President Trump

Tools    





Oh dont be fooled into playing Ball's game for him. LaVar Ball is a huckster and a glory seeker just like Trump is and everything he did was carefully orchestrated for the reaction it got. Now he can come off as being "defiant" in the face of this "racist blowhard" who wanted these kids to kiss his ring and thank the 'massah' for getting them 'boys' out of trouble. All of which increases his cred among the very crowd that buys his obscenely expensive sneakers and pumps up his image. Sadly, this affair also helps Trump with his base that already believes the stereotypes about young black males being thugs and thieves one and all. So the two narcissistic chest thumpers get positive attention from this as the media spends way too much time covering it at the expense of real stories and we (the normal public) have to put up with it. I wish they would ignore both of them. Would be happy if I never heard from either one of them ever again. But we all know thats not going to happen.
__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
It would be great if nobody showed up to one of his press conferences, but you know his fans in the media will so it's a no-win situation. The only sure thing about them is how predictable they all turn out. Dictators don't hold press conferences though - they make pronouncements. Oh, the real reason Trump uses Twitter is so he can see that some people "like" him.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



My mistake. Should have posted it in Intermission thread. It should go there, but I see you want to minimize it's significance and/or exposure.
You agree it belongs there, but also think moving it there is being done to minimize its exposure? Eh?

If you're referring to the decision to merge it into an existing thread, that's pretty much entirely backwards: it'll clearly get more "exposure" here, and the decision to limit the number of Trump-related threads was made quite awhile ago, besides.

Btw, these are not one of " my " nearly daily controversies.
I said his, not yours.

I just don't see how you can misinterpret an act of kindness as a posture of a King?
There are at least three problems with this:

1) You're conflating the act itself with what he said after. The "act of kindness" (such as it is) is not the topic: his comments afterwards are. So if I'm misinterpreting anything, it's his pointed words, not the "act of kindness."

2) Trying to help Americans avoid draconian punishments overseas is not an act of kindness, it's the kind of thing the President should do. The fact that they have no legal obligation to do so doesn't make it a personal favor.

3) Trump clearly benefits from both the act itself and this silly feud about the amount of credit he deserves, since he gets to reinforce (among the already-swayed, at least) a number of perceptions, so the idea that this was done out of kindness in the first place is a tad naive.



You agree it belongs there, but also think moving it there is being done to minimize its exposure? Eh?

If you're referring to the decision to merge it into an existing thread, that's pretty much entirely backwards: it'll clearly get more "exposure" here, and the decision to limit the number of Trump-related threads was made quite awhile ago, besides.


I said his, not yours.


There are at least three problems with this:

1) You're conflating the act itself with what he said after. The "act of kindness" (such as it is) is not the topic: his comments afterwards are. So if I'm misinterpreting anything, it's his pointed words, not the "act of kindness."

2) Trying to help Americans avoid draconian punishments overseas is not an act of kindness, it's the kind of thing the President should do. The fact that they have no legal obligation to do so doesn't make it a personal favor.

3) Trump clearly benefits from both the act itself and this silly feud about the amount of credit he deserves, since he gets to reinforce (among the already-swayed, at least) a number of perceptions, so the idea that this was done out of kindness in the first place is a tad naive.
I was referring to the decision to merge it onto an existing thread, especially this particular thread, that I was doing my best to avoid, as I am conflicted about the topic.

As to " my " controversial topic statement, my bad for misinterpreting your quote.
I am clearly not as communication savvy as you are.

The thread was not about Trump per say but about US nationals committing a criminal act on foreign soil and a serving US President intervening on their behalf.
He could have been Santa Claus for all I care.
I don't care what his motives were.
He did some thing extraordinary by giving three young men a better fate.
His idiotic tweets do not negate the importance of what he actually did.
I don't know of any other US President that has personally intervened on behalf of some one that committed a clear criminal act on foreign soil.

As far as I know, when it relates to Draconian punishments in foreign countries as it pertains to US citizens, it has never been in a US President's job description to personally intervene.
The United States has other designated appropriate channels to do that.

Lastly, and ironically, had these three young men been caught shoplifting in Nevada, their punishment would have been greater than what they wound up getting in Draconian China, even if it was just a fine and/or multi game suspension.

