Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
It isn't his manner, it's what he's saying. He so often trots out dogma from Trump's playbook and claims that those who call him out are doing the same from the Democratic side of the argument. Even people like me who don't live in the US, or take a side in US politics.
The principle modus operandi is, hey I'm not lying, look at the other guy he's the one that's lying. The aim being to paint everyone as lying, so there is no objective truth anymore. Cross this with "doublethink", claiming to support, or discuss both sides of any argument, so that which ever side looks most favourable following events is what you were predicting and supporting, all along. Etc etc.
And as a last resort, Oh, I was being sarcastic, so it's alright if I told everyone in the country to inject with cleaning fluid while thousands of fellow citizens are dying in the deadliest pandemic for centuries. I didn't mean it I was being sarcastic.
Yeah, I looked over his posts in the last several pages of this thread, and I don't see that at all.
As to Dutch stupidity: there's a conspiracy theory that g5 is causing covid-19. So people are lighting up communication towers here (where no 5g is installed yet but whatever).
You never know what he’ll say next, but one thing we can all be sure of - there will always be greater depths to plumb.
They say the devil is a gentleman.
He has told a lot of lies and peppered his posts with dis- and misinformation. When it suits his case, he refuses to respond to direct questions. He has, likely intentionally,* curried our disfavor.
*The chemicals of the agony are possibly the most addictive.
There is such a thing as cordial and subdued trolling. It might even be a more effective tactic for the troll. NOS4A2 often repeats directly and precisely what president Trump tweets or says, with uncanny parroting ability, sometimes even elucidating those statements, as if being the author of the statement. This elicits numerous possibilities. Perhaps NOS is president Trump. Perhaps NOS is a bot. Perhaps NOS is paid to make such repetitions. Perhaps NOS admires president Trump so much, and believes that repeating his lies and attempting to defend them will have the effect of influencing others to believe them. And of course there could be a combination of such factors.
The problem is, that no matter what president Trump says, NOS4A2 automatically, and immediately, repeats it, and defends it. It is the accuracy of that descriptive term, "automatically" which reveals the darkness underneath.
It’s an aspect of anti-trumpism. Anyone or anything that looks favorably on the president is subject to hostility and persecution and censorship. It’s a sort of fanaticism. They actually think I’m a Russian bot, not because I’ve spoken Russian or anything, but because it’s what they’ve been taught to believe.
Your go-to phrase when confronted with a narrative that contradicts your lies.
Just recently you've been caught in blatant lies. Why would anyone bother to lie on this forum unless they were either a fanatic or being paid?
Anything you post can only be trusted if it's verifiable, at this point.
I agree. But despite our goodwill toward Trump on this matter, he reacts to the unfair reporting by lying, claiming he was being sarcastic.
No, he wasn't recommending people ingest bleach. He was making a naive extrapolation from what he had just heard about the effectiveness of various methods of killing the virus on surfaces. But he just can't bring himself to admitting that, so he has to lie.
His defence of Trump and his refusal to placate for the most part. Because of Trump Derangement Syndrome, he has been relegated to a category of person no longer worthy of fairness nor respect. He is an agent of evil, and so a guilt free punching bag for the weak of character.
Not to say all his critics are like that, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and its primary definitive feature is not being able to think clearly on matters if Trump (or in more serious cases, anything that can be even remotely tied to Trump) so even then he seldom gets the fair or charitable interactions afforded to others.
:100: (edited to add that, it didnt work the first time)
It is just as dishonest for people to claim he was suggesting people ingest bleach as it is for Trump to say he was being sarcastic.
No, it's not mythical TDS in my view, it's because he almost exclusively posts about, and in support of, Trump with often a high degree of apparently calculated spin. Nobody else in the history of this site has spent even close to the proportion of time, energy, and number of posts to support their political personality of choice. It's unprecedented and naturally draws suspicion as do some of his inconsistent statements about himself and his background. But he doesn't usually break the rules and when he does, corrects course as far as I can see, so as long as that holds, he's entitled to the same privileges and protections as any other member. Anyone can use the flag function if they think he's being mistreated.
TDS is not mythical. Maybe it gets tossed around too much as such terms do, but I have met and witnessed it many times.
Ive noticed the time and energy as well, and agree it is suspicious. Ive asked him about it myself. I wouldnt say that justifies how he is often treated though. If he did the same thing about not Trump, I very much doubt he would be getting the same treatment. GnosticBishop is the same way about anti-christian stuff, those two anti-natalists are the same way about their posts, Wallows (or whatever hes called now) is the same way with his therapy posts etc, there is a type of poster that just doggedly stays on point about something and none of those other people get treated like that. (Except by me maybe). Still, even after that consideration I agree its suspicious.
I realise you are often his sparring partner, but I wasnt singling you out in the post you responded to.
I think knowingly spreading propaganda that may contribute to decisions that end up killing people for political gain is evil. Arguably, spreading any kind of propaganda or misinformation is. So "agent of evil" seems accurate.
But maybe that's my weak character talking.
The political threads are rather rough and tumble anyway. The philosophical threads, we generally keep cleaner. I think that's the way it should be. Btw, @schopenhauer1 has taken an enormous amount of stick for his philosophical hobby horse and @Gnostic Christian Bishop has been heavily criticized too. @Shawn (formerly Wallows) hasn't been pushed around by the community much but has been ban-threatened several times. It is possible to go too far with this and as I said the flag function can be used. Best I can do.
Quoting DingoJones
I realize that.
Quoting Baden
I would say the shit those folk have to take over their shenanigans is lesser in scope and frequency. There isnt the same venom, nor as many people onboard the hate train. Also, Im not suggesting mod involvement or anyone needs to be warned or reported. Rather its the kind of thing we hope people will hold themselves accountable for.
I'm quite upset about you pointing out my weak character. Do you by chance hold yourself accountable for that, kind sir?
So should we give shit to Plato for being so narrowly focused on the idea of the Ideas? Should we give shit to Aristotle only zeroing in on Virtues? Should we give shit to Schopenhauer because his focus was on Will or Frege and Wittgenstein with their dogged focus on language use or mathematics? I mean, if someone's philosophy has a theme, that may be due to consistency and building a philosophy on that core consistency.
I think there is a difference between being consistent in philosophy and then defending a political figure, no matter what he does. I haven't read NOS4A2's posts enough, but it seems like he is simply defending Trump at all costs. Perhaps he really does think anything Trump does is good. One can argue that this is arguing in bad faith as, no matter how bad Trump does, he will never admit that this is bad because he will always point to other politicians who screw up but in much different ways, and is perhaps not even relative to the fact that Trump screwed up. There are other ways people troll. I know posters on here enough to know where they are coming from. Anyone who has been on this forum long enough, if they JUST see one argument from a recent thread from a frequent poster (like myself), and do not take any previous arguments made into consideration (and they have seen the previous threads), that would be trolling. They are purposely too narrowly focusing on the one current argument when they (possibly) know all the other arguments that have been made besides the current one that they are (purposely?) too narrowly focusing on.
It's just the case that the poster is currently using a new argument or a variation when clearly they addressed the objections in previous ones. It could be the case that the interlocutor sincerely doesn't know the objections were addressed previously, or it could also be the case that the person knows the previous arguments but are going to go through with posing the objections anyways as if there were never previous defenses made in other threads.
Anyways, the point is, I don't know if it is fair to lump me in the camp that you are doing, Baden.
I was just saying you'd been criticized a lot not that you'd done anything wrong.
I understand you might feel the need to chime in, luckily I wasnt talking to either of you so you can ignore me. Win win.
Unless you can quote an authority it's another adhom
Ah, of course, where are my manners! :scream: Do be a gentleman and please forgive my inexcusable intrusion.
No its not. An Ad Hom is when I attack the person instead of the argument. I wasnt addressing an argument.
Identifying when someone is allowing their views of Trump to cloud or impair their normal behaviour (TDS in a nutshell) is no more an Ad Hom than observing that the sniffles and cough mean someone has a cold. In fact, what you just did is closer to an Ad Hom than what I said, since you didnt actually address what I said. You just posted to throw shade on me (the Ad Hom accusation).
Note, TDS is not exclusive to Trump haters. I would say it also applies to people who are so pro Trump that they behave in abnormal ways as well.
I don’t know what response you could possibly expect from me, given the see through attempt to manufacture something to mock about me in your posts.
It's a made-up-meme, the purpose of which is to discredit criticism of Trump. Period. There is zero more substance to it than that as you're smart enough to know. And, besides, by the definition above, every criticism of any politician clouded by bias against them (which is to a degree almost every criticism of every politician) is X [insert politician's name] Derangement Syndrome. In fact why restrict it to politicians? Let's just call every criticism we don't like "deranged", so we don't have to deal with it. So, it's a primitive political cudgel dressed up in a superficial layer of pseudo-psychological double-speak and employing it marks an end to serious communication and a descent into the same childishness it seeks to condemn. (Like, how does the conversation continue now you've identified your opponent as "deranged"?).
When you ascribe TDS to someone or some group, you are dismissing their argument about Trump as the result of a accepted medical condition that their critical judgement cannot resist. Thus you don't have to address it and they are wrong before being considered. Calling someone deranged without proof is attacking the man.
"Sniffles and a cough", is a false parallel and affirming the consequent, so again, wrong before being considered. I was not throwing shade since I was giving you a chance to reference it to a medical authority. We are on a philosophy forum. If we cannot provide a source for a claim then we shed light on a logical fallacy.
I didnt realise that It was being posited as an actual medical condition. In my experience it was a term of mockery, illustrating a phenomenon where ordinarily rational people become irrational on the topic of Trump.
So you two are telling me I have an idiosyncratic definition of the term?
So, the implication is that the criticism is irrational because it's about Trump. Which itself is irrational. Trump-Critic Derangement Syndrome (TCDS)?
I just thought a little transparent mockery would nicely complement the pearls you’re clutching.
Which means it is an Ad Hom.
You don’t understand what an Ad Hom is. You can address someones argument AND mock them. An Ad Hom is when you mock (or attack) the person rather than the argument.
You didn't answer my question.
Or invalidate any criticism.
We pick on NOS because he's clearly a troll. He puts up ridiculous crap and if no one comments on it, he'll put it up again.
He's fairly dispassionate about it as if it's a job. He doesn't seem to mind being picked on.
It could be that he simply enjoys the attention, in which case we might now be serving him up a feast.
Aha! Another sufferer of TCDS! :gasp:
Well thats not a very charitable way of putting it. You’ve never observed that sometimes people have particular blind spots? I would call the phenomenon I mentioned an extreme case of that.
You didnt answer my question either.
Rather than addressing what I said, you both made decidedly unhelpful responses instead.
Of course you can address someone's argument AND mock them, but they are two separate statements, separate claims. You can't make up some hybrid argument that contains any number of fallacies and then tack on some rational statement at the end that gets them all through the door.
Please stop saying I don't understand something without cleaning up your argument first.
Your question was about having a singular definition of of TBS?
I cant disagree with any of that. He likes fucking with you guys.
Yes, I honestly didnt know that any significant number of people claimed it was some kind if medical term. Is the description I gave not what people generally mean by TDS?
Nothing we've said is as remotely unhelpful as accusing someone of TDS. I ignored your question because it didn't directly apply to me.
It's only use on this forum, up until now, was rather frequently by someone called Nobeernolife. He was banned last month I believe. Check that thread for any reasons.
Yes, well, there was one time where he admitted he was wrong about something while in office; but he made such a big deal about it that you couldn't help but get the impression that it was a calculated admission, meant to mollify his detractors and portray himself in a gracious, sympathetic light.
In any case, notwithstanding any intense dislike we might have for an individual, I think it is important to render an accurate account of events. We can do this by not (a) misconstruing obvious things, (b) abiding by the principle of charity, and (c) avoiding gratuitous hyperbole.
A recommendation to inject bleach into your veins is something different than, as you say, "making a naive extrapolation." But as philosophers we should be able to grasp this nuance, and set aside any feelings we might have that have no bearing on what actually is the case. There's no reason to blur the lines. The search for truth is vexing enough as it is.
All of these tactics are of course pathetically transparent, but in Trumpworld, as we know, facts don’t matter.
Essentially, he suggested it "might" be a good idea not that it "is" a good idea. The movement to the positive from the speculative is hyperbole somewhat justified by the added humor element and the fact that both brain farts are almost equally egregious. Like, I don't know, as if someone said "It might be a good idea to set yourself on fire when you're cold". And then the defense was, "Hey, he was just speculating, man!" He deserves every ounce of ridicule though we should be honest enough to acknowledge what he actually did say, of course.
I can agree with that. Ridicule is appropriate as long as we are able to grasp the nuance I stated in the last post. Otherwise, using it as a form of argumentation is poor form, or even fallacious.
Agreed.
You lied by accusing me of lying, whether by malice or stupidity, but then you keep perpetuating it.
Hey if you feel too hot, you might try pouring some liquid nitrogen over yourself.
Just an innocent [s]suggestion[/s] speculation.
Hey I only take medical advice from politicians.
My question did apply to you, it was directed at you and Monitor. Doesnt matter now.
Ok. Ive seen the term used elsewhere to mean what I described. Ive heard it directed at the media and various personalities, in youtube videos etc.
I can understand how my use of it would seem worse if that usage (as a medical condition, ridiculous) was the only one youve been exposed to...I feel like that was a hasty assumption but Nobeernolife was a pretty big fool so I get it.
Anyway, i think there is a phenomenon around Trump, where he so divides and triggers people that they stop thinking clearly. It causes otherwise good people to lie and sling mud the way Trump does, never noticing the hypocrisy. It makes it difficult to have productive political discussions. I do not think it is a dismissive number of people doing this, I cant even think of a media outlet that hasnt bullshited or straight up lied about Trump. Its in fashion, and Trump is such a reviled person no one cares.
But its works both ways too. I have a friend who is a Trump guy. He’ll go on and on about deep state and Trumps great and yadda yadda. (Its been difficult lol). Now, Ill give any point of view a fair shot, but my instincts told me to test the waters first. I asked him if there was anything Trump did that was wrong, or a mistake. His answer was “no”. That is deranged, in the non-medical, non formal sense of the word.
So thats what I mean when I say TDS.
You don't get to decide what words mean.
Wow, thanks for coming out. Thats not even what Im doing in the portion you quoted. Im explaining what I meant when I used it, as is evident by the rest of the post that you apparently skipped.
Yes, I know Im not the King of Words. Thanks.
At the same time, what TDS means is quite clear from how it's used: a way to discredit any criticism by discrediting the person. It's an ad hom.
While we are on the subject of epistemology, what is the epistemic justification for the principle of charity?
In general I think the focus on an "accurate account of events" is somewhat misplaced here. If you go by headlines alone, you'd hardly gain an accurate account of anything. This is not specific to Trump. Nor is Trump specifically vulnerable to distortions. Quite the opposite, actually.
So if we want to talk about accurate reporting, we'd have to talk about the substance beyond the headlines and hot takes.
The way I describe it is as if someone comes up to you and knees you in the leg, then immediately limps away claiming to any onlooker that you kneed them in the leg. You feel as if you've been mugged and if you then turn to the onlooker to explain what actually happened you look like the guilty party because you look unsettled and a bit tongue tied. Whereas the real attacker rehearses a well practiced routine of the genuine victim which at first sight is more convincing to the onlooker than the behaviour of the real victim.
Likewise the Trump supporter rehearses a well practiced position as an innocent victim of an irrational attack from a hater of Trump. In an environment in which the accusation of TDS is used at every opportunity along with accusations of fake news, alternative facts, labelling everyone who is not approved by Trump as a poor loser.
Trump then adopts the posture of a kind benevolent (successful) leader, kindly breaking it to everyone that these people with TDS are mistaken (weak) and resentful. This simultaneously implies that his views on the world and affairs is inviolable truth and everything else is devious conspiratorial attacks on this truth by Flawed individuals. The sleight of hand here is that he is fostering a political atmosphere in which everyone is morally corrupt, everyone is a liar, everyone is divisive in their actions. Then Trump and his supporters behave/pretend as though he is good, truthful, benevolent and a great leader. The classic behaviour of a confidence trickster while muggging someone.
What the principle of charity does not suggest is that if some one suggests injecting disinfectant, they couldn't possibly actually mean to suggest injecting disinfectant. That's a job for his lackeys.
So it does not really help @Wolfman's case.
Actually, that's right. In any case, here I'm not concerned with what someone "couldn't possibly actually mean," rather what someone actually said, and how those words are used to form a non sequitur conclusion. As mentioned previously in my discussion with Relativist, a recommendation to inject bleach into your veins is something different than "making a naive extrapolation," and equating the two or drawing a conclusion of the former from the latter is non sequitur. Pointing out this distinction isn't necessarily a job for a lackey, rather it can be forwarded in the spirit of keeping discussion honest.
...oh, wait....
no, I'll stand by my other comment. There is a point where the absurdity of what is said is such that ridicule is appropriate. Perhaps even obligatory.
My take was that he was (a) suggesting looking into an injectable treatment that had the same kind of quick-working cleansing effect that disinfectants have on tables and chairs and things like that. It didn't look to me like he was (b) recommending that people inject bleach into their bodies. I think Trump thought people were negatively reacting to (a) because all of his medical staff told him it was unrealistic and lacked feasibility, so he lied rather obviously to distance himself from that remark. But you could be right that Trump is lying to distance himself from (b), if he is actually THAT stupid.
You know, much as I appreciate trying to keep the debate as honest and rational as possible, it strikes me just how absurd this entire conversation is.
If the president of France had said the same thing, what would likely have happened? He'd have done serious damage to his reputation, possibly ended his political career, regardless of the exact wording and intent. Yet here we are, discussing whether the media had maybe been slightly unfair to Trump.
This is an excellent example of how Trumpists, with the help of trolls and the people who unwittingly engage with them, shape the debate to their advantage.
Well, this point of mine started as somewhat of an aside, where the conclusion of that post was critical of Trump. In so many words I said, "Well, to be fair he didn't exactly tell people to go out and inject bleach into their bodies, but the fact that he said anything that could remotely be construed that way is highly imprudent and irresponsible." Had not some people latched onto that initial point and descended upon it with such fervor, the level of absurdity in the conversation may not have reached such heights. The point being made was fairly innocuous in my estimation; but where Trump is concerned, I suppose even conceding these kinds of trivial points becomes a major point of contention for some.
We had Agustino here for a while, relentlessly defending Trump (Not seen for a while, may have evolved). But Agustino was a pale shadow of NOS4A2 in that capacity.
