Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Because to them, politics is a joke; it's a team sport.
That's my take as well, but I'm trying to give someone a chance to help me see it differently. One can hope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Does that make him fit for the most serious job on earth? Well, there's a part of Trump's base that would rather have someone unprofessional, because it means that he's taking shots at "the system." Basically, if the media and the Democrats hate him, he must be doing something right.
I get that this is how they think, and I thinks it's absurd. But rather than just call people names I'm trying to gain a better understanding by forever assuming I'm the one who doesn't get it. What I get instead is just affirmation that people are ignorant and/or delusional.
What you just described is exactly the TDS that people accuse the left of. If you inherited a fortune 500 company would your metric for who should run the company be that he's a total asshole who insults people, and would you deem unprofessionalism a must? No sane rational person would, and the funny thing is that to the vast majority of Trump voters they know this because they wouldn't accept that in anyone else either.
But for some reason Trump gets a pass. Trump doesn't live by the rules that apply to everyone else in America, in fact for Trump those rules are entirely backwards. The things everyone likes about him are the things that are considered disqualifying for anyone else.
JD Vance is a great example of this. At the debate he refused to answer whether Trump lost, he has been stuck having to answer for it ever since. See Vance doesn't get the pass Trump does, he doesn't get to pretend to be a complete imbecile, he doesn't get to just lie in a way that isn't remotely believable even to MAGA. So why does Trump? What is it about this man?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wonder if you will be this loyal to your party after Kamala loses in November when nearly any other candidate would have easily beaten her in a contested open convention.
Believe it or not, not everyone cares about owning the other side. Some people actually do care about the constitution and the country. I know, shocking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
You're assuming that Trump issued secret policy initiatives that avoided leaving a publicly accessible record trail, and that these were just as quietly thwarted by thankless bureaucrats.
Read the "Anonymous" op eds whose author we now know is Myles Taylor. He explains it in pretty good detail.
But it's not your job to try to oust your boss from his position because you personally dislike him or believe him unfit for the job. Nor was it theirs. It's pretty clear their motives were partisan.
It's a moral and ethical obligation for anyone who has swarn an oath to protect and defend the constitution that they warm the public when they see such troubling behavior from the commander in chief. If you want to call that partisan then sure, ok. Strange that all of these partisans were appointed by Trump himself.
back in 2016, he debated Hillary and openly threatened to put her in jail for the e-mail whatever. The second he won, he forgot all about that.
Just the fact that he's back in the White House and there's nothing they can do to stop him from being there would satisfy me. And to the extent that Trump genuinely is angry, that may also be true for him.
It could very well be. As much of a Trump alarmist as I have been and continue to be I acknowledge that completely. That doesn't justify trusting him again with the presidency, no rational person would do so on that basis. If someone was charged with child molestation but then those charges were later dropped, that doesn't mean you'd let them baby sit your kids.
So Trump simultaneously was a dictator wannabe and "felt the pressure to respect political norms" in his first term?
No, you didn't read. 2016 Trump felt that pressure, because 2016 Trump didn't know what the hell he was doing and had to lean on his aides to tell him what he could or couldn't do. 2024 Trump has figured out that all he has to do is surround himself with sycophantic yes men and he'll get whatever he wants. And unlike in 2016, the political climate has changed dramatically. Yes men such as this were few and far between back then, but after 8 years of Trump's erosion of our democracy and sense of political norms there is no shortage of such people anymore.
I take it you're once again misrepresenting what that one SCOTUS ruling says?
You are more than welcome to show me what I'm getting wrong. So far no one else has:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
It's a worthy attempt to try and understand the other side, but I think the explanation is simpler: Trump supporter's like Trump's personality/policies and don't like Kamala's personality/policies.
Some like his policies but let's be real, the overwhelming majority of Trump voters couldn't name a single Trump policy. Hell Trump can barely name a single Trump policy, that's why he spends his rallies talking about Hannibal Lector and swaying to music for 38 minutes. No one really cares about that stuff.
The personality part is the very thing I'm questioning, so we're back to the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Their hatred for Trump is so bad that they literally disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of their voters to install Kamala. “But muh democracy”
Democracy is a system of government where the people choose their own leaders. What's not part of democracy is where the leader is forced by the people to lead against their will.
