Why is it a problem that Trump attacks the press?

I know you're a racist, but supporting conservative people and  positions does not make a person black.

You're a racist so you see "black men" under every rock.

But if I were black, that would mean you are obsessed and chasing a black man around, even to different boards. What would your racist friends think?

And don't be dumb and deny stalking, everyone reads your many  posts to me all over the board when I have not addressed you. Everyone can see you stalking. That is how some of us knew you had been banned, there was suddenly no stalker.

You are so sad. I wish a family member of yours would see your internet OCD behavior and insist on some help for you.

It's funny watching black men supporting white supremacists.

Yes. President Donald Trump.

A real controversy is viewed so by more than just leftist Trump haters.

I am part of the society that determines controversy.

Again. What liberals don't like does not a controversy make.

How does one know what position someone would've otherwise not been able to attain?

Your "it" here is equivocation. To what does it refer?

What you just described is not nepotism. Perhaps you don't know what it is.

Sure. But I have no clue who you're talking about.

In a society I am not a part of, sure.

Donald himself being President is the evidence Einstein.

American society.

Accepted behavior cannot be controversial among the people who find it acceptable.

So a purely subjective opinion?

It cannot be referring to nepotism. You made no mention of family in your definition. You said “people”.

Nepotism is the placing of family members in public positions they are not worthy of.

Probably not, but that would likely be because he would not have  known her otherwise. Trump is the one who evaluates her qualification. You seem to be assuming your bias.

American society.

How large is the “around you” you ask about?

Perhaps those who share your ideological views?

How so?

How does being part of American society allow you to judge whether news is controversial or not, without having knowledge or interesting in the news in question?

But equally, unaccepted behaviour can be controversial among the people who find it unacceptable right?

Are the years spent obtaining a doctorate compared to someone obtaining a GED subjective measures of educational achievement?

I understand the confusion.

I made no definition of nepotism.

I merely generalized a reason for why nepotism is looked down upon. That is, people are placed into undeserved positions

Is it an issue to have someone with objectively no discernible relevant experiences serving in official governmental capacity? 

I would consider American society to be the entirety of American people. Did you have a different grouping in mind?

Think man. If all those were really people claiming to vote for Hillery that the polls gave her a 20% lead, what happened to them? Did they evaporate? Leave the Earth? Change their minds 4 hours before voting? If the poll were not bogus, how did Trump win?

Think about it.

No. If everyone finds it unacceptable, there is no controversy. Controversies occur between people who find a certain behavior unacceptable, and those who do not.

When you cannot answer a question, say so.

You said, "Nepotism places people who have not deserved it into positions of power they would've otherwise not been able to attain."

That isn't what nepotism is.

That still isn't nepotism.

Discernible to whom? She knows him, and has his best interest at heart. He thinks she's qualified, and she has probably been advising him already. You are assuming your bias.

No.

He holds zero responsibility for the schemes of retards as well. This goes beyond the press. He isn't accountable for Charlottesville, fake news, or any of the issues that may have his name involved.

I believe I asked you if you had evidence.

This is a splendid theory but is sorely lacking in evidence.

If you cannot answer a question, just say so

Great. So do you accept that of the examples I have listed, some groups find such behaviours unacceptable and hence they are controversies?

How can I possibly answer a question until I know what your definition of subjective is.

For example, I think that the years spent on education is an objective measurement of education. If you do not see this as an objective measurement then clearly, we can't agree on what is subjective and what is objective

I didn't say what nepotism is. I said it's what nepotism does

Still didn't say it was

I suppose to anyone who is aware that Ivanka is serving in an official governmental capacity under her father and also makes a conscious thought of "Is this right?". Regardless I don't think you quite fully answered my question. It's certainly not an issue for Ivanka or Donald personally, but in a wider scheme do you think it's an issue in terms of how the executive branch is being run?

In american society then, why can't there be events that are objectively controversial independently from your personal acknowledgements? 

And I gave it to you in the form of logic. You not being equip to handle it is not my problem.

It isn't a theory. Trump won. Unless you are implying election fraud, the polls showing Hillery with a 20% lead on election day were fake.

No, I will not. I will ask you another question. That is what you've been doing. I will not answer your questions if you won't answer mine. That you need to dodge questions is telling.

Controversies between which groups? Liberal are perpetually outraged. As I told you, just because easily triggered liberals don't like something, does not automatically make that thing a controversy.