Even if he doesn't directly tell people to drink bleach, by some reports people have followed his reasoning and hurt themselves or died because of it. Would it legally be possible to charge Trump with manslaughter or constructive involuntary manslaughter or criminally negligent manslaughter?
I find no one asking that question as if it couldn't be applied to him? In all logical reasoning, it should?
Quoting Benkei
How long people will believe that utterly stupid line? Trump hasn't shaken up the system. Not a bit. On the contrary, corruption flourishes extremely well under an inept and defunct administration. All he has been able to do is that tax cut for the rich.
If people want to change the system they need to have someone to change the system. Bernie Sanders stance on social democracy would definitely have shaken up the system if applied, but the idea that Trump would shake up the system is only based on their idea that because Trump is so incompetence it would destroy the fundamentals of government, and then everyone rebuilds a new government upon it. It's the Animal Farm idea of revolution and it's a delusional strategy that has no grounds in reality.
People who thought like this were only interested in the chaos, to "get back at those politicians". I cannot see their reasoning behind it as anything other than idiocy and uneducated emotional outburst to blame someone for their own shitty lives. It's the same idea behind racism and blaming immigrants, how strange that there are so many of these racist haters of immigrants who also voted for Trump. What a coincidence.
Nothing is stopping you from explaining, for instance, how in three months you went from being financially independent to being near broke. It could be as simple as typing out a few letters, like “Vegas”.
The thought policing, used as it is in combination with sensationalism, is more dangerous than Trump’s questions about injecting disinfectant. It creates a culture of silence and public relations. Where we once had unbridled access to our leader’s thoughts, their overreaction at such an innocuous question has convinced him it is just not worth it, so instead we are given the prepared and sanitized speeches of unelected bureaucrats.
The sensationalism dangerously replaces any reporting on vital information.
I am financially independent. Where do I say I was almost broke?
Quoting NOS4A2
Nothing in there about being near broke, I’m afraid. So I suppose that was a lie. Which of my statements were false, and used with the intent to deceive?
Let me put it this way, those who are taught in the right circles have a pretty good idea of how long money lasts, whereas you appear to be clueless, yet you claimed to have been taught in the right circle.
So what did I lie about? You called me a liar and claim I was caught in a lie. What did I lie about?
You lied about being in the right circle, obviously.
I said “Money is already earned, friend. Unfortunately that’s something they won’t teach you in certain circles.” So another lie. Sorry bub, but the only one caught in a web of lies is yourself.
In all honesty, if you don’t know the right amount to claim “money earned” or how long money lasts then you couldn’t have been taught in the right circle.
I dont think it is a lighthearted thing, its rather serious. Its part of whats causing this political divide where people are going crazy (on both sides, and no I dont mean actually, medically “crazy”.). Its part of what got Trump elected and before this Covid 19 stuff, why he was going to be re-elected.
Anyway, I have already explained what I meant by TDS, and Ive acknowledged that some people here have a very different idea about what the teem means. Im just trying to communicate, sometimes that means being open to different senses or uses of words. Its generally not helpful to...I dont know, get your hackles up.
Also, Its not like I mentioned anyone by name and I specifically said it was SOME of his critics...so ask yourself why you are operating under the assumption I was talking about you when referencing TDS.
I disagree.
People had watched Trump, the reality TV star, and thought he was a competent businessman. He was a billionaire, so someone that Americans look up to. Never mind the actual reality, which is "fake news" to those who believe in Trump. Besides, an incompetent and inept president cannot destroy the fundamentals of government. The agenda of Stephen Bannon never was really picked up and wasn't executed as in reality for a President to have any impact on the government he has to have at least some leadership qualities. Trump doesn't have any. But he's a great showman.
The Trump of his supporters:
Quoting ChristofferIf you think so, what is then your answer? Not having a democratic elections or what?
I have no idea what's going on; but, I'm comfortably numb nowadays.
What part of what I wrote makes you think that as a Dutchman I feel you were talking about me? :chin:
Oh I understand now. You were defending others, not yourself. My mistake.
United States - 2,425
South Korea - 0
:mask: addendum
States see spike in poison control calls following Trump's comments on injecting disinfectant
In Maryland, the Emergency Management Agency received over 100 calls inquiring about the president’s suggestion, forcing the service to issue an alert to remind citizens that “under no circumstances should any disinfectant product be administered into the body through injection, ingestion or any other route.”
In New York City, the Daily News reported that the Poison Control Center saw 30 cases of “exposure to Lysol, bleach & other cleaners in 18 hours after Trump’s suggestion” that cleaning products might be used to treat coronavirus. NYC Poison Control saw only 13 such cases in a similar period last year.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/states-spike-poison-control-calls
:rofl:
Not sure how you conclude what I wrote into that. But in terms of elections, first, a two-party election that forces Republicans to vote for a person like Trump enforce a mentality where they need to post-justify their choice and defend someone they clearly don't want to have as a president. It creates a cognitive dissonance that further push chaos.
Then I have the idea that people can only vote if they can answer basic questions about the politicians and parties involved in an election. A form, free to be filled out with any source of information, online, in libraries etc. but need to be correct in order to vote. This way, people who doesn't really care about their vote or politics, those who just vote because of bullshit reasons would probably not feel the energy does go through that process before a vote and it would concentrate votes to those with basic understanding of the parties and people that get the votes. A basic understanding is a fundamental thing in a democracy that aims to lower the risk of demagogue politics.
We also need a standardized marking system for online information. Official, scientific, trustworthy media, trustworthy individuals and red marks for those who actively spread disinformation/misinformation. Such markings can start off as being handled by Google as Google handles most of the searches in the world.
If I'm gonna describe details about the practical implementation of the above I need to write lots of pages, but as a general point to where I stand in how to improve democracy and current information age and tackle the post-truth epidemic.
In the machismo world of great leaders leading their troops to battle the US wins.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Quoting unenlightened
... and this season on
Survivor: The Apprentice Edition! :clap:
:down: :up:
"Av? Imper?tor, morit?r? t? sal?tant!"
Creationism is basically banned in academics, which produces an endless stream of materialists coming from education. So a large share of the population is materialist, especially higher educated, but they are living in a profoundly creationist nation.
Eventually materialists will win, as their position in academics is currently unassailable. But it will take a long time to get rid of the inherently creationist constitution. Only if understanding of freedom becomes to be essential in producing technology, and so becomes essential in education, will creationism start to win again.
But it is not likely that understanding of freedom will become essential, because there is no point in producing a car or washing machine with free will. So freedom continues to be regarded in education as a cultural fantasy, and the spirit that chooses, is ignored.
Materialism seems to provide 2 flavors for politics, communism and nazism. And mostly in academics they are proud to have chosen communism over nazism. But they still have the option of nazism in their mind, because it naturally comes from the logic of materialism.
Social democracy is a kind of middle ground of materalists parasiting on creationists. The creationists provide the emotions, the materialists then live of the emotions provided by the creationists. Basically like a parent child relationship, but then the child is in charge. The child making ever increasing demands on the parents. That is how it works in europe. Very non descript leaders, non descript political parties, trying to accommodate the ever increasing demands of materialist children part of the population. Creationists will then work less, because there is simply no happiness to be attained from achieving materialist goals.
So the trend is toward non descript politicians, who are ingenious in meeting the ever increasing irrational demands of the materialist populace. Meanwhile the motivation to work is lowered, requiring immigrants to take up the slack, and producing goods in 3rd world countries.
Trump is probably the last creationist president. He probably won't even get reelected.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8258725/Maryland-governor-said-hundreds-called-ask-ingesting-Clorox.html
Thats not what I did. I used a term that certain people have a different way of using, and when it was pointed out to me I acknowledged it and explained what I meant to clarify myself. How you described it, I would call “spin”. Trying to make something sound less savoury than it actually is. Thats dishonest.
Also, after your initial one line post you followed up with direct reference to the judgement I was making. The point being, you spent more time and words on the judgement i was making than the actual use of the term. So you spent more time on something you just claimed you weren’t doing and only a single line on what you claimed you were doing. Im awfully tempted to call that dishonest as well, but Im such a swell guy I try to use the principal of charity where I can so I will chalk it up to you just being a bit confused.
Anyway, you were trying to address something that annoyed you, I was trying to address a specific phenomenon I observed in various interactions between NOS and others in response to @Wolfman. Looks to me like we’ve done that so you are welcome to the last word but Ive had enough.
Reading some of the stuff going on in the Joe Biden thread right now, I'm tempted to become a convert to TDS-realism.
Im not sure what you mean by that. Im going to go have a look now though :wink:
I see lol
Something in the name perhaps.
I wouldnt classify that as TDS actually, since I would say TDS only applies to OTHERWISE rational people. In the case of Frank A, I actually will go so far as to say he suffers from a real medical condition, likely an emotional disorder. (With the caveat that I have a limited data set from which to make my judgement of course).
I actually feel regret for how I dealt with him initially. That guys got something going on.
You used a term incorrectly, I pointed that out. You whine that's a single sentence reply. I expound. You suggest I was reacting because of TDS or something. I ask what gave you that idea. You then whine and bitch about dishonesty. It's that your idea of an argument?
What's the spin exactly, when I say "You don't get to decide what words mean."? It's not as if you didn't have a chance to reply, was it?
This is a great op-Ed by the WSJ editorial board detailing Schiff’s hypocrisy. The man who tried to impeach the president for stonewalling, crying coverup, is now stonewalling. What is Schiff hiding?
Schiff’s Secret Transcripts
Where were you complaining when Trump was stonewalling? Oh wait. Your were making excuses for it. Unitary executive theory!
What does Trump have to hide, hmmm?
I do. He’s a big player in these hoaxes.
No, I think a dangerous and expensive injustice has been perpetrated, and I’d like to see these transcripts with my own eyes.
Well just come to the US and apply for citizenship. Then see if by way of the Freedom of Information Act you can see the transcript with your own eyes.
That much is true.
Trump considers it a compliment? Wouldn't surprise me: "I rape the best women. Nobody rapes women like I do."
'These hoaxes' being the whole 'deep state conspiracy', purportedly launched by the Democratic National Committee, in collusion with corrupt elements in the FBI and CIA to bring down the democratically-elected President of the United States.
It's the Alt-right counter-narrative, in which Robert Mueller and the FBI are the corrupt elements, and Trump the unimpeachable Stable Genius, harrassed and harried by foes on all side, a world in which Putin and Kim Jong Un are the real allies, and the FBI and CIA are the enemies of the people.
Meanwhile, at The Atlantic, a worthwhile article on Trump Derangement Syndrome which was discussed here recently. This one concerns Trump's now abated enthusiasm for hydroxychloroquine as the Miracle Cure for COVID-19.
We may recall a few short weeks ago that Trump was praising this drug as a 'game changer' over the objections of his scientific and medical advisers. But any criticism of Trump's enthusiasm was portrayed in the Alternative Universe as being an example of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS):
Even today, Trump has been tweeting about the fact that the 'fake news media's' only interest in reporting COVID-19 deaths is to undermine him.
With the WH knowing about it in November, I must be missing something. I can't find in your link that the WH (and does that include Schiff as a result?) knew late November. The first mention of it in Dutch news was in January.
Even so, let's assume Schiff knew some new virus was active in Wuhan on the 18th of December, it was contained to China and the severity was unknown as was the method of spreading as well. The reported cases on January 22 for China was 557 (earliest date I could quickly find). So to say Schiff thought impeachment was more important than the coronavirus is rather misleading, as the coronavirus wasn't a thing on 18 December.
This article is one of many from a few weeks ago discussing intelligence reports to the White House in late November 2019. Rep. Schiff, as Chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, was also privy to the same intelligence reports as the White House. Of course, Administration officials have denied this but various press organizations stand by their reporting (because - I've no doubt in my mind - some of the 'unnamed sources' are both White House officials and House (& maybe even Senate) Intelligence Committee staffers.)
Quoting Benkei
Yes. The intel would have been highly classified at that time so he could not have "acted" on it or "gone public" with it without violating federal law. And any official U.S. government response to a national security threat of any kind in real-time is solely the duty of Executive Branch and the White House. Impeachment was Schiff's duty, a foreign epidemic outbreak was the president's duty; it's patently misleading to claim Schiff prioritized one over the other since only one of these crises was (and is) a responsibilty for the Legistlative Branch.
It was a CLASSIFIED "thing" and not a public "thing" the day tRump was impeached (and apparently for weeks leading up to it).
I don’t use the term TDS because there is no such diagnosis. I prefer anti-Trumpism because it better reflects the ideological aspect of their dogma and fanaticism without making light of mental illness. Though it looks like derangement, I would argue it’s more religious in nature.
If I’m remembering right, you often use the phrase “anti-Trump hysteria,” which is no less of a logical fallacy, designed to invalidate any criticism of Trump in the weak minded Trump supporter, than using the term TDS is.
I wouldn’t expect you to be able tell me why or how I’m wrong, given that you take to backbiting and lying about others.
I was pointing out how you’re misrepresenting your past behavior, and the purpose behind the behavior, and not that you’re necessarily “wrong” about anything.
What does my prolific gossiping via pm about you have anything to do with this?
I said I don’t use the term TDS. So now I get to watch lie again.
Should I do a search for “anti-trump hysteria”?
I’m not sure why you would. TDS stands for Trump Derangement Syndrome.
What do you call pro trump people who have a similar “derangement”, who just aren't thinking clearly on the topic?
Do you have any particular group or example?
You accuse me of misrepresenting myself at the same time you search through my post history for instances of me using a different phrase entirely.
Not in particular. Shouldnt be necessary unless someone wants to claim such a thing doesn't exist. It would be a spectrum of course, with varying degrees just like with the anti-Trump crowd.
Maybe someone who joins a philosophy forum to write thousands of posts in support of their political hero within a few months. Some of us have criticized Trump, but none of his critics here come even remotely close to that level of religious fervour.
That's certainly true. I suspect there are plenty conspiracy-theory, "Q" types who see Trump as the second coming of Christ.
Could have fooled me.
Sure, Ive also heard people say things like Trump doesnt lie, that he’s a good christian etc, or even just case by case you can tell with some people that the facts are just not as important as the teams or narrative. I was just curious if you also had a name like anti-trump hysteria (or whatever) for pro Trump side. It appears you do not. Pro-Trump hysteria I guess?
Ive been using TDS to describe it on both sides, but apparently thats a trigger word for some. To avoid confusion, im leaning towards “the trump effect. The only drawback is it ruins phrases like “look, TDS in effect”. It would be “look, the Trump effect in...effect”.
I use anti-Trump hysteria to illustrate the reactionary response to Trump, not so much the people that believe it. But Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump suit me just fine.
Different phrase and different meaning.
Praxis - "Potato, Potahto". Same word spoken differently but means the same thing.
That accomplish the same task. I could, for example, say that you have a weak character or say that you’re immoral. Both could be used as an ad hom attract in an effort to influence the weak minded (such as a trump supporter) to dismiss basically anything you say.
Rather, you’re not fooling anyone.
I guess you would know, especially given your spineless efforts to search through my past comments looking for gotchas.
I’m probably one of the few who read many of your posts. If I read more of them, I imagine that my spineless work would be far more labor intensive.
But you’re the only one who searches through another’s posts for what you believe are contradictions, even if the words and meanings are different, and then offer them as ad Homs and red herrings. Is that how a stoic grapples with arguments he doesn’t like?
Sorry, you'll have to refresh my memory, what is the argument that I don't like?
This makes me wonder if the basic mission of people like NOS and nobeer is to help provide that suspension of disbelief to any Trumpies that may read negative content about their hero on this forum.
Clearly NOS is on a mission of some sort.
It may seem insignificant to you but NOS has a point. Let me take it out of the political setting and show you what I mean.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder came to be an actual diagnosis: DSM-5 309.81.
In any field of medicine the Dx is hugely important as it helps define treatment protocol and standards. If a patient has a Dx of any kind and switches Doctors the Dx is a great place to start for the new Doc. Awesome!
With one caveat: mental health. There is a stigma placed on people who suffer from a mental health symptom which might be totally "situational" and over a period of time and learning coping skills to deal with it and the diagnosis is no longer applied. Just like a woman is diagnosed pregnant and carrying a baby does not continue being treated under a pregnancy Dx (8 weeks is what I think the Ob/Gyn can do) after the baby is born but it is part of their medical record. Which is protected (telemedicine has flexed the rules during the pandemic) under HIPPA laws and no employer has the right to those records with due cause and absolute concent from the patient.
However when you put a term like "disorder" or "syndrome" and attach it to a phenomen, by nature people look at you differently, as though your condition is permanent. That is why people in the medical field, mental health especially being considered, have changed the term to PTS ( which George Bush Jr.. emphasizes because of his work with the wounded warriors) as it allows the period of growth, a way to settle into a new way but one with no limits.
PTS if it applies but I pray that most warriors become PTSG: post traumatic stress growth.
Simple terms carry a lot of meaning in both the medical field and society we live in.
Both TDS and TD accomplish the same task... what you wrote doesn't appear to address anything I've posted.
I am sorry for I can only provide information. I cannot be responsible for the readers comprehension if there is no honest effort to understand the spirit of my post.
I wrote the above because we do not currently have a "banging my head against the wall" emoticon. :flower:
You're also not responsible for the reader's comprehension of the content of your posts.
Rather than banging your head, you could try to explain how the content of your post relates to what I posted. Assigning the attribute of "hysteria" rather than "derangement syndrome" to others may be a lesser attack, but it remains an ad hom attack.
Are you condoning the use of ad hominem attacks in this forum?
No one says potahto.
I don't think they need any excuse at all. Trumpsters, like Trump, will say anything.
They've muddied the very notion of a fact. No doubt Trump's most potent tack and most dangerous legacy.
And sarcasm is irony with a dose of testosterone.
But, I gotta say, I can't see how Trump's disinfectant comments could be understood as sarcastic.
So, while 'mercans might understand sarcasm, I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't.
And that probably applies to Trumpians.
Tomahto?
Of course. Change the subject. Whataboutism at its most ludicrous. :lol:
True that. Only a dogmatic fanatic could think there's anything the matter with Trump. :lol:
He was 'thinking out loud' - obviously. 'If only we could zap the virus with light and disinfectant while it's in the body!' Just like any child.
Sarcasm isn't Trump's style. He makes his point by repetition, statements he repeats; he's a repeater; he's a great repetitious unstable moron. His style is bombast, pomposity, ranting, verbosity, blathering, lying, vague generalizations, and worse.
Dump Trump at the earliest possible opportunity.
Ad nauseam.
