President Trump

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

__________________

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

So keep defending his money borrowing if you like…

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

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

Oh joy, rant time.

Poisoning the Well.

You made a specific claim, it was wrong. That's it.

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

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

What has money borrowing have to do with anything I said?

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

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

That's rather uncharitable, isn't it?

Of course.

Excuse me, but defending what? He called out both sides. Since when is attacking the left defending the right? That sounds like partisanship to me. That's so unlike you.

Oh, obviously.


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

Citation.

You like putting a lot of emphasis into these sentences, but this is perhaps one of the most mundane possible grievances you could take with the president.

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

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

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

Cause the voices in my head told me so.


If only you knew how funny that was.

Attachments

 

__________________
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

Sources?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Here's one. That's a particularly nuanced and sympathetic article (it starts by debunking half-quotes and the like), but you'll find less charitable collections with a quick Googling.

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

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

Not sure how much of it you read, but the stuff about the need to push back on the "indiscriminate fecundity" of the "unemployed" is one of those things that would've applied overwhelmingly to minorities at the time. And it's a disparity that remains incredibly lopsided even to this day.

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

Especially when they are obviously not false.

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

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

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

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


GOP senators react to Trump’s Charlottesville comments: “Mr. President — we must call evil by its name.”

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

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

Poll: Majority disapproves of Trump's Charlottesville response

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

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

I guess they're "obviously not false" until they're false, right?

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

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

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

You're right, leftists shouldn't have been there. Actually think about what you say for 2 seconds, I. Rex:

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

I'm sorry, where have you proven that? What quote? This quote?:

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

Okay, right off the bat, I have to say; anybody who cites Vox should just stop and concede the argument. You are citing a mass media platform so transparently biased that they outright admit it on their About Us page:

SLAP YO SELF.

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

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

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

I am dead serious.

OF COURSE it makes Trump look worse, ANYTHING about Trump that can be uncharitably interpreted looks worse to you.

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

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

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

Your pedantry is so predictable.

Like I said, uncharitable.

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

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

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

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


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

Omigosh, YOU ARE SO BAD AT THIS, check this **** out:

The Hill, which you linked to, is not the original source,
it cites The Washington Post, a journal so ****in' butthurt over the election it STILL says "Democracy Dies in Darkness" at the top of the screen, it bases it's survey stating the opinion of over 300 MILLION PEOPLE on a little over 1000 people from what could be a blue state for all we know.

Sooo pretty much worthless information.

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

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

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

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

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

You have no legs to stand on whatsoever, and I made that perfectly clear the last time I argued with you.

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


Right on queue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A FOX NEWS poll…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...sults-830.html

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



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

…like Fox News

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

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

I love how you continue to ignore the violence on both sides.


Of course there were college kids.

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

Again, with the "excuses". He condemned them, quite plainly. Multiple times. You're only throwing a **** fit cause your side got called out. And what did it get called out for?

FOR STOOPING TO THE LEVEL OF NAZIS.

He did. Multiple times. Prior to the election.


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

You're a hypocrite.

I should hope we all have an anti-Islamic agenda.

Another conflation, and an inadvertent validation of my "hypocrite" accusation: You're quick to correct generalizations targeting the protesters, but equally hasty to generalize their targets.

X shouldn't have done Y =/= Y should be illegal

Probably back wherever you left your integrity.

You sneaky little weasel, I see what you did there:
That is a Moving the Goalposts fallacy. The original claim was that Trump deliberately dog whistles for his audience. You can quibble that line all you want, but you reiterated it clear as day:

You even made it clear in the following sentence that the reply is distinct from the alleged dog whistle. A couple seconds Google searching confirms this is what dog whistling means:


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


You're a hypocrite.


At least I rose to your expectations, I didn't expect you to stoop to ****in' VOX.

Maybe you left your reading comprehension back where you left your integrity too. I am not disputing those, and in fact you know this, because you quoted the point of contention immediately following:

So now you're leaving arguments in your posts,
which you invalidate,
in your post.

The same information does not substantiate your claim. You literally JUST SAID:


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

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


You are a hypocrite.

This argument fails on three fronts:

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

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

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

Failure to recognize Reductio Ad Absurdum.

You're right, so stop doing him favors.

Failure to recognize Appeal to Intellectual Honesty.

Calling you out for conflating different things for the purposes of pushing a political narrative isn't pedantry, it's parenting.

Aaaaaaaand backpedal. "IT'S JUST A JOKE, MANG, WHY U GOTTA BE HARSHIN' ON ME, HOMEY????"

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

You're a hypocrite.

Admitting you embellished a point, GOSH, I should be ****in' flattered to witness such an event.

Did he condemn both sides for running over people in vehicles?


See, you already know your arguments are bad, spare me the trouble of debunking you by debunking yourself.

Aw yeah, that's an honest representation of things. OH HEY, look at that, YOUR OWN SOURCE CONTRADICTING YOU:

Jeez, it's almost like it's an immutable fact of reality that there was violence on both sides, so weird!

You're not worth the effort of typing out a fruit analogy to demonstrate the category error you're making.

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

You're a hypocrite.

Yes, The Washington Post flat-out lies to it's readers.

You would notice that I addressed each of those articles on their merits in addition to my criticism of your use of them as a source, but you've apparently gone selectively blind while reading my post, how curious.

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

THIS ONE HAS EVEN FEWER PEOPLE!

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


You're a moron.

So combine them. Here, I'll even do you favor, shall I? Let's round up those polling numbers to 3000, and round down the US population to 300 million. We're just going to ignore a good 20 million people for the sake of your argument, this is what a charitable interpretation is, I. Rex, so pay attention:

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

The irony certainly doesn't stop you.

I don't have to disprove your claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Have you really crossed the event horizon into guilty-until-proven-innocent?

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


ALRIGHT, so let's tally up the casualties:

I've caught you dead changing your argument,

I've caught you making multiple logical contradictions,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.new...816972%3famp=1

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

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

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

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

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