Joe Biden stepped aside. That was his choice and his choice alone. Once he stepped aside there was no process in place nor time for a new primary vote, that's where the party rules take over and those rules were followed precisely. Moreover, the outcome at that point which was most aligned with democracy would be the candidate who was on the ballot along with Joe Biden that the people had already voted for, and that's exactly who was "installed".
It couldn't have been handled by the Democratic party better. This is a stupid argument, you need to find a new one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Excuses for failing to deal with circumstances...
Let me guess... Inflation? Please enlighten me; what actions did Joe Biden fail to take that Donald Trump would have taken which would have made a significant difference?
That kind of dodging and projection plays well with her cult base, but not normal people.
Oh right right right. Dodging, like answering a question about childcare by talking about tariffs. Or answering a question about breaking up Google by talking about the justice department suing Virginia over it's voter rolls. And let's not forget concepts of a healthcare plan after years of telling us he'd be releasing his big beautiful new plan in two weeks.
Projection, like claiming Kamala Harris won't take any tough questions as he continues to cower away from another debate. Like claiming the Biden administration is withholding disaster aid from republican areas only for us to later learn that's exactly what he tried to do in California until his own aids had to pull out a map of orange county to show Trump the people in the impacted zone voted for him. Or how about Trump claiming Kamala Harris needs to take a cognitive test cause she's showing signs of dementia.
To sit here and pretend anyone who actually cares about dodging questions and projection should be turned off by Kamala Harris is insultingly stupid. Go gaslight someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They both have to account for the 4 years in charge.
What they have to account for are their actions and the decisions that they made. They do not have to account for the circumstances that they had nothing to do with. You know this which is why you like every Trump supporter pretends 2020 didn't happen.
Trump inherited an economy that had been growing for 7 straight years, Biden inherited a complete mess that just saw a wrecking ball taken to the global supply chain. Start from there, then tell me about their 4 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
He might reinstate Schedule F, which is understandably controversial unlike the rest of the "Project 2025" scaremongering rhetoric, but I can understand why he'd want this after four years of rogue executive branch bureaucrats working nonstop to sabotage and humiliate him
You started off by arguing that Trump is a safe bet because he's been president for four years and none of the crazy things he said he was going to do materialized, but then you acknowledge that he had people all throughout the government working to ensure he didn't do the things he wanted. How do you not see the contradiction in that?
First off all let's just set aside that we already saw the United States Capitol attacked while the president sat around for 3 hours watching it on TV as the military response was stalled waiting for his authorization to act, until they eventually did so without it. Instead let's just pretend that Trump's four years were normal.
Anyone who's paid attention to politics over the past decade can easily see this is way, way different. Trump is not the same person he was 8 years ago. 2016 Trump had no idea what he was doing so he surrounded himself with people that (mostly) did. That Trump thought he could ride into Washington a star and ride out a hero in front of parades of adoring fans that would lobby to put his face on Mt Rushmore. 2024 Trump is nothing like this.
2024 Trump is angry, bitter, and out for revenge. 2016 Trump campaigned as a man who clearly understood that he had to win over voters with ideas to solve their problems. 2024 Trump isn't even pretending to care about that. 2024 Trump talks openly about using the DOJ and military as a weapon against his political opponents and anyone he considers disloyal to him.
2024 Trump understands what went wrong and knows how to ensure that doesn't happen again. 2016 Trump felt the pressure to respect political norms, like appointing people who were qualified. 2024 Trump will appoint only people who are sycophants, in fact that will be the only qualification he cares about.
2024 Trump will not turn to outside lawyers to commit his crimes, this Trump knows now thanks to the supreme court that any conversations he has with his own agencies like the DOJ or the military are "not subject to judicial review" regardless of how brazenly he tells them to do something illegal. So he can easily tell them to commit crimes and then pardon them afterward. There's literally no legal recourse according to the new rule book which he is well aware of.
2024 is not 2016. Any claim that it is only demonstrates ignorance or willful blindness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Double standards are how people support their candidate.