The force is strong in you, praxis.
https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/police-investigating-death-of-arizona-man-from-chloroquine-phosphate/
"Overall, we rate the Washington Free Beacon Right Biased based on story selection that favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading and false claims."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Trump makes himself look bad. There's no need for women to kill their husbands.
Its not an argument that's being dismissed here, it's the reliability of the information. A simple distinction. That's why we don't credit stuff from, for example, conspiracy sites. Some of it could be true, but the onus is on the poster of the information to use an acceptable source. If that were not true, every examiner of an academic paper would be guilty of the genetic fallacy for directing their students to use academic sources and for rejecting information that did not come from these sources. We don't require academic sources here, but we do require minimally credible ones. Yours was not.
Nothing like the old "fake news"-super-hypocrisy-trap to concentrate a mind.
What was wrong with the story?
The answer is in my post. You don't get to post stuff from clearly biased sites with a consistent history of spreading misinformation and expect people to waste their time on it. Life's too short. If there's anything true in that story, it should be available from a reasonably reliable news outlet. Go find a reliable source if you want to be taken seriously.
So it’s not the information, it’s who said it. That is fallacious thinking, but if you’re fine with that, I have no problem.
No, it's not, because the claim is not that the information is false but that it's unreliable and that relates to who is providing it. It's why, for example, we are likely to accept a doctor's diagnosis that a mole we have is cancerous and reject a random drunk's. Of course, the drunk might accuse us of fallacious thinking, but he is a moron who knows no more about philosophy than he does about medicine, so why should we listen to him?
An argument cannot be considered valid or invalid nor a claim true or false purely on the basis of its source. [Genetic Fallacy]
Information can (and should be) considered more or less reliable depending on its source.
(The drunk / right wing rag could be right but it's legitimate to demand a more reliable source.)
Hard to be both completely wrong and a complete hypocrite at the same time, but he's managed it
Oh no it isn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb8AGuD2uOI
I believe it’s wise to be careful and diligent with any information, but I don’t think it’s wise to discount a story just because it comes from a left or right-wing source, or has in the past made mistakes. Even the National Enquirer has broken news. So though I appreciate the totally impartial and unbiased gatekeeping, I’m a big boy and can figure it out for myself.
If only you were. Again with the hypocrisy. Here's your heuristic in a nutshell: negative of Trump - - > unreliable, must go out of my way to discredit. Untrustworthy right wing rag publishes story favourable of Trump - - > must tell the world.
That’s not true. I’ve cited CNN, the New York Times, WaPo, the WSJ, The Guardian, more than I have Fox News or “right wing rags”, because I know this is exactly how you would react. It’s just too predictable.
Trump is corrupt and has obstructed justice as proved by the investigation by Mueller.
I'm not making a judgement on the story, I'm making a judgement on the source. We all have limited time here. Just provide a reliable source. If the story is true, that shouldn't be a problem.
Of course you claim this of me and not people who do the opposite. The only standards you have are double standards.
Fair enough. For future reference, CNN has a similar score to the Washington Free Beacon, which I guess means it’s an unreliable source.
But Yahoo has picked up the story.
https://news.yahoo.com/woman-blamed-trump-giving-her-133613382.html
For opinion, without doubt; it's the Dem TV channel. For pure news, the report says:
"However, news reporting on the website tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks."
And it's news not opinion we're discussing. Having said that, it got a worse score than I expected and I wouldn't have a problem re-sourcing if someone questioned my CNN article.
Quoting NOS4A2
:up:
I haven’t read a single good faith thing you’ve written. So much for truth and lies.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/maxwelltani/status/1255161727706116096?s=21[/tweet]
I really think you should stop using the term "fake news" to refer to any kind of inaccurate new report. "Fake news" refers to deliberate disinformation, not honest mistakes. Here you can read what actually happened:
There was a debt, but subsequently sold off to someone else, and there was an erroneous financial record. So it's not as if Politico were making stuff up or engaged in spin. You can criticize them for not conducting sufficient due diligence, at least with respect to the first issue, but it doesn't warrant being considered "fake news".
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth
I respectfully reserve my right to call sloppy journalism “fake news”.
Exhibit "A".
[quote=U.S. CDC website]CDC estimates that the burden of illness during the 2018–2019 season included an estimated 35.5 million people getting sick with influenza, 16.5 million people going to a health care provider for their illness, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths from influenza.[/quote]
Exhibit "B"
:scream:
Exhibit "C"
In 2020 to date SARS-2 (Covid-19) is reported to have infected over 3.1 million people resulting so far in over 217,000 deaths globally. Annualized (×3) that comes roughly to 654,000 dead.
Exhibit "D" re: U.S. Commander-in-Bleach's ONGOING criminal failure & flagrant misinformation:
U.S. reported cases are over 1 million in 3 months with over 58,000 deaths (roughly U.S. death count during the Vietnam War from 1963-1975) in 2 months or about 348,000 dead annualized (×6) - IFF only 4 million infections (annualized ×4) re: exhibit "B" ... :shade:
addendum :mask:
I WONDER HOW MANY TRUMP VOTERS ARE SMART ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE NOW THAT THEY DIDN'T VOTE FOR THIS CRIMINAL LEVEL OF MALIGNANT INCOMPETENCE, ETC. :chin:
3.
I’m sure you’ll think of something.
Not good.
Michael Flynn’s defense claims FBI notes show agents tried to entrap the former national security adviser
Quoting NOS4A2
A mistaken election gives us a "fake president".
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/495405-michael-flynn-case-should-be-dismissed-to-preserve-justice
That's quite the assertion. Was there, or was there not, foreign interference? If yes, then the election was incorrectly done, i.e. mistaken. Also, I seem to remember some issues in Florida in 2000 which raise the possibility that that one was a mistaken election as well. How many others are there that we just don't know about?
'merica is at best mediocre. On a par with Mongolia and South Africa.
The colouring scheme on that is super confusing. Instead of having a single scheme, they average it out per region. On a quick glance, it looks like the US is comparable to the upper half of Europe. But by the numbers, it's worse than any European country except for Turkey.
If the same standard is used for the world map, the resulting picture is misleading.
Sorry, I haven't a clue as to what the distinction is that you're trying to make between mistaken election, and mistake in an election. I guess your undisclosed assumptions have gone way over my twelve-year-old's capacity to read your mind.
It’s true, and by nearly every measure. It makes me wonder why foreigners can’t keep her name out of their mouth.
America does make some good TV shows so it has that going for it.
I don’t know about that. Have you seen late night television?
U.S. SARS-2 (Covid-19) casualities aka "tRump Pandemic-Depression" update:
U.S.Capitol physician reports to Senate leadership that there are not enough tests currently available to test all ONE HUNDRED senators for Covid-19 infections. :yikes:
• as of April 30, about 6.2 million tests given, or ONLY c1.89% of the total U.S. population (+328 millon men, women & children)
• over 1,100,000 confirmed cases
• over 65,000 dead :death:
• currently averaging over 30,000 new confirmed cases/day
• currently averaging 2,000 deaths/day :death:
• over 30,000,000 unemployed (since mid-March - 6 weeks!)
• 1Q GDP = -4.8%; 2Q GDP contraction projected to be much more severe
:mask:
Jfc.
On the positive side, in Georgia you can now get a haircut and spread a potentially lethal disease to your neighbor at the same time. Pandemic multi-tasking the American way.
To be honest, I'm starting to worry about the deaths resulting from reduced wealth in the long run. Lower income, joblessness, stress, less money for welfare programs in the long run may all contribute to deaths for years to come. In that sense the current answer to covid-19 needs to be carefully weighed against those effects that cause future deaths.
Edit: I don't have the sense anyone is doing that yet. The Netherlands just announced borrowing 93 billion extra. That's about 25% of existing debt and about 3 times as much as we borrowed extra in 2008. What does that mean for society as a whole in the long run?
*
*Figures do not include asset seizures due to foreclosures.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/coronavirus-relief-white-house-adviser-larry-kudlow-projects-aid-package-to-reach-roughly-6-trillion/
EDIT: Some additional analysis of some of the provisions in the cumulative bills:
...
"The reality is that neither our government nor our banks have the operational competence to write and direct checks quickly enough to avoid distress. ... The cash freeze to small business is already causing a crisis. FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra made these points on Tucker Carlson last night. First, he noted, small business loan sharks are “crippling cash-strapped companies” with onerous contracts. Second, powerful corporations are using their position to cut off small businesses from supply chains. And third, corporate raiders are planning to buy up these businesses cheap. “Corporate raiders and PE firms are already sharpening their knives,” said one Goldman Sachs associate".
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/stop-the-6-trillion-coronavirus-corporate
Also, I'm not your mate, buddy.
That would be comparing efforts to save COVID 19 patients to the efforts that are going to be needed to heal the damage to our society long after a Vaccine and treatment are common place.
Quoting Benkei
Every small business has been doing that since the shut down. What it means in the financial forecast is that the money borrowed is paid back down stream. Our kids and grandkids are going to be paying it.
The damages to any society that are emotion based are much harder to heal from than any problem money can solve.
I am very specifically talking about deaths though. I'm not sure what damage you're talking about.
How about a debt jubilee?
Or is it going to be again a bailout of the extremely rich and with more people falling to the "barely surviving" category?
That would be my choice. Why should all nations suffer in debt together, just let each other off the hook.
If all the countries stand in line with their debt written down and all agree to cross off an agreed number of noughts, what's so wrong with that. It's not as though we're going to start doing it all the time?
Benkei...you really care for rich people? Besides, the system is fractional reserve banking. It's not like it's just your savings that the bank lends forward.
Simply have the debt jubilee with a default on the debt. Or make it a one off wealth tax: Below 100 000$ you get one to the dollar, below 1 000 000$ you get 0,90c to the dollar and over million you get 0,5c to the dollar. How many people have for example US Treasuries to the tune of over 1 million USD?
Or do it like the Germans. They had their "debt jubilee" after WW2 with their 1948 with their currency reform when they replaced the Reichsmark with the Deutsche Mark. I think you remember how good and stable the DM was, which made the backbone of the Euro (or so we thought). 90% of German government and private debt was wiped out! And then they had the "Economic Miracle" afterwards in West Germany. So yes, debt jubilees do work! Just ask yourself, Benkei, are you on the side of the bankers or of the people?
How Ludwig Erhard did it:
This man shows the way:
Let's have those midget banks in Wall Street with little or no assets. After all, once the US would do a similar default like Germany in 1948, all those banksters would still come to lend it. Who else would they lend to? And who would argue with the US? Would China want to start a war with the US? Nope, US still has a good nuclear deterrence and the largest armed forces anywhere.
(I've tried to look for a clear explanatory lecture, seminar or article about the issue, but usually it's just a promo on helping the Third World or something. If anyone finds a clear and in-depth article etc. about the issue, I would be interested.)
There's one pretty obvious but let's see if there are more roads to Rome for this problem.
Of course people can agree on things but what should they agree on? How would you propose saving pension savings from the debt jubilee?
Banks have to hold high quality liquid assets to meet regulatory obligations; mostly leverage ratio and capital requirements. They mostly hold that in bonds as well. So a debt jubilee will wipe out their capital base, making them much less safe vehicles for financing activities in the real economy. So you need to relax those rules or think of something else.
It also doesn't solve, in my view, the resulting inequality of the debt fueled asset inflation. The rich got richer (especially those in the financial industry) and they'll stay rich. The debt jubilee would only solve one part of the equation. As you see in the German example capital has a much lower exchange rate to the DM.
This is all to say that a debt jubilee is a good idea but with resulting problems you need to solve but also with the realisation the existing system that resulted in this situation continues afterwards. A debt jubilee every 50 years is going to create tremendous moral hazard so if you're going to do this, you'd better fix the system in such a way it doesn't happen again.
OK, in order to understand what we are talking about, let's look at the case of the US and what they could do and how their debt is owned, who are the lenders. First the size of public, private (household) and corporate debt compared to each other:
Note that the above is the aggregate debt as a percentage of the GDP starting with the US Government being the huge expender with fighting WW2, then it's portion decreased as the total debt increased. Let's divide the above into the different categories.
Then here's how the private household debt is divided. Notice that the vast majority of this debt is mortrages and then student loans. And notice the deleveraging that took place once the financial crisis of 2007-2008 hit home, then finally went back to the same levels before the pandemic:
Then there is the national debt, carried by the federal government of the United States. Only a third of the lenders are private people and institutions. This means that the haircut that ordinary people take (or ordinary pension funds take who's assets are made up of ordinary people's pensions) can easily take a smaller haircut while the fed and the US, and also those untrustworthy foreigners can get shafted. Who cares about those foreign investors stupid enough to invest in US Treasuries etc! A 2/3 debt jubilee certainly have an effect.
And last there is the corporate debt. Now this is very interesting as in my view NOTHING explains better the business cycle than corporate debt. Notice that this ends in 2018, two years ago.
This above ought to tell that this isn't just the pandemic, but a natural situation where an economic downturn would happen. The first credit cycle peak was the roaring 80's, next one was popping of the Tech bubble, then the popping of the Housing bubble and finally the popping of the bubble with the corona virus. The pandemic will put the corporate sector to deleverage again (I assume). And this is why I've said that the pandemic to be the perfect trigger of the next economic downturn. There will be a massive deleveraging if nothing is done, just look at the situation of household debt and corporate debt.
Quoting Benkei
First, pension schemes aren't piggy banks. Especially the state versions simply pay with the contributions of the working the pensions of the present pensioners. And even private pension schemes can quit well make schemes to pensions that will be only paid decades from now.
Quoting Benkei
You think after a debt jubilee there wouldn't be customers for banks? Financial sector would prevail. I'm sure of that.
Again the "German debt jubilee" is a great example just why the Western Allies would agree to this: the debt was mainly in the hands of Nazis or bankers close to the Nazis, hence when West Germany was established, the Western Allies had no desire to have those people having a say in the country's economy (as bankers do). Yet I agree that one thing that could be relaxed is things like mark-to-market. I don't know, perhaps have the ability just like now I can to deduct from capital gains taxes investment losses for some years. The debt jubilee is already quite spectacular accounting phenomenon. And then again, we have a fiat monetary system.
Here's Michael Hudson about the subject:
That ain't no reefer...it is a spliff.
I did many of those down in Jamaica, Mon.
The question from a woman about not receiving her federal relief aid while she edged closer to bankruptcy and eviction was met with the typical Trump speak about how good the economy once was and will soon be. I don't blame Trump for her not receiving the aid—it is probably lost in the black-hole of American nanny-state bureaucracy—but the president should have taken her number, stood over the desk of the bureaucrat whose job it is to send those payments, and made it happen. It was a lost opportunity.
I try not to confuse poor speaking with poor action, and I cannot see why anyone would unless one was fooling himself through blind hatred. But I am open to being convinced otherwise. If, as you say, his full-time job is to hurt others, perhaps you can provide some examples of who he has hurt and how he has done so?
Ah, you do have a sense of humor.
It might hurt their feelings, sure. It would certainly be awful to have a visa revoked. But the ban on terror-prone countries was done in the interest of protecting American citizens, not for any malicious reason as you pretend.
So it appears you’re fooling yourself, Tim.
I’m not saying you have to believe it, but you suspiciously leave it out. I do not believe Trump is racist.
I accept your view about Trump's words being irrelevant to you, but do you understand that his words are extremely off-putting and sometimes offensive to others? Even though you don't care what he says, don't you think it's fair to judge his character based on the things he says?
IMO, If he does not get reelected, it will be because of these things. Do you agree?
Most of his words are not irrelevant to me. The ones that are sensationalized by a belligerent press are irrelevant. For instance I doubt anyone can remember any of the important information he gave before or after he wondered about injecting disinfectant. This isn’t because he didn’t say anything relevant—he did—but they were selectively omitted by those who are tasked with informing you.
I understand that some of his words may be off-putting and offensive to others, yes. But I think offensiveness is a common trait among human beings. Most people, right left, of all races and creeds, cannot stand political correctness. So who is more out of touch? History is replete with people who say offensive things. I don’t think they’re evil. Often they are necessary.
He does not lump them all as terrorists, and he does not apply anything to any group of people by race. Why can’t you prove your accusations, Tim Wood?
Quoting ssu
Good idea but unfortunately totally illegal and no national law is going to set it aside. No discrimination between types of bond holders. Since this is laid down in the various human rights treaties and often enshrined in constitutions you can't do it this way.
Quoting ssu
That's only partially true. It's usually a mix of piggy bank and contributions from the active work force. Suffice is to say that for Dutch people it would wipe out about 25% of their savings (as a society as a whole). For Italians it's close to 80%. Not an acceptable outcome.
Of course, the easy solution I hinted to before is using the lower interest burden of the State to make up the difference.
In any case, I don't see the use of doing this without changing the system that caused it. Or you'll just have to do this again in 50 to 100 years.
Just like we used to do in the past, and just as the bible proscribes:
"You shall then sound a ram's horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all through your land. You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim a release through the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you" (Leviticus 25:1–4, 8–10)
Yeah, I gotta acknowledge when I read NOS's words, "I was admittedly disappointed with Trump's response to a question in his most recent town hall"...my thoughts were, I can hardly remember a time when I was NOT disappointed in what the abomination has said.
Damn near everything that comes out of his mouth should make a reasonable person gag!
Loved that comment, 180!
I remember a day way back in the 1960's when I discovered that my much younger sister smoked pot. I was naive back then and had not yet indulged. I was hoping she was not a lost soul, and asked her, "How often do you smoke it?"
She replied, "Just about every day." I damn near died on the spot, figuring she was soon to be dead of what I considered "over-dose." (Like I said, I was naive.")
Then, in my mid 30's I got turned on for he first time. Ended up smoking a forest of dope. One day I'm speaking with a person I had not known was a pot-head and asked, "So, how often do you smoke?"
"Every day," he said.
"Of course every day," says I, "but...I mean...like how often?"
Ahhh...how things change.
Never heard that one before. Spliffs are build like carrots, though.
Commonly known as uncouth and generally frowned upon as meaning deprived in cultural values; not a positive characteristic. Sometimes the word barbarian is a better choice.
Well, Trump could easily do it, if he was given the option. After all, according to Trump China was behind the pandemic. I think that Trump would be extremely happy to do it and his followers would be ecstatic that finally Trump. But of course, the Trump team is totally against these kind of ideas were rich people would make losses.
Here's what I infer from Trump's words:
His top priority is his own self-interest. He's arrogant to the point of narsiccism, rude, insensitive, never accepts that he's wrong, he has poor judgment, too often trusting his ill-informed gut over expert opinion, easily duped, he lies frequently - but more often he's just displaying ignorance, he is overly prone to confirmation bias (e.g. accepts fake news that conforms to his biases), fails to take responsibility for his own words and actions. He is divisive.
