gain, but I know it'd be really, really thin.

It really didn't require that.
It requires that you claim that when he said absolute, he just meant a lot, and when he said inherent, he just meant a lot AGAIN. And moreover, that this interpretation is not just the most likely, but so obviously true that anyone who thinks otherwise is essentially lying. I'm not sure you appreciate just how incredible this position is.

The entire fricken' argument revolves around reading meaning into what is obviously not intended.
Let's try this: if someone isn't a racist, but uses the n-word...did they make a racist statement?

Yoda

05-24-17, 11:54 AM

Another day, another campaign promise broken, like most of us predicted:

http://i.imgur.com/cv7LVV1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2LTLE0n.jpg

Powdered Water

05-24-17, 05:20 PM

Fake news.

mark f

05-24-17, 05:23 PM

Fake President - he's "legitimate" but everything he does seems fake.

matt72582

05-24-17, 05:48 PM

Another day, another campaign promise broken, like most of us predicted:

Another GREAT day, just as President Trump promised :D

Powdered Water

05-24-17, 05:57 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6OVwwS5vBo

Is any of this real? Are Presidents supposed to be this way?

Kaplan

05-24-17, 07:52 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6OVwwS5vBo

Is any of this real? Are Presidents supposed to be this way?

Yes, it's all real. And it's not everything. There are also numerous strange connections linking Trump to Russian bankers and other strange financial dealings and other attempts Trump made to shut down investigations into Flynn and a recent Reuters report (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106) about 18 additional contacts the campaign had with Russians, including one involving a very good friend of Putin's who is also Putin's personal "fixer." And as is pointed out, that's just what we the public knows about. But sure, we don't need no stinking investigations.... :rolleyes:

Omnizoa

05-25-17, 09:07 AM

How does "I'm building a wall" in any way tell you that "absolute" and "inherent" shouldn't be taken at face value?
Dude.

No, it's from the part where the conflict of interest is that he's a Mexican.
Dude.

Well, for starters, you've excised the parts where he mentions the judge's race.
DUDE! I refuse to ****in' accept you genuinely believe these are reasonable arguments. You are way too smart to be pulling this ****.

I'm fricken' done. Holy hell, man. I'm not gonna do a debate of attrition with you. This is absurd. Especially that second one, holy ****.

Let's try this: if someone isn't a racist, but uses the n-word...did they make a racist statement?
NO.

Omnizoa

05-25-17, 09:09 AM

Fake news.
You cite the Huffington Post for sources, you're in no position to judge.

Yoda

05-25-17, 11:18 AM

Dude.
Yes, dude? How does him saying he's "building a wall" indicate--let alone definitively--that those other words should not be taken at face value?

The fact that he thinks the judge has a conflict of interest has no logical relationship whatsoever to how euphemistically he's describing that conflict.

DUDE! I refuse to ****in' accept you genuinely believe these are reasonable arguments. You are way too smart to be pulling this ****.
It's similarly hard for me to accept that you really believe "absolute" obviously just means "really" and "inherent" obviously just means "really AGAIN." You're dealing in possibilities, not plausibilities (let alone probabilities), and somehow insisting they're akin to certainties.

I'm fricken' done. Holy hell, man. I'm not gonna do a debate of attrition with you. This is absurd.
It's absurd to call something a "lie" based on assuming two words are not meant at face value. Especially in a written statement.

-

And you know what? The statement is racist even if I accept your interpretation of those words. Because even if you don't think he was saying the judge's race automatically influenced him, we're still left with him assuming his race was responsible for his ruling, and in fact had caused him to violate the oath of his life's work. based on no more evidence than "he didn't agree with me." He reduced a serious person to their ethnicity without cause. That's freaking terrible.

Yoda

05-25-17, 11:27 AM

You cite the Huffington Post for sources, you're in no position to judge.
You know full well this is an ad hominem argument. Everyone is qualified to point out and judge falsehoods or contradictions regardless of anything they've said or cited before.

ash_is_the_gal

05-25-17, 01:15 PM

30816

also, the pope gave Trump a 38,000 word essay on climate change, and lol @ this (https://mobile.twitter.com/casatino/status/867359112211943424)

Powdered Water

05-25-17, 01:31 PM

You cite the Huffington Post for sources, you're in no position to judge.

And you are? Whats your street cred homie? Why do you seem to be the only one here that knows whats true and whats right? Are you a divine being?

I notice you said you broke your hand earlier. How's your Trumpcare treating ya?

Dani8

05-25-17, 01:36 PM

[, and lol @ this (https://mobile.twitter.com/casatino/status/867359112211943424)

Tearies running down my face. That needs a warning, ash!

Equilibrium

05-25-17, 01:57 PM

30816

also, the pope gave Trump a 38,000 word essay on climate change, and lol @ this (https://mobile.twitter.com/casatino/status/867359112211943424)

Haha that Twitter pic...priceless

Dani8

05-25-17, 03:09 PM

30816

also, the pope gave Trump a 38,000 word essay on climate change, and lol @ this (https://mobile.twitter.com/casatino/status/867359112211943424)

Ash, I return the favour, my friend.

https://www.facebook.com/ohgreatmorepolitics/videos/1424702250923866/

Omnizoa

05-25-17, 11:46 PM

How does him saying he's "building a wall" indicate
I've explained this.

The fact that he thinks the judge has a conflict of interest has no logical relationship whatsoever to how euphemistically
Context isn't a euphemism.
It's ABOUT his policy, not ABOUT his heritage. It literally could not be made any more obvious than if he just said "I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest."

The conflict of interest is inherent... to the wall.

He didn't say "The judge is Mexican. It's an inherent conflict of interest."

The difference matters because it emphasizes the specific CAUSE of the conflict of interest! Which he drilled into the ****ing dirt on repeated interview! You can't deny this with being A.) ignorant of how the English language works, or B.) dishonest. I cannot think of an alternative.

It's similarly hard for me to accept that you really believe "absolute" obviously just means "really" and "inherent" obviously just means "really AGAIN."
I utterly fail to see why.

You're dealing in possibilities,
Probabilities.

not plausibilities (let alone probabilities),
Probability is contingent upon plausibility is contingent upon possibility. The more or less plausible an interpretation is, the more or less probable it happens to be the intent.

If I say "It looks like it's gonna rain soon.", and you take that to be a shrewd criticism of store-brand toothpaste, those are bad odds you are rolling with.

even if you don't think he was saying the judge's race automatically influenced him,we're still left with him assuming his race was responsible for his ruling,
Same argument.

Omnizoa

05-25-17, 11:49 PM

You know full well this is an ad hominem argument. Everyone is qualified to point out and judge falsehoods or contradictions regardless of anything they've said or cited before.
Well, given the lack of evidence in support of their claim, I am left to gauge historical reliability. I find it wanting.

Omnizoa

05-25-17, 11:52 PM

Why do you seem to be the only one here that knows whats true and whats right?
*makes claim*
*has claim tediously deconstructed piece by piece*
"Oh, a wise guy, huh?"

Powdered Water

05-26-17, 01:18 AM

*has claim tediously deconstructed piece by piece*

Actua laugh. :laugh:

Is that what happened? And here I thought you were just ignoring a lot of well laid out evidence and behavior over a several decade time span. Damn. I've been wrong this whole time. Thanks for setting me straight. Maybe he's a good guy after all. What are we even doing here?

Oh wait... give it a second or two. The guy's gonna tweet out another stupid thing to take focus off the last stupid thing he tweeted out. But that's cool right? You're not really a Trump guy. You're just trying to make sure we get our facts straight, right?

Yoda

05-26-17, 10:28 AM

It's ABOUT his policy, not ABOUT his heritage. It literally could not be made any more obvious than if he just said "I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest."

The conflict of interest is inherent... to the wall.

He didn't say "The judge is Mexican. It's an inherent conflict of interest."

The difference matters because it emphasizes the specific CAUSE of the conflict of interest! Which he drilled into the ****ing dirt on repeated interview! You can't deny this with being A.) ignorant of how the English language works, or B.) dishonest. I cannot think of an alternative.
I can: you seem to misunderstand what it means to say someone has a "conflict of interest."

There is no distinction between "the conflict of interest" and "the judge is Mexican" because the conflict of interest is that he's Mexican. It wouldn't be "inherent...to the wall" if the wall were someplace else, or the judge were from someplace else. These details are not incidental, they're part of the same logical syllogism:

I'm building a wall between Mexico + the judge is Mexican = the judge has a conflict of interest.

There's no such thing as a free-floating, non-specific "conflict of interest" that just is. There must always be an explanation about what the conflict is, and why it exists.

sean pointed this out earlier (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1691821#post1691821), and didn't really receive a response.

ash_is_the_gal

05-26-17, 12:01 PM

Big-time backlash: When all polling on Donald Trump is dismissed as fake (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/26/big-time-backlash-when-all-polling-on-donald-trump-is-dismissed-as-fake.html)

Camo

05-26-17, 12:10 PM

Wait, are those actually real tweets posted by real live human people?

“The way Fox is headed. This poll is wrong. I talk to people from all over the US everyday. Trump is still tops. No one unhappy. All cool.”

Oh my god. :laugh:

ashdoc

06-13-17, 11:32 PM

India's open defecation free village to be named after trump:D

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/haryanas-open-defecation-free-village-to-be-named-after-trump/articleshow/59136258.cms

ashdoc

06-15-17, 05:20 AM

https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.news18.com/amp/news/politics/hindu-sena-throws-a-party-to-celebrate-donald-trumps-71st-birthday-1432519.html

Hindu sena celebrates Trump's birthday in India again , calling him saviour of the world from radical Islam.