Can't argue that there are a lot of hypocrites out the but it's kind of the point of these conversations to call it out with the idea that if we're shown to be applying different standards to different candidates that we correct ourselves.
Fat chance anyone here including myself will actually change their position I know but doesn't change the point. Show my I'm applying a double standard and I'll adjust, I just don't believe I am.
no one holds Trump to that standard, not even closePlenty of Democrats do.
Not really. The only reason democrats treat him as someone whose words should be taken seriously is because he's running for president and because that's how we're supposed to treat someone running to be the most powerful man on earth. But they understand full well what really he is.
Trump voters are the ones I'm trying to figure out, because they clearly don't hold him to that standard and yet think he's fit to be the president again. That seems to me like a massive contradiction and I've yet to hear any serious attempt to square it. And if someone were to offer that this just isn't a standard that should be applied to the president (which would be absurd) the problem is that Kamala is being held to it so it doesn't resolve the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If we eliminate those that don't contain a sense of morality then everyone left will all have a sense of morality.
Can't argue with that one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You have no evidence that the election was stolen
This link only demonstrates my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What was the question he responded to? Oh that's right. The last refuge of a cultist is to call people liars before actually steel-manning the points.
He wasn't responding to the question genius, he's incapable of that. The question was about Joe Biden's insinuation that Trump would cause political violence on election day, and Trump's tirade over using the military against radical left lunatics was preceded by him riffing about how people coming in from outside the question were ruining the country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Then I notice the hyperboles and other statements that you repeatedly misunderstand, like “fight like hell” on Jan 6.This was an obvious hyperbole that has been used many times elsewhere, yet the media wanted us all to believe that the man who told his protestors to be “peaceful and patriotic” and told rioters to cease rioting over Twitter, somehow deliberately incited a whole riot and those words that give us a window into his actual thoughts are just an intentional misdirect. Orange man bad, don’t ask questions, please only take him seriously when it benefits our narrative, and not when it disproves it.
I've discussed this at great length many times before so I'll summarize briefly why this is just nonsense.
- Trump's speech at the ellipse was well over an hour long and about 11,000 words. The three words you cited are the only three words anywhere in his speech suggesting calm. The rest was inciteful. Weighing those three words above the rest is ridiculous.
- The incitement isn't just about Trump's one speech. It took place over two months. The speech was just the culmination.
- The very idea of them "peacefully making their voices heard" is itself absurd. He's literally telling them that their voices are being stolen by the evil people at the Capitol who don't care about their voice. In no sane mind would the remedy for that be to go yell really loud.
- Even then, if Trump had actually done what he was supposed to do as the riots were taking place we could have all accepted his actions to that point as merely irresponsible. Instead his doing nothing and hiding in the WH dining room watching on tv as the US Capitol was under attack leaves no question as to what his intentions were.
So when Trump told them to fight like hell, I don't hear that literally because I can't detect hyperbole, I hear that because it's the only interpretation that makes sense when you put his words into their full context.
And also, the same argument cuts both ways. You guys excuse away every terrible thing he says as hyperbole, but when he uses three good words in his speech all of a sudden now we have to take him literally. Not exactly solid.
It is here where the problem reveals itself: The leftoid media, in promoting their “orangemanbad” narrative, has taught a whole host of midwits to prioritize bad faith interpretations of Trump’s words, as opposed to noticing the hyperbole and adopting a more realistic approach to interpreting Trump…
I agree here is the problem, but you blame the wrong media side.
You see here's the thing about interpreting any politician (and yes, Trump is absolutely a politician); when they give conflicting messages it is generally safe to assume the message that reveals a flaw within them is real and the message that builds them up into a super hero is false. No smart person pretends to be stupid. No informed person pretends to be ignorant. No good well intentioned person pretends to be a total asshole. But we all know the reverse does it all the time.
The problem with Trump supporters is that you guys are backwards. Everytime Trump says something stupid or shows himself to be heinous you guys pretend it's all for show. Meanwhile when he pretends to be some kind of saint you seem to think that's when he's showing us who he really is. No human being works this way, and no rationally thinking person would interpret someone in this way.
I am definitely voting for Trump this November.