Can you understand why I'd feel this way? You often challenge others to convince you YOU'RE wrong. Can you convince me I'm wrong?
I get that Trump's base of supporters don't care about the above because he's pushing for things they like, but this "style" is more apt to impassion opposition to him than to win people over. Do you agree or disagree? Even if you disagree now, if he loses - won't that imply I'm right?
I understand why you’d feel that way and agree that his style may “impassion opposition”. The issue I have is I’m not sure that this differs much from routine snobbery.
It is routine for the opposition to react to a President's questionable statements. What isn't routine is the number of questionable statements.
Very, very well put, Relativist!
I think questionable statements are commonplace outside of the public relations politics we’ve all grown accustomed to. I remember a time when a weird scream would ruin a politician’s electability. That form of political theater is, I hope, destroyed in the wake of Trump’s presence.
What form of theater was destroyed in Obama's wake? You may be confusing habituation and reactionism.
Been there done that got the tshirt.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PObknmaH9po
Consider that lots of Republicans give Trump a pass on his numerous instances of sexual misconduct but still go after Biden's. Many do the same with gaffs: Trump's gaffs are OK because they like what he's doing, but then they still jump on Biden's. So I don't think that Republican's acceptance of Trump's negatives (present company excepted) will have any bearing on the future. To quote Stephen Tyler: "Dream On!"
That consideration would apply to both sides, many dems are ignoring Bidens sexual misconduct and focusing on Trumps. Biden being the creep/sexual misconduct type is more believable based on what ive seen and heard to be honest.
I don’t care what republicans think, frankly. In fact the rearranging of republican politics was one of the greatest things of a Trumpian takeover.
Trumps and Kavanaugh’s accusers were given ample time in the media and were used as political cudgel more than a search for justice. So it seems fitting to me that they get to sleep in the bed that they made.
You had said you hoped the "political theater" was being "destroyed in the wake of Trump's presence". All I did was show that's not happening.
It's hypocritical to apply a double standard, and
the potential is there for Dems, but it's more than potential for any Trump supporter who blasts Biden.
Politics aside, it would be nice if we could consider how we should respond to such accusations. I think accusations should be taken seriously, but accusations should not become lethal weapons.
I dont see why it should be treated any differently than any other criminal accusation. I recognise there are differences in crimes and unique damages from sex crimes but I do not think any of those justify special exception to legal procedure. Then again, its not the courts of law that so easily discard due process, its the court of public opinion. Thats where social pressure can result in job loss, destroyed reputation, financial ruin...things like “believe all women”. The fuck I will. I dont believe anybody all the time. Human beings are treacherous, dangerous animals.
Sorry, feeling a bit ranty I guess. None of that is meant towards you.
:chin:
Rather: Investigate all claims corroborated by physical, circumstantial & non-hearsay testimonial evidence.
:mask:
Quoting 180 Proof
I tnink we agree that something more is needed than an accusation. Some investigation is needed just to see if there's corroboration.
Kavanaugh and Biden are a good pair of cases to compare. There are some differences between the cases, but are the differences sufficient to consider only one exonerated?
Im not familiar enough with the cases to talk about legal exoneration but it does seem hypocritical to treat the cases differently in this context. If you think one should or should not be dismissed, then you should think the other should or shouldn't be dismissed as well. If you think the accusation factors into job qualification for one, then you should think it for both. Whatever moral judgements made should be made for both etc etc.
One charge involved a young, privileged college student who had drunk way too much "beer" and supposedly happened in a house during a fraternity party...
...the other involved a United States Senator who has no other charges of this sort made during his 40 years in public office...and supposedly happened in a hallway on the Senate side of the Capitol Building of the United States of America...
...and you think they should be treated the same.
Interesting.
But I think that's like saying a sand castle built by a 5 year-old kid at the beach should be treated the same as a house built by Frank Lloyd Wright.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU[/video]
Biden's accuser publicly praised him after the alleged event. That's odd behavior for someone who is the victim of sexual assault. Nevertheless, I think it's possible he did it, but it's also possible she exaggerated at the time. How does one treat possibilities like this? I think it will inevitably boil down to one's judgment of the man's character. The same thing goes for Kavanaugh. Character judgment is subjective, and this juxtaposition demonstrates that. People can vote against Biden for this, if they judge it that way. Others are free to judge it differently. There's no objectively correct judgment.
Lying to ensure you get a cushy job is about his current character and fitness for the job as a judge. I would've hoped there's not that much subjectivity involved about that. That's irrespective of making a judgment call on whether he raped that woman or not.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but at the time - I opposed Kavanaugh's nomination. I thought Blasey-Ford's allegations were credible - both because she was credible and because it pertained to plausible antics for a teen-age boy of privilege. By all accounts that I'm familiar with, he outgrew it (except for his affection for beer) and became a respected judge with a commendable life. I wouldn't hold the alleged teen-age assault against him, just his lies, lack of empathy, and the way he reacted - which didn't seem very judicial to me. Biden's case is a bit different - he and the alleged victim were adults, so it's not the antics of an immature teen, and there's no apparent pattern of such behavior - so I lean toward thinking that he didn't do it. I can't claim I'm completely objective, but I don't think anyone can. I expect that if a poll were taken, Democrats would tend to think Kavanaugh was guilty and Biden innocent, and Republicans would tend to think the exact opposite.
https://apnews.com/ae1ad252bb13490db2ceffc5d17b6d92
Incoming meltdown.
How do you know this is justice?
Maybe Flynn struck a deal with the deep-state who controls everything and causes all of Trump's failures.
This is really suspicious if you ask me. Why would the corrupt DOJ give quarter to an innocent and graceful champion that was hand selected by Trump?
This is how we know that he is now working against Trump as a part of the continuous governance of insidious and mostly democratic deep-state actors.
He was railroaded. This was just the first domino to fall.
My guess: Judge Sullivan won't accept this politicized move by DOJ and will give the WH the finger by giving General Flynn more prison time than the six months recommended by Mueller. A presidential pardon is coming. :shade:
That might be the case, though I believe the case against Flynn was politicized, not the other way about.
Flynn replaced his legal team last year and has been trying to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing he is the victim of misconduct by prosecutors. In light of new documents this appears to be the case. His treatment by the Mueller team is an utter disgrace.
:mask:
It is also a fact that Flynn has been trying to withdraw his guilty plea citing government vindictiveness. Given newly released documents this appears to be the case. You would condemn a war hero for treason premised on selective information.
Defend Trump on what?
Ill defend him on certain things, the truth is more important to me than hating Trump. If you mean in general..ya I think Nos is the only one.
The poor boy was coerced into pleading guilty...justice in the U.S.A.
Some General. Peed his pants and pleaded guilty to something he didn't do because he was scared of the big, bad FBI. Not like he didn't have the President of the United States behind him the whole time.
Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue...and not lose any supporters. Trump, and his lap dog, Barr wanted the charges against Flynn dropped.
Flynn pleaded guilty to MANY crimes (he was only prosecuted for one) and that charge has been dropped...so "finally some justice" is an example of a Trump supporter doing what Trump said they would do for him.
Adolf Hitler had that sort of support also...as did Pol Pot and Idi Amin.
Wonder why that kind of person garners that kind of backing?
"Suggestions that DaemonX could simply be a crazed vagrant using the internet at a public library have largely been dismissed..."
You strike me as someone who has never seriously considered an idea outside of their own belief system in their lives.
Of course Flynn is corrupt and deserves to be in prison. So does Trump. Half the administration are outright criminals. You'd have no problem recognizing this if it were a Democrat in office, and you know it.
Worth pondering about that for just a few seconds and then asking yourself if this red-blue thing is really the best way to approach the truth.
Most of the stimulus money and Fed support went to corporations who used it to help boost their own stock. (I read (or heard) somewhere that 90% of the move up from the recent low was due to buybacks, but I'd have to check the details on that as under the CARES act they're not supposed to do it directly). Anyway, the stock market is fine, which means the GOP Senate is not going to help you any further. And the Dems have taken care of their donors too, so you're on your own. Some here are of the view you have no choice but to vote for one of these loathsome parties in November, regardless. I suggest you give them both the same finger they've just given you.
...
Apple's offering illustrates how companies with the best credit ratings are boosting shareholder returns by tapping cheap debt made available through the Fed's backstopping of the credit markets. "
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-debt/apple-borrows-on-the-cheap-to-fund-buybacks-dividends-idUSKBN22H001
Trump knows something. More info soon?
First time for everything.
Wouldn’t that be something? If trump can be impeached for next to nothing, something of a watergate magnitude would warrant Obama’s impeachment.
You can't impeach an ex-President.
Sure they can.
Didn't Mitch say that they can't do impeachment and deal with corona at the same time?
I’m not sure.
Not sure if you're joking. But no, you can't impeach private citizens.
It would be under the guise of impeaching a former officer.
He does: How to lie through his teeth.
It is hard to keep up with all the alternative truths.
No, I just have no clue what you’re talking about.
Quoting praxis
Sounds plausible to me.
In any case, DJT's hyperbole is effective on his supporters, but not anyone with the ability to reason.
I think he knows that he hates Obama. At least we know he does.
Steve Schmidt, former GOP senior campaign advisor, from a television interview April 16, 2020, which applies even more so today:
"I think the White House has done, historically, very poorly in this. This is one of the most significant crises in American history. It’s certainly the largest American crisis of our lifetimes, and it’s been the most inept response by the executive, by the president, I think, with regard to any crisis in American history but, certainly, any crisis in our lifetimes. And we look at a president, who is so clearly in over his head and out of his depth, who has been dishonest, who has been imprecise, who’s been inaccurate, and whose deadly indecision will be paid for with the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, as this virus escalated to a place it never need have gotten. And that is all because of the wasted month of February, where the president was hate tweeting, firing people that he was angry with over impeachment, going on campaign rallies and golfing. And, now, the country is paying the price for that. We should be careful to understand that when the same guy says, ‘Well, it’ll be back in September but we’ll make it go away really quick,’ is the same guy when there were 15 cases in the country, said, ‘Soon, it would be gone to zero and it would disappear like magic.’ The lack of credibility in these evening news events is epic and unlike everything we’ve ever seen. It’s a Baghdad Bob show every night of the week, day after day, the airing of the grievances, the airing of his anger issues. The attacks on the governors. We see every night all of the qualities you never, ever want to see in a leader in a crisis when lives are at stake."
THIS IS WHAT THE EVER-SHRINKING, RABID MOB OF tRUMPERS ARE STILL SUPPORTING. :death:
:point: tRump 2,020 deaths per day ...
Timeline
A racist, a baby, and a fuckup of a leader who can't take responsibility.
Also the Obama thing - if it needs to be spelt out for anyone too stupid to get it - is Trump's rolling out the tried and tested target of deflection over the fact that the US now has had 80,000+ deaths and that Obama called him out for compromising rule of law with his fucking around on the Fylnn case. Obama, China - anything to divert from his own murderous incompetence.
I had come around to accepting the fact that you didn't care what Trump says because you like what he does. But when you start taking his words seriously, and repeating it, it belies that. Are you also a birther?
Quite a graceful dancer and singer. Had no idea. No snarkasm intended! :snicker: (Perhaps this is a fitting response for the POTUS continually using REM’s music, despite their outspoken attempts to stop it.)
Remember kids, it's a virtue to disregard or diminish someone if we dont like them...
What is it that you are referencing? What is “Trump Mania”, and why do you think I have a touch of it (at least)?
When I see comments like this; all I think is, "you're no better than what you claim to stand against."
In my mind comments like those degrade the person speaking them in my mind. Take it or leave it; just one observation among billions.
Yes, you guys are over-sensitive to whatever phrases the media sensationalizes for you, and utterly forgetful or blind to anything else he says. I am not.
I think you’ve misunderstood that statement. I meant that TDS has people relegating Trump to the person no longer worthy of respect or fairness, that they view Trump as evil and therefore a guilt free punching bag. What does it matter if you arent fair or respectful to pure evil? Its like when you call someone Hitler (which some people think is a fair comparison to Trump, which it isnt.) and then justify poor or terrible treatment of that person because you’ve equated them with ine of the best examples of evil in history.
If you are talking about me saying “the weak of character”, yes that was directed commentary for certain people. Not everyone who criticises Trump is weak of character, but of those who criticise Trump some of them do so using the above justification and those specific people are showing weak character imo. They have a particular taste for abusing an easy target, like a bully who picks on the unpopular kid so he can satisfy his weak character while still maintaining social favour with the other kids.
So hopefully that clarifies what I meant.
Also, what am I claiming to take a stand against in your view?
Just one of countless...
[quote=DJT]Truly weird Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain. [/quote]
Me: ...
You: "SHUT THE FUCK UP DONNY!"
I made a bullshit assumption, my apologies. Carry on :)
How did I display sensitivity?
Well no one could sensibly say Trump doesn't throw out childish insults, but I was specifically talking about something else and don’t see the relevance of your comment.
You don’t need to bring up the things Trump says and does anytime someone mentions some other bad act. We get it, eeeeeveryone gets it.
Lol, well I wouldn't say youre out of your element Donny. I used pronouns rather than names so I can see how it could be read that way.
You're confusing me with someone else. I just notice that he tells a great many untruths, largely from stupidity and arrogance. Given that he says so many falsehoods, it seems nuts to attach any credibility to anything he says. You did, and that seems nuts.
I think you've misunderstood. I gave an example of bullying without legitimate criticism or your definition of TDS, if I follow your reasoning. You've offered no examples whatsoever. Maybe you're afraid that if you gave a real example of someone bulling Trump without a legitimate criticism the cool kids won't like you?
It’s not out of the question to suspect that the most powerful man in the universe is privy to more information than you or I.
Ok, understood. Its always more clear to explain what point youre making with quotations rather than just posting the quotes, especially considering you were speaking to my analogy rather than the point the analogy was meant to illustrate. Whats salient about my analogy isnt the bullying but rather the weakness of character required to act poorly ( bullying, lies, slander) towards an easy target.
Anyway, I never claimed anything about bullying, nor did I claim Trump was being bullied. Obviously you are not going to find any reasoning for claims I didnt make.
Also, I cant help but see you seem to be taking the “weak character” comment personally. Is that what you actually want to discuss? Whether or not I think you have weak character? I wasnt aiming that at anyone in particular, i was referencing a type of person not targeting any individual as being that type of person.
One of the three discussions I started on this forum was about TDS. I think it's simply a method to invalidate any criticism of Trump, in the minds of his supporters. I don't recall it ever being applied to an individual. I suppose that's because if it were applied to an instance of it then an actual criticism would need to be taken into consideration.
Quoting DingoJones
Were you aiming at a fictitious person then?
We’ve has that discussion already. Led nowhere.
Quoting praxis
Already explained. You must have missed it. (Not that I believe this is an honest question.)
Is it impossible for you to point out examples so I can get a clear picture of what you’re talking about?
Dont see how an example would be any more clear. I think you want an example so you can argue about the example instead of what im actually talking about. You want to argue about Trumps character. If thats the case, just say so. It will be a short discussion.
You don't see how evidence would support your views or argument, seriously?
Quoting DingoJones
You're not arguing about Trump's character. You're arguing about the character of others in relation to TDS in some way that is unclear to me. If you have no interest in making it clearer to me that's your choice.
LOL! You've pretended you hadn't drunk the Trump Kool-aid, and were merely being pragmatic. You're worse than the people you hypocritically criticize, because you give credibility to a man who's been shown to have been non-factual over 18,000 times during his Presidency.
No, I said I dont think an example would make it any more clear. I think it would muddy the waters in fact, as ive also already explained.
Quoting praxis
Ill give you the benefit of the doubt here. So you are specifically talking about this bit, just for clarities sake:
“They have a particular taste for abusing an easy target, like a bully who picks on the unpopular kid so he can satisfy his weak character while still maintaining social favour with the other kids.
— DingoJones“
?
Oh dear. You’re going to wag your finger because I posted a tweet and asked a question? What an odd waste of effort.
That and what proceeded it, like the following.
Quoting DingoJones
It’s unclear if you’re saying that only deranged people can view Trump as evil or that demonization is an expression of derangement. In any case, your meaning is not clear, to me at least. And then in addition to this the bullying thing somehow fits.
Wouldn’t an example help to show how this all works? I honestly don’t get it.
Im talking about a specific type of Trump critic, the ones that lie or distort what Trump says or does because its easy and no one will call them on it cuz its Trump. Not everyone who is anti-Trump does this, not even everyone who has TDS does this.
The most recent example is journalists who wrote that Trump told people to drink or inject bleach in that press conference and people did and its all Trumps fault. Thats just not true, what he actually did was make an idiotic, off the top of his head comment about a potential treatment. He displayed ignorance, but anyone who heard that and thought it was a good idea to inject or drink bleach is an idiot and its not Trumps fault.
On the other side, im sure you can think of your own examples of Fox news or Republican politicians lying and distorting for Trumps benefit. The “inject bleach” example above works on this end too. Any Fox reporter or right wing personality that repeated the “it was sarcasm” excuse (and believes it) is not thinking clearly. TDS...
Trump is the divider in chief, and people on the left play right into his hands when they compare him to Hitler or bend over backwards to interpret anything he says or does in the worst possible way. Then he has fake news to point to when he wants to distract or obscure the actual terrible things he says and does.
Nobody has this because it's not an existing condition. It also has nothing to do with the examples you raise.
Of course the headline will be "Trump suggests injecting bleach" instead of "Trump suggests research should be done into injecting bleach". The first one is obvious click bait and the articles I read are in fact accurately reproducing what he really said. Even so, his actual statement is only marginally less stupid than the headline, so I'll give that a potato-potahto shrug.
The other side of the story is a news outlet actively trying to spread and support the lie Trump uttered to hide the fact he said something incredibly stupid. That has nothing to do with news but is about an underlying interest for FOX shareholders/directors that trumps doing journalism. That could be financial interests to not upset your viewer base, partisan loyalty (propaganda?) or political manoeuvring.
Neither is about TDS.
Besides what Benkei points out, I did a search for journalists reporting that “Trump told people to drink or inject bleach” and all I could find were headlines about him suggesting that injecting disinfectants might work as a treatment.
Another failure to support your claims with evidence.
Well I dont have as cavalier an attitude about headlines that mislead like that as you do. I think its important not to do that, especially concerning Trump. As I said, it plays into his hands.
You cant have looked very hard. It was the first headline that came up from the BBC when I just did it.