For what you refer to as Draconian, maybe you should look into Nevada Criminal Law, where for a Grand Larceny B ( theft of item valued more than $3500.00 ) individuals can get up to 10 years in prison ( which really is no different than in China ).



I don't care what his motives were.
If this were true, you wouldn't have called it an "act of kindness."

He did some thing extraordinary by giving three young men a better fate.
The dispute is whether or not this is actually extraordinary, or the kind of thing we simply expect Presidents to do. The action itself appears pretty ordinary to me: it's the power to do it that is extraordinary, and that power is vested in him by us. That's what I mean about the posture of a King: he acts as if the power we have granted him, and which most people expect him to use in exactly the manner he did, is actually an extension of himself, and something he deserves personal thanks for wielding.

His idiotic tweets do not negate the importance of what he actually did.
The "idiotic tweets" are what prompted the comments you're responding to. If you handwave the tweets away as immaterial, you simultaneously dismiss your entire reason for starting this discussion.

I don't know of any other US President that has personally intervened on behalf of some one that committed a clear criminal act on foreign soil.
Well, have you spent much (or any) time looking? This would be a very telling statement from, say, a Presidential historian, but coming from some random person it doesn't really mean anything; it is just as likely to be a reflection of their incuriousness as it is the rarity of the event.

As far as I know, when it relates to Draconian punishments in foreign countries as it pertains to US citizens, it has never been in a US President's job description to personally intervene.
Again, what a President is obligated to do and what we expect them to do are two different things. The President is not obligated to release a statement of condolence after a tragedy, either, but it would be absurd to, each time they did it, pretend it was some exceptionally magnanimous gesture on their part.

Lastly, and ironically, had these three young men been caught shoplifting in Nevada, their punishment would have been greater than what they wound up getting in Draconian China, even if it was just a fine and/or multi game suspension.

For what you refer to as Draconian, maybe you should look into Nevada Criminal Law, where for a Grand Larceny B ( theft of item valued more than $3500.00 ) individuals can get up to 10 years in prison ( which really is no different than in China ).
"Can get" is pretty vague. Under what circumstances would that be the punishment?



If this were true, you wouldn't have called it an "act of kindness."


The dispute is whether or not this is actually extraordinary, or the kind of thing we simply expect Presidents to do. The action itself appears pretty ordinary to me: it's the power to do it that is extraordinary, and that power is vested in him by us. That's what I mean about the posture of a King: he acts as if the power we have granted him, and which most people expect him to use in exactly the manner he did, is actually an extension of himself, and something he deserves personal thanks for wielding.


The "idiotic tweets" are what prompted the comments you're responding to. If you handwave the tweets away as immaterial, you simultaneously dismiss your entire reason for starting this discussion.


Well, have you spent much (or any) time looking? This would be a very telling statement from, say, a Presidential historian, but coming from some random person it doesn't really mean anything; it is just as likely to be a reflection of their incuriousness as it is the rarity of the event.


Again, what a President is obligated to do and what we expect them to do are two different things. The President is not obligated to release a statement of condolence after a tragedy, either, but it would be absurd to, each time they did it, pretend it was some exceptionally magnanimous gesture on their part.


"Can get" is pretty vague. Under what circumstances would that be the punishment?
Just because I called it an act of kindness, does not mean I really care about all other possible motives.
As far as the outcome for the individuals is concerned, it did turn out to be an act of kindness.

This must be some Yoda logic.
The discussion was started based on facts and the facilitating of consequences but you want to dismiss that and turn it into a tweet thing, which is a distraction from the truth,
kind of like Bill Clinton saying BJ is not sex.

Yeah, I am just some random person and so are you.
Aren't you just dying to show me that I am wrong? So show me!

Again, you are just speculating.
Cite some instances of presidential intervention.
Hell, cite the amount of times different presidents have made personal condolence phone calls.
It's kind of interesting that you expect a man whom you hold in contempt to have a higher standard of voluntary behavior and when he does, then you just dismiss it and call it some thing else.

That would depend on the judge, who has all the discretion in the world, but in many cases, a prior felony could secure it.