Omnizoa

06-24-17, 11:32 PM

Hullo.

Actua laugh. :laugh:

Is that what happened? And here I thought you were just ignoring a lot of well laid out evidence
At least I get laughs.

I'm building a wall between Mexico + the judge is Mexican = the judge has a conflict of interest.

There's no such thing as a free-floating, non-specific "conflict of interest" that just is. There must always be an explanation about what the conflict is, and why it exists.
I did that for a month with a fine-toothed comb, but as you say, you can't see the distinction.

I think the debate was over the moment you said it doesn't matter what his intent was, it's so dead in fact, that not even a bolt of lightning like "if someone isn't a racist, but uses the n-word...did they make a racist statement?" could bring the corpse back to life. No, Yoda, saying the word "******" does not make a racist statement, because discrimination depends on intent and intent is inferable through context.

I'd said it from the beginning, nothing here has convinced me otherwise:
1.) Intent matters more than words.
2.) Language almost universally depends on context.
3.) A proposed conflict of interest is a statement of fact, not an expression of bigotry.

I made this point repeatedly and you never accepted it: You can switch out any of the two requisite variables for a proposed conflict of interest, and in a different random given situation you would not assume that the proposed conflict of interest necessitated bigotry or discrimination against one or both of the random nouns. Be it chairs, lollipops, or lobbyists. This is inconsistent and suggests a harsh bias against charitable representations of Trump.

Dude. You don't need to try that hard. You can come up with plenty damning reasons to dislike him without throwing the integrity of language under the bus to nail him over a poorly thought out passing comment (unprovoked acts of war, perhaps?).

This is story is friggen' old now and it's just one of countless bodies the mainstream media continues to desperately hurl under it's own wheels to slow it's terminal velocity charge off the cliff of relevancy.

We're talkin' about solar panels on the border wall now. That's interesting, I thought defunding the crap-tastic EPA meant Trump hated the planet?

I found this entire argument remarkably tedious and depressing which is why I haven't been on in a month. Also my hand has finally healed to a degree where I can type properly again.

Just wanted to say that.

Powdered Water

06-25-17, 05:57 AM

Oh goody. Its the smart guy that likes to talk down to people. But then you say stuff like: "We're talkin' about solar panels on the border wall now. That's interesting, I thought defunding the crap-tastic EPA meant Trump hated the planet?" :laugh: That's right... you're getting more laughs.

I liked you better when you were talkin about **** black lives matter. At least you weren't hiding behind a bunch of BS when you let that good pride filled hate spill out of ya.

Iroquois

06-25-17, 07:25 AM

It was interesting to see this thread effectively stay dormant over the past four weeks or so. I guess the constant stream of can-you-believe-what-he-did-now events got too repetitive even for the diehards on either side to keep posting about.

Yoda

06-25-17, 11:33 AM

A proposed conflict of interest is a statement of fact, not an expression of bigotry.
These are not mutually exclusive. At all.

I made this point repeatedly and you never accepted it: You can switch out any of the two requisite variables for a proposed conflict of interest and in a different random given situation you would not assume that the proposed conflict of interest necessitated bigotry or discrimination against one or both of the random nouns. Be it chairs, lollipops, or lobbyists.
You can't switch them out or the syllogism breaks down:

I'm building a wall between Mexico + the judge likes lollipops = the judge has a conflict of interest.
A conflict of interest is not an amorphous accusation you can pour whatever into. It is a series of related claims (with built-in assumptions) that draws a logical inference from them. It is [FACT ABOUT PERSON] + [FACT ABOUT SITUATION] = conflict. You're on the Board of a company, that company is making a decision about your wife = conflict. You coach the football team, your son is on the team fighting for a starting position = conflict. If you made it: You coach the football team, and this company is making a decision about your wife...no conflict of interest is established.

Trump's accusation doesn't make sense if the wall is being built somewhere else, or if the judge is from somewhere else. It is only these things together that creates the supposed "conflict of interest," and that charge is based on the assumption that the judge's ethnicity has stopped him from being impartial. So, as I said: the conflict of interest is in the mere fact that he's Mexican.

and in a different random given situation you would not assume that the proposed conflict of interest necessitated bigotry
Yes, if he said something different, I would have a different opinion about it. How about that.

I found this entire argument remarkably tedious and depressing which is why I haven't been on in a month. Also my hand has finally healed to a degree where I can type properly again.
Glad your hand's doing better. Can't even fathom what that would be like in my position; I hurt it badly enough that it was difficult to type for maybe a day, and it was terrifying.

ash_is_the_gal

06-26-17, 10:44 AM

I found this entire argument remarkably tedious and depressing which is why I haven't been on in a month.really? wouldn't it just have been easier to avoid the thread, or basically just respond and say you didn't feel like continuing cause you found it pointless/tedious/whatever? seems weird to talk about how tedious it's been after writing such a long ass response...

my god if i left the forum every time i got into a debate i didn't want to finish i'd never be here.

ashdoc

06-26-17, 02:31 PM

Indian prime minister Narendra Modi to meet President Trump today---

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/from-one-on-one-with-trump-to-working-dinner-top-10-things-to-know-about-pm-modis-schedule-today-in-washington/articleshow/59324667.cms

ashdoc

06-27-17, 01:04 AM

Modi meets Trump -

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/all-is-well-trump-modi-skirt-trade-wrinkles-to-enhance-geo-strategic-ties/articleshow/59330929.cms

Dani8

06-27-17, 07:10 PM

Times like this I want to be on twitter.

http://www.distractify.com/politics/2017/06/24/Z7fEMu/trump-just-bragged-about-hi?utm_content=inf_11_53_2&tse_id=INF_adb174805b0d11e790011d41b85aaeb5

Powdered Water

06-27-17, 11:04 PM

How cool is it that you can go on twitter and call the President of the United States... f*ck face. Truly, we are a great nation after all.

Dani8

06-27-17, 11:27 PM

How cool is it that you can go on twitter and call the President of the United States... f*ck face. Truly, we are a great nation after all.

I certainly Lol'd at that.

matt72582

06-29-17, 05:38 PM

So much fuss over a tweet... and the response is silly, too. They're playing Trump's game. The media controls what the put out, and they can choose to ignore the trivial and the gossip, but they won't because they are just as corrupt.

d_chatterley

06-30-17, 01:14 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNWLwHExP5U

http://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5723821ec53fec9b76cb4c6a/master/w_690,c_limit/HARRY-BOOM.gif

PAN

06-30-17, 11:06 AM

The man is constantly attacked by said personalities and they expect no counter by the man who invented awesome come back attacks in politics :rolleyes:

ash_is_the_gal

06-30-17, 11:22 AM

The man is constantly attacked by said personalities and they expect no counter by the man who invented awesome come back attacks in politics :rolleyes:

32068

Yoda

06-30-17, 11:24 AM

Trump's comebacks are "awesome" if you already completely agree with him, but to anyone not chugging the Kool Aid it's grade school equivalent taunting.

Anyway, a lot of the attacks you mention are not unprompted, but are a direct response to things he says or does, most of which are wildly out of proportion (or, often, totally unrelated) to what he's responding to.

But--and this is key--you don't have to pick sides. You're allowed to think the media hurls a lot of stupid stuff at him and that his responses to it are horrendously juvenile. Because both are true.

ash_is_the_gal

06-30-17, 11:34 AM

even if you agree with him, his comebacks are not awesome. short version, he a whiney lil bitch, and he looks silly the way he responds to all of this criticism. people act like Trump is treated so much worse, as if Obama, Bush, Clinton, and others weren't criticized - uh, no, they were a crapload, esp Obama. they just didn't use their platform to cry about it every other day of their presidency. they went on. you know - what adults do.

Dani8

06-30-17, 03:43 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNWLwHExP5U

http://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5723821ec53fec9b76cb4c6a/master/w_690,c_limit/HARRY-BOOM.gif

That was gold. He really is so embarrassing.

Omnizoa

07-02-17, 11:21 AM

Omnizoa

07-02-17, 11:35 AM

You can't switch them out or the syllogism breaks down:
I'm building a wall between Mexico + the judge likes lollipops = the judge has a conflict of interest.

I don't know what to tell you, Yoda. That's not a fair representation of my argument. I feel like this is brutally BRUTALLY obvious, but then I've thought that from square one and we've been going at it for months. Our other debates, however unresolved they may still be, I feel have gone much much better than this. I said it a few times, but I'm serious now, I really don't want to continue this conversation. It's an old debate regarding an even older topic. It could scarcely be called relevant anymore.

https://i.giphy.com/lqcSPTw3DuwRa.gif

Glad your hand's doing better. Can't even fathom what that would be like in my position; I hurt it badly enough that it was difficult to type for maybe a day, and it was terrifying.
Thanks, it doesn't look like I'll be getting full functionality back, but it isn't really impeding my day to day activities anymore.

Omnizoa

07-02-17, 11:45 AM

Seems we got Rand Paul on the healthcare issue. Sounds like good news to me.