So do you dispute that Trump is an authoritarian fascist, or are you just ok with voting for one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
She has more than a just responsibility to offer solutions, she also has an obligation to...
When you hold Trump to the same standards you hold Harris I will care to read the rest of what you have to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Answer your own question as a Harris supporter
What question?
It’s your own side’s fault.
It's our fault that you hold her to a higher standard than Trump? What?
Prove it.There is a report out there that stated a woman accused Haitians of eating their pet cat. Whether it was true or not is a different story.
First off all, bullshit. I've searched for this, can't find it. Apparently you can't either cause you couldn't provide it. What started this whole thing was a woman accusing her Haitian neighbor of stealing and eating her cat on social media. She found her cat hiding in her basement or somewhere like 2 days later and apologized to her neighbor but by then this fake sorry had already gone viral.
All that aside, Trump is a former president running to be president again who, on a national debate stage, accused an entire community within a specific town of eating their neighbor's pets all based on one police report from one person making one unproven allegation, and you think that's ok? You think that is something a serious person does?
Cases against Trump proved you don’t need evidence.
The evidence against him in every one of his indictments is overwhelming.
Since when is it a virtue for the person you’d elevate into the most powerful person on earth to be so unpredictable you have no idea what he’s going to do with that power?Worked for him last time.
The last time I took my car to 120 I ended up getting to my destination safe and in record time. According to your logic that means it's better to drive at 120.
You wouldn't make such a ridiculous argument in any other area of your life.
Yep we’re deplorables.
Still crying over what Hilary Clinton said 9 years ago. Never seen a bigger group of snowflakes in my life.
It was already growing, he didn’t do a damn thing.That is just laughably false.
Do you have an argument to support that, or just a lazy empty declaration?
the damage was done economically by the time Biden became President.
That's absurd. Do you seriously have no understanding of how many businesses closed permanently because of COVID? Do you know what the supply chain is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I don't think everything needs to be taken seriously.
No one is saying that, we’re talking in generalizations not absolutes.
The problem is not that Trump “speaks in hyperbole” every once in a while, it’s that this is the excuse that’s offered nearly every time he opens his mouth. At a certain point (well below the threshold Trump crossed years ago) you just become an unserious person, which in any sane world would disqualify you from running for public office. But here we are.
I can't take Kamala seriously when she says "my values haven't changed"
I don’t disagree with that. The problem is that this wouldn’t be a problem for her at all if you put her in the same vane as you put Donald Trump. It’s only an issue for Kamala to the point you’d bring It up here because people hold her to a standard where she supposed to offer something better than that. That’s what it means and what it looks like to be treated as a serious person. Yet no one holds Trump to that standard, not even close. My question for those who support him is, why? How do you justify that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
There are police reports.
Prove it.
Maybe. I personally would like it if he prosecuted Biden, Hillary, etc. Fight fire with fire.
If only you guys had evidence.
You asked me what I think. I don’t know what he’s going to do. That’s his whole appeal. No one knows what he’s going to do.
Yeah, that’s the whole point.
Since when is it a virtue for the person you’d elevate into the most powerful person on earth to be so unpredictable you have no idea what he’s going to do with that power?
I don’t think you understand what the purpose of tariffs are. Come back when you learn what negotiating means with respect to tariffs.
Come back when you have an argument that’s relative to what I just said.
The economy being great isn't an action so this answer has nothing to do with this thread.It explains why millions of people believe Trump.
Yeah, and they’re idiots.
It’s harder to grow it than get it out of a whole.
It was already growing, he didn’t do a damn thing.
Native born worker jobs are down.
Isn’t the right wing response to a particular segment of the population having less jobs that they need to get off their ass?
Trump didn’t cause COVID. And voters recognize Trump didn’t cause COVID. Blaming an economic crash on Trump because of something he couldn’t control is disingenuous, and voters recognize that.
I agree, but this is your premise. If Trump shouldn’t be held responsible for the damage Covid did to the economy then neither should Biden.
You don’t get to have it both ways. Pick one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
This thread, like most of your threads, attempts to understand anti-Kamala people using your own projected biased premises. It's never going to work. You started with a premise that they take hyperbole seriously.