Benkei made a good point, that the actual articles dint say what the headlines say, clickbait. I think thats true, I just think that those clickbait headlines are very damaging. Thats maybe more about the state of journalism, but I dont think that excuses it.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020-05-13%20ODNI%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20(Unmasking).pdf
Wow! ObAMaCoMeYBidEnGAte!
Lmao. Just like Trump about his son meeting Russians. Of all the dishonesty and lies you've been dumping on this forum I think that one sentence takes the cake.
You think I’m lying about making that assumption? I love how you convince yourself of nonsense. It seems so easy.
I guess it’s a good thing that I don’t care what you think.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/302560295958749184?s=21[/tweet]
If that was Biden, I might be worried. :lol:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/trump-tweet-obamagate-rand-paul-richard-grenell.html
Our little forum being a microcosm lol.
Obamagate was the worst crime ever committed and here is what it was
When anyone asks me what it is, I just show them this.
The problem is that he really doesn't say anything else, other than the ridiculous statements which get sensationalized by the media. That's all they have to go on, one ridiculous statement after the other. You, in an attempt to rationalize these ridiculous statements, refer to things which he hasn't said, as if he had said them, insisting this is what he meant, while cherry picking through some ultra obscure information, trying to defend him. But we all know that president Trump does not have the inclination, nor the attentional capacity to read through reams of documents like you do. And this is why his statements which are probably meant to reference these sophisticated affairs which you refer to, are so far off base and utterly ridiculous.
Much like the still-to-be-produced 'strong' evidence of COVID's release from a Wuhan lab. I mean, jeez, if anyone wants to call out China, look to the arseholery they're pulling in HK right now. Instead - bullshit upon bullshit, from an adminstration caught - not with its pants down - but without pants from the beginning.
From the article, in response to a question "what's the crime?":
[quote=Trump]“You know what the crime is,” the president responded. “The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours.” [/quote]
This is so very much like the Emperor's new clothes. Only Trump suck-ups see the invisible crime.
Case closed. :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
The Obama administration not only used Russian-sourced, DNC gossip to justify spying on the Trump campaign—American citizens—they used the state apparatus to do so. One of the differences between Obamagate and Watergate is the Nixon campaign didn’t have the technology and access to intrusive data collection, so they had to physically break in to access their opponent’s documents and put bugs on their phones.
It's an artful construction to refer to "the Obama administration" in this way. In one sense, everything the intelligence community did during Obama's Presidency can be attributed to "the Obama Administration." However, this doesn't imply Obama was directing the activities. That's the sort of construction Trump likes to use when talking about Obama, but of course - he never applies it to himself.
Piddle around with the words all you want.
My "piddling" entails using words consistently. You should try it.
That we need to look hard for bad journalism doesn’t do much to support your argument.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1261126114799468549?s=21[/tweet]
Well, time to change the public discourse when in a short while over 100 000 Americans will have died in the pandemic, which was under control and supposed to have gone away already according to Trump.
Perhaps they think that what works is what Goebbels said about the English in 1941: "The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
However, within the Trump administration, anyone disloyal to the president is fired. So, this creates the illusion that all government agencies are directly working for the president, even when normal presidents don't generally behave in this unusual way.
.Quoting NOS4A2
OMG, the Russians have been given credit! Or is that a disguised request for future activity? Good luck with that.
Quoting NOS4A2
I wish it were true that there was no one like you. In fact you are a faceless thoughtless compassionless horde.
I was thinking today, how similar this is to a teacher telling you something that's wrong, then asking you to answer a question about it in an exam.
Trump just fired an Inspector General who just so happened to have opened an investigation into Pompeo.
The blatant corruption of this administration is staggering.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31140-5/fulltext
And how is this not fake news? We've been seeing this type of report for years. Has it taken you this long to notice?
You seem to be in the loop, perhaps you can answer this question. Why are the tides turning against Trump? Is it because what the Russians really want is instability in the US, and Trump is just a pawn?
In this situation I hope you share my optimism and think that Donald Trump will be the absolute worst US President in our lifetime.
(And I assume we both do see many US presidential elections still)
:mask: vs :death:
Hell yeah! - praise jeezus :halo: :pray:
Yes, what's with that?
The only thing I can figure is that Trump or the Trump family has a personal financial gain in the selling of hydroxychloroquine, that they were somehow in the deal. I really don't believe otherwise Trump would be so enthusiastic and persistent in the promotion of the "miracle-drug". In fact, when going so far to fire people who have cautioned about the use of hydroxychloroquine:
Someone as lazy as Trump wouldn't do anything without personal gain. Trump personally has a small investment (1000$) in the pharma giant that makes the drug he's been pushing to fight COVID-19. Still, the US government has ordered 29 million doses of the malaria drug (see article) and there has been some hassle over these purchases (see here).
It is odd. The normal Trump strategy would be to switch to some other miracle drug once discouraging evidence becomes undeniable. And then of course lie about ever being in favour of it in the first place.
Though it cannot be discounted that Trump drank his own Kool-Aid and is actually personally convinced it's a miracle drug.
At my age, I doubt I will see many more elections...but, like you, I hope Trump is never surpassed as the absolute worst US President of ALL TIME.
The thing I am most disdainful of, though, is not Trump...but rather that he still has enthusiastic supporters. I truly hope those supporters are never surpassed as the most damaging to the Republic.
Does $1,000 even mean anything to him?
Since we’re spouting conspiracy theories, maybe big pharma doesn’t like hydroxycloroquine because it’s super cheap and has been in use for decades. Many doctors from Gilead were a part of the NIH panel that advised against hydroxycloroquine in favor of Gilead’s expensive drug Remdesivir. Coincidence?
Fact is, many countries and some drug companies are researching hydroxicloroquine because it showed promise, not because Trump mentioned it. The NIH only recommended against taking it in high doses.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/whats-new/
But that’s something you or the press fail to mention.
The normal Trump strategy is to double down on the bullshit when he is called out on it. And he is perfectly capable of believing his own bullshit after repeating it enough times. That some nasty people are telling him that he is wrong only serves to reassure him.
Quoting The Graundian
That's a good one.
[i]At the White House, the press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, told CBS News Trump was taking hydroxychloroquine.
“I can absolutely confirm that,” she said.
“The president said himself he’s taking it. That’s a given fact. He said it. The president should be taken at his word.”
[/i]
And she did it while maintaining a straight face.
Now I understand why, on her first day in this job, she said that she would never lie to the press.
Jeez, Trump has screwed with your mind. Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum anti-viral medicine. Hydroxychloroquine is not. If the latter turns out to be effective, it would be a surprising coincidence. If remdesiver is effective, it shouldn't be all that surprising.
Hydroxychloroquine may have SOME antiviral effects, but it also acts as an anti-inflammatory. Anti-inflammatory medicines are contra-indicated for COVID-19 because they suppress the immune system, which is a bad idea. That's why we're told to avoid anti-inflammatory medicine if we have COVID-19 - take Tylenol, not ibuprophen or aspirin. That's why it's unclear if the positives outweigh the negatives. That said, I'm perfectly happy to let Trump try it out. We've got absolutely nothing to lose.
Ukrainian president Zelensky said a probe into the call is beginning, as it “might be perceived, qualified as high treason”. I guess Trump didn’t need to demand an investigation of his political opponent after all.
I'm tempted to go back and quote all of the mental gymnastics you used to defend Trump regarding the Ukraine thing, so that we can do the thing where you're arguing with your own quotes.
Why would you do that? Sounds tedious.
OMG! Does this mean Joe Biden threatened to held up aid to Ukraine if Poroshenko wouldn't fire the corrupt Shokin? I'm shocked!
...shocked because we already knew this occurred, and that it does not imply Biden did this for personal gain (unlike Trump's impeachable quid pro quo).
But the truth is that this pandemic clearly shows how utterly inept and incapable this populist bully is. I can understand that in 2016 Trump was for many the perfect middle finger to wag at Hillary Clinton and even the leadership of the GOP. But the truth known then and still totally apparent is that this person has no leadership abilities and is unfit to be the president of the US. He simply is not up to the job elected to, to be the head of the executive branch of the federal government. This person has no ability to lead people, to motivate them to perform better and make agencies with opposing agendas to work together as a team.
Perhaps the US Constitution should be amended to create a position of Chief Commentator of the US, where Trump tweet his heart out and the media, the officials and citizens would have to listen to his great wisdom, thanks to his constitutional position. Trump would like that so much. If Trump would have lost the election (which he anticipated happening), he would have been OK having his own TV channel where he could vent his anger on Hillary, the democrats and the liberals and everything, but as we know from experience, that TV network would have gone bankrupt as Trump is such a lousy businessman.
But as a Chief Commentator he would have what he wants: to bask in the media spotlight and have people talk about him. And likely many people would like his outrageous style and it would be great entertainment, and wouldn't have actual effect on things like how many people die of a pandemic because this nutjob doesn't know anything and dragged his feet in responding to a global pandemic and still is having a real negative effect on how the US fights the pandemic.
It would simply be amusing to hear all the media outlets discussing the Chief Commentator's idea of using bleach to fight the virus and his other bizarre remarks. Now it's not.
His supporters suspected that then...and know it for certain now.
But instead of making adjustments...and disavowing this buffoon, they continue their support.
Continued support for Trump is a crime against our Republic.
On the other hand, the article does expose some of Trump's voter base — people that he has successfully conn...err spoken to and secured.
I Questioned the Sincerity of Donald Trump's Pro-Life Stance. The Response From My Fellow Evangelicals Was Troubling
[i]Robb Ryerse
TIME
Feb 2020
[/i]
If you're going to flame each other, make sure it has decent content to back it up.
And then there are the rational people in the middle who simply recognize that he's a terrible person and a terrible President who enacts terrible policies.
You have constructed an effigy upon which you can swing your pitchforks in sight of everyone else.
I'm not big on metaphor. I see him say and do terrible things and I call him out on it. That's it.
I’m not sure “terrible” is a fair and accurate description.
I think you give way too much charity in interpreting a president whose public statements include:
"When Mexico sends it people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people," he said.
You are not supposed to say that as a presidential candidate appealing to racist, you are supposed to talk about job security and national sovereignty.
Retweeting stuff from white supremacists and neonazis - which you and I both know would get you fired from an entry level position in an office, but apparently not being the POTUS.
On some level you are right though; people hate on Trump the symbol when they should be criticising based on his administration's policies. People hate on Trump the symbol rather than criticising the ludicrous theater of American politics. People also hate on Trump's public persona for the wrong reasons; he functions as a valuable hate sink for symbolic political action.
At the same time, his supporters are just as bad if not worse; they love love love Trump the symbol because he trolls decorum and the dens, because he makes a joke of the theater of American politics while being a seamless part of it, and because he absolutely positively is shining light of racist nationalism.
Being anti-anti Trump in the way you are is a really neat way of showing support to everything he stands for while retaining some veneer of intellectual decorum.
[quote=VP Mike Pence, radio interview, April 24, 2020]I think by Memorial Day Weekend we will largely have this coronavirus epidemic behind us.[/quote]
reality check: May 23, 2020, Memorial Day Weekend …
U.S. confirmed Covid-19 cases - c1.65m (i.e. c13% tested positive)
U.S. confirmed Covid-19 deaths - c96,920
U.S. % population tested for Covid-19 - c04.15% :death:
I agree with you. "Terrible" is not fair or accurate.
I would use "loathingly disgusting" in most cases, but there are times I would use, "infantile" "adolescent" or "just plain stupid."
Good catch on your part.
I like Trump and think he is a great president. I’ve never hidden that. I am also one of those bad supporters. But anti-Trumpism is, in my mind, far worse.
“You’re not supposed to say that...”. And why not? The biggest single-day protests in American history, the Russia hoax, impeachment, and every day we are told the sky is falling, are because of Trump’s statements, not because of any injustice or tyranny. This is borderline superstition. This is the world the politically correct have built for themselves and now they have to watch as it is proven effete and powerless by a boorish, billionaire playboy. It was always effete and powerless, the white flag of a civilization too stupid to survive, but it took Trump to make them realize.
The “racist nationalism” part is false, though. His brand of populism may be protectionist and nationalist, but it is not racist.
This is dishonest, and you should know that given that you've criticized Biden for the things he said on the phone call to the Ukrainian president above. What is Biden supposedly doing with his statements to Ukrainian officials? Using financial aid to pressure Ukraine into dropping an investigation that could harm his son. And what was Trump supposedly doing with his statements to Ukrainian officials? Using financial aid to pressure Ukraine to open an investigation into a political opponent to help his re-election chances.
You might believe that Trump isn't guilty of the thing he was accused of, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't being accused of something that warrants criticism. His statements, many believe, show him to have behaved unjustly, and it's that unjust behavior that was being protested, not simply empty statements. And people do genuinely believe that he was engaging in unjust behavior - they don't secretly believe that he's innocent and are just twisting his statements as pretence.
You're behind the curve. It's the "protection of cultural values and norms" and therefore not racist. Or so they state it nowadays to avoid legal trouble.
Sure thing buddy.
I didn’t criticize what Biden said on the phone. I simply posted the leaked call and quoted how Zelensky described it. I also predicted how it might be used by the Trump campaign. I’m not here to convince you what to think of it
This is the sort of anti-Trump fabulism I’m talking about. It leads to the kind of rhetoric that Claas Relotius would win awards for.
If you were hitting back at people who spoke about you unfairly I would be by your side defending you, and admiring you while doing so. But since you’re not hitting back at anything save for the fantasies swimming about in your skull, I feel nothing but contempt and pity.
Perhaps he could be more green, but other than that, what is Trump doing to all of us then?
I don't understand and agree where NOS4A2 says these arguments are fantastical.
Which people?
1. Covid was badly administrated.
2. Trump said stupid stuff about Covid.
3. Any bad thing he has done to America that you can name.
He has created many Jobs, he has reduced immigration, he has reduced the debt - and plans to do more. I think, he will suceed there; and his war policies good, if you're wise of what's going on in the world.
The man who truly makes the election swing, probably will re-elect Trump. I doubt votes matter. It's up to you whether you make sense of this statement.
I’m not aware of any injuries inflicted by the man. Jeff Sessions and other establishment rhinos got exactly what they deserved.
The only thing in the nation worse than Trump are his supporters.
These are the “injuries” you’re talking about? In other words, not injuries. Sorry, but these policies were a first step towards re-establishing control over America’s borders and national security.
A_ss(et)monkey
G_overns
A_merica
:mask:
Quoting Frank Apisa
:100: Amen, brother!
Either you’re a liar or you don’t know what injury means. Was it your fee-fees that we’re injured and hurt?
I didn't word myself properly. You have previously criticized Biden for the things he was accused of saying or had admitted to having said to Ukrainian officials, the phone call you recently posted being an example (or the example) of what we have talked about before.
e.g. here where you directly accused Biden of being corrupt, and in context is clearly a reference to alleged interference with an investigation into Burisma. Or here where you say it looks bad for Biden to threaten withholding aid.
But this is by-the-by. My point still stands that it is perfectly appropriate to criticize the things people say and open an investigation in light of them, as they can be indicative of some underlying unjust behaviour (which is what people care about, not just the words themselves). That's true for Biden and it's true for Trump, so why is it that you have repeatedly said that an investigation into Biden is warranted on the basis of things he allegedly said but then claim that an investigation into Trump isn't warranted on the basis of things he allegedly said and is actually just an anti-Trump hoax?
An investigation into Biden is warranted because his son was on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian energy company at the same time his father was vice-president and point man in Ukraine. The US had just finished helping far right fascists topple the government. Suddenly Biden’s crackhead son is getting lucrative positions at a corrupt Ukrainian energy company. The same has allegedly happened in China.
None of this is even similar to what Trump was investigated and impeached for.
There is more than one reason to warrant an investigation and so this is a non sequitur. In the case of Trump there was an official whistleblower complaint that the independent Inspector General deemed to be an urgent concern, and so Congress would have been remiss to do nothing given its Constitutional duty of oversight. And given that the Government Accountability Office concluded that the Trump administration broke the law in withholding aid, there was substance to the complaint and the investigation was warranted after all.
:up:
If you're suggesting a criminal investigation is warranted, then you need to explain what crime Hunter or Joe has committed. Or is it that you're just hoping there's a fishing expedition to try and stir up some political dirt?
Ah YESS, Tovarich NOS4A2!
Here's those evil US stooges, the far right fascists with their evident neonazi insignia and symbols trying to topple their government all because of the US of A:
All nazi stooges of the US! No, correct that tovarich NOS, Biden stooges!
(Trump wants to give a kiss, just one little kiss...)
Oh look, it’s John McCain with Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the Svoboda party.
Why is he dining with them?
Wait a minute, is that Victoria Nuland with the same man?
But they and their partners in the Right Sector had nothing to do with the Maidan protest and violence, nor did they find themselves in government positions, or as governors in the new government immediately after toppling the democratically-elected president, right kamerad ssu?
A senate probe will suffice. I suppose Ukraine should want to know why the previous American administration was meddling in their politics, as well.
Why even those who started a secession from Ukraine and a civil war against Kiev didn't want him back from where he came? He's still in Russia I guess.
But you aren't interested in the real events, just simply eager to reurgitate the old Kremilin line pushed during the crisis that argued right there and then that the whole Maidan revolt was a US lead coup acted by neonazis. Hence you reurgitate the narrative promoted by a country which annexed Crimea and instigated the Ukrainian civil war by backing (and creating) the Donbas rebels. Yeah, that of course is the credible source for everything NOS4A2 believes in.
But let's just look at how stupid your this idea is. Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the Svoboda party, didn't get a cabinet position in the first administration after the ouster of Yanukovich and got a whopping 1,16% of the votes in the 2014 Presidential elections. And of course the important person in the photos above is Arseniy Yatsenyuk who was then the prime minister... from late February to mid April 2014. The second Yatsenyuk government that lasted until 2016 was without the Svoboda Party. And otherwise would be needless to say, but just to get things correct, economist Yatsenyuk wasn't from the far right. But yes, they indeed met with Americans. We of course have tapes from the Russian intelligence services of US diplomats talking about what politicians they'll back up, so BRAVO again for the US for the professionalism they showed there!
What you utterly fail to grasp is that just like with Serbia (where the US really helped to ouster Milosevic, first with bombs, then with State Department assistance, not the CIA), the US is just one actor which typically very poorly plays it's cards as there isn't any long term thinking in the US. Milosevic was ousted and Serbia remains a close ally of... Russia. (The bombing of the country might have something to do with it, I guess.)