Nice deflection, but what is subjective and what is objective is irrelevant here. Whether a person is appropriate for a job is not up to you. You do not have all the details about the person. Whether the person has education or not is not the question, but whether the president thinks the person is right for the position. He did think she was capable, and from the success of his administration, his assessment of her capability was correct.

That isn't what nepotism does either.

Again. I asked you what your "it" was. You said "nepotism". Only to later tell me you didn't say it was nepotism. Equivocating and substituting an "it", that you later morph into nepotism will not work.

No. As it isn't nepotism, no, I don't think its an issue.

What does my personal acknowledgement have to do with it? Whether I personally acknowledge an event or not does not affect reality.

My only point is to show you that just because you and your liberal pink hat hoards find something objectionable, that doesn't mean it is a social controversy.

You want it to be because you began by blaming Trump for "controversies". The silliness and unfairness of blaming Trump for fake "controversies" drummed up by the fake media is objectionable.

The media comes up with some fakery, you get triggered, and then blame Trump for the "controversy" in society? No sir.

Logic will be required of you here.

Many. MSNBC, CNN, BBC, HUFFPOST, VOX and small fake news outlets.

Thank you King. Why liberals cannot figure out that simple bit of logic is beyond me.

Many. MSNBC, CNN, BBC, HUFFPOST, VOX and small fake news outlets.

Lol. Let me guess. You will still say poll results are accurate for the other states too. 

No logical methodology gives you that wide a spread and then be wrong.

No. But liberals "respect" whatever confirms their bias.

Do you think Judge Kavenaugh was guilty of assault of Mrs. Ford?

Do you think he should have been made a supreme court judge?

And of course, as I told you, just because you do find something triggering, doesn't mean it is controversial. Your subjective opinion of her qualifications do not affect reality one bit.

No sir. I am correct. Please educate yourself on what nepotism means.

You said your "it" referred to nepotism. Then later claimed you did not say it was nepotism. I satisfied enough to leave that bit of illogic unmolested.

Because I don't use as my definition of nepotism, "Whenever someone is given a public post whom dustryder thinks is unqualified."

You don't know what "controversial" means. You seem to think it means "whatever triggers you." It doesn't.

How would you know this? You don't know what I find controversial, and you assume something "controversial" would be critical of Trump. Your bias is crippling you son.

You have latched on to controversies. Finding an objective controversy will do nothing. A behavior of Trump could be good or bad and still also be controversial. 

Sources?

What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

If you are asserting they are not, you're free to pick and choose the examples which are not

Internet polling is one example that can give inaccurate results.

Conservatives "respect" whatever confirms their bias.

1. Not enough information but I'm going to lead towards no, due to how long ago it occurred

2. No. Assault allegations aside, he lacks decorum.

Supreme court judges are for life, America should have the best of the best, which he is clearly not.

Just because you do not find something triggering doesn't mean it isn't controversial.

You are absolutely incorrect

Making arguments against fictional arguments still does not work.

Nor is that my definition of nepotism.

You still haven't said what about Ivanka's post isn't nepotism.

Knowing what you do not find controversial sets a lower bound for what you do find controversial. Hence I made an assumption.

If that assumption is wrong, prove it.

Did you give sources for your 0% poll?

Trump won. So I'm fine.

It didn't occur. There was absolutely no evidence. That is what innocent until proven guilty means.

Lol. Decorum? False allegations with no evidence? Liberals calling him a rapist? Attacking his family? Decorum?

Yeah, "clearly". Your liberal siblings were triggered. The rest of America went on with life.

That is why I have denied no controversy. You keep claiming them. Logic would help you my friend.

Repeat it and place it in neon, it will be just as stupid. Nepotism refers to family members, not just anyone.

Can the class say "backpeddle"?

You haven't shown it to be nepotism. You don't even seem to know what nepotism is. Until you do, it isn't nepotism.

I know that what triggers you has nothing to do controversies. Both are false.

You make many. Most wrong.

No sir. We will not do it the silly liberal way, where you make a dumb assumption and it becomes my burden to prove it wrong. If you cannot prove your claims they get dismissed.

What is an example of "good" Trump behaviour that is viewed as controversy?

*Keeping terrorists out of the country.

*Telling the moron antifa that they were as bad, if not worse than the neo Nazis.

*Not being a lemming and punishing Saudi Arabia.

*Nominating and installing the wonderful Judge Kavanaugh

Should I continue or are you triggered enough?

Yes. The 0 was hyperlinked. So again, sources for your claims?

Nice deflect

That is not what innocent until proven guilty means

Is decorum an undesirable trait?

How much is the rest of America?