Dear Leader McConnell, As you work with the committees of jurisdiction and Republican Senators to improve and revise the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017, I would like to provide you with some policy priorities that I feel would improve the health care system and insurance markets.
1. Association Health Plans – While I appreciate the inclusion of Small Business Health Plans in the BCRA, I believe improvements could be made to expand upon this provision to allow for greater freedom for individuals and small businesses to pool together for the purpose of obtaining health insurance coverage.
a. The bill currently allows for self-employed individuals to participate in small business health plans. However, I would suggest that the language be changed to allow any individual, including self-employed individuals, to form associations for the purpose of purchasing group health insurance.
b. Furthermore, I would suggest that small business plans or association health plans be allowed to self-insure like other large employer groups are able to do under ERISA. Self-insurance provides significant flexibilities to create innovative plan designs free from many mandates.
c. Finally, I believe we have an opportunity to completely free the group market from unnecessary ACA regulations, and restore HIPAA and ERISA regulation over the entire group market, including for association health plans.

2. Insurance Company Bailouts – For years, conservatives have been concerned with Obamacare’s bailout of the insurance companies through various programs designed to backfill losses the insurers take in the Obamacare exchanges, while they make huge profits in the group markets. In fact, insurance company profits were $8 billion per year in 2008, and have risen to $15 billion in 2015. The BCRA’s payment of Obamacare’s cost-sharing reductions, as well as its stability funds, would provide another $136 billion in funding to pay insurance companies to participate in these markets. I urge you to reconsider this insurance company bailout.

3. Premium Tax Credits – In 2015, Senate Republicans voted to eliminate the Obamacare premium tax credits. Now, the BCRA simply proposes to modify and extend them to new populations. I urge you to reconsider the advanced, refundable nature of this entitlement.

4. Continuous Coverage Requirement – The continuous coverage requirement of the BCRA, which imposes a mandatory 6 month waiting period for individuals with a lapse of 63 days or more in coverage, simply appears to be a Republican version of the individual mandate. This continues the top-down approach that has led to increased premiums and has not changed behavior of the young and healthy who are priced out of the market, and those who game the system to purchase insurance after they become sick. I urge you to remove the mandate and simply allow insurance companies to impose a waiting period.

I hope that this outline aids your understanding of my current position on the Senate health reform bill, and changes that might be made to the language to make good on Republicans’ promise to stop Obamacare and provide true health reform.https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/dr-rand-paul-outlines-proposals-for-revising-senate-health-care-bill-

Omnizoa

07-05-17, 06:43 PM

"all the Russian connections and circumstantial evidence that very clearly shows the need for an investigation."

"[the DNC leak] has been determined to have been done by Russia."

"Russia has done this to other countries, most recently France,"

Is, was, and always has been #FakeNews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5AKjNjFEQA

Dani8

07-06-17, 06:34 PM

Well done

http://www.inquisitr.com/4349970/trumps-handshake-ignored-or-unseen-by-first-lady-agata-kornhauser-duda-who-shook-melanias-hand-video/?utm_content=inf_11_3140_2&source=se&utm_source=se&utm_campaign=se&utm_medium=fb&tse_id=INF_e09c0ec0627c11e790011d41b85aaeb5

I wouldnt touch those tiny hands either. No idea where they've been.

gandalf26

07-07-17, 07:15 PM

Yoda

07-07-17, 07:27 PM

They didn't, and I think people who put that in headlines are being wildly irresponsible. It makes it sound like they rigged voting machines or something.

What they did do, it seems, was hack the DNC's emails and release them. That's obviously an attempt to influence the election, and it's obviously bad and should not be tolerated.

gandalf26

07-07-17, 07:37 PM

Fair play I guess seeing how the US, according to Snowden, is hacking everything and everyone even close allies, and it's an open secret that Western intelligence agencies have been interfering in countless foreign elections for decades.

So if Putin ordered this to in some small way to help Trump/hurt Hillary then it's a very small taste of your own medicine USA.

Yoda

07-07-17, 07:52 PM

I think there's a clear difference between interfering in a free, democratic election and interfering to bring that kind of election about, or oust a dictator, or what have you, even granting how ill-advised those things can be. And while I'm willing to assume allies hack each other simply to know things, releasing that information strategically to influence an election is at another level.

Anyway, it obviously wasn't done out of some sense of geopolitical justice.

gandalf26

07-07-17, 08:39 PM

Snowden accuses the US of having secretly inserted a hack into the Japanese power grid that could effectively shut down Japan in the event I'm assuming of Japan becoming an enemy, if true this sort of shenanigan goes way beyond sneaky information gathering of friends.

Election interference by intelligence agencies goes way past bringing down Dictators I would suggest, probably putting INTO power brutal dictators that can back western interests as opposed to "good" leaders who might favour other world powers, and it can all be kept secret under the official secrets act.

Yoda

07-07-17, 08:42 PM

"If true" being the key phrase. In order to be comparable, the actions have to be similar, and meet a similar evidentiary standard. In this case, one thing is a fairly well-established fact, and the other is a mere accusation.

gandalf26

07-07-17, 08:49 PM

Well Im assuming that the fact that a hack took place is confirmed but is it a fact that Russia is actually guilty? Has this been proven?

The evidence that the US has installed some kind of hidden trojan horse in all sorts of systems actually comes from a whistle-blower, former NSA man Edward Snowden. I would say it's probable that other whistle-blower s of this kind will also come forward.

Yoda

07-07-17, 09:03 PM

Well Im assuming that the fact that a hack took place is confirmed but is it a fact that Russia is actually guilty? Has this been proven?
The FBI, CIA, NSA, and Office of the Director or National Intelligence all came to the same conclusion, so effectively, yes.

The evidence that the US has installed some kind of hidden trojan horse in all sorts of systems actually comes from a whistle-blower, former NSA man Edward Snowden. I would say it's probable that other whistle-blower s of this kind will also come forward.
Yeah, Snowden needs no introduction, he's effectively world-famous, though I would like a source on this specific claim (things like this have a way of being slightly changed in the retelling).

For the record, I completely believe some of the things Snowden says, but I'm less sure of others. Obviously, if more people come forward to say the same thing, that would constitute stronger evidence, but unless/until that happens, I'd say they're in different evidentiary stratospheres.

Captain Steel

07-07-17, 10:39 PM

Where's Nostro?

Swan

07-07-17, 11:01 PM

I found the single best Instagram profile yesterday. (https://www.instagram.com/trumpincinema/)

Kaplan

07-08-17, 05:36 PM

Is, was, and always has been #FakeNews.

Just saying something is fake doesn't make it so. But thanks for proving once again you're as bad as the worst Trump supporters who think reality is whatever they say it is.

Kaplan

07-08-17, 05:51 PM

Can someone explain to me the specifics of how the Russians supposedly hacked the election?

That is quite a vague statement in itself.

Are we talking hacking of electoral machines? Hacking of the media to influence voting? Hacking of people's thoughts? Hacking of the Trump campaign itself, and if so how?

Genuine question, I just don't get what is supposed to have occurred.

Actually we now know Russia did try to hack voting systems in a multitude of states. The main thing they did beyond hacking the DNC and strategically releasing the information was use fake news sites and an army of bots to both push fake news and drown out all positive discussions of Hillary.

Mesmerized

07-08-17, 06:14 PM

Actually we now know Russia did try to hack voting systems in a multitude of states. The main thing they did beyond hacking the DNC and strategically releasing the information was use fake news sites and an army of bots to both push fake news and drown out all positive discussions of Hillary.

We don't actually know anything since it's primarily the pinhead liberals who run mainstream Media; and the only positive discussion about Hillary would center around her being incarcerated.

Yoda

07-08-17, 06:46 PM

Do liberals run the NSA, CIA, and FBI, too?

And whether or not you find anything about Hillary positive is irrelevant to the point, because you were never going to vote for her. It could certainly make a difference to anyone more torn or unenthused about it, however. And obviously the people leaking it agree, or they wouldn't have bothered to do it.

Shaharyaar

07-20-17, 02:46 AM

Holy crap, who has time for all this scrutiny? I see a practical guy on the go.:rolleyes:

Donald Trump Uses Scotch Tape to Hold His Tie Together

https://i1.wp.com/peopledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/donald-trump1.jpg

Hahahahahaha

Stirchley

07-21-17, 02:59 PM

This photo is priceless. Probably holds up his underwear with safety pins.

gandalf26

07-26-17, 12:33 PM

My boy Trump bans Transgenderers from USA #1 Military!

Finally someone taking a stand against gender nonsense!

Camo

07-26-17, 01:13 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742771576039460864

lol

mark f

07-26-17, 02:32 PM

My boy Drumpf bans Transgenderers from USA #1 Military!

Finally someone taking a stand against gender nonsense!

It makes perfect sense that Trump would be the Joker's boy.

ash_is_the_gal

07-26-17, 03:18 PM

Trump excluding people from the military is like Satan excluding people from hell. a blessing in disguise. nobody wants to join your murderous clique anyway. go f**k yourself

Camo

07-26-17, 03:47 PM

Captain Steel

07-26-17, 10:08 PM

It's still a slippery slope denying already marginalized people rights everyone else enjoys. Never mind the trans people who are currently in the military who are not sure what are going to happen with them yet.

I do get your point though.

I don't really understand the issue - people keep bringing up the point that transgender folks join the military then get a sex change operation on the government's dole, which also puts them out of commission for quite a while, not just with the surgery but with various gender reassignment adjustments.

Here's my question: why is this surgery covered by the military? (Is it covered by the military?) It seems it is elective, so why would the military pay for it? I've never heard of a Marine saying, "I don't like my nose, I think I'll get a rhinoplasty, take a few weeks off from boot camp and have my plastic surgeon send the bill to the USMC."

