Donald Trump

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,317

03.22.2023 06:27PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Hardly proven

This came from Donald Trump's handpicked ambassador to the EU. A man who donated a million dollars to Trump's campaign.

Coincidences don't matter when tribal interests are at stake, haven't you noticed?

A tongue and cheek response to a serious point. That's what it looks like when you have no rebuttal to offer.

The fact that the one person Trump was interested in going after just so happened to be his top domestic political rival and threat to his reelection is a very strong point. No rational person can deny this.

If true, quite symmetric with the special interest the Obama admin (via Biden and probably just Biden) took in a singular prosecutor in a nation half way around the world.

And that's where the symmetries end. It's conspiracy theory 101 to focus on the similarities and ignore all of the differences that blow your case up.

Biden was not in charge of the administration. He reported to someone else as did everyone else involved in this one particular case. That's crucial, because if Biden was acting in his own personal interests against that of the United States there would be plenty of people who noticed and had no reason to support Biden. There is not a single piece of evidence of that anywhere to this day.

This is also where the articles come in which show that this move was supported by individuals everywhere. Not surprisingly you just hand waive them all away with no evidence of any dissent from those views anywhere.

There is a simple and perfectly valid reason for Biden to become involved - the US was sending aid to Ukraine and needs to know our money was being spent appropriately. If you were funding someone else's activities and they were misusing your contributions, you would stop contributing. That's common sense. Meanwhile the only thing Trump's involvement was allegedly aimed at fixing was holding his top political rival accountable for his actions in another country that have nothing to do with US interests.

These are not the same.

Setting aside the questionable order of events leading to that, is this ambassador a telepath?

No, the ambassador is someone who worked in the administration closely with all of this while it was going on. That means he was in contact with key players who were all carrying out Trump's wishes.

Maybe you've never had a job before or worked in a large organization. It's not difficult to tell what the higher ups want or care about. Leadership matters. At some point it must tire you out making excuses for all of the "rogue" actions of all of the people Trump hired to work for him. At some point you must wonder if Trump was so virtuous why his entire administration was filled with people who are telling the rest of the world how corrupt he was.

[Crickets]

That was your response to the single most damning point against your "Trump was fighting corruption" narrative - Trump's own actions in the wake of getting caught. This one point alone proves the entire case.

If Trump was just fighting corruption, he would have done so loudly and proudly. He would have went through official channels, he would have stayed the course with the withholding of aid, and he would have defended his actions once it gained attention.

Trump did none of that.

He used back channels including his own personal attorney who had no official involvement in the administration (imagine if Obama did that to resolve an international issue).

Once people started to find out the aid was being withheld, he immediately released it (this is what getting caught looks like)

He couldn't even tell Zelensky directly, instead opting to ask in this round about way ("I need you to do us a favor though"). If this were a serious anti corruption effort he would have just said "I need this corruption investigated or you're not getting the money". People who know they are acting within their rights and for the right reasons are not shy about clarifying what they are doing and what they expect.

Hmm, come to think about it, that last part sounds like someone else I know of.

Only an idiot or someone with TDS could look at the full facts and believe that there exists any standard which would allow Biden to act as he did without being a criminal and yet what Trump did in response was criminal.

It is pattenly absurd to look at all of the facts here and see anything else.

With Trump you have nearly everyone is his administration including both of his ambassadors to Ukraine, his ambassador to the EU, his top Russia expert, hell even his own national security advisor telling the world this was corrupt and all about his own personal gain. With Biden you have not one person inside the administration saying anything like that, in fact it's the exact opposite.

Yet Trump was acting honorably and Biden is corrupt. This is the upside down world of MAGA, where of you don't like reality just invent your own.

#92

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,941

03.22.2023 07:23PM

-->

@Double_R

Hardly proven
This came from Donald Trump's handpicked ambassador to the EU. A man who donated a million dollars to Trump's campaign.

and therefore what? He wouldn't dare lie to harm Trump? You insist that I trust the credibility of the people who say things you want to be true and accuse me of conspiracy theories after demanding I explain why assertions aren't necessarily trustworthy.