The premises that I started with are as follows:
1) A serious person is one who’s words should be taken seriously
2) President of the United States is a serious position
3) Serious positions should be filled by serious people
What this thread attempts to understand is whether there is a good faith reason why someone would act against these three premises. So far, nothing.
Maybe if you didn't take Trump's hyperbole so seriously, then the double standard would go away.
The double standard is pretending that Harris has a responsibility to offer serious solutions and proposals while Trump threatens to stick the military in radical left lunatics and we all shrug because nothing this man says matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Just like the example I gave with the heart we do know that some humans have an artificial heart or are siamese twins and share a heart but these one in a million examples are just splitting hairs.
It's not splitting hairs when the claim is that it's objective. The chances of 2+2 equaling anything other than 4 is not one in a million, it's zero.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, do you find Kamala's words "mostly serious?"
I’ve already explained this in detail. You’re welcome to read it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
You’re treating this like it’s strictly one or the other.
It’s a generalization.
He frequently uses hyperbole, yes, but he’s made plenty of serious remarks as well. This is where you have to look at what he said in context, including the context of how he pitches himself.
But thats the problem. When a person “frequently” speaks in hyperbole (a generous way of putting it) it makes it nearly impossible to distinguish whether they’re being serious or not. So in the end what we get is a person whose supporters take whatever meaning out of his words they find convenient and hand waive away anything that can’t be positively spun, which is exactly where we are now. It’s a game of heads I win tails you lose.
Meanwhile, because Kamala Harris is taken seriously everything she says gets put under a microscope and held to an insane double standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Have to disagree with you there. Obama, Bush, both Clintons, Cruz, Ramaswamy, Vance, Kamala, Walz, and most other politicians you can name have very clearly dodged questions, stretched the truth, and changed their positions to be what people want to hear.
I addressed all of this in my response. None of this is what makes a person unserious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
There are reports that it was true.
Right, because that's how a serious presidential candidate get's their information, from the internet.
When a presidential candidate expresses that he believes his political opposition to be "the enemy from within" and that we should use the military against them, is this hyperbole?Probably
Then he's unserious.
When a presidential candidate says he's going to impose an across the board 20% tariff on all imported goods (something he would have the authority to do unilaterally), is that hyperbole?Now this is definitely hyperbole. Negotiating tactic 101
You can't have it both ways. If he's serious, then we would take him seriously. By calling it a negotiating tactic you're saying that he's obviously not really going to do it, at which point it has no negotiating power.
This is a tired excuse by MAGA to just ignore what this man actually says and insert whatever virtue in him you decide to make up. But this particular example is even worse because the president has unilateral authority to impose tariffs so there's nothing to negotiate. At best, you can claim he's using these as a threat to push lawmakers into concessions, in which case you're literally arguing that he's threatening to take a wrecking ball to the economy if he doesn't get what he wants.
It’s about what he has already done. Economy was great under Trump until COVID, which was out of his control. If he says he can make the economy work again, I’m inclined to believe him because he has shown how to do it.
The economy being great isn't an action so this answer has nothing to do with this thread.
But to address it anyway, Trump didn't make the economy great. It had already been growing for the prior 7 years and when Trump came into office nothing changed, all we did was continue the same trajectory we were already on. In fact we gained more jobs in the last three years under Obama than the first three years under Trump, so one could even argued things slowed down.
But what's really egregious here is to talk about how great things things were in the first three years but to just exclude the last one because it's inconvenient to your narrative. Again, you can’t have it both ways. Either we exclude Covid or we don’t. If we don’t, then his last year counts. If we do, then you don’t get to pretend Covid ended at noon on January 20th 2021 and everything that occurred as a result of the damage it caused is all Biden’s fault.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
We need to start by defining what objective means. Objective just means that something is u iversally true for the most part.
This is not a reasonable definition of objective by any stretch, and is internally contradictory. To be universally true by definition means there are no exceptions, so it can't be universally true "for the most part". That's just gibberish.
