President Trump

Tools    





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, and didn't really receive a response.



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.



https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.new...y-1432519.html

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



Hullo.

Actua 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.
__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel



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?" 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.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



Welcome to the human race...
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.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



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.



i'm SUPER GOOD at Jewel karaoke
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.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
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's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
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.



The man is constantly attacked by said personalities and they expect no counter by the man who invented awesome come back attacks in politics
__________________
Getting old is not agreeing with me one bit, i think I'm going to have to give it up.



i'm SUPER GOOD at Jewel karaoke
The man is constantly attacked by said personalities and they expect no counter by the man who invented awesome come back attacks in politics



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.