When I cite articles you dismiss them as russian propaganda. When I cite high officials, you say it was personally interested; complete with your own conspiracy theory.

Only you are allowed to explain away statements. Only you are allowed to explain away articles. Only you are allowed to dismiss correlation as coincidence.

I am done, I am not interested in your double standards Double R.

Coincidences don't matter when tribal interests are at stake, haven't you noticed?
A tongue and cheek response to a serious point. That's what it looks like when you have no rebuttal to offer.

That was the rebuttal. If the probability of multiple correlations mattered there would be no question that Biden was corrupt in his blackmail. You feel entitled to dismiss correlation as coincidence.

I reject the double standard and there is nothing else to say on that matter.

That's crucial, because if Biden was acting in his own personal interests against that of the United States there would be plenty of people who noticed and had no reason to support Biden.

Only those who knew about Biden's corruption would know targeting Shokin was a personal interest. I have no faith that Obama or anyone else would have vetoed Biden even if they knew his personal motivations. Remember what you think of Giuliani? That's what I think of anyone in the Obama admin.

Deep staters know how to surround themselves with friends. If Trump knew there would be no leaks, and he would be president right now because he would have been using the FBI to threaten states that were considering mass mail in voting.

This is also where the articles come in which show that this move was supported by individuals everywhere.

At this point it should be obvious to anyone that you're merely attempting to repeat a lie so often that people forget what the truth looks like. Ignored.

That was your response to the single most damning point against your "Trump was fighting corruption" narrative - Trump's own actions in the wake of getting caught. This one point alone proves the entire case.

Suddenly correlation can be proof? "Coincidence", ignored.

If Trump was just fighting corruption, he would have done so loudly and proudly.

He was loud and proud, he released the transcript.

he would have stayed the course with the withholding of aid, and he would have defended his actions once it gained attention.

He was never on the course of withholding aid.

He used back channels including his own personal attorney who had no official involvement in the administration (imagine if Obama did that to resolve an international issue).

Obama would never have to, he had loyalty within his regime.

If this were a serious anti corruption effort he would have just said "I need this corruption investigated or you're not getting the money"

This is going to require you to stop thinking like a left-triber for a moment: What if he didn't feel the powers of the president permitted him to make such threats? What if he didn't want to make threats even if he had the legal right?

Only an idiot or someone with TDS could look at the full facts and believe that there exists any standard which would allow Biden to act as he did without being a criminal and yet what Trump did in response was criminal.
It is pattenly absurd to look at all of the facts here and see anything else.

With Trump you have nearly everyone is his administration including both of his ambassadors to Ukraine, his ambassador to the EU, his top Russia expert, hell even his own national security advisor telling the world this was corrupt and all about his own personal gain. With Biden you have not one person inside the administration saying anything like that, in fact it's the exact opposite.

Yet Trump was acting honorably and Biden is corrupt. This is the upside down world of MAGA, where of you don't like reality just invent your own.

I noticed you feel comfortable taking silence as concession. Do as you will, I have no interest in meaningless responses to reasserted summaries like this.

#93

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,180

03.22.2023 07:48PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Inflation is solely caused by the federal reserve

That’s dumb. You’re an idiot

It was less under Trump because of the expectation that he would veto enormous deficit spending.

Trump added 8 trillion to the National debt in just 4 years. That is the most deficit spending in one term the country has ever done.

#94

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,317

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/27/783487901/the-hold-on-ukraine-aid-a-timeline-emerges-from-impeachment-probe

03.22.2023 11:51PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

and therefore what? He wouldn't dare lie to harm Trump?

No, it means he's a credible witness.

You seem incapable of seeing anything other than black and white. Evaluating a case like this involves nuance. No one is either 100% trustworthy or 0%, everyone is something in between, and we judge based on circumstances.

In this case, Sondland is testifying against his own personal interests. His testimony clearly endangers his job security, and he is testifying against someone he obviously supports. That makes his testimony as reliable as one could possibly be.

So does it mean he's 100% telling the truth? No. It means that you are demonstrating remarkable bias and unseriousness by dismissing it.