Joel

07-27-17, 12:30 PM

Trump excluding people from the military is like Satan excluding people from hell. a blessing in disguise. nobody wants to join your murderous clique anyway. go f**k yourself

This is all a smokescreen to get people hating each other. Thank the media and the politicians who systematically dream up these waves of information for us all to choke on. That's why I do not eat from that table. It's poison. Divide and conquer..and all that jazz.

Powdered Water

07-27-17, 01:11 PM

Are we really gonna sit through 8 years of this bull sh*t?

Yoda

07-27-17, 01:25 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742771576039460864

lol
Time lapsed video me waiting for Trump's cheerleaders to address this:

https://i.giphy.com/media/9BbuCtUgDyPKM/giphy.webp

gandalf26

07-27-17, 01:45 PM

Trump has only banned the "T" from serving in the military. So I'm not sure what % Transgender folk make up of the LGBT community, probably a very small %.

“After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the US military,” he tweeted.
“Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

Generals and military experts have advised the President to do this and he has accepted, he isn't afraid to go against the constant media barrage of ramming Gender issues down our throats the past few years. Other leaders would have cowered before the media on this issue.

In my very limited experience Transgender people who live near me all seem to be unemployed, self absorbed (its all about their journey) and a drain on society so why should they serve in the Military where like everywhere else they will be a drain on resources and a disruption.

Yoda

07-27-17, 01:53 PM

Trump has only banned the "T" from serving in the military. So I'm not sure what % Transgender folk make up of the LGBT community, probably a very small %.
Probably, but why does that matter? It's not a lie if they're not a very big group?

Generals and military experts have advised the President to do this and he has accepted
US Joint Chiefs blindsided by Trump's transgender ban (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/trump-military-transgender-ban-joint-chiefs/index.html)

he isn't afraid to go against the constant media barrage of ramming Gender issues down our throats the past few years.
Bingo. That's what this is about: virtue signaling. You like that he's taking a shot at a group you don't like. Which is why you're already happy with the tweet alone, even though it doesn't have the force of law:

https://twitter.com/DefenseBaron/status/890281836034838529

In my very limited experience Transgender people who live near me all seem to be unemployed, self absorbed (its all about their journey) and a drain on society so why should they serve in the Military where like everywhere else they will be a drain on resources and a disruption.
We should definitely be basing U.S. military policy on whatever transgender people near some dude in the UK happen to be like.

gandalf26

07-27-17, 02:05 PM

Probably, but why does that matter? It's not a lie if they're not a very big group?

US Joint Chiefs blindsided by Trump's transgender ban (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/trump-military-transgender-ban-joint-chiefs/index.html)

Bingo. That's what this is about: virtue signaling. You like that he's taking a shot at a group you don't like. Which is why you're already happy with the tweet alone, even though it doesn't have the force of law:

https://twitter.com/DefenseBaron/status/890281836034838529

We should definitely be basing U.S. military policy on whatever transgender people near some dude in the UK happen to be like.

No one said its a lie, what lie??

Who said I don't like Transgender people? I said they are viewed as an oddity, always have always will most likely and appear to be self obsessed/drain on society.

TRANSGENDER WORKERS ARE AT A HIGH RISK OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY
Recent CAP polling shows that 73% of voters support protecting transgender people from discrimination in employment. Despite this strong public support, no federal law provides explicit legal protections for transgender workers based on gender identity/expression—and only 17 states and the District of Columbia offer these protections. As a result, transgender workers face higher rates of unemployment and are at greater risk of poverty.
A Broken Bargain for Transgender Workers reveals that:
Transgender workers report unemployment at twice the rate of the population as a whole (14% vs. 7% at the time the workers were surveyed).
More than four in 10 transgender people (44%) who are currently working are underemployed.
Transgender workers are nearly four times more likely than the population as a whole to have a household income of under $10,000 (15% vs. 4% at the time the workers were surveyed).]

Re Joint Chiefs blindsided,

Of course they have been, and now they will have to come up with plans to implement the Commander in Chiefs proposal. How much disruption can it cause though, I'm gonna take a stab in the dark here and say that there are very few Transgender folk currently in the military/training right now. Opinion within the top ranks may well be split on this issue, but someone has advised him.

Yoda

07-27-17, 02:10 PM

No one said its a lie, what lie??
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742771576039460864
Who said I don't like Transgender people? I said they are viewed as an oddity, always have always will most likely and appear to be self obsessed/drain on society.
"Finally someone taking a stand against gender nonsense!"

Re Joint Chiefs blindsided,

Of course they have been
Er, but you literally just said he did it because his generals and advisors wanted him to. There's no reasonable definition of those terms that doesn't include the Joint Chiefs. Sounds like this is closer to the mark:

someone has advised him.
This is our standard now? Don't worry, "someone" said it was a good idea. It's not the guys actually in charge of the military, but we have it on good authority that whoever it was was an actual sentient being of some kind, so I'm sure it's good advice.

Slappydavis

07-27-17, 02:14 PM

Who said I don't like Transgender people? I said they are viewed as an oddity, always have always will most likely and appear to be self obsessed/drain on society.

Let me reformat that.

Q: Who said I don't like Transgender people?

A: I said they are viewed as an oddity, always have always will most likely and appear to be self obsessed/drain on society.

Dani8

07-27-17, 02:15 PM

What are the tremendous medical costs? I read an article this morning claiming the military will have to pay the medical bills for transitions. Since when? I dont know if that's true or just media spin; just curious how that comes into it.

gandalf26

07-27-17, 02:18 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742771576039460864

"Finally someone taking a stand against gender nonsense!"

Er, but you literally just said he did it because his generals and advisors wanted him to. There's no reasonable definition of those terms that doesn't include the Joint Chiefs. Sounds like this is closer to the mark:

This is our standard now? Don't worry, "someone" said it was a good idea. It's not the guys actually in charge of the military, but we have it on good authority that whoever it was was an actual sentient being of some kind, so I'm sure it's good advice.

Just because he has banned them from the military for quite sensible reasons doesn't make him 1) a liar in relation to the above tweet 2) someone who discriminates against them and wont fight their corner on a separate issue.

Taking a stand against the Media constantly banging on about LBGT this or Gender that, so what I'm saying is he hasn't been influenced by all that and has made a brave decision.

After consultation with my generals and military experts]

"Someone" as in some persons in the military have advised him thus, who?? you and me both have no idea, I bet everyone would love to know the who and the why in a bit more detail that Trumps tweet.

gandalf26

07-27-17, 02:19 PM

Let me reformat that.

Q: Who said I don't like Transgender people?

A: I said they are viewed as an oddity, always have always will most likely and appear to be self obsessed/drain on society.

yeah that's right, they look odd, doesn't mean I want them sent to the gas chambers.

Slappydavis

07-27-17, 02:21 PM

yeah that's right, they look odd, doesn't mean I want them sent to the gas chambers.
You also said they appear to be a self obsessed drain on society? It's pretty clear you don't like this group, unless you want to argue you do like them. I'd be willing to hear how much you like them (despite you thinking they are a drain on society).

Also is the goalpost for not liking someone wanting to send them to gas chambers? That seems kinda...harsh.

gandalf26

07-27-17, 02:24 PM

Quite separately does the term "LGBT" has any basis in real life or is it just a flogged media term. If you are a Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sexual person whether you like it or not you've been lumped in with Transgender/Transsexual people which is something quite different.

I would say the term increases discrimination, by putting these people in a separate box whether they want to be or not.

Yoda

07-27-17, 02:27 PM

Just because he has banned them from the military for quite sensible reasons doesn't make him 1) a liar in relation to the above tweet 2) someone who discriminates against them and wont fight their corner on a separate issue.
He said he'd fight for them and that it was Hillary, but not him, who threatened their freedoms and beliefs. That's pretty much impossible to reconcile with banning them from the military, unless you think most transgender people are happy about the ban.

Taking a stand against the Media constantly banging on about LBGT this or Gender that, so what I'm saying is he hasn't been influenced by all that and has made a brave decision.
I understand the argument. Willingness to do and say things regardless of what the media thinks is one of the few things I like about Trump (I think it could be a useful precedent going forward, if nothing else). The point is that the "taking a stand" stuff seems to be valued for purely symbolic reasons.

For example: if this never actually becomes policy, would you even notice? Or is the fact that he said this, in public, from a position of authority, already the achievement? Because it seems like his support has very little to do with the man himself or any actual policy changes, and is based primarily in the fact that he pisses off the right people. Which is a God-awful way to choose a leader.

"Someone" as in some persons in the military have advised him thus, who?? you and me both have no idea, I bet everyone would love to know the who and the why in a bit more detail that Trumps tweet.
Correct, neither of us know. But a) if you don't know, you can't cite it as some kind of example of how the policy is well-founded, and b) we know the people who advised him are not the people actually at the top of the command.

Let's try this another way: should the President consult with the Joint Chiefs before any significant change to military policy?

gandalf26

07-27-17, 02:27 PM

You also said they appear to be a self obsessed drain on society? It's pretty clear you don't like this group, unless you want to argue you do like them. I'd be willing to hear how much you like them.

Also is the goalpost for not liking someone wanting to send them to gas chambers? That seems kinda...harsh.

From a quick bit of googling they are a drain on society, double unemployment rates, the costs and resources going to performing procedures on them, increased welfare and support as a result of lower employment.