As far as the outcome for the individuals is concerned, it did turn out to be an act of kindness.
Yeah, that's not what "kindness" means. Kindness is a statement about a person's motive, not a description of a decision's effects. It is not kindness to do something that benefits you personally just because it happens to help someone else, for example.

Yeah, I am just some random person and so are you.
Aren't you just dying to show me that I am wrong? So show me!
In other words, you have no idea if it's rare or not, even though you've been making arguments predicated on the idea that it is, right?

Again, you are just speculating.
Cite some instances of presidential intervention.
This is a pretty transparent attempt at trying to flip the burden of proof. Only problem is, I haven't made any claim about how frequent it is. My position isn't predicated on its rarity, but rather the simple fact that I expect Presidents to do things like this, and don't consider it a personal favor when they do.

The question remains: do you know how rare it is? Yes or no? If yes, tell me. If no, how can you make the claim that it is extraordinary?

That would depend on the judge, who has all the discretion in the world, but in many cases, a prior felony could secure it.
...and if they didn't have a prior felony, 10 years would be draconian, right?



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Not sure why this was in General Movie Discussion, but I've moved it. Probably also going to merge it into an existing Trump thread, since we don't have the bandwidth for a thread for every one of his nearly daily controvseries.

I'm not sure what it has to do with shoplifting either.



Yeah, that's not what "kindness" means. Kindness is a statement about a person's motive, not a description of a decision's effects. It is not kindness to do something that benefits you personally just because it happens to help someone else, for example.


In other words, you have no idea if it's rare or not, even though you've been making arguments predicated on the idea that it is, right?


This is a pretty transparent attempt at trying to flip the burden of proof. Only problem is, I haven't made any claim about how frequent it is. My position isn't predicated on its rarity, but rather the simple fact that I expect Presidents to do things like this, and don't consider it a personal favor when they do.

The question remains: do you know how rare it is? Yes or no? If yes, tell me. If no, how can you make the claim that it is extraordinary?


...and if they didn't have a prior felony, 10 years would be draconian, right?
Kindness = helpfulness ( no motive attached )

Oh, I know , it's rare to the best of my knowledge.
I read, a lot about history, follow current events.
Am not aware of any other US president directly intervening with a foreign government to release a US citizen charged with theft on their soil.
If there is such a case, please contribute to my education.

It does not matter what you expect. What matters is what happens.

I have done my research and I have found no proof of other instances. That would qualify it as being rare.

And your point is?
Sure, if they got ten years for Grand Larceny B, without having priors, it could be considered Draconian, but it has happened in USA and therefore China would be no different.

I will give you another example of it being unusual and rare, even with Trump.
On Nov 3, 2017, 25 year old Marta Odonovan, a US citizen, was arrested in Harare, Zimbabwe, for
tweeting about then President Mugabi : " We are being led by a selfish and sick man " .
Her offense carried up to 20 years in prison.
Trump never called Mugabi.
Nevertheless, Marta got out on bail on Nov.10, 2017.
Since then Mugabi impeachment has begun with a coup d'etat, so Marta might be let off by new head of state, Gen. Chiwenga.



Kindness = helpfulness ( no motive attached )
Nope, not what it means. That's why they're different words.

Oh, I know , it's rare to the best of my knowledge.
"To the best of my knowledge" is something you could say if you had no knowledge at all. Which I'm just going to assume was the case, given how you keep dodging the question.

And your point is?
Uh...that the punishment was draconian. Remember? You tried to dispute that by implying they'd get the same punishment in Nevada, which turns out not to be true unless you throw another felony into the mix. Therefore, there was no basis from which to dispute the claim to begin with.



Nope, not what it means.
That's why they're different words.
No, kindness is one word but Webster's has a number of meanings for it.
I choose mine, you choose yours.
But if you question my interpretation, you question Webster's, as well.


"
To the best of my knowledge" is something you could say if you had no knowledge at all. Which I'm just going to assume was the case, given how you keep dodging the question.
Did you not read that after researching it, I came to the conclusion to the best of my knowledge. Your assumption just remains an empty assumption.
I asked you to show some proof but you keep dodging the answer or are unable to provide it.