You feel entitled to dismiss correlation as coincidence.

No, I dismiss correlation as coincidence when I have evidence that it is just coincidence. That's the difference between us, you dismiss it as coincidence simply because it refutes your preferred narrative.

If you need evidence of this look no further than this one point. You have nothing to say here except to pretend I do the same thing you do and then argue a concocted double standard rather than just admitting this is a strong point against your position.

Your refusal to do so is what demonstrates your unseriousness. You can disagree with my position all day long. You cannot pretend I don't address the points you raise.

Only those who knew about Biden's corruption would know targeting Shokin was a personal interest. I have no faith that Obama or anyone else would have vetoed Biden even if they knew his personal motivations.

Again, this is the difference between us. I argue based on evidence and logic. You argue based on faith.

At this point it should be obvious to anyone that you're merely attempting to repeat a lie so often that people forget what the truth looks like. Ignored.

Of course you're ignoring it, because it doesn't suit your narrative.

Not only do you have no evidence that any of the articles I listed are lies, you haven't even attempted to argue that any of them are lies. At most you attempted to discredit some of them as mere opinions expressed by people, as if this case is not entirely about opinions of people.

This is just the latest attempt to hand waive away the evidence, it's clearly a specialty of yours.

He was loud and proud, he released the transcript.

He released the transcript after news of the call leaked and democrats started calling for his impeachment. That's not exactly "loud and proud". If he refused that would have only made him look that much more clearly guilty.

He was never on the course of withholding aid.

That's absurd. The aid was withheld effective July 3rd. Trump's call with Zelensky took place on August 5th. News of the story started to leak to the press on August 28th. On September 11th the aid was released.

This is what getting caught looks like.

And remember, Trump's defense for the hold was that he was fighting corruption in Ukraine. So did he win? Did he get what he asked for? No. So why release it? Because he got caught.

What if he didn't feel the powers of the president permitted him to make such threats? What if he didn't want to make threats even if he had the legal right?

He did make the threat, he just didn't do it directly because he knows that if he does the mob like thing he is famous for people like you will carry his water, and her was absolutely right.

If he didn't think he had the power he wouldn't have withheld the aid, but he did. This defense is absurd.

Obama would never have to, he had loyalty within his regime.

Yes, loyal to the constitution. Turns out most government employees tend to take their oaths of office seriously.

I have no interest in meaningless responses to reasserted summaries like this.

I know you don't, because god forbid you address a serious point that demolishes your position; why is it that so many in his administration, including people he hand picked are testifying against him?

Because he's corrupt. Says basic logic.

Or you could just make shit up and blame it on your imaginary "deep state" boogeyman you have absolutely no evidence for.

Not surprisingly, you chose the latter.

#95

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,941

03.23.2023 01:12AM

-->

@Double_R

In this case, Sondland is testifying against his own personal interests. His testimony clearly endangers his job security, and he is testifying against someone he obviously supports. That makes his testimony as reliable as one could possibly be.

He was threatened, like Cohen and just about everyone else who has been attacked around Trump. This is obvious. Your only alternative theory would be a sudden bout of honesty that never materialized before. It therefore may not have been in his own personal interests if he feared others more than Trump.

I don't need hard evidence to counter your unprovable speculation about his motives. If you say "conspiracy theory" consider it pre-ignored.

No, I dismiss correlation as coincidence when I have evidence that it is just coincidence

Evidence of a coincidence? That's a new one. Explain the abstract form of such evidence. Contrast it with "proving a negative".

Not only do you have no evidence that any of the articles I listed are lies, you haven't even attempted to argue that any of them are lies.

and yet despite going around in circles like that three times it still hasn't occurred to you that I haven't attempted to discredit those articles because I don't need to? The articles do not have the implications you want them to.

In chibi animation:

Article: Ambassador says Shokin bad

You: Everyone in the entire universe including aliens demanded Shokin be fired, even by extortion.

...why exactly you need to extort anyone if everyone wanted him fired we don't know but there you have it.

There is a leap.

He was loud and proud, he released the transcript.
He released the transcript after news of the call leaked and democrats started calling for his impeachment. That's not exactly "loud and proud". If he refused that would have only made him look that much more clearly guilty.