Yoda

07-27-17, 02:30 PM

From a quick bit of googling they are a drain on society, double unemployment rates, the costs and resources going to performing procedures on them, increased welfare and support as a result of lower employment.
I think Slappy's point is not disputing whether they're a drain on society, but that if you think they're a drain on society, it logically follows that you don't like them.

gandalf26

07-27-17, 02:36 PM

He said he'd fight for them and that it was Hillary, but not him, who threatened their freedoms and beliefs. That's pretty much impossible to reconcile with banning them from the military, unless you think most transgender people are happy about the ban.

I understand the argument. Willingness to do and say things regardless of what the media thinks is one of the few things I like about Trump (I think it could be a useful precedent going forward, if nothing else). The point is that the "taking a stand" stuff seems to be valued for purely symbolic reasons.

For example: if this never actually becomes policy, would you even notice? Or is the fact that he said this, in public, from a position of authority, already the achievement? Because it seems like his support has very little to do with the man himself or any actual policy changes, and is based primarily in the fact that he pisses off the right people. Which is a God-awful way to choose a leader.

Correct, neither of us know. But a) if you don't know, you can't cite it as some kind of example of how the policy is well-founded, and b) we know the people who advised him are not the people actually at the top of the command.

Let's try this another way: should the President consult with the Joint Chiefs before any significant change to military policy?

I'm sure they are furious about the ban.

If this never becomes policy the media will bang on about it so loudly that no one will be unable to notice :) and Trump will look like the WOAT.

Should he consult? yes and no.

For example if he were to step back and say "do we really need to spend $600 billion per year on the military, more than every other country combined?", this is a big question for outside the military. Is that really a question for the JC's?

Yoda

07-27-17, 02:39 PM

I'm sure they are furious about the ban.
Cool, then he obviously was bullsh*tting when he said he would defend their freedoms and interests.

If this never becomes policy the media will bang on about it so loudly that no one will be unable to notice :)
Not really what I asked at all, though. The question was whether his supporters care more about policy, or are simply pleased to have someone "standing up" to the Media (or whatever other group they don't care for). Because it seems like he can mollify most of them with a couple of in-your-face tweets, without much actual policy change.

Should he consult? yes and no.

For example if he were to step back and say "do we really need to spend $600 billion per year on the military, more than every other country combined?", this is a big question for outside the military. Is that really a question for the JC's?
Should he consult them on decisions about what kind of people should actually be soldiers? Would they know better than someone who both never served, and specifically (and questionably) dodged military service?

gandalf26

07-27-17, 02:47 PM

Cool, then he obviously was bullsh*tting when he said he would defend their freedoms and interests.

Not really what I asked at all, though. The question was whether his supporters care more about policy, or are simply pleased to have someone "standing up" to the Media (or whatever other group they don't care for). Because it seems like he can mollify most of them with a couple of in-your-face tweets, without much actual policy change.

Should he consult them on decisions about what kind of people should actually be soldiers? Would they know better than someone who both never served, and specifically (and questionably) dodged military service?

Their feelings on the matter are irrelevant in relation to Trumps LGBT promise. If it was better to ban Transgenders from the military than have them serve then that's brave leadership. Lets see how he acts in relation to the LGBT community in the future.

Yeah I'm sure there's truth in the fact that people are pleased to see him be unafraid to go against the media despite not really caring about the policy.

It's pointless talking about the who and the why advised him on the ban until more is known.

Yoda

07-27-17, 02:54 PM

Their feelings on the matter are irrelevant in relation to Trumps LGBT promise.
How? He said he'd fight for their interests. They hate this. Therefore, you are left with two possible conclusions:

1) He thinks he knows their interests better than they do.
2) He was bullsh*tting.

Lets see how he acts in relation to the LGBT community in the future.
Yeah, I'm guessing this is how every lie or contradiction will be answered: this one doesn't count for some reason. Let's see about the next one. Rinse and repeat.

It's pointless talking about the who and the why advised him on the ban until more is known.
Again, the logic is simple: if you don't know enough to answer this, then you can't know enough to suggest he was well-advised. Can't have it both ways.

And the one thing we do know is that he didn't consult with the Joint Chiefs. Should the President consult with the Joint Chiefs before making decisions about who serves in the army? Yes or no? Because right now, you're in the awkward position of saying a draft dodger has a better sense of military morale than the people who actually run the military. Is that what you believe?

Yoda

07-27-17, 02:54 PM

Cobpyth

07-27-17, 02:56 PM

If it's just about the medical costs, couldn't he just propose a bill that makes sure T people can't use military money for their transitions? Not allowing them to "serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military" smells like a whole different kind of non-pragmatic agenda against them.

seanc

07-27-17, 03:02 PM

Addendum to the "in-your-face-tweets" thing:

If his supporters actually wanted to change things, they'd put their cultural anger spasms to the side and elect someone who can get things done. It seems as if they like Trump because, deep down, they've already given up on fighting this stuff, and just want someone to yell obscenities at the people who are defeating them. And as an actual conservative who actually wants to keep fighting for their principles, that's the worst of all possible worlds: not just defeat, but defeat without dignity.

I love this post so much. This soooo sums up where we are politically and culturally. I wish I could fit this on a bumper sticker.

Captain Steel

07-27-17, 03:05 PM

As always, things are a bit more complicated than they seem - this "ban" is not new and was in place under the Obama administration, (it was repealed, but then put up for review by the Department of Defense - the culmination of which Trump stated).

Ash Carter, the Defense secretary under Obama, ended the ban on transgender people serving openly in the military in 2016, but allowed for a year-long review process to allow the Pentagon to determine how it would accept new transgender recruits into the military.
On the eve of that one-year deadline, Mattis announced that he was delaying the implementation of the new policy, saying he needed more time.

Trump has only reiterated it and the media has jumped on Trump for stating that a ban implemented under Obama would remain (and no plans as to how such a ban would be implemented has even been stated - just as it was under Obama).

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/trump-military-transgender/index.html

gandalf26

07-27-17, 03:07 PM

How? He said he'd fight for their interests. They hate this. Therefore, you are left with two possible conclusions:

1) He thinks he knows their interests better than they do.
2) He was bullsh*tting.

Yeah, I'm guessing this is how every lie or contradiction will be answered: this one doesn't count for some reason. Let's see about the next one. Rinse and repeat.

Again, the logic is simple: if you don't know enough to answer this, then you can't know enough to suggest he was well-advised. Can't have it both ways.

And the one thing we do know is that he didn't consult with the Joint Chiefs. Should the President consult with the Joint Chiefs before making decisions about who serves in the army? Yes or no? Because right now, you're in the awkward position of saying a draft dodger has a better sense of military morale than the people who actually run the military. Is that what you believe?

3) he is brave enough to do what's right in spite of T anger.

I don't know enough to answer that yes, I don't know that he was well advised or who advised him. He said "Generals and military experts" who?? If it wasn't a JC then who? why is he bypassing JC's and going to lower general? which generals? which experts?

pointless merry-go-round until more is known about "advisors and generals". Lots of unanswered questions.

Cobpyth

07-27-17, 03:10 PM

Addendum to the "in-your-face-tweets" thing:

If his supporters actually wanted to change things, they'd put their cultural anger spasms to the side and elect someone who can get things done. It seems as if they like Trump because, deep down, they've already given up on fighting this stuff, and just want someone to yell obscenities at the people who are defeating them. And as an actual conservative who actually wants to keep fighting for their principles, that's the worst of all possible worlds: not just defeat, but defeat without dignity.

Exactly.

Conservatism needs more pragmatic arguments that will actually convince people from the other side and that will actually get things moving instead of a tribalistic president who's only interested in insulting and screaming against his opponents while he's not truly accomplishing all that much.

Slappydavis

07-27-17, 03:13 PM

Also, there seems to be misunderstanding of the effects of openly trans-people in the military (in particular their magnitude, which seems to be overestimated by many including Trump), here's a rand study on the subject: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

Edit: I should also mention that this study is from 2016, so it's up to date, but also not some sort of reactionary study to Trump's tweet.

In particular, I'd like to highlight these parts from the summary:

Only a subset will seek gender transition–related treatment. Estimates derived from survey data and private health insurance claims data indicate that, each year, between 29 and 129 service members in the active component will seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.The Costs of Gender Transition–Related Health Care Treatment Are Relatively Low

Using private health insurance claims data to estimate the cost of extending gender transition–related health care coverage to transgender personnel indicated that active-component health care costs would increase by between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually, representing a 0.04- to 0.13-percent increase in active-component health care expenditures.

Even upper-bound estimates indicate that less than 0.1 percent of the total force would seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.Emphasis mine

Here are their recommendations flowing from the study, which seem pretty sound to me:

Recommendations

DoD should ensure strong leadership and identify and communicate the benefits of an inclusive and diverse workforce to successfully implement a policy change and successfully integrate openly serving transgender service members into the force.
DoD should develop an explicit written policy on all aspects of the gender transition process to minimize any impact on service member or unit readiness.
DoD should provide education and training to the rest of the force on transgender personnel policy, and it should integrate this training with other diversity-related training and education.
DoD should develop and enforce a clear anti-harassment policy that addresses harassment aimed at transgender personnel alongside other targets of harassment.
DoD should make subject-matter experts and gender advisers serving within military units available to commanders seeking guidance or advice on gender transition–related issues.

matt72582

07-27-17, 03:15 PM

I think Trump threw that out there knowing this won't go through, just to please his base, change the subject, but most importantly, to keep talking about Donald!