To be objective means not subject to opinion or view point. In order for something to fit this definition there must be a point of comparison based on reality, not merely thought. 2+2= 4 is objective because we can put two objects on one side and two more on another and when put together there will always be 4 of them, in reality.
we all have the same morals but they are merely expressed differently. There is a shared moral sense among humanity and since humans are the only moral agents it makes morality objective
This is nothing more than an argument ad populum. That's not how objectivity is determined.
Morality is and will always be subjective because morality can only be determined in accordance with a moral standard, and the standard will always be subject to the person invoking it.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
It matches to literally everything we know about this man, not from second hand reporting, but by listening to his own words complied over years. He's literally talking about "the enemy from within". This is a man who has been unmistakably transparent that he sees anyone who disagrees with him as an enemy and not only doesn't see anything wrong with retaliation, but thinks it's just how power works.
Do you seriously think someone who admits out loud that he's endorsed political candidates not because he thinks they would do great things for their constituents but because he expected them to be good to him personally really cares about serving the public?
When he was asked what he thought about the civil rights icon John Lewis his immediate response was not to talk about the great things he had done and the sacrifices he's made, but to wine about how he didn't come to his inauguration.
When a guest in the oval office sat there and told him her insane story of how her husband was torchered and murdered, Trump's response was to ask her "and where is he now"?
These are just completely random examples off the top of my head. I could give you literally hundreds more.
Very, very, serious question: What does this man need to to show you who he is? How is it that despite everything he's made transparently clear about himself you still think it's easier to believe his own white house aid would make up a story like this than to believe this is who Trump is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Do you take the things Trump says seriously?Not particularly.then can you please explain how you square your belief that someone whose words are not to be taken seriously can be fit for the most serious job on earth?Fools are less dangerous than cunning enemies.
Well, we agree Trump is a fool. Good enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I know no serious person that takes a Kamala word salad seriously.
It never ceases to amuse me listening to people who support Donald Trump attack Kamala Harris's speaking as word salads.
That aside... So if Kamala said she planned to order the military to the streets to confiscate everyone's guns you would brush that off right? I mean, she's not serious so there's no reason to take what she says seriously... right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No. Hyperbole is a thing.
So when a presidential candidate makes a claim in front of the entire nation alleging that a very specific group of people in a very specific place within the country are engaging in a very specific and heinous act (like eating the neighborhood's pets)... Is that hyperbole?
When a presidential candidate expresses that he believes his political opposition to be "the enemy from within" and that we should use the military against them, is this hyperbole?
When a presidential candidate says he's going to impose an across the board 20% tariff on all imported goods (something he would have the authority to do unilaterally), is that hyperbole?
if you don't take his words seriously then on what basis do you form any judgement about him?His actions.
What actions does a presidential candidate engage in (other than using words) that tells you what they plan to do if (re)elected?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Is there a politician whose words you do take seriously?
Pretty much every single one, just as you probably do, just as the vast majority of people do when it comes to just about any other politician but Donald Trump.
Taking someone's words seriously =/= believing everything they say uncritically, nor does it mean believing that they will do/accomplish everything they say they will do/accomplish. All it means is that when they say something we assume they are being serious. This is basic English.
The political right certainly takes Kamala Harris seriously, that's why when she says she will go after price gougers you hear conservatives freak out and decry this as socialism. That's why when she says she will tax the rich they say this is class warfare. That's what taking someone seriously means. It doesn't mean you really think she'll do or accomplish these things, but that the proper response is to treat her and her proposals as if they are real and evaluate her accordingly.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
So in other words; everyone is lying, they’re all just out to get Trump; and every news report that says anything bad about Trump can be dismissed out of hand, even when it’s coming directly from Trump’s senior director for resilience policy on the National Security Council staff who is willing to put this allegation on the record.
Meanwhile… Black Insurrectionist on Twitter says he spoke to someone who says Tim Walz sexually assaulted her and that’s proof that it’s true.
The logic pretzels you twist yourself in to justify your beliefs has got to be tiring.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you take the things Trump says seriously?
If Yes, well I have quite a few more questions for you.
If No (the typical MAGA response), then can you please explain how you square your belief that someone whose words are not to be taken seriously can be fit for the most serious job on earth?