Sure it is, he released it when he understood a political attack was underway. Before knowing that it would be unusual to release state communications as a matter of course, besides letting the Biden crime family know something was coming down the pipe would give them time to hide evidence.

I'm ignoring your claims about the details of the aid, I don't care to engage in more heavy research when you were basically beaten senseless with the facts in Ukraine and didn't care.

Yes, loyal to the constitution. Turns out most government employees tend to take their oaths of office seriously.

That's sad-laugh material.

I'd ask you to prove it, but I know you can't without invoking the logical tools you've denied me; and I won't acknowledge a conclusion made with double standards.

That's the difference between us, you dismiss it as coincidence simply because it refutes your preferred narrative.

If you need evidence of this look no further than this one point. You have nothing to say here except to pretend I do the same thing you do and then argue a concocted double standard rather than just admitting this is a strong point against your position.

Your refusal to do so is what demonstrates your unseriousness. You can disagree with my position all day long. You cannot pretend I don't address the points you raise.

Again, this is the difference between us. I argue based on evidence and logic. You argue based on faith.

Of course you're ignoring it, because it doesn't suit your narrative.

This is just the latest attempt to hand waive away the evidence, it's clearly a specialty of yours.

I know you don't, because god forbid you address a serious point that demolishes your position; why is it that so many in his administration, including people he hand picked are testifying against him?

Because he's corrupt. Says basic logic.

Or you could just make shit up and blame it on your imaginary "deep state" boogeyman you have absolutely no evidence for.

Not surprisingly, you chose the latter.

Rhetorical fluff

#96

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,317

03.24.2023 12:02PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

He was threatened, like Cohen and just about everyone else who has been attacked around Trump. This is obvious. Your only alternative theory would be a sudden bout of honesty that never materialized before. It therefore may not have been in his own personal interests if he feared others more than Trump.

I don't need hard evidence to counter your unprovable speculation about his motives.

So much here.

First, do you have any evidence whatsoever that Sondland or Cohen's actions are the result of threats they received? We both already know the answer. It doesn't matter to you what the evidence shows. If it conflicts with your narrative, just make shit up. You've done this time and time again throughout this debate, and everytime when pressed the best defense you can muster is a false equivocation of something I've argued, ask if whatever perceived problems exist within my argument justify your illogic.

As far as Sondland's "sudden bout of honesty"... It's called being under oath. So strange how everytime a Trump defender finds themselves in a position where lying could result in perjury charges they suddenly show up with a very different story than the one they've been selling to the MAGA base.

Also... Unprovable speculation as to his motives? What an absurd response.

I just explained to you why he is a credible witness. Do you have any response to anything I said apart from making up completely baseless conspiracy theories in order to hand waive away yet more evidence against your position?

Evidence of a coincidence? That's a new one. Explain the abstract form of such evidence. Contrast it with "proving a negative".

Evidence of a coincidence is any evidence which supports an alternative theory as more probable. It's literally how we determine anything as a coincidence.

Think of any coincidence you've ever observed. Why do you believe it was a coincidence and not a planned occurrence? Whatever your answer is, is the evidence it was a coincidence.

and yet despite going around in circles like that three times it still hasn't occurred to you that I haven't attempted to discredit those articles because I don't need to?

Of course not, why bother when you can just hand waive them away?

I know it sounds strange to you, but in debate you actually do have to address the arguments against your position. Anyone who cares about reality understand this.

...why exactly you need to extort anyone if everyone wanted him fired we don't know but there you have it.

Because the person above him was just as corrupt add her was. Is this a serious point?

#97

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,941

03.24.2023 03:39PM

-->

@Double_R

I just explained to you why he is a credible witness.

You asserted he was a credible witness according to some generalized formula that anyone who testifies against their boss is credible.

BREAKING NEWS: Cohen lied in oath to implicate Trump. Trump told the truth about not knowing about the Stormy Daniels payment.