You've denied my examples as being controversial

Agreed. Didn't claim otherwise, which is why you're incorrect.

I have shown that it is nepotism.

You're denials do not make reality false.

How would you know this? You don't know what triggers me

You've rejected multiple events which I consider to be controversies.

Some a objectively negative for Trump. I assumed you ignore anything that is negative of Trump. You have not proven otherwise.

The assumption stands

What is good depends on which side you are viewing it from.

Those examples are debatably good.

Some you have mischaracterised. etc etc etc

Not in my post.

Thanks, but that is what we were talking about.

I know you think so. The country stood by mouths agape at how liberals did not know what due process was. Thanks for the confirmation.

Enough to know Kavenaugh was extremely qualified, lauded by other legal professionals, and admired for his body of published works and work ethic. You the lefty liberal thinks he was "clearly" unqualified. Why? Because when you dragged him and his family through the mud, he fought back! Lol.

They weren't. You think controversial means what you find distasteful.

You backpeddle like a champ.

And then you woke up. Calling it nepotism is not showing it to be nepotism.

You are a pinko leftist liberal. Everything triggers you.

Do you need me to accept them?

You have to show something negative of Trump laddie. Ghosted up "controversies" by the fake news media doesn't cut it.

You're liberal, so you cannot tell your opinion from reality, but in reality, the one not between your ears, assumptions don't stand until they are proven. Things you say don't "stand" until they are disproven. That is loony liberal "logic". But keep your delusion that whatever you say "stands" until proven wrong. There is no need to wake you.

Yes. Remember when I told you controversies have to be in between groups?

All of them are good for America. Liberals do not like what is good for America. Tell us something we don't know.

You asked. I supplied them.

When did I say he was unqualified?

Don't place words in my mouth. Kavanaugh was extremely qualified. However he was also criticised by other legal professionals which you seem to have ignored. That and of course he lacks decorum.

And you seem to think that they aren't controversial based on nothing but your own subjective opinion.

No backpedaling needed when you've hideously misread something

Your denials do not make reality false.

False. Try again

Do you wish to accept them?

Lewd speech is negative. Just because you deny and ignore such occurrences isn't sufficient to say they weren't controversies.

Assumptions that are tacitly accepted are accepted until further proven otherwise. Your loony conservative logic doesn't make this any less true

Then those examples can't be "good"

Good? How so?

I know accurate and objective representations are hard to express, but it's better to not say anything at all than to mislead.

This is part of why you are against fake news yes?

Untrue.

You get it. The fake polls said crooked Hillery would win in a landslide. Trump won. Don't be mad bro.

Maybe you should send a complaint to the election commission.

Here. "America should have the best of the best, which he is clearly not."

Lol. He's a Judge now. You lack sense.

Your poor thinking is not my concern.

No explanation needed either apparently. You backpedal like an Olympian.

Not the "reality" between your ears no.

Nah, I think I got it. They don't call you snowflakes for your ability to stand heat.

Do you wish me to accept them?

Lol. You do wish me to accept them.

OK, whomever "tacitly" accepted your nonsense will address it.

We know you think so.

You want me to tell you how keeping terrorists out of America is good? Sorry, Ethan doesn't do stupid. Unlike you, I don't need you to accept anything.

Would that you had followed that advice before you posted.

Accurate and objective representations are not hard to express. Your bias has crippled your thinking.

There were no fake polls as you have conceded by providing no evidence of fake polls. 

What does the election commission have to do with you twisting truth?

Do you understand the differences between the concept of suitability and being qualified?

Kavanaugh being criticised and Kavanaugh being confirmed as a judge are mutually independent events. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Your poor thinking is not my concern either.

Explanations should be given when an attempt to understand has already been made, and when the answer wouldn't be utterly wasted. It would be silly to give an explanation in this case

Your denials do not make reality false.

False. Try again.

Have you a need to accept them?

Your imaginations of what you read in my posts does not make reality true

Great, I'll be waiting for your addressing

We know you don't think so

That seems racist. Are you racist?

Now you say that, but your posts do say otherwise

Was it by a difference of 20% or more? Cause that is what the polls said

If all those were really people claiming to vote for Hillery that the polls gave her a 20% lead, what happened to them? Did they evaporate? Leave the Earth? Change their minds 4 hours before voting? If the poll were not bogus, how did Trump win?

Very well, lets dig a little deeper. How many polls showed Hillary with a 20% lead on election day?

Many. MSNBC, CNN, BBC, HUFFPOST, VOX