Bonus question: if you don't take his words seriously then on what basis do you form any judgement about him?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Q: Literally any question regarding government policy.A: "I come from a middle class family"It's the standard bowl to create the word salad.
Question: What's you're plan to deal with childcare?
Trump: well childcare is childcare, and it's going to be great cause look at these tariffs I'm going to implement...
Question: what's your plan on healthcare?
Trump: well I have concepts of a plan...
Question: do you think Google should be broken up?
Trump: you know I just can't get over what the justice department did with the voter rolls in Virginia...
Because yeah, we're so concerned about our presidential candidates being clear on their policies, which is why we're focusing on Kamala Harris.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Bro the youtube video was about rioting from.him swimming. Remember in 2016 he won and artifacts was going around and attacking people with red hats? See bike lock guy. I knew you were lying thanks for showing the video to confirm
Trump: "I don't think we'll have a problem in terms of election day I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within"
Trump wasn't talking about rioting and he didn't say a thing about 2016, you're just making shit up. The comments Trump made just before that were talking about the towns being inundated and he went on to specify who the "enemy from within" was calling them out as "radical left democrats" which is relatively tame considering what he normally calls any democrat who opposes him, so if we're assessing his words logically this adds up to exactly what I said it did.
I don't need to break down people's political ideologies to emphasize that no two people believe 100% the same thing on every single issue. Again, the Borg are not real.Thank you for admitting their ideologies are indistinguishable
We weren't talking about ideologies genius. We were talking about your claim that "all... 100% agree with each other on every single thing" and whether it was ridiculous hyperbole. And it is.
it away as hyperbole even as these very people have now had to keep their kids home in fear for their safety because of the death threats they've received as a result. WowThis is a lie.
Meanwhile, area residents say, many Haitians are feeling more afraid as each day passes. The viral posts are being amplified across social media and by international news organizations, which spread the claims even farther. S.P., a community activist, said families have been calling her all morning saying they are scared.
“People are very afraid for their lives,” S.P. said. “Many families are starting to think of leaving Springfield after last night and some kids aren’t even going to school because of fear of being attacked.”
Trump's own team during his first term had to show Trump a map of California and show that Orange County residents voted for him before he would approve any federal assistance for the wild fires they were experiencing. As usual, every allegation with him is a confession.This is an absurd and obvious lie lol.
"Mark Harvey, who was Trump’s senior director for resilience policy on the National Security Council staff, told E&E News on Wednesday that Trump initially refused to approve disaster aid for California after deadly wildfires in 2018 because of the state’s Democratic leanings.
But Harvey said Trump changed his mind after Harvey pulled voting results to show him that heavily damaged Orange County, California, had more Trump supporters than the entire state of Iowa.
“We went as far as looking up how many votes he got in those impacted areas … to show him these are people who voted for you,” said Harvey.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
please link me to a video showing the full context of this quote. This sounds like another retarded lie like the inject bleach thing.
SO a political commentator who has the free time to study this 12 hours a day, because they don't have a real job somehow misses this but me who works 75 hours a week has time to figure out the context? It makes no sense to me that they wouldn't attempt a deep dive to ensure they are reporting accurately.
From where they stand they have a much better handle on the context than you do. Again, when you talk about context you're talking about the few sentences before and after he used the word bloodbath. They're taking into account the full context, which includes everything he's done and said over the past few years which has gotten increasingly worse along with his refusal to do or say anything meaningful to correct the misunderstandings people like you allege. That's not how someone who doesn't have these predolictions behaves.
Fine please present to me a summary of Keith Olberman's ideology and the ideology of rachel Maddow. I have listened to both reporters and haven't seen a difference.
I don't need to break down people's political ideologies to emphasize that no two people believe 100% the same thing on every single issue. Again, the Borg are not real.
So what is your opinion on Trump spreading these ridiculous "Haitians are eating the dogs" conspiracyIt's not a serious statement and just some hyperbole to show the resources are strained in springfield due to immigration.
So you started this thread because it bothers you that people who have huge audiences fail to live up to your ethical standards with regards to being truthful, but when the man who has the largest megaphone on earth claims that a specific group of people in a specific place are engaging in a specific and heinous act... Well you just don't think that's serious and hand waive it away as hyperbole even as these very people have now had to keep their kids home in fear for their safety because of the death threats they've received as a result. Wow.