Your formula predicted that Cohen would be reliable. You just implied being under oath increases credibility. Maybe it does, but again the world seems a bit more complicated. Unfortunately I can't engage with you in a meaningful way since you will call anything outside of your simplistic model conspiracy theory.

Evidence of a coincidence? That's a new one. Explain the abstract form of such evidence. Contrast it with "proving a negative".
Evidence of a coincidence is any evidence which supports an alternative theory as more probable. It's literally how we determine anything as a coincidence.

The alternative theory to a coincidence would be a non-coincidence. Proving non-coincidence explanation rules out coincidence, but that does not prove coincidence.

I'll give you a hint about the correct analysis: What is the sample size?

Apparent correlation is always coincidence, common cause, or direct cause. Coincidence can be ruled out by finding the common cause, direct cause, OR by repeating the trial many times (large sample size).

At no point is coincidence itself proved. It goes from assumption to disproved or it remains an assumption.

I know it sounds strange to you, but in debate you actually do have to address the arguments against your position. Anyone who cares about reality understand this.

Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, until you can disprove that you've lost this debate. <- How do you address that? You point out the irrelevance. No more is needed.

...why exactly you need to extort anyone if everyone wanted him fired we don't know but there you have it.
Because the person above him was just as corrupt add her was. Is this a serious point?

The elected leader of Ukraine was just as corrupt huh? Yet that kind of implies that more than half of Ukraine agreed to his leadership and therefore Shokin... unless you're an election denier that is.

#98

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,317

03.25.2023 10:42AM

You asserted he was a credible witness according to some generalized formula that anyone who testifies against their boss is credible.

No, I didn't. I asserted he was a credible witness because:

A) The nature of his admissions clearly had a negative impact his personal job security, and

B) Because as someone who donated a million dollars to the Trump campaign, he clearly supports him, thus his testimony goes against his own political ideology/interests

This is not some "generalized formula", these are basic facts that any person using logic would recognize positively impact the credibility of a witness. It's literally common sense.

BREAKING NEWS: Cohen lied in oath to implicate Trump. Trump told the truth about not knowing about the Stormy Daniels payment.

Trump already admitted he knew about the payment, his legal team is not even contesting this.

You just implied being under oath increases credibility. Maybe it does, but again the world seems a bit more complicated.

The world is very complicated, the arguments here are not complicated at all. Just because being under oath increases credibility doesn't mean everyone under oath is telling the truth.

Credibility is a spectrum. Each relevant fact contributes to where someone falls on that scale. This requires basic math skills and an understanding that 'definitely telling the truth' and 'definitely lying' are not the only two options.

Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, until you can disprove that you've lost this debate. <- How do you address that? You point out the irrelevance. No more is needed.

You point out the irrelevance and then challenge the person you're engaged with to explain why it is relevant. And when that person does, you address their argument.

When you claimed the articles were not relevant, I explained why they are. You just pretended I didn't.

Turns out it's pretty easy to "win" the debate by just calling the evidence against your position irrelevant and then pretending you have no responsibility to address the rebuttals to your assertion.

The elected leader of Ukraine was just as corrupt huh? Yet that kind of implies that more than half of Ukraine agreed to his leadership and therefore Shokin... unless you're an election denier that is.

Zelensky's entire campaign was built around an anti corruption platform in direct response to Porshenko's administration, and he won easily with over 70% of the vote. Tell me more about what the election results mean.

This is really basic stuff. How on earth are you seriously arguing with me about what happened in Ukraine and you do not know this?

#99

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,941

03.26.2023 12:36AM

-->

@Double_R

It's literally common sense.

What is common sense is that someone who has a lot to lose by claiming something has a strong counter-motivation to claim it. You assume one reason, I do not rule out any.

BREAKING NEWS: Cohen lied in oath to implicate Trump. Trump told the truth about not knowing about the Stormy Daniels payment.
Trump already admitted he knew about the payment, his legal team is not even contesting this.

Fake News, Trump denied paying off Daniels, and still denies it. He now knows about the payment because Cohen told him about it after the fact.

You should be able to comprehend the idea that someone may come to learn something after the fact, you claimed that about Shokin targeting Biden.