Nope, you believe the incredible line that it was the US that planned, executed a coup by creating an astroturf movement in Ukraine...or in your words: "helped far right fascists topple the government". As if Ukraine wouldn't have a history of corrupt administration being thrown over. It both tells about ignorance about Ukraine and the focus on a politically charged narrative which doesn't see the forest from the trees, and only some specific trees I should add. (And quite insulting to Ukrainians just at to say that Trump supporters are neonazis, because some supporters are indeed neonazis.)
That's the nature of our political system, but it's unfortunate that it has sunk that low. It's particularly sad that Trump slings this kind of mud on a near daily basis (consider his proclaiming that Joe Scarborough should be investigated for the accidental death of Lori Klausutis).
This article is a mostly useless rehashing of Trump's catastrophic uselessness - Trump's shitfuckerry is not a point open to debate - but it does end on a point well worth making:
"The key thing, however, is that none of this seems to matter to the supporters of the president. For them, the pathology seems to be the point. It is precisely Trump’s refusal to acknowledge reality that they thrill to — because it offends and upsets the people they hate (i.e., city dwellers, the educated, and the media). The more Trump brazenly lies, the more Republicans support him. The more incoherent he is, the more insistent they are. Bit by bit, they have been co-opted by Trump into a series of cascading and contradicting lies, and they are not going to give up now — even when they are being treated for COVID-19 in hospital".
One of the points of takeaway being that it's a waste of energy to to think that pointing out Trump numerous lies, failings, and reality-warping is of much strategic use. If for almost 3 years it has not worked, it's not going to magically start working anytime soon. This shit about Ukraine is an energy sink. John McCain was a war criminal and fuckbag and the world was made a better place the moment he stopped breathing. Time is better spent than trying to defend a ratfuck like him.
It was actually sourcing a controversial French documentary, not that you’d care to be accurate. I don’t know Russian. Watch it if you wish.
Of course Tyahnybok didn’t get a position. In Pyatt and Nuland’s leaked phone call, Nuland said he should be kept on the outside. Who did they prefer? Yatsenyuk. The fascists were fine with impunity.
I think you’re wrong to downplay American meddling in Ukraine and the failure of the previous administration’s push for regime change there. American officials stood on stages Shaking hands with fascists while addressing Maidan protesters, cheering for their success against the democratically-elected president, and pushing to install their favorite politicians. Imagine if someone did that in your country.
They sling it at him. They deserve it.
He started it!
Given that a Clinton presidency would be better than a Trump presidency, Trump's greatest achievement is a net loss.
The US has a policy for regime change in Iran. Both the US and the EU were OK with Yanukovich before. And Yanukovich had been negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU since 2012. What happened?
What you are leaving out is that the demonstrations started because the pressure that Putin put to Yanukovich was the real powder keg here.
Putin offered to lend 15 bn dollars to Ukraine and to give cheaper oil, and even after that the EU was open for a trade deal. As a Finn I can well understand how difficult this is when Russia puts pressure on a country when it see's the country being under it's sphere of influence. For my country it was a tight-rope act to negotiate a trade deal with the EEC when we had the Soviet Union as a neighbor.
Then to what you utterly fail to grasp: You see, there is a huge difference in being the instigator of a regime change or reacting to political events in a country. Countries do try to influence each other: that's why they have diplomats. And Great Powers and Superpowers are even more brazen what they do. The protests started IN NOVEMBER 2013 right after Yanukovich walked out of the deal with a demonstration organized by Yatsenyuk. (So what do you know, Americans choose to back one of the founders of the movement) McCain went there to show support in DECEMBER 2013. The Nuland tapes were recorded in JANUARY 28th of 2014.
If those Nuland tapes would have been recorded prior to the demonstrations then yes, it would be obvious that the US would have plotted a regime change and created an astroturf demonstration. Yet in January the Maidan revolution was well under way, hence the US diplomats were reacting to current events.
Then the second thing is that there is truly a difference on giving support to some political actors and occupying and annexing a part of a country (even if the majority of the people there were OK with it) and then starting a war inside the country and making threats of straight forward invasion. The occupation and later annexation was one of the most brilliant military operations ever, that I have to say. Talk about total strategic surprise.
Well, that's your view of it. :grin: Trump you see has a habit of awkward kissing attempts. But hey, he likes Pence and Putin!
If you are not kidding here...you are fucking nuts.
I hope you were just kidding.
If it were conclusively proved tomorrow that Trump has given blow-jobs to Putin and Kim...the thing that would surprise me is that it could be proven...NOT THAT TRUMP GAVE THEM BLOW-JOBS./
There is nothing that Trump does that should surprise anyone...except perhaps, tell the truth or take responsibility for anything.
There isn't a big enough facepalm on the planet to respond to this.
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump
Being a liar doesn’t mean you can’t be a good president, but this is crazy
But otherwise....
ROFLMAO!
I picture the petulant child that is our President sticking out his lower lip and crying, "They started it!" Which is sad enough, but that fact is, Trump a bully who has instigated more mudslinging than anyone else in history. By your grade school logic, Trump deserves everything HE gets.
Are you the type to let people speak ill of you and your family? A punching bag? You’ll just sit there and take it, submission, perhaps even with a smile?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52815552
And he threatens to close down social media because of it. Per definition, that is active censorship by the government. Wouldn't that be against the law in US? Or at least, wouldn't that be a very serious act against the people by an acting president? If this happens it will either be the end of Trump or Trump will enforce even more power that the people are "fine" with.
I don’t see how adding fact-check labels to blatant lies on Twitter is totally silencing conservatives. Even if conservatives can only communicate in lies, adding the fact-check label to particular lies isn’t disallowing them from being voiced.
Forgetting, of course, that free speech is a principle that protects private entities from government interference...
Yeah, fact-check labels are unacceptable, because, uh, they contain facts.
What is debatable?
Bi-sexual at best.
Right. Twitter’s “head of site integrity” is a weasily, smug little anti-Trumper who compares Trump to Hitler on a routine basis.
What Trump said about mail-in voting was true. Here’s a recent example:
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/close-results-in-paterson-vote-plagued-by-fraud-claims-over-3k-ballots-seemingly-set-aside/2425813/
But no, Twitter users need some woke executive to tell them what is true or false.
Misread. I thought it said ballots were just ignored.
Is there much evidence of mail-in ballot voter fraud?
His comments are also pretty ironic given that he's voted by mail at least 3 times.
So 1,285 proven cases of voter/election fraud (including buying votes, in-person voting, altering vote counts) over 30 years, with over 120,000,000 votes cast during the 2016 presidential election alone. And that's supposed to be sufficient reason not to have mail-in ballots? That's ridiculous.
Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity had to disband because they couldn't find anything to back-up Trump's assertion of voter fraud, and that included in-person voting. So on what basis is Trump making these assertions?
Trump also said there should be valid reasons for mail in voting, for instance when the president is unable to attend a polling station in Florida. But democrats pushed to include funding to expand vote-by-mail in the federal coronavirus relief bill, for whatever reason.
Wanting to vote by mail is a valid reason.
In the US it depends on the state. Though some states do not require an excuse, some do.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndwv/pr/pendleton-county-mail-carrier-charged-attempted-election-fraud
From politifact.com
Living in Southern Cal., I've voted by mail several times, even though the polling place is a block away.
Oh, wow, that proves Mail-In ballots are 'nothing less than substantially fraudulent'?
Intuition. Guesses. Will. Theories. Etc?
I suppose the premise of any does boil down to either a fact or a non-fact. True or false. Accurate or inaccurate, rather. Or in the case of will, beneficial, detrimental, or as an extension less beneficial than could have been.
Guesses, theories, are forms of fact. Intuition, will, seem to be forms of opinion, or otherwise would be split up in either category once you get to the detail of it.
As twitter has proven, some pencil-neck in Silicon Valley can editorialize on the president’s tweets, alter them, and use the bully pulpit to push his agenda. He get’s to remain unaccountable to both the person whose tweets he alters and the public he means to persuade. This is the kind of censorship that would make the CCP proud, but it has been something demanded by Western officials for quite some time.
How do you get all that from a misinformation warning?
The president threatens to shut down twitter (apparently, but I'm too lazy to check) because they called BS on one or more of his tweets, and you're saying that twitter are the ones behaving like the CCP?
What's more CCP-like: Fact-checking and applying misinformation warnings, or threatening to shut down a private corporation for not obeying glorious leader?
You know what censorship is right?
Fucking retards lol.
Trump being the best place to start. But it should probably be for his entire Twitter accont in general. Like: 'warning: this account is a known source of misinformation and deception'.
Imagine if I edited your post, applied my warning to it, and hijacked it in order to link to contrary information.
The one time trump mentions regulation people immediately turn libertarian. Personally I’m not for regulation, but if a social media company wants to act like a publisher, it should be treated as one.
I know what censorship is.
If you left my original text intact and merely added editorialized trimmings of your own, then I wouldn't much mind actually...
Even if you decorated it above and below with shit-emojis, I would still expect my statements to stand or fall on their own merits...
So answer me this: What if you made a post that was factually incorrect (what was the tweet in question even about? I still haven't cared enough to check...), and let's assume that it is something relevant to "politics". Would you feel so-violated if someone merely added a disclaimer stating that it is factually inaccurate?
:snicker:
#fakenews
Also "libertarians" stand for nothing - except maybe pedophilia - so of course that dogshit ideology can be used for whichever way the wind blows.
No, we just pile it onto the mountain of hypocrisies and stand in wonder of how so many can stand by someone who stands for nothing (besides power, wealth, and perhaps above all, attention).
Haven't heard that one since preschool.
Read: Fact-check the president's barrage of lies.
Editorialize: that's good for a laugh.
Happily, there are facts.
I would, yes. Like you said, we expect our statements to stand and fall on their own merits. Others can use their own mind and expression to dispute it. I fear for and pity those who need their information to be curated.
I think it's more the fact that it is the President of the United States saying these things. Such people with powerful public positions should be more responsible with their speech. Where are people like William Bennett on Trump? He was moralistic, stone-throwing crusader when he perceived Clinton had an affair as president. Yet, where is his ilk when Trump says and does the shameful, deceitful, outright stupid, uninformed, ignorant comments that he has been doing just about every day of his presidency? This is just tribalism at its worst :vomit:. Somehow decency and virtue only matters if liberals and Democrats are in office :roll:. Moral majority my ass.
It’s just speech. You could scan the annals of medicine and find not a single person injured by words. If you don’t believe in free speech for everyone, you don’t believe in free speech.
This is really so delicious. These Trumpian crybabies like NOS have no fucking clue what free speech is, and they have to twist themselves in knots to even provide a semblance of consistency. Not that these intellectual degenerates ever give a shit.
This is misrepresenting the argument. The President can say what he wants. The sentiment is that at what point does the person in power have a responsibility to the public with how he uses his speech? Perhaps we can agree that "social media" can be a free-form Wild West forum. However, the sentiment is, should a president be engaging in this manner? What responsibility does the person in office have to not spout whatever information comes to his head? And the other sentiment is, where is the outrage on the right? Yeah for this ONE time some newspapers that support him have said this was bad, but it is only now that they see the light? I call intellectual dishonesty here. These same right-wing pundits would not so much as let Obama wear a tan suit without screaming bloody murder and how unpatriotic he was. The right has shown its faux-moralism in spades during Trump's presidency. It's not like the faux-moralism wasn't apparent before this, but it is now so abundantly out in the open, it has nowhere to go. It has become a morally relativistic caricature of itself, the very morally relativistic caricature so often hurled at the left and dirty "liberals".
It’s frightening and piteous that POTUS can only be trusted to speak and act in ways that are self-serving.
Seriously, has there ever been a world leader as Snowflakely as Trump? The dude handles criticism like a child.
Yeah, you might be right as far as “the right” is concerned. I don’t see why a president shouldn’t able to say what he wants. I’d be interested to hear your argument as to why he shouldn’t.
"Some people think the President is a total douche. Many state leaders don't take him seriously and we don't either. Take the above comment with a ton of salt and find independent corroboration of what he says. Btw, Fox News doesn't count."
And watch the meltdown.
Saying a comment isn’t proven is one thing, but an entity stamping their mark of approval on a comment is another.
Sure it is.
Nothing to do with law, pal.
"They don't have our norms and values and we should limit immigration because they'll change the fabric of society".
"Some people say they [eat babies/insert weird cultural practice]".
Take it to the extreme. If you say "A" and I say "A is false" and "A" stands for whatever you say, regardless of me verifying whether "A" is true, I'm entirely free to do so. That's how it works. And if I do this on the website I own, that you use for free to reach millions of people, you really have fuck all to say about what I do with my property as well.
Quoting NOS4A2
I never said twitter doesn’t have the right to do what they want with their property. I’m saying it’s wrong to alter someone’s expression and essentially violate their human right.
:rofl:
Trump got his human rights violated by being fact checked :lol:
I hope you're being handsomely compensated for embarrassing yourself like this.
And if we're going back for a second to your "stamp of approval", this in fact would be a stamp of disapproval. Which Trump does all the time by calling certain media outlets critical of him "fake news". Or calling people he doesn't like frauds or liars.
And Trump isn't even called that, it just has a link that says: "Get the facts about mail-in ballots". Only after clicking it, will you get links to CNN, NBC, the Hill and WaPo and various other papers and experts.
Meanwhile, great distraction from the fact that he's been responsible for about 40,000 needless corona deaths and higher costs to contain it due to his inaction during February. Also, he's still a corrupt and sore loser.
Non-libertarian: Bullshit.
Libertarian: Shut him down!!!
It’s not a comment. There are thousands of comments under his tweets. I would say it’s more like a warning label or addendum.
Non-libertarian: Addendum: Bullshit.
Libertarian: Shut him down!!!
If it’s a comment then who made it?
It’s a twitter comment. The doublespeak is profound.
Let's not kid ourselves that Dorsey would roll out this feature if it would hurt them. At the same time this particular change is good for everyone as it broadens the discussions with references to facts and other opinions and breaks the echo-chamber. If it's exercised on both sides of the spectrum (in the Netherlands, anti-vaxxers are left wing, retro-hippy know-it-alls) it's a win for Twitter users to get informed.
On the whole though, all these billionaires need to fuck off out of the political decision making process.
I don't get what point you're making. What mental steps did you go through to reach an Orwellian classification like that?
On the other hand, one should not pass up a good opportunity to let Trump get fucked in public and then watch certain maggots try and fit square pegs in round holes.
It’s not a comment. It’s a new feature of the system, one designed to combat “misinformation”, which has been demanded by Western governments for the past few years. It’s just weird to me that someone would call it a comment or speech.
But it's nice to see you struggle with trying to reconcile your free speech absolutism with outcomes of free speech protection that you don't like. So either you'll have to accept you're not a free speech absolutist or you need to accept free speech absolutism leads to instances you personally don't like.
I'm in fact neither an absolutist (fuck corporations and free speech) but do accept people with abhorrent ideas or crude manners get their say or room to foul up the mood.
It's weird to me that campaign donations by corporations count as speech, but that's what Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC decided.
But "experts" in the media say that this does not happen, because science. . Which is to say that academics is corrupt, and the media are liars.
They say it doesn't happen (much) because there isn't (much) evidence for it. I previously linked to a report by the Heritage Foundation that found ~1,200 cases of voter/election fraud (of all kinds, not just crimes related to abusing mail-in ballots) over at least a 30 year period.
What evidence do you have to support your claim that it's "obvious" that people are going to sell their mail-in ballots?
Lack of care in this matter shows how poorly the previous leaders had governed.
I think it's time to outlaw this behaviour. I will try my hardest to bring force to stupidity.
Hillary is not more intelligent than Trump, she's likely bringing danger upon her own people. Obama pitted us against Russia and she would likely support a war there, blind of other enemy nations - supporting them financially, foolishly - whilst NOT mending ties with Russia like the US is something invincible.
You can act depressed/violent all you want in support of 'Hillary's intelligence' - but you won't change my mind.
Lest you debate with something logical, I'll take most of your comments as caveman fluff.
This is just chaos of ego. I've read a lot of comments. It's all swearing, shouting and wingeing - where is the logic against Trump and for Biden?
Biden supporters/Trump haters only bark, they never bite, but so much barking is going on it, undesirablely, makes sense. We're all forced to think, 'I know what that means' - and what does it mean? Bark bark in (unlawful) barking movement.
Legitimate criticism isn't pointless harrassment.
Outlaw what behaviour? Do you have a concrete example? Surely you're not saying that it should be a crime for the press to report on Trump's words and actions?
Yes she is.
Russia interfered in the election. Obama was right to confront them about it and respond. Hillary wouldn't have supported a war. It would be ridiculous to "mend ties" with a country that interfered (and by all accounts is still interfering) with elections.
It's one of those cases where you think it's a big deal, but no-one else.
Is this a problem for me?
Not really. I'll get by. It's not like you've said anything smart. One day you'll learn your lesson.
An ant's body is too beautiful for you, a fly is too peaceful, so perhaps you'll just get another ugly human. Why? Cause you talk fucking bollucks and perversity.
I don't know what you mean by this. I haven't deleted or edited any of your posts.
OK, so now I've (ab?)used my mod power on him (with a ban).
This socialist regime is weakening the states.
We need Trump, make sure to vote him in and in the end real justice will take these people. Who cares if they shout racism - this is America. Not your play thing.
Either his lips are moving...
...or he is tweeting.
I've been told he never lies while he is sleeping...but occasionally lies that he is sleeping when he is not.
Trump is a thoroughly disgusting individual as far as I am concerned. I guess I let it get to me.
Again, I never said Twitter’s new feature is illegal or not protected by the first amendment, so it’s stupid to keep trying to nail down that irrelevant point, as if someone was disputing it or arguing the opposite. Is this how lawyers argue?
Again, it’s wrong for some pencil-neck in Silicon Valley to interfere with the president’s speech, apply a little label, and link to some CNN article. Pencil-neck is not the arbiter of truth, can dispute Trump like everyone else in replies, comments and articles, and need not abuse his power to apply links, fact-checks or any other nonsense on people’s tweets.
The owners of a service should be able to shape it as they see fit. You've used this in argument, passionately, many many times. You are not consistent.
Of course they should. It’s their property. They can do what they want. That doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong. Are you able to make that distinction?
Earlier you posted an opinion piece by someone saying that they'd vote for Biden even if he boiled and ate babies, and claimed that this was "Biden supporters in a nutshell".
Can I say that @Barabmob and @remoku are "Trump supporters in a nutshell"?
You have my blessing.
Well now I'm conflicted. Is that a good or bad thing?
Is this another little game of questions?
I think it was rhetorical?