It's like the travel ban... I'm sure they knew every time it wouldn't hold up, but... his base will be pleased, and this can further the "they won't let him do anything!"

CiCi

07-27-17, 03:19 PM

Just to but in :lol:

In regards to people lumped into LGBT. It's probably the B that I find are discriminated against the most, especially within the community itself. I.e. lots of other gay men I know will simply refuse to date a person if they're bi. Alternatively, many people I know don't believe bi-sexuality is a thing, you're either one or the other. Or, people who come out as bi do so are attention seekers.

I've seen nothing but support for the T side and this has probably made solidarity for them even stronger.

CiCi

07-27-17, 03:20 PM

And Theresa May is going to have a fun time persuading us Brits to give him a warm reception after this as well :lol:

Captain Steel

07-27-17, 03:32 PM

DoD should make subject-matter experts and gender advisers serving within military units available to commanders

I could see first day of boot camp:

Drill Instructor: Listen up, maggots! I am your drill instructor, but I want to introduce you to your division gender advisor, Master Sergeant Smith!

Gender Advisor: Hello men, women, everyone in between or just not sure, give me a little listen for I am your company gender adviser Master Sergeant George Smith! ... But you can call me Sasha!
And if you're feeling extra sassy that day, just yell out "Hey Miss Thang!" and I'll come a runnin'!
Now, Drill Instructor here is going to teach you how to walk & talk like a Marine, but if he makes you do anything you feel uncomfortable about or that you feel doesn't fit that which you "identify" with, you come see me we'll run it up the flagpole together (ooh, flagpole is much too phallic a symbol and may be offensive to some of you, so I take it back) let's just say we'll get it taken care of, twirlfriends!

Yoda

07-27-17, 03:46 PM

3) he is brave enough to do what's right in spite of T anger.
This is answering a completely different question than I asked, though. Whether or not his action is brave has no relation to whether or not he kept his promise; he can be cowardly to keep his word, and he can be brave in breaking it, so this is a non-sequitur.

Logically, it must be one of the two I mentioned:

1) He thinks he knows their interests better than they do.
2) He was bullsh*tting.

So...when you say "do what's right," you're saying it's #1, yes? You're saying it's not a lie because when he said he would look out for their interests, it meant he would decide their interests for them even if they hated it?

I don't know enough to answer that yes, I don't know that he was well advised or who advised him. He said "Generals and military experts" who?? If it wasn't a JC then who? why is he bypassing JC's and going to lower general? which generals? which experts?
Yep, all good questions. Frankly, they're the kinds of things a President should be ready to answer when he makes the announcement.

But let's be real: even if you like Trump, you know he loves to skirt this stuff. He's got a long, established history of taking one or two incidents (or, sometimes, pretty obviously no incidents) and summarize them as "lots of people are saying" or "people are constantly telling me." This seems like a clear example of that. Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of Veterans Mess Hall Silverware Manufacturing said the thing I already wanted to do was a good idea? Cool, let's call that "generals and military experts."

Captain Steel

07-27-17, 03:57 PM

2) He was bullsh*tting.

Aren't they all? I remember hearing candidates say that if we elect them, we'd be able to do our taxes on an index card! :D

Yoda

07-27-17, 03:58 PM

Conservatism needs more pragmatic arguments that will actually convince people from the other side and that will actually get things moving instead of a tribalistic president who's only interested in insulting and screaming against his opponents while he's not truly accomplishing all that much.
It's even worse than not accomplishing much, too: it has ripple effects. Trump now represents conservatism to many people, whether he implements conservative policies or not. If he fails, conservatism suffers.

This is not a minor issue, either: Herbert Hoover ran as a free market conservative, then implemented trade restrictions as President. Cue the Great Depression, leading directly to FDR and a massive expansion of government entitlements. The downside of a faux conservative is not just getting nothing done (which is bad enough), but actively enabling massive liberal policies if and when he fails.

It would not shock me at all if Trump actually ends up enabling the implementation of socialized medicine sometime in the next 15-20 years.

Slappydavis

07-27-17, 04:13 PM

It would not shock me at all if Trump actually ends up enabling the implementation of socialized medicine sometime in the next 15-20 years.

Careful now. I don't want 90 year old Trump tweeting about how he's actually the one responsible for the universally loved ZuckerCare.

Powdered Water

07-28-17, 01:00 AM

Turmoil in the Trump Administration: The Daily Show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpMEXDY-L4M

ash_is_the_gal

07-28-17, 10:23 AM

From a quick bit of googling they are a drain on society, double unemployment rates, the costs and resources going to performing procedures on them, increased welfare and support as a result of lower employment.

lol

i'm glad a 'quick bit of googling' was enough for you to turn your back on an entire group of people and tell them they're the scourge of the land

/sarcasm

gandalf26

07-28-17, 10:26 AM

lol

i'm glad a 'quick bit of googling' was enough for you to turn your back on an entire group of people and tell them they're the scourge of the land

/sarcasm

Nah the opinion was formed prior to the googling.

Not quite scourge of the land though, but somewhere toward the top end of the list.

gandalf26

08-01-17, 07:12 AM

GOATs white house seems a bit chaotic.

Yoda

08-01-17, 01:38 PM

Yeah, pretty much no way to spin the act of hiring someone and firing them 10 days later.

I've been saying for awhile that even if someone likes Trump personally, or likes his policy goals, or wants him to blow everything the hell up, there's precious little evidence that he has the temperament or managerial skills to get much done. He might be a shot across the bow for a lot of elites (which I have no problem with), but the most salient thing about a shot across the bow is that it doesn't actually hit the target.

Powdered Water

08-01-17, 01:47 PM

I have doubts that Trump even knows what a "target" is. I got a lot of flack from omni about Trump and his policies. Are we any closer to finding out if he even has any policies yet? I mean, other than whatever this has been so far?

John McClane

08-02-17, 09:52 AM

Trump's policy is anti-policy, so no policy is good policy. But that's just my policy. :suspicious:

ashdoc

08-04-17, 09:03 AM

Liberals are less tolerant than conservatives , especially where Trump is concerned

https://www.therebel.media/new_study_finds_liberals_are_less_tolerant_than_conservatives

Camo

08-04-17, 09:15 AM

That doesn't surprise me simply because Trump is in the White House. I think the results would be different if they were asked with Obama as President or if Hilary won. Not saying either are better or worse in this regard just that i don't think that one question tells us much.

Iroquois

08-04-17, 09:43 AM

Rebel Media accusing liberals of being intolerant? Say it ain't so.

Camo

08-04-17, 09:48 AM

It's from a PEW Survey to be fair, an extremely simple one with an obvious conclusion but still. Did crack up at INFOWARS giving their analysis at the bottom :D

Yoda

08-04-17, 09:59 AM

Yeah, Pew is about as reputable as they come, and it sounds like it's based on people's own descriptions of their behavior. So it is neither coming from a conservative site, nor "accusing" them of anything.

Powdered Water

08-04-17, 01:31 PM

Vladimir Putin Publicly Breaks Up With Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKaVj4nvleY&t=6s

ynwtf

08-04-17, 05:03 PM

gandalf26

08-04-17, 05:08 PM

Did anyone catch "The Putin Interviews" recently by Oliver Stone, 4 part series, nothing is off the table in terms of questions asked.

Obviously Putin portrays himself and Russia as pure as the driven snow but it was fascinating to hear his version of events on Crimea, WW2 and subsequent Iron Curtain, the collapse of Soviet Union, Syria/Islamic State/Terrorism, his wealth, his own history and rise to where he is now, the state of the modern world and how US/Russia relations have become frosty again.

Camo

08-04-17, 05:16 PM

Yeah, I get frustrated when talking to some friends about Trump. Usually those conversations start and end with, "WE WON!! SUCK IT, ******" I'm referring to people I know in real life, not anonymous internet personas.

So. Yeah. I can buy that.

I'm surprised that's all that was asked, kinda seems like a leading survey to me because i can't see how it would come up with any other answer. 6 Months into his Presidency people who supported Trump or even just Republicans in general since they have the House and the Senate too wouldn't feel as strongly about Hilary and thus wouldn't care as much if someone voted for her coz ya know...she lost. Liberals are obviously not happy that they are living under a Trump Presidency and a Republican House so they are more likely to answer that way. I imagine six months into 2009 would have ended up with similar results (of course that's based on nothing other than my instinct though) the other way round. Except this wouldn't have been a question that would have been asked since 'tolerance' has become something solely linked to the left, it would have been some other leading question that was linked to (now angered or whatever with all of the losses in 2008) Conservatives.

Powdered Water

08-06-17, 08:56 PM

I just heard from a very reputable source that Melania is the leaker.

Kaplan

08-07-17, 05:18 AM

Liberals are less tolerant than conservatives , especially where Trump is concerned

https://www.therebel.media/new_study_finds_liberals_are_less_tolerant_than_conservatives

"Liberals are less tolerant than conservatives" is not the conclusion of the original study, but the conclusion of the far right web site cherry picking the study. If any real conclusion can be drawn from a study relying on people self-reporting a hypothetical situation it's that the vast majority of people on both sides of the issue don't let politics affect their friendships.

Of course such a study relies on people having a bit of self-awareness and then honestly answering the questions. I'm not exactly overwhelmed by the "tolerance" of those commenting on that web site...