Just because being under oath increases credibility doesn't mean everyone under oath is telling the truth.

Correct

Credibility is a spectrum.

A spectrum you do not own.

When you claimed the articles were not relevant, I explained why they are. You just pretended I didn't.

False, you just kept repeating the same unfounded leap. Every-time I forced you back to the facts it grew back into "everyone in the international community" again. Interest in repeating this cycle: 0%

The elected leader of Ukraine was just as corrupt huh? Yet that kind of implies that more than half of Ukraine agreed to his leadership and therefore Shokin... unless you're an election denier that is.
Zelensky's entire campaign was built around an anti corruption platform in direct response to Porshenko's administration, and he won easily with over 70% of the vote. Tell me more about what the election results mean.

Biden just couldn't wait for that though could he?

#100

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,101

03.26.2023 02:13AM

-->

@Double_R

Zelensky's entire campaign was built around an anti corruption platform in direct response to Porshenko's administration, and he won easily with over 70% of the vote. Tell me more about what the election results mean.

Oh my god so what? Ex-Mayor Lightfoot got elected by building a campaign around peace and safety for Chicago. It means zero.

#101

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,941

03.26.2023 03:02AM

-->

@Greyparrot

He's trying to imply democracy works retroactively so that he can make Biden extorting the removal of a Ukrainian prosecutor sound like some kind of heroic act instead of the blatant demand of a puppet-master hegemon to a client state.

He thinks by legitimizing the possible official motives for the bragged extortion it will cause anyone with two brain cells to rub together accept as a coincidence that the prosecutor was targeting a giant corrupt energy company that was paying Biden's son enormous amounts of money (some of which would be reserved for the big guy).

Unfortunately Double_Rs threshold is wrong. It might take a while but eventually those two brain cells will come to the inevitable conclusion that drug-addled, zero expertise, non-Ukrainian Hunter was collecting a money on behalf of his father. After you know that, the simplest explanation is quite clear.

#102

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,101

03.26.2023 03:08AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

It's just so sad so called "educated" adults in America will endure 50 years of broken promises from the uniparty, but somehow this year alone will be different.

#103

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,180

03.26.2023 03:11AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Fake News, Trump denied paying off Daniels, and still denies it. He now knows about the payment because Cohen told him about it after the fact.

Unbelievable. The morons this country is saddled with. How do you survive? How do you even have enough to eat day to day?

#104

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,180

03.26.2023 03:13AM

-->

@Double_R

Are you getting anywhere with your soft touch on these morons? Have you changed any minds?

#105

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,101

03.26.2023 03:15AM

soft touch..

You leave my boy DoubleR alone. Save your insults for people that deserve it.

#106

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,317

03.27.2023 10:30AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Fake News, Trump denied paying off Daniels, and still denies it. He now knows about the payment because Cohen told him about it after the fact.

Trump's personal attorney is doing interviews on TV openly admitting Trump knew about the payments at the time.

This is exactly what happens when you live in a propaganda bubble and why you believe the absurdities you do. Do yourself a favor and goggle the subjects you wish to argue beforehand.

#107

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,317

03.27.2023 10:36AM

-->

@Greyparrot

Oh my god so what? Ex-Mayor Lightfoot got elected by building a campaign around peace and safety for Chicago. It means zero.

Then you just refuted ADreamOfLiberty's argument.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, try reading the conversation so you know what you're commenting on.

#108

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,317

03.27.2023 10:41AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

eventually those two brain cells will come to the inevitable conclusion that drug-addled, zero expertise, non-Ukrainian Hunter was collecting a money on behalf of his father. After you know that, the simplest explanation is quite clear.

Occam's razor is when you take all of the available evidence into account so you can weigh it against each other, not just the part of the story you cherry picked.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are not capable of this, only the part of the story you want to focus on gets weighed, everything else is discarded. This is conspiracy thinking 101.

#109

Debates: 4

Posts: 23,101

03.27.2023 02:40PM

-->

@Double_R

You mean in your discussion about corruption with Biden? The same standard applies. Biden promised us that he had no dealings with China or Ukraine. Those promises helped get him elected. It means nothing.

#110