Uh...that the punishment was draconian. Remember? You tried to dispute that by implying they'd get the same punishment in Nevada, which turns out not to be true unless you throw another felony into the mix. Therefore, there was no basis from which to dispute the claim to begin with
.
Eh, what claim would that be? That they are both Draconian? If so,
that would be correct.
Your interpretation of my implication is incorrect. I never said " same punishment " .
The point, which escaped you or you chose to ignore, is that with Trump's intervention,
all the punishment they got for their act in China was game suspension.
For the same thing in Nevada, at minimum, they would have had to pay a substantial fine on top of their suspension.

I'm going to end this now and it's not for failing to communicate.



No, kindness is one word but Webster's has a number of meanings for it.
I choose mine, you choose yours.
But if you question my interpretation, you question Webster's, as well.
Nah, I just question your shifting standards, as evidenced by the fact that you actually went on to invoke motive in other ways, too ("higher standards of voluntary behavior").

Did you not read that after researching it, I came to the conclusion to the best of my knowledge.
I read you saying "to the best of my knowledge" without confirming that your original claim was made without knowing whether or not it was true. That you did some light Googling after I asked whether you had any basis for the claim is not surprising, or relevant.

Your assumption just remains an empty assumption.
It was a question, actually. It only became an assumption when you conspicuously refused to answer it.

I asked you to show some proof but you keep dodging the answer or are unable to provide it.
Proof of what? A claim I didn't make? I refuse to bite on the head fake of asking me to provide proof for things I didn't claim so that you can avoid having to provide proof for things you did.

Eh, what claim would that be? That they are both Draconian? If so,
that would be correct.
Cool, but the whole point if that you weirdly chose to dispute it:
"...or what you refer to as Draconian, maybe you should look into Nevada Criminal Law."
It's telling how much time I spend in these arguments merely reminding you of what you just said.

Your interpretation of my implication is incorrect. I never said " same punishment " .
See above. We're back to the "contradiction or non-sequitur?" thing, where either you said exactly what I'm contending, or else you'll have to claim that it was some bizarre aside phrased to sound like a disagreement without being one, somehow.



This,

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ama/886370001/
WASHINGTON – President Trump all but endorsed embattled Alabama Republican candidate Roy Moore on Tuesday, saying he doesn't want another Democrat in the U.S. Senate and stressing Moore's denials of multiple allegations of sexual misconduct involving teenage girls.

“I can tell you one thing for sure: We don’t need a liberal person in there, a Democrat," Trump told reporters at the White House.

Moore has been accused by several women of sexually assaulting and harassing girls as young as 14 years old when he was in his 30s. Of the allegations, Trump said, "Roy Moore denies it; that's all I can say."


Lol, this guy is just the worst.



[quote=Yoda;1827137]

Proof of what? A claim I didn't make? I refuse to bite on the head fake of asking me to provide proof for things I didn't claim so that you can avoid having to provide proof for things you did. ]
You just perfectly illustrated my complaint.
Just a tad hypocritical, eh?



Seeing as how your "complaint" was about people not providing proof for stuff they didn't say, everybody is illustrating that at all times. Look at all of us, just walking around, never backing up the infinite number of possible claims none of us ever made. The gall.

Here, watch: prove that elephants have polka dots! What? You never said they did? Too bad, because claiming something and not claiming something are the same thing now, apparently.



Breaking News, Everyone!

President Trump just released a storm of tweets on the Las Vegas Shooting!...



I'm not sure that's much of a retort, since you're the second-most aligned.
I was expecting this response, though hoping otherwise, provided this plainly represents an extremely narrow range of political candidates and specifically states that I disagree with Trump over 50% of the time on raw policy alone...

Originally Posted by Yoda
More importantly, ideological compatibility doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not you're an apologist.
It certainly informs the likelihood of such of a claim.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Being a Trump apologist just means you downplay the things he does and/or redirect complaints about what he does towards complaints about his critics, neither of which imply that you have a straight agreement with him on granular policy details.
True.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
Oh, the irony. It'd take you two minutes to look up an analysis of this guy's theory to see that it doesn't debunk anything.
Show me your source.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
But of course you've believed all along that Russia was never involved,
Because I've never heard anything except hearsay to suggest otherwise, and I've specifically asked YOU to provided evidence of this claim and you've consistently offered me nothing but conjecture.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
so you grab onto this guy's theory and you disregard all counter arguments
Give me 1 counter argument.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
or explanations,
Give me 1 explanation.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
because this guy confirms your stated belief going back months.
And months ago I was also asking you to defend this claim. I've been ASKING you to persuade me. Repeatedly. And I've got back nothing but posturing.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
"...you've signed on to a narrative that would be personally embarrassing to admit is false." Now that is projection.
I accused you first, that means I'm most right.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
To use an expression you'll understand, I'm not going to spoon feed reality to you.
OH! Okay, so here's how this works:

Kaplan: *makes a claim*
Omnizoa: "Evidence please."
Kaplan: *insults intelligence*
Omnizoa: "Okay, here's a counter-argument."
Kaplan: "That's just a theory."
Omnizoa: "Okay, here's evidence supporting the counter-argument. Do I need to spoonfeed you?"
Kaplan: "That's been debunked."
Omnizoa: "Evidence please."
Kaplan: "Do I need to spoonfeed you?"

And with that Kaplan ends his magic routine by making the burden of proof... DISAPPEAR!

Originally Posted by Kaplan
Occam's Razor is great and all, but you can't just use it to dismiss anything you find objectionable or uncomfortable,
How do you know that's what I'm doing? How do you know I'm not just sitting here on the bed in my nightie, and waiting for you, whose got his pants down, stroking his ego over and over again in a desperate attempt to compensate for that lack of hard evidence.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
Again, I can't spoon feed you reality, but I can assure you Russia has done this on other occasions to other countries. Heck, Russia has been using Ukraine as a testing ground for hacking for quite a while now. That's what they do.
Russians. They hack. It's what they do.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
But I guess you're just smarter than all the intelligence agencies
You mean the organizations you literally pay to keep secrets from you? You're right, my skepticism is entirely unfounded.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
And you really should educate yourself on the things Russia has been doing around the world.
Literally could not matter less. Even if Russia was known for hacking every single other country's election besides the US, that would not be evidence in and of itself that Russia hacked the US election. This is really very basic syllogistic logic:

Russia hacks things.

The US election is hackable.

Therefor Russia hacked the US election.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
I don't have to represent you in any way,
But you do out of the kindness of your own heart and I appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
I've noticed. It seems to be your favorite pastime.
No you. (Seriously, if you're going to do this playground ****, why even play at intellectual superiority?)
__________________
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



If it was just about earning likes for their own sake, then Omnizoa would be posting anti-Trump stuff. The likes in this context are supposed to reflect other people's agreement with one's own posts.
Still my favorite anti-Trump joke:


Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Drain The Swamp.jpg
Views:	212
Size:	53.0 KB
ID:	38476  



From here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/politi...ard/index.html, I got some very cool lines by this visionary leader:

1. "But if you were looking at it as a brand, there's no brand that went up more than the Coast Guard, with what happened in Texas."

2. "You saved 16,000 lives -- nobody knows that -- 16,000 lives."

3. "That was a big water job, right? It kept coming in and going back."


4. "I think that there is no brand, of any kind -- I'm not just talking about a military brand -- that has gone up more than the Coast Guard."

5. "I still haven't figured out how people take their boats out into a hurricane."

6. "I don't know -- I mean, they go out in a boat and they think, I guess, they're -- you know, they've got a wonderful boat, they've had it for years, it can weather anything."

7. "Now, should we leave the media here to do the questions? Or should we tell them to leave?"

8. "And it's nice that you're working for something that's really starting to work."

9. "Your whole, long life, the stock market is higher than it's ever been. And that means your 401(k), all of the things that you have, whether it's -- even if you're in the military, you have a country that's really starting to turn."

10."I was asking the Air Force guys, I said, how good is this plane? They said, well, sir, you can't see it. I said, yeah, but in a fight -- you know, a fight -- like I watch in the movies -- they fight, they're fighting. How good is this?"

11. Even if it's right next to it, it can't see it. I said, that helps. That's a good thing."

12. "You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."

13. "A little bit -- keep a little bit -- keep about 10% in the bag, because what we have -- nobody has like what we have, and that's what we're doing."



Isn't him the most entertaining US political figure ever?