All the more reason to put bullets in liberals.

I mean we’re supposed to kill the intolerant, the racists, the Islamophobes, and the homophobes, right? Today’s liberalism has mutated into a dementia… Maybe that is why it is always the left that is using violence to shut down free speech at universities and events where conservatives are set to speak. The left cannot tolerate people having a different view from themselves. I didn’t need PEW Research Centre to confirm what I already knew! You must agree or libtards will un-friend you. What a surprise! Close-minded as well. :rotfl:

ynwtf

08-09-17, 08:48 PM

I'm just going to leave this one right...here. Enjoy.

Wow. Original video was set to private. Here's the same on another account.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA8jQXLX78E

seanc

08-16-17, 11:18 AM

Time for me to blow off a little political steam that has reached its boiling point. After reading our Charlottesville thread and various news articles the last few days I finally watched yesterday's infamous news conference. What I have to say isn't a revelation. It's not the first time I have thought it and I am not the first one to voice it. I don't think it is being said enough though and it is definitely getting lost in the incessant rhetoric. Donald Trump is not a racist, Nazi, or white supremacist. What Donald Trump is, is an unabashed unapologetic classist. When they asked him about unity he talked about the stock market. When he was asked if he was going to Charlottesville he talked about his winery. The immigration policy he put forth a couple weeks ago is not designed to keep out people of color. It is 100% designed to keep out the poor.

Unfortunately the past year or so has made me seriously reconsider my political affiliation. We elected a man who represents everything the left accused us of being. He is representative of the 1% the left told us we cared about. He is not and will not fight for the middle and lower class. He is fighting for your bosses, and big business, and stock market moguls. He believes in building from the top down. I am not saying that won't result in more jobs and some economic success. However, it strongly goes against every Christian ideal I hold dear.

I won't be voting for any baby killers or socialists who think we can tax our way out of this problem. I am 90% sure I am done with the conservative movement in this country though. I know Trump doesn't have the backing of everyone but none of the leadership is standing up strongly against this pathetic excuse for a politician and president.

ash_is_the_gal

08-17-17, 03:08 PM

pretty ironic that the president who wanted to cut the funds for the National Endowment for the Arts is now in literal hysterics over the idea of our beautiful parks being ruined by the removal of a statue

Yoda

08-18-17, 06:21 PM

https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/898584578683809792

Yoda

08-22-17, 11:05 AM

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/899806626986721282
33784

Dani8

08-22-17, 01:40 PM

He's just figured out Afghanistan is sitting on top of trillions of dollars of minerals and is going in to 'clean up'

Powdered Water

08-22-17, 02:27 PM

Screw the minerals. Afghanistan is where some of the finest outdoor weed is grown in the world. We have to secure the bag!

Dani8

08-22-17, 02:29 PM

Screw the minerals. Afghanistan is where some of the finest outdoor weed is grown in the world. We have to secure the bag!

Dont forget the poppies. They also have really cool hats.

ashdoc

08-22-17, 02:46 PM

hopefully trump will prevent the taliban from conquering afghanistan and prevent afghan women from going under the veil yet again . afghan women need to show their beauty for they are beautiful....

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ff/2a/d3/ff2ad3d6cd3e64f3e4bd7e1d32a71ad0--afghan-dresses-afghan-makeup.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GsAfVALcS3c/VUKj8IVOftI/AAAAAAAAFdI/Pwhpww7KasY/s1600/27.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/54/81/2f/54812f349a804045f5ff8087001bca58--amazing-eyes-beautiful-eyes.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a4/14/22/a41422573009b04ecc1e52436e7b53b4.jpg

https://livehdwallpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Afghan-Girl-Photos-Pictures.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3e/65/fb/3e65fb5ceab73962e985f4e2209e65b1--afghan-dresses-afghan-girl.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/5c/e9/1c/5ce91c7b45b4f4b2a1570dddc7269ab0--beautiful-lips-beautiful-people.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dmUDa8Y0ctA/VUKkEHSqufI/AAAAAAAAFdw/AX5-LW-h-Vk/s1600/7.jpg

Powdered Water

08-22-17, 02:48 PM

How come whenever this guy goes in and completely reverses from his BS rhetoric that got him elected. Not one of the guys or gals that voted for him calls him on it? I thought you voted for this guy because he was different? How is he different? Why can't you see that he's the worst of these kinds of people? He's sh*tting on you people. Doesn't it make you angry that he lied to you so easily? What has he done that makes you so strong in your convictions that he's here to make us great again? I hope at the very least that when more American children are sent to war, they all come from families that voted for Trump. It only seems fair.

Dani8

08-22-17, 02:55 PM

Cynema De Bergerac

08-23-17, 05:13 PM

Commander-in-Cheeto poked the Turtle too many times.

Yoda

08-23-17, 05:27 PM

It's a very sophomoric, high-schooler-who-just-started-arguing-on-the-Internet posture, assuming that all the world's problems are actually very simple and easy to solve, but the people in charge are just dumb.

To be fair, I do think there are a lot of otherwise smart, over-educated people who overthink and over complicate issues, but for the most part the problems the world faces are hard. If they weren't hard, we'd have figured them out by now.

Rhetoric's meeting reality on all those blustery campaign promises, and it's playing out exactly as predicted. One walk back after another.

Dani8

08-23-17, 06:21 PM

Is he serious about shutting down congress if he doesnt get funding for 'his' wall? He looks like a total maniac.

Yoda

08-23-17, 06:25 PM

The "shutdown" is about non-essential government services, and it's about whether to raise the amount of total debt we're allowed to take on (since we're about to hit the limit again). Possibly reckless, but it ain't Palpatine dissolving the Senate or anything.

Anyway, the hilarious part is just the idea that the wall needs to be funded by Congress. I thought Mexico was footing the bill? Keep the receipt, maybe they can reimburse us. :suspicious:

Dani8

08-23-17, 06:27 PM

Anyway, the hilarious part is just the idea that the wall needs to be funded by Congress. I thought Mexico was footing the bill? Keep the receipt, maybe they can reimburse us. :suspicious:

I loved ther ex president of mexico laughing while saying mexicns will just fly over it. Tearies. Best response.

d_chatterley

08-25-17, 04:01 AM

He's just figured out Afghanistan is sitting on top of trillions of dollars of minerals and is going in to 'clean up'

It's interesting that quite a few articles regarding this have been known for a while outside of the US, but only recently have they made it onto a couple of larger sites here. I was wondering why a sudden change of heart regarding Afghanistan.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afghanistan-sits-1-trillion-minerals-n196861

Dani8

08-25-17, 04:04 AM

It's interesting that quite a few articles regarding this have been known for a while outside of the US, but only recently have they made it onto a couple of larger sites here. I was wondering why a sudden change of heart regarding Afghanistan.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/rare-earth-afghanistan-sits-1-trillion-minerals-n196861

I knew about this years ago. Note the contract with China...

d_chatterley

08-25-17, 04:13 AM

I knew about this years ago. Note the contract with China...

Oh yeah...I remember talking to some friends in Europe regarding this at least 2 yrs ago. And yes, the China involvement was mentioned then just as it is in this article.

mark f

08-25-17, 04:58 AM

That article is three years old.

Dani8

08-25-17, 05:53 AM

That article is three years old.

The news is about 12 years old but Trump didnt know about it. Hilarious.

Yoda

08-25-17, 11:23 AM

https://twitter.com/JessicaHuseman/status/901079345736896512
Wait, let me guess: fake news, because it was actually 11 minutes. Thus magically absolving anyone of having to explain the contradiction.

Yoda

08-25-17, 11:24 AM

The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure this isn't actually a contradiction, because I think he thinks Executive Orders are "bills." So don't worry, it's not incoherence, it's just ignorance.

Velvet

08-26-17, 12:40 AM

Just a little input on the removal of statues:

I really enjoy history and because of my appreciation of history I feel I have a appreciation of these statues. I strongly disagree in the way they are being used as a symbol of hate and bigotry. I also disagree with the videos of people vandalizing and tearing these statues down. I understand the feelings people have towards these statues but I really think their is a better way such as coming together as a community to get the statue removed and placed in a museum or something of that nature. I really believe people could learn to appreciate the historical context of these statues if schools taught them about some of the bad things that these people did. By teaching about the actions of these individuals I would hope individuals would feel less blindsided if they knew this information all along instead of feeling like it has been hidden from them. I feel that if people were more educated on both the good and bad things about historical figures then they could learn to appreciate the statues of them instead of suddenly it being reveled that these figures had done some pretty horrendous things and then feeling a passionate hate towards them.

I hope I wrote this down so it made sense in some way.

Powdered Water

08-30-17, 12:48 AM

Could this be the broken tail light that really gets people looking into Trump? I feel like its been mostly bells and whistles so far. What say you Trumpers? Can you watch this video and still feel the same about this man? Seriously, I want to know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S95hrT1N0Dc

ashdoc

08-30-17, 02:13 AM

Afghan women used to wear western clothing in few urban areas before the Soviet invasion . Maybe trump can bring that era back

34111

34112

More photos here---

http://glamourdaze.com/2015/08/fashion-freedom-in-pre-war-afghanistan.html

TONGO

08-30-17, 01:14 PM

Havent been in here in awhile, but thought this was postworthy. FOX News has been the most disreputable biased news source in my generation. Hell even Jon Stewart was more legitimate.

