President Trump

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.

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/u...stigation.html

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

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.

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

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.

My hand's been broken. Not that that should stop you arguing with a Strawman.

__________________
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

He wasn't. America has low standards.

If the system "worked" Hillary would be in office making things worse.

Unsubstantiated.

It's not, it's a waste of tax dollars.

Pleasant as always.

Why.

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

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 ...

I think he meant why should anyone be outraged?

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

When someone makes an extraordinary claim, I expect evidence. I hold myself to the same standard and I'll expect no less of you.

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?




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.

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.

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.

What claim did I make? I made no claim. None.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I've been repeating myself from the start.

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?

Do I really have to dreg up the numerous times I've tried to do that?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I've also explained this in painful detail. I will quote again:

You see this paragraph above? I will quote it again in larger text so it does not go unnoticed:

Now watch as this argument I pre-empted manifest in 3... 2... 1...

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.

I clarified this! At the time!:

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.

I still claim it is a lie.

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.

It is for specificity's sake. No more. No less.

Yes.

Assuming the investigation is warranted.

You're implying the investigation is warranted. Or are you just fond of investigations in general?

The hypothesis upon which these investigations are rationalized.

Either you automatically grant faith to any investigation, regardless of the cause, or you believe this particular one is warranted. Which is it?

Because I've yet to see something which suggests it is.

There is none until there is one. Provide me a reason.

That is the claim I am disputing.

You are claiming the investigation is warranted. It is a claim.

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.

Fair warning: circumstantial evidence and guilt-by-associations are not reason enough to condemn someone.

Show me evidence.

Evidence please.

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 should I want one?

That would be proving a negative and I haven't made that claim.

You're welcome to inform me of anything you think I'm unaware of.

Why are they being investigated?

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?

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?

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.

Saying an argument is not compelling is, itself, not a compelling argument.

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."

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.

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

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.

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!

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."

Since this isn't my position, and I haven't argued for it, it's not unfortunate for me at all.

That's peculiar, because I see:

*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.

Well, by all means then, ignore everything I prefaced this with.

Not if I distinguish different forms of context.

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.

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.


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

*slams desk* WHAT are we even talking about then?

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?

This is not a contradiction, this has been my position from the very beginning of the argument.

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.

BECAUSE:

Ergo meaning.

"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.

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.

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?"

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.

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