Not a single thing about his comments there talked about strained resources. You're making that up entirely because you can't accept Trump for what he is so you have to make stuff up to justify your continued support for him. This is the sane washing everyone continues to point out.
or that Joe Biden is withholding aid from republican areas lie that he just made up out of pure projection?I am only aware of criticism of Fema money being earmarked for migrants instead of being used how intended for example to aid hurricane victims. Do you think Fema money should be spent for non emergencies or are you against that and think Fema money should be used responsably?
Stick to the subject. I'm not talking about his other lie that disaster relief funds were taken from FEMA to house migrants, I'm talking about his brazen lie that the Biden administration was withholding aid and resources from red areas because he only wanted to help his own voters. A lie that is not only patently falseand easily disprovable, but a remarkable example of projection since it has now come out that Trump's own team during his first term had to show Trump a map of California and show that Orange County residents voted for him before he would approve any federal assistance for the wild fires they were experiencing. As usual, every allegation with him is a confession.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
So… are you taking back what you said in the OP?No the snopes citation is jotnrelated to the stroy that dropped off of the x post I gave
I didn't have much service earlier so I didn't even click on the link till now. Are you really being serious?
Your claim is that it is now "confirmed" that Tim Walz is a pedophile, and your proof of this is a Twitter post from a guy who calls himself "Black inserrectionist" who claims to have heard from someone else that Tim Walz sexually abused her? Really?
And what's even more insane here is that you love to accuse the left of hive mind and just believing what they're told, but this is your standard for what counts as proof? Talk about projection. You can't possibly be serious.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
If there were good examples of this, than why would they be forced to use bad examples?
It's not an "if". There are good examples. That's a fact, just look at his comments this past weekend as yet another example saying we should use the military to go after "radical leftist lunitics" (the same thing he reflexively calls every democrat or institution that disagrees with him on anything).
Setting that aside, that's exactly my point. Using the bloodbath comments is stupid because there are better examples. If there weren't, then this would all be fabricated which would make your point but it's just factually not the case. So, logically, the next step is to ask why would they use the bloodbath comments when there were better examples? The obvious answer is because they saw in those comments what I described earlier and don't understand everything else that you and I are both pointing out about them.
So you are insinuating it's not some sort of hive mind but a collection of people with their own views, motivations and opinions
Yes, that's how human brains work. This isn't Star Trek, the Borg are not a real thing.
that all just coincidentally 100% agree with each other on every single thing
Ridiculous hyperbole. There fact that you see it this way speaks to your remarkable bias and lack of interest in understanding nuance.
people with huge audiences have a higher ethical responsibility
So what is your opinion on Trump spreading these ridiculous "Haitians are eating the dogs" conspiracy or that Joe Biden is withholding aid from republican areas lie that he just made up out of pure projection?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
if there was a difference in practice any state wishing to act in an undemocratic manner would simply pretend to have an election. That is precisely what "election deniers" think occurred
Lots of people think the earth is flat. The difference is that those people aren't basing real world decisions that affect other people on them.
You have no evidence that the election was stolen yet you pursue this narrative anyway and use it to justify your views which you then vote in accordance with. You're just wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
DT: We should use the military to stop political violence.KH: Trump wants to use the military on me (political opposition.)Logical conclusion: Kamala admits to planning to engage in political violence?
You're such a liar.
Trump didn't say we should use the military *in response to* political violence. He said we should use them against "radical left lunitics", something he calls every democrat and news outlet that disagrees with him. And he gave Adam Schiff as an example, someone who's never engaged in political violence.
So yes, Harris's interpretation in the only reasonable one.
The sanewashing on the right continues, one wonders why you would support someone when you can't defend their words without lying about them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
hehe, well if the 'experts' all say so who are we little folk to doubt?
I know, who needs experts? We should all just use our own common sense, I'm sure that's what NASA did to put a man on the moon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It's official the october surprise has just dropped. Tim Walz has been confirmed to be a pedophile. I am not making judgements just starting the discussion thread so people can discuss.