Was there a point in there somewhere?
You're condemning Twitter's freedom of speech, this is wrong. You want to limit it.
Says the guy who earlier claimed that it violated a human right. That would be illegal and is a legal argument.
Quoting NOS4A2
Wriggle wriggle.
I do not.
That’s absurd. That’s like saying the first amendment protects itself.
Yes you do, you want the company to change its behaviour to not express themselves in the way they see fit. You want them to manage their business in accordance with your moral intuitions. You have criticised both of these in the past, on the basis of limiting freedom of speech. You've expressed that you see both as protected activities under freedom of speech.
I'm not surprised you don't see the contradiction; you don't seem to care about the arguments you make, you only seem to care about what the arguments support or rebuke,
Holy shit the double think is real.
I do not want to limit their expressions nor dictate how they run their website, and instead of assuming what I want you might as well just ask me.
Now I have the right to use hate speech in the United States. It's protected speech. Do I believe it is right to use hate speech? No. Now because I think its wrong to spew hatred, does this mean I want to interfere with the speech of racists or terrorists? Do I want them to conduct themselves how I see fit? No. I would use my own speech to say why it is wrong.
Just what happened to Trump.
You'd be fine if someone did that to you?
Absolutely.
That explains everything.
You know you're caught in a contradiction, so all you're doing now is trying to reframe all the exchange we've had in terms of you being freedom loving (and supporting Trump's censorship of Twitter) and me being authoritarian (and thinking that's Twitter's call, and I'm glad that they're doing something towards how terrible its discourse is). You don't want to make the point in an argument, because you know you're inconsistent, so you're making it by trying to control the conversation towards a narrative favourable to you.
You gave not a single fuck when Twitter was culling Isis propaganda. Not one.
Utterly false. If only I had the power to add a little link to fox news under your misinformation.
If you had the power you wouldn't use it though.
Of course not. You guys are all adults, aren't you?
If someone points out that what I'm saying is false, and provides a factual source that contradicts me, it's fine. It doesn't matter if it's Twitter that does it, it doesn't matter if it's a forum member that does it. I want people to correct me when I'm wrong.
The fucking POTUS can't handle that so hard he's supporting censorship of social media platforms. And you dupes are happy because it's being defended in terms of freedom of speech.
Apparently it does, because Twitter didn't simply "say it was false", as if they made a statement. They altered the code of the website in a discriminatory fashion.
Twitter fact checked Trump. Trump was misleading. That's it. That happens on the forum every day,
All you're doing now is trying to get me to go down a split hair so that the facts get lost in the fog. Not playing that game.
It's the first time it happened!!
I'm done now.
This was the first time it happened.
I think the mods should ban this dude because his name is Bomb Arab backwards
My mistake.
Another example is that video. There is nothing manipulated in it.
You do that, and when in this hypothetical future you are obviously imagining an org like Twitter "fact checks" you based on false, partisan information, you'll have recourse to complain.
He's already banned.
Right?!
Quoting NOS4A2
I knew you were a scumbag but, wow.
As things stand it is clear that the big western social media companies have a left-liberal bias that needs regulating.
I think it’s a step too far. But the question of who fact-checks the fact-checkers is an important one. The capricious and political use of their labelling and anti-Trump sources, all of whom endorse opposing candidates, makes plain their motives, which seems to me to score points against Trump and to influence the election.
I was worried that Trump would attempt to regulate Twitter, but the EO seems to be consistent with law without getting all authoritarian.
1. To order the FCC clarify Section 230 of the Communications decency act ("No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider").
2. To review federal spending of tax-payer dollars on advertising upon social media platforms.
3. A federal review of unfair and deceptive acts and practices.
4. To establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices.
Is there anything objectionable in it?
It's not clear what it means for this to be the "policy" of the United States, but if the intention is to legally declare social media to be public forums (such that the First Amendment applies) then there's a problem. Social media are private sector businesses, not public spaces.
A traditional public forum is something like a street or park; "public property which have, as 'a principal purpose, ... the free exchange of ideas'"[sup]1[/sup]. Social media platforms aren't public property. Is Trump planning to nationalise social media?
[sup]1[/sup] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/the-public-forum
Yes and no. Yes in the sense the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled it is protected by the first amendment. It can be said speaking about law and order and justice is hateful against criminals. That Christianity is hateful and depending on verse is virtually threatening non-believers ie. Hell, punishment and whatnot. As would many religions.
Before we get to why, rather when it is not. Let's define hate speech. There are two widely held understandings, both related. First being abusive speech toward any group (which could literally be anything- even hateful ones themselves) especially when it targets a race, religion, or orientation. And the other is only when it targets one of those three. I could make a religion right now that says all people are garbage, so are governments, rights too, and God wants us to destroy all three. Now. I have a right to speak, recruit, and accomplish this.
It is not allowed in the sense when doing so in a setting that would cause a riot. For example, going to the George Floyd protest and saying things I frankly won't even type here. I'm sure you can think of some. People would get hurt, often those who you would be claiming to be speaking for, who happen to be present. You may be able to skirt away, but perhaps other wouldn't. Another reason why racial hate speech should be curtailed by their own first before it gets out of hand and people they claim to be speaking for just trying to live their lives end up dealing with whatever it is that was said. To summarize, racial hate speech is dumb and counterintuitive. And frankly should be illegal. It isn't in and of itself and so remains a utility to gauge a given group's hostility to an open and free nation's constitution.
Also this:
Which users are they going to monitor? Why are they monitoring them? I don't know how to read this as anything other than Big Brother tracking critics.
I think the term “functional equivalent” means it is not actually public property, but functions in a similar manner. Recall when the courts claimed Trump’s Twitter account to be a “designated public forum”. But I agree that is a hard sell.
It is my understanding that they want to collect publicly available information on the tracking of users by social media companies, along with complaints.
Edit: here’s the actual EO, just signed. It’s similar to the draft, but not the same.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
The standard in first amendment law is “immanent lawless action”, or in other words, the advocacy of criminal activity, if and only when the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action.
Yeah, they took out the part about them being a "traditional public forum."
Reminds me of a story I read this morning: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/28/trump-campaign-attempts-to-remove-satirical-cartoon-from-online-retailer
From the story:
Or. Likely to cause people to get hurt. See, "yelling fire in a movie theater".
Great idea. His incessant tweeting is worse than a mosquito buzzing around my head. I just want to swat him. Maybe he could take the time to learn how to make an intelligent statement.
I imagine because it ridicules not just him but his followers as well, and touches on the cultish (and somewhat Jim-Jonesian in recent months) bond between them.
Man, he drags his feet on a pandemic but mess with his twitter account and he's bypassing congress and signing an executive order faster than you can say "dictator wannabe".
It’s a poor phrase used to illustrate an old standard which was used to censor opposition to the draft.
Ah yes, the classic "deploy the military to shoot at civilian looters in the name of a man killed by police" tactic.
Definitely nothing to worry about here...
Of course - the Swedish experiment has been a total failure. And insofar as the US is the 9th worst affected country by capita - measured by deaths - I'd say yeah, it's still bloody awful. The US supposedly being among the most 'developed' nations on the planet.
9th worse obviously depends on other countries being honest with their numbers...the CCP aren't , no one is counting in India and there are even questions over Germany (I haven't looked into it but apparently there has been a spike in deaths there miraculously not caused by Covid).Also you have to accept that it's harder locking down a free and open society than a controlled one...so in that sense higher death rates can be a good sign .
About Prof. Sikora:
Yasss kweeen Twitter make 'em mad!*
*[hide]Twitter is still trash.[/hide]
Likely Twitter has seen enough to make the decision to treat Trump as the fool he is.
Talk about a lame duck...
It's all the same materialism, professing to know what is good and beautiful to be a matter of scientific fact, instead of a matter of chosen opinion on the SPIRIT in which decisions are made.
The common denominator is always the original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This kind of feeling of factual certitude about what is good, is leading them to cancel freedom of opinion.
Fascism in Trump's America.
Even the co-founder of Wikipedia is stating that it has become clearly politically biased...
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
They identified themselves. ... Watch now as the liberty freaks embrace authoritarianism and abuse of first amendment rights while even the governor has apologized.
"Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has apologized for the "totally unacceptable" arrest of a CNN journalist and his crew who were covering protests over the death of George Floyd."
https://www.newsweek.com/minnesota-gov-tim-walz-apologizes-cnn-teams-unacceptable-arrest-journalists-released-1507326
:lol:
Enter the Koch brothers and Murdoch with a hostile take over?
Twitter have got away with not enforcing rules in the past by saying it is too much to police the system, so a 1980's law let them carry on...now they are policing those they disagree with that law should be repealed. Twitter would be fucked were that to happen , they would get sued for every falsehood that made it to their platform.
Mark Zuckerberg says social networks should not be fact-checking political speech
In the end, Mark doesn't like things that affect his bottom line. Probably Dorsey doesn't either. So both their opinions need to be taken with a grain of salt.
I guess they weren’t intimidated by the big scary orange man. :razz:
How do I know who is telling the truth about existence when there is no way anyone can know such a thing without some degree of faith. Faith and opinion are bound together.
Now it's a slur.
I wonder what's next :chin:
What left-leaning politician with a reasonable following has been lying about methods of voting in order to protect the interests of his own party? Trump just admitted as much that his resistance to mail-in voting is to avoid a Republican loss.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266172570983940101[/tweet]
That's not because only Democrats would act fraudulently, or "are [all Republicans] utterly truthful" according to you? It's because covid-19 disproportionally affects non-white US citizens who tend to vote Democratic more often. Denying them the ability to vote via mail-in ballots is the ploy and that's the real violation of rights here. Not a little link beneath the President's unsubstantiated claims.
I'm 53 lol.
Glorifying violence is adolescent, I must agree. Too much video game playing in the White House?
No, one commits violence when smashing up a target.
And we mustn't forget that regular voter fraud in booths happen too. Buying votes, happens there too. It's about the effect of voter fraud via postal voting compared to in booth voting and then how those risks can be managed and how those risk controls could be implemented on time to make it a good addition to booth voting.
I think there's legitimate concern to be had where States that have no experience and no infrastructure to handle massive mail in ballots but I think it's stupid to exclude the possibility of mail in ballot voting entirely. There are six states working with all-postal voting (Hawaii, Oregon, California, Washington State, Utah and Colorado). There's no evidence this has contributed to substantial voter fraud.
It's all about how you organise all-post voting. It shouldn't be a partisan issue.
The UK's Electoral Commission on the extent of UK voter fraud and postal votes:
And the link you provided consists entirely of anecdotes. It answers no questions regarding the scope of fraud.
Edit: and dude, , that person was clearly not a protester. They walked towards a shop wearing identity obscuring clothes including a gas mask, made sure to walk with their umbrella low to cover the mask's face hole, left, and then were violent towards a protester with a camera.
Their motives are not likely to be in support of the protesters, their motives are likely to be media management... So that people like you can talk about the protests turning to wanton vandalism; facilitating a dismissal of the protests by its conduct but not its concerns.
I was pointing out the difference between glorifying violence and committing violence. You appear to be confused about this, as well as many other things.
Just as an aside, I remember hearing students boasting of how they had voted twice by post in the referendum...but hey -ho.
It's about democratic disenfranchisement.
That's the story, not voter fraud.
Even pointing out that voter fraud is barely a thing is to distract from the only point that matters: Trump is trying to disenfranchise an entire swathe of his population. Engaging in the voter fraud angle - even if to marshal facts and so on to deny it - is already to lose the thread. Don't let it be a distraction.
:up:
I have the futile hope that through repeated exposure to research @Chester will learn to be less gullible.
What the hell? He didn't sacrifice himself for a cause, so saying that he "will not have died in vain" is crazy.
It is being done safely. All you have is "feels" when "you're afraid" something is "obviously" the case when the facts actually point to the opposite. It's amazing how much information you're willing to ignore just to maintain a position that is not in the slightest researched or thought out.
Trump supporters (you?) think it's "a laugh" that someone died like he did?
Ask yourself this, of all the people that got murdered, raped and shat on in the world today why is all your concern about him?
Frankly, I would be amazed if you could read any other sort of book.
Quoting Chester
Should I care if you think it’s glorious?
Cheers, mate! :smile:
You don’t think non-whites can line up and vote like everyone else? Fucking sick.
I also think it's likely that leftists would be more inclined to try vote rigging...lying is in their dna.
Y'all own the copyright on the alternative ones.
Seriously thought, you guys are trying way too hard. Trolling is a subtle art.
What a lie. Any other advice you have for non-whites?
You left his part out, shill.
Given that our comrades over at Fox News Communist Headquarters themselves have acknowledged that mail ballots tends to help republicans more than democrats, I actually suspect the whole debacle is even more stupid than I ever imagined - that Trump said a stupid thing without thought (spurred by his masculine fragility over COVID), and when called out on it, because he's a fucking man-baby, doubled down and and can't bring himself to let it go. If it disenfranchises a bunch of voters, so be it. Like... this had it's genesis in the intersection of Trump's stupidity and his egoism.
Trump doesn't play 11D chess. He wouldn't know how to play 3D chess. He's literally just a stupid person doing stupid things, unable to unstupid things without going full retard. This makes a lot more sense.
Moron
It is clearly being used for political gain (covid 19) by the left .Don't forget it was a leftist regime that inflicted this on the world too Mr Moron.
If you and your family are in a theater right now and someone does the same. People rush out in a panic trampling eachother many getting hurt, one of which being you, some getting killed, one of which being a family member. You don't think the individual who caused all that should be punished in any way? At least banned from the theater? lol
You probably also think the Nazi party was left wing because it had "socialist" in the name, right?
But yeah, the fact you read something racist in what I said while simultaneously defending the disenfranchisement of minorities says it all about who the real racist is here.
It applies to sick people only, not "non-whites" or any other group of people. Perhaps you might refrain from holding low expectations of entire groups of people because they don't have the same shade of skin as you.
I'm not sure that would happen. Perhaps a real example would suffice.
It's a fact that minorities have been affected more by COVID. And being affected by COVID has nothing to do with others' expectations of you. It's not a moral failing. Now stop trolling. If the new Trump line is to accuse anyone who supports mail-in voting of being racist, it's not going to fly here.
I said:
"He who smelt it dealt it"
I don’t view the world through the lens of race, and I despise people who pigeon-hole others into such groups and then pretend they can derive from it some sort of knowledge about the world. I’m sorry, but this has been the modus operandi of racists since the beginning of time and I refuse to participate.
It could. Maybe it was a firefighter movie. lol
Fine. Shark in the water. Bomb on a train. Shooter at a concert. All things that have happened more than a few times. Those real enough for ya?
I apologize for what I said, Benkei. I know you meant no ill will. That stuff just bothers me.
If you were any more full of shit, we could give you an enema and stick you in a matchbox.
Damn right you needed to apologize. Don't try to pull that crap again.
I will abide, even when the rules are selectively applied.
We must be racist against stupid people. Now shut up and get on with the Trump brown-nosing.
I like debate, no matter how contentious. It’s good for you.
The truth is good for everyone though.
Truth shines in a free and open encounter with falsehood.
I still consider myself a man of the left, just not their version of it.
I used to vote Labour once upon a time and I vote Conservative now...but last time I wish I could have voted for the Brexit party... a party of both the left and right.
Yeah I've abandoned that spectrum myself. I just don't find affinity with abstract groups and communities in general, probably the logical result of my nominalism.
Playing with trolls is nothing more than mild amusement.
I think it’s boring. I can’t even be bothered to read them, let alone respond.
So, since you're so interested in debate:
How does one destroy an idea?
What ideas, specifically, are in danger?
Morality is for pussies.
You were rather disappointing today.
Lol. Sometimes you can come up with some gems. :ok:
You never troll and never respond when I troll you.
Look out everyone, we got an edgy badass here
Morality in and of itself is most certainly not cowardly. It can be foolish. Unnecessary. Fatal even. Which only serves to prove my point. Conformity to a majority ingrained system is what takes no effort and has no risk and so has no valor. As is living by or acting on one's most base, primal instincts. Anyone can get mad when insulted, an act that takes nothing from you. Or even otherwise screwed over, where it does. It takes strength to not become upset and override your primitive impulses. Not just anyone can do this as you can clearly see from this thread. What also isn't easy is thinking about anyone but yourself for just long enough, to realize doing so and establishing and following laws that differentiate right from wrong (morality) will and has helped in the long run. From eye for an eye to modern courts justice or morality gives people faith in the system and let's those who actually think do so and improve society. Up until 200 years ago we were basically crapping in holes as was done for several millenia.
If you want to relinquish morality and as a result its legislation and resulting innovation, essentially all modernity to live as animals do, crapping in holes and goring eachother for food and privilege, you and others like you should have a right to do so. Somewhere else, perhaps some island, hopefully in the path of a hurricane. Meanwhile, until you do such things and continue to use what was given to you by 'cowards' in your eyes, you're a hypocrite.
I was just teasing. Sarcasm, in a word.
It's important to say: some deranged machismo factor is at the heart of the to-wear-or-not-to-wear-a-mask "debate."
An incarnate scintilla right here.
widdle snowflake is sAd
Giving the devil his due - good.
Here's the transcripts.
For those who don't remember, this was the charge that he pled guilty too:
Let's say that a common sense idea is that postal voting is easy to manipulate , easy to corrupt. To attempt to destroy that concept leftists say not having postal votes is racist... but in no way address the point of postal voting corruption.
Racism is an accusation dumb-ass leftists use to close down discussion on any particular subject that they are losing the argument on ,luckily it doesn't work so much now that 99% of the world is basically racist by hard-left standards lol..
How are mail-in-votes easy to manipulate or corrupt?
The bully husband leans over his wife's shoulder whilst she fills her ballot paper out. There you go, it ain't rocket science.
But leftists don't say that you're not allowed to think about postal voting corruption. They're saying there is no postal voting corruption, which is a factual claim. They then go on to say that the real reason you're against it is because you're a racist who doesn't want black people to vote. Which is another factual claim.
Nothing about this could conceivably "destroy" the idea that postal voting may be corrupt.
You leftists have a strange relationship with truth, often you argue against a truth which normal people can see obviously and instantly. I think that often it is because your ilk believes itself to be cleverer than you are...just always remember this basic fact too, being clever is not the same as being right, in actual fact it can make you utterly deluded.
the problem is, Chester, even if it were possible to be sure in absolute terms that a 'fact' is indeed a 'fact,' that the selection of particular 'facts' as being those which one evaluates as 'true' is itself an act of bias. I do understand alot of people have trouble understanding that, but generally not philosophers.