Fox News no longer airing in the UK

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/348409-fox-news-no-longer-airing-in-the-uk

Good for the Brits', Id watch the BBC over FOX news too.

Dani8

08-30-17, 01:21 PM

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 02:38 PM

I'm not American but just to throw my opinion in....I am VERY impressed with Trump's Presidency so far. He is saying and doing all the things I have wanted to see for years. It surprises me that people are STILL protesting him despite the fantastic work he is doing. Despite the left wing bias in the media and in congress and even at his own cabinet, Trump will go down as the best President America has ever had.
Here I am in the UK, feeling jealous of the USA whilst there are people in America who don't realize how lucky they are to have this guy in the Whitehouse.

Dani8

08-30-17, 02:39 PM

Another cool story, bro.

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 03:07 PM

I am looking forward to the next public meltdown when he secures a second term. :D

Dani8

08-30-17, 03:09 PM

I'm still wondering wth the gutter press was on about with Melania's shoes in Houston yesterday. She was wearing flipping tennis shoes but dont let the facts get in the way of a good story

seanc

08-30-17, 04:15 PM

I. Rex

08-30-17, 05:01 PM

I am looking forward to the next public meltdown when he secures a second term. :D

Hes still gotta make it through his first term first which is a dicey proposition at this point for him...

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 05:03 PM

Hes still gotta make it through his first term first which is a dicey proposition at this point for him...
He'll be fine. First they said he would lose the Republican debates, then the primaries and then the election. Now they're saying he will lose the next one, but it won't happen.

Stirchley

08-30-17, 05:47 PM

He'll be fine. First they said he would lose the Republican debates, then the primaries and then the election. Now they're saying he will lose the next one, but it won't happen.

You're in the U.K., but you know this how?

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 05:49 PM

I don't know it. I do follow politics though and it really seems like he's gonna win again.

Slappydavis

08-30-17, 06:42 PM

I don't know it. I do follow politics though and it really seems like he's gonna win again.

I think I'll try a new standard response for the people that randomly make these sort of predictions that they are so sure about.

Go bet on it. If you're so sure, don't come here and talk about it, go here: https://www.predictit.org/Contract/6994/Will-Donald-Trump-be-the-2020-Republican-nominee-for-president#data

And put your money on the line.

It'd be a steal from your perspective even, this market is currently only giving a 43% chance for Trump to even be the GOP nominee in 2020, let alone win.

Or go here: https://www.predictit.org/Contract/6894/Will-Donald-Trump-be-president-at-year-end-2019#data

Currently only giving 50/50 odds that he even gets to the end of his term, let alone winning re-election. Sounds like you'd make a killing!

Stirchley

08-30-17, 06:45 PM

I don't know it. I do follow politics though and it really seems like he's gonna win again.

Impossible to tell 7 months into his first term.

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 06:50 PM

I think I'll try a new standard response for the people that randomly make these sort of predictions that they are so sure about.

Go bet on it. If you're so sure, don't come here and talk about it, go here: https://www.predictit.org/Contract/6994/Will-Donald-Trump-be-the-2020-Republican-nominee-for-president#data

And put your money on the line.

It'd be a steal from your perspective even, this market is currently only giving a 43% chance for Trump to even be the GOP nominee in 2020, let alone win.

Or go here: https://www.predictit.org/Contract/6894/Will-Donald-Trump-be-president-at-year-end-2019#data

Currently only giving 50/50 odds that he even gets to the end of his term, let alone winning re-election. Sounds like you'd make a killing!
Do you remember how people claimed he would never have a chance of getting the nomination, then that he would never win the election? If they could be so wrong over and over why are you so convinced that he will lose in 2020?

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 06:50 PM

Impossible to tell 7 months into his first term.
Something massive would need to happen to turn the tide against him but true, you never know for sure.

Camo

08-30-17, 06:52 PM

Do you remember how people claimed he would never have a chance of getting the nomination, then that he would never win the election? If they could be so wrong over and over why are you so convinced that he will lose in 2020?

He has to stand on his policies and his behaviour as President in 2020. There's a clear difference between that and his standing in 2016.

I'm not even saying he'll lose but i don't think that's that good of an indicator of what's going to happen.

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 06:54 PM

He has to stand on his policies and his behaviour as President in 2020. There's a clear difference between that and his standing in 2016.

I'm not even saying he'll lose but i don't think that's that good of an indicator of what's going to happen.
I suppose a lot of it depends on who the democrats run and if Trump does anything massive to screw things up.

Slappydavis

08-30-17, 06:54 PM

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 06:57 PM

Don't worry about convincing me, sounds like you're really sure! Go double your money buddy!
I never said I was sure lol. I said it would take something massive for him to lose. He has united the entire country behind him (other than the elite and the SJW nutcases) and people still hate the democrats so I just don't see how they could possibly beat him without him doing something enormously bad.

Camo

08-30-17, 06:57 PM

it depends on who the democrats run

http://i.imgur.com/OWDX1AI.jpg

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 06:58 PM

Good lord lol.

Camo

08-30-17, 07:01 PM

What has Trump done as President that you like? You mentioned liking what he's done so far, what exactly?

Dani8

08-30-17, 07:01 PM

He has united the entire country behind him (other than the elite and the SJW nutcases)

LMAO. You should get out more, you know, and buy a newspaper.

gandalf26

08-30-17, 07:04 PM

LMAO. You should get out more, you know, and buy a newspaper.

The more the Media slam him, the more the people will support him.

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 07:07 PM

Exactly. Sure, the media will smear him, but the people are behind him 100% and I predict in 2020 he will win at least 40 states and probably more than 60% of the vote. I may be wrong, but I'm not.

Camo

08-30-17, 07:08 PM

The people aren't behind him 100%. 50% is being very generous and we're only 8 months in.

Dani8

08-30-17, 07:08 PM

Exactly. Sure, the media will smear him, but the people are behind him 100% and I predict in 2020 he will win at least 40 states and probably more than 60% of the vote. I may be wrong, but I'm not.

Do you actually believe the stuff you post?

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 07:09 PM

What has Trump done as President that you like? You mentioned liking what he's done so far, what exactly?
He's cracked down on illegal immigration, terrorism and various other things that SJWs love. Also, he has created over 2 million new jobs for Americans. Plus his foreign policy is WORKING. Syria and North Korea are done messing with you guys now.

Camo

08-30-17, 07:10 PM

He's cracked down on illegal immigration, terrorism and various other things that SJWs love. Also, he has created over 2 million new jobs for Americans. Plus his foreign policy is WORKING. Syria and North Korea are done messing with you guys now.

hahaha. Okay, cool.

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 07:10 PM

Do you actually believe the stuff you post?
tbh, if you have an issue with my opinions you're free to ignore me. I have no issue with people disagreeing with me but all of your posts are either condescending or accusing me of being insincere and it's annoying tbh.

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 07:11 PM

The people aren't behind him 100%. 50% is being very generous and we're only 8 months in.
That's not correct.

ashdoc

08-30-17, 07:11 PM

What has Trump done as President that you like? You mentioned liking what he's done so far, what exactly?

He has publicly attacked Pakistan and praised India

https://www.google.co.in/amp/amp.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/22/pakistan_is_quiet_after_trump_s_speech_india_is_loving_it.html

Camo

08-30-17, 07:12 PM

You started a thread about having sex with roller coasters, it's difficult to think someone is being sincere after that.

Dani8

08-30-17, 07:12 PM

all of your posts are either condescending or accusing me of being insincere and it's annoying tbh.

Do you know what projecting means?

**********************

oops wrong thread

Camo

08-30-17, 07:12 PM

That's not correct.

How is it not? In what way are the people 100% behind him, source?

RobertBlack

08-30-17, 07:13 PM

You started a thread about having sex with roller coasters, it's difficult to think someone is being sincere after that.
But I didn't. I wasn't the one to bring up sex. I was talking about romantic relationships with theme park rides. I kept the sexual side of it to myself as that's a personal topic.

Yoda

08-30-17, 07:14 PM

Do you remember how people claimed he would never have a chance of getting the nomination, then that he would never win the election? If they could be so wrong over and over why are you so convinced that he will lose in 2020?
This logic applies to literally every underdog who's ever won, in elections, sports or any other kind of competition. But it does not follow that any underdog who wins must then logically be considered forever a favorite.

Also, arguing that many pundits were haughty and arrogant (totally true) in no way implies that Trump is invulnerable, or possesses some magic talent for confounding expectations. At worst, it just means they were wrong. When people say you can't do something and you do, it might mean you did something good...or it might just mean they were really wrong. It doesn't automatically reflect well on you.

I never said I was sure lol.
"when he secures a second term."
(of a loss) "it won't happen."

Sounded pretty sure to me.

He has united the entire country behind him (other than the elite and the SJW nutcases)
Yeah, this bears no resemblance to reality. His approval rating is, like, 37%. Even if you want to apply a healthy margin of error to polling these days (which would be reasonable), it's clearly underwater, and a loooooong way from "the entire country." That's nuts.

and people still hate the democrats
Yep. This is the one reason I'm not sure whether he'll win or not.

so I just don't see how they could possibly beat him without him doing something enormously bad.
Well, he's failed to delivery on virtually every significant campaign promise so far (or, at least, the ones he didn't start walking back during the campaign itself). If he finishes his term without building a wall, without getting Mexico to pay for it, without repealing Obamacare, without eliminating the national debt...would that qualify as "enormously bad"?