So what do we do with statistics? (cue M. Twain)
I didn't. Though your blustering is amusing.
Quoting Chester
So when you said you liked arguing, what you meant was you like to insult people?
Quoting Chester
What does that have to do with my initial question about ideas?
Could be. We still do mail-in early voting. Democrats will be out making sure Biden voters know how to mail-in. Trump voters will be what?
It's nice to talk to people who aren't verbally abusive tho.
Could he be a worse leader and bigger asshole?
Yes, he could be a capable asshole like Putin. As it stands, Donnie's incompetence is somewhat of a blessing.
There are some contradictions in the Mueller charging documents. As the transcripts show, Flynn in fact did not ask the Russian ambassador to “refrain from escalating”, but asked him to “make it reciprocal”. “Because I don’t want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat”. He said this in regards to the dismissal of Russians from the country, not the sanctions.
As for the rest of it it’s what one would call diplomacy.
The transcript says:
Claiming that there are "some contradictions in the Mueller charging documents" because the exact phrase "refrain from escalating" doesn't appear is some ridiculous mental gymnastics.
Maybe, but he lied to the FBI about it and pleaded guilty (twice) to it. The Justice Department now deciding to drop the case is evidently some corrupt move by Barr to protect a Trump ally.
He either asked Kislyak to refrain from escalating or he didn’t. He in fact did not. It takes some mental gymnastics to say he did.
Here’s the charging documents: https://www.justice.gov/file/1015026/download
He did ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating. You can read it right there in the transcripts. It is false to claim that he didn't ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating because he didn't use the sentence "refrain from escalating". As this is a philosophy forum, perhaps engaging in some actual philosophy (of language) – or even just linguistics in general – will teach you the distinction between words and meaning.
Even if I do agree with you (I don’t; we’re talking about putting people in jail for making false statements, so precision is important), did he in fact say so in regards to “US Sanctions”? Or did he say so in regard to the expelling of Russian diplomats?
Both.
You really are clutching at straws here. Flynn was charged with and pleaded guilty to (under penalty of perjury) lying when he claimed not to have talked to Kislyak about not escalating the situation in response to Obama's response to Russian interference. He's guilty, and ought be sentenced accordingly. Barr's decision to drop the case is corruption.
In contradiction to the charging documents, it is true that “On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Government of Russia’s Ambassador to the United States ("Russian Ambassador") to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day”.
In fact, Flynn requested that Russia respond in “a reciprocal manner” to the expelling of “some number of Russians out of the country”.
Especially for Vladimir. :grin:
But it*s so also for the Saudi's. Any other US President likely would have given them a tougher time especially with the war in Yemen, all the bullshit towards Qatar and for the palace coup, not to mention the sloppy killing of a opposition member in Turkey. But just to play on Trump's narcissism and waving money in front of Jared does the trick...
Yet Bibi really has made it into an art!
Also, that's not the only charge of lying.
Flynn is guilty of lying to the FBI, just as he pleaded. Accept it.
I did read it, but I also read what you suspiciously left out of it.
Clearly he's still talking about the expelling of diplomats.
No where in that quote did Flynn ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution. Unfortunately, the December 22nd phone call remains classified.
He is in a way for the US what the Cambridge Five were to the British intelligence services. The scars that the US intelligence services have taken from the Trump ordeal will be far greater than the British suffered from it's famous Russian spy ring inside it's intelligence establishment. Those of course were career spies who understood what they had done, just like the American turncoats during the Cold War, Trump is more likely simply not have understood what strange bedfellows he got with his profitable Russian contacts. Who could have known that the FBI's mission is to look at what hostile foreign intelligence services do in the US?
Of course the whole Trump episode in US history will likely play out like the war in Iraq: to admit that the justification for the Iraqi invasion, the hoax reasoning of then nonexistent WMD's (yes, before Iraq did have a WMD project) and the fictitious link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was a sham that took years to go through especially in right wing circles. I remember well that on the older PF site some people were adamantly defending the "official" line" for the war in Iraq as a sign of patriotism. Freedom fries and all that. It will take a GOP / right-wing politician to say what is known even now as the truth, and in this case the huge irony was that it was Donald Trump himself that popped the fictitious bubble of the Iraq war and WMD's himself and buried the older Bush brother in the race for the Republican candidacy.
:up:
"Facts are stubborn things, whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~John Adams
That was the call where he was told what Russia will do, which he lied about.
And "But, uh, responding to your, uh, telephone call and our conversations, we will try to help, uh, to~ uh~ postpone the vote and to allow for consultations" refers to the previous call, which evidently had something to do with asking for the vote to at least be delayed, given both what the words say and that Flynn pleaded guilty to having lied about not having done this.
Quoting NOS4A2
I left it out because I knew you would use it to try to divert away the clear connection between Kislyak saying that something has to be done about the sanctions and Flynn saying that if something has to be done it should be on a reciprocal basis. Given that you don't seem to understand the distinction between words and meaning and so try to argue that Flynn didn't ask Russia to refrain from escalating because he didn't use the sentence "refrain from escalating" I guess it was too much to expect you to understand the natural flow of conversation.
That's a Brexit party meme, it's weird the way they convinced themselves that democracy in the UK is under threat from bullying husbands.
So Faridge sold you out to the moderate Tory's, now you've got that buffoon in Downing st, your precious Brexit is going to be chaos and economic ruin. And guess who will get the blame? The Brexit party and UKIP, Johnson will dodge the blame and pin it on Faridge.
Happy days.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015026/download
The charging document made clear this is what he lied about. Yet in the transcript he does not ask the Russian government to “refrain from escalating the situation”, as he clearly states “we're not going to escalate this thing“, and "I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat" [my emphasis]. "Us" and "we" I assume mean both countries or even America itself, but not Russia. What does your understanding about the distinction between words and meaning and the natural flow of conversation say about this?
There is no evidence Flynn even knew about Obama's sanctions, because he doesn't mention them. The expulsions of diplomats were declared and enforced by the State Department, not by Obama's EO.
Further, Obama's EO and sanctions were signed the day before the phone call, December 28th, not the morning of December 29th. This is another lie in Mueller's charge.
Michael Flynn accepted a plea deal to to protect his son. "My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel’s Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country".
"Sec. 5. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on December 29, 2016."
The charging document was referring to the day that the sanctions came into effect. Even if it were otherwise, it would be a mistake not a lie.
Kislyak mentions them and says that Russia has to do something about it. That's when Flynn says that if they do something then it should be reciprocal.
Quoting NOS4A2
This is frankly ridiculous. I honestly don't believe that you believe your own attempt at a defense here, and if you're not going to argue in good faith then this is a waste of my time. The worst lawyers in the world wouldn't attempt this spin.
Or you do believe what you're saying in which case your lack of comprehension would make my attempt to explain the facts a wasted endeavour.
Translation:
I really don't want Russia and the US to get into a situation that will escalate, you know?
Translation:
Please make sure that if Russia has to do something it's on a reciprocal basis (he even explains what reciprocal means for you!), eg. even basis. That would be good and a message we would get. We would THEN know that Russia and the US are not going to escalate.
Summary:
Please don't escalate. If you don't, we get the message and we won't either.
The full statement:
"But I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right. My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions."
Let's also consider this:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618[/tweet]
Notwithstanding whether or not his conversations were lawful, even Trump acknowledged that Flynn lied about them.
There's more than one way to say the same thing. One can ask that another refrain from escalating without saying exactly "refrain from escalating".
Honestly NOS4A2, this has got to be about the lowest I've seen you go, in your attempts to avoid the truth. You've learned well from the man you continuously defend. Tell me please, is it worth the effort, to lower yourself in this manner?
What should we call this new evil you have described? "Battered voter syndrome"?
Let me just check and make sure that this term is not already coined...
Oh shit: battered voter syndrome
Sound familliar?
---
The marriage contract is not risk free, and in free countries women should have access to divorce if their civil rights are being violated by their husband. I don't really know what to say. A similar argument would be that marriage itself is wrong because of some inherent bullying risk. Blindly trade freedom for security and you will wind up with neither...
[b]Pandemic - preventable mass casualties ...
Depression-level unemployment ...
Nationwide urban anti-racist rebellion ...[/b]
:mask:
You are right. I was wrong.
Yes, Kislyak mentions them. Flynn does not. Flynn certainly does not “ask the Government of Russia's Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day“. Rather, he consistently spoke about the State Department’s decision to expel Russian diplomats, not Obama’s response. Not once did he mention sanctions, and not once did he ask Russia to not escalate in response to sanctions. This is why you can’t quote Flynn saying such a thing, that you need to leave certain parts of his quotes out, that you can only keep asserting he did while pretending I don’t understand meaning and language or that I’m acting in bad faith.
On top of that, Flynn didn’t do a single thing wrong in that phone call, and threw water on a potentially dangerous situation. He was railroaded for it.
I don't really want to bring Brexit onto this thread either.
Depression-level unemployment ...
Nationwide urban anti-racist rebellion ..."
Like you would have done a better job of stopping a pandemic...even the Norwegians are admitting that lock down may have been a bad idea because of the economic costs and the fact that they have built no herd immunity unlike Sweden.
Depression level unemployment will affect the world equally if it happens at all.
It's not a anti-racist rebellion, it's an excuse to destroy and steal.
How many member states does the EU have again?
The question is not whether he did something wrong in the phone call, it's whether he lied about it later. Clearly he did lie, because obviously he did talk to the ambassador requesting that Russia not take any actions which would escalate the situation. This is what he claimed that he did not do. He even recognized himself that he lied and plead guilty to making those lies.
If you can get yourself beyond this simple reality, instead of trying to rationalize his lying as something other than lying, then you might address the real issue of why he lied? Did he believe that what he did was wrong, having a guilty conscience, or was he subjected to undue pressure (torture or something) from the investigators, and this induced his lies? Did he simply forget? Or did he lie for some other reason?
And what about the voters who can't get to the polling station, or are away from home etc?
I am a polling officer and I see plenty of couples where one person tells the other where to put their cross in the polling booth, or writes it for them.
You've just been duped by the Brexit party.
Oh, but a polling officer wouldn't know anything about polling would they? You will say.
Right. So the only important countries in the world are the USA, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland and Denmark.
I guess Asia doesn't exist?
Another thing, who is to say that what looks like failure now may be good in the long run...herd immunity if there is a second wave...the Norwegians seem to think lock down may have been a mistake.
Sweden isn’t even close to herd immunity. And what, if there were no lock-downs people would dutifully go to work and continue being good consumers, regardless of the risks?
Good luck with that "dittohead" MAGAt cluster-FOX'd Noise - tRumptard is as tRumptard does - you're probably not as misinformed or hypocritical or stupid as your posts suggest, just malignantly tribal & selfish AF like that dead twat tweeting in the WH.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266956302145601536
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1266948486848749570[/tweet]
Your "source" edited out the white storeowner charging a black skateboarder with a fucking sword.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266956302145601536
I’m not aware of any evidence of Antifa agitators, but Barr’s recent statements and Trump’s tweets suggest they have enough intelligence to make this move.
Does your mom help you dress in the morning? Does she pick out the cloths the night before?
It certainly isn’t about the injustice of George Floyd’s murder anymore. They gunned down an officer in Oakland, not because he had anything to do with the assassination of George Floyd, but because he was wearing a uniform.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-30/federal-officer-killed-by-gunfire-outside-u-s-courthouse-in-oakland
Damn straight it isn't.
:rofl:
The point about the economy is that a downturn was inevitable. It only takes the slightest prick to deflate a balloon. A wide range of things could do it. You can't blame 'leftists' or even the virus for spoiling the Ponzi scheme, though you might take partial blame yourself for playing up the lefty/righty bullshit rather than looking at the real problem.
Ding ding ding ding ding....
If you don't institute any measures - like the US and the UK, there is nothing to obey in the first place. It's not like everyone did the same thing and the different [s]races[/s] populations simply reacted differently due to their [s]biological[/s] cultural differences. Some governments took the problem seriously and reacted effectively. Some didn't take it seriously and reacted inefficiently. Some claimed there wasn't a problem, then claimed the problem was under control, and then reacted way too late.
Quoting Chester
Whether or not the lockdown was a mistake is irrelevant unless we're looking at a country like Sweden that intentionally did not lock down, rather than dithering for weeks before doing the same thing anyone else did.
You really don't know what you're talking about. You're just that loudmouth shouting in the pub after one to many drinks. 180 proof summed you up.
You really don't know what the real problem with voting in this country is do you? It's certainly not husbands beating their wives.
1.tanking economy
2.a pandemic
3.riots
4.fascist cops and broken justice system
5.China taking the piss out of him
6.Twitter taking the piss
7.Russia taking the piss
8.Msm and other twitterers taking the piss
I think it's 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the types of things that set him off if the last couple of years of something to go on, leading to possible escalation. I'm pretty worried tbh.
Nope, this is out from his idiotic playbook where Trump just wants more division, more hatred and in the end more chaos.
What could be a better approach to get antifa-protesters than declare them to be terrorists and enemies of the state? Those concerned about right-wing extremism taking over the Republic, because of Trump, will simply be reinforced in their views on how dire the situation is. Talk about counterproductive moves.
More Americans die in the riots, the better for Trump!
His playbook is to instill more violence, more divisiveness. Attacking on Antifa and portraying them to be the domestic Al Qaeda / ISIS would be the best way to do it.
The left forgot a long time ago that it needs to bring the population with it, instead it works against what most of the population want and then wonders why it is so despised by people like me...people who decades ago would have probably voted Labour/democrat but now wouldn't touch those parties with a barge poll. They are vermin.
As it happens I have no tattoos (tatts are for chavs and people with nothing interesting to say) and only a slight beer gut lol...but I'm not gay enough to even want a six pack.
What you think doesn't matter because, as is evident from your post history, you have nothing remotely intelligent to say. Nothing that couldn't be burped up by some drunken geezer in a sports bar. You can clown around for a while if you like but the idea that what you think matters is the only truly funny thing you've come up with here.
Is that really all you have? No intelligence, no wit, no real humor, just sloppy attempts at ethnic insults that for some reason you think embarrass anyone other than yourself. Sad.
Is Englishness recessive?
You poor sad little man. It really is all you have, isn't it? Bless your silly little soul. Anyway, the topic is Trump so back to making a clown of yourself on that.
:lol: Who knows what @Chester is on about, but the idea anyone cares continues to be funny.
Yes, you said that several times. Any evidence for it?
Isn't this a direct expression of Hillary Clinton's and her supporter's problem last time around, believing herself to have won the election long before it even occurred?
"Isn't this a direct expression of Hillary Clinton's and her supporter's problem last time around, believing herself to have won the election long before it even occurred?"
...true but she had the establishment on her side that made her complacent...this time it's a basic human fact that people don't want their cities trashed.
And do you think the majority of people want black people shot for stealing TVs?
So how many protests have you genuinely seen from the present ones?
Just replace in comment "left" with "right", and that's how the other side thinks exactly too.
They even use the same words and descriptions that you use, Chester:
And that's why I talk that the problem is the discourse, it's a toxic one.
What Trump has done to our nation and its institutions will leave MORE scars on us...and for a longer time...than the pandemic also harming us.
Trump is not only the worst president we have ever had (hopefully, the worst we will ever have)...he is a disgusting, classless human being.
It is sad to have to say that...but it is the truth.
An editorial by the editorial page editor of the Washington Post yesterday pleaded with Republican Senators to help save our country from Trump. It is an excellent read.
[/b]
Your argument concerned the "majority". Not "many". Because it aimed to support the idea that Trump will be re-elected. So, do you think the majority of people support the shooting of looters? Yes or no?
Show me the evidence you have, the polls and such, that the majority of Americans support the idea that looters should be shot.
Quoting Chester
What you would or would not do is not evidence for anything to do with reelecting Trump.
Sound familiar?
Your high-level English reasoning has this poor Paddy confused. What I would do if I had a gun in my own house determines what people in America think the police should do to protesters looting Target. Therefore, Trump will be elected. Wow, teach me more of your Anglo wisdom, sir.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/01/george-floyd-protests-live-updates/
You have to laugh at the level of idiocy of this administration, tragic as it is.
I don't think it's idiotic;
(1) Journalists being assaulted in the street.
(2) Army firing on protesters.
(3) Leveraging public panic to try and motivate police action against known dissident orgs.
These are not good signs. :sad:
Oh, I know, concerning the situation, I was just referring to the statement.
Makes sense, sorry for responding out of context!
No worries. The whole thing is horrible. That can't be said enough.
You sure, because it isn’t leftist stupidity that’s turning his own party against him.
If the hard left thinks this is going to work out well for them then they are even bigger cunts than I already think they are.
Source
Your comment brings me back to my left-wing student days: same old, same old from the right-wingers: ignore the legitimate protests by grouping it with the criminal behavior.
Where's our President? Clearing out peaceful protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets so he can stand in front of a church to get a picture taken.
Chester is as gone as the President is from his duty of leadership.
North America: Donald Trump - 105,016 dead (overall winner by a landslide)
Europe: Boris Johnson - 39,045 dead
South America: Jair Bolsonaro - 29,937 dead.
Winning team:
New Trio Las Calaveras with "La muerte" (Death) (Negationist-Ultraliberal huapango).
International Mental Health Test:
Will this famous Trio Las Calaveras win the next elections in their countries?
Bets are allowed. I hope I'm wrong. Hope is free. But the reality is bien chingada, (Arturo Ripstein).
indefensible.
Obama is to blame. He left the Trump administration with no pre-existing plan for violently massaging piss and shit into the root and stem of every positive and progressive value that Americans ever held sacred or dear.
Or really any reality-esque show that persists for an unfortunate number of seasons?
One of the fundamental trends of these types of shows is that because they're mostly or only entertainment, because they're made-up as they go along (aka: bullshit), and because we quickly tire of the same old songs and dances, they must become increasingly sensational, outlandish, or otherwise insane, to hold the interest of their audiences. It's a slow and degenerative process of tabloidization...
The Trump election campaign of 2016, and its continuation as his presidency, is an absolute ten ring circus. When it started, "grab them by the pussy" was a huge scandal (it wowed audiences...), and without fail, the circus as grown increasingly more intense, as each act out-does the last. Like Trump's own reality T.V show ("the apprentice"), what was fake and dumb to begin with has become tiresome and ridiculous beyond measure or description.
And it's going to keep getting more ridiculous, rest assured. I'm no longer confident that Trump will win in November (due to the complacency of Biden) simply because at the moment Trump is reaching new levels of "__________".
What's the word for it? Do we even have a word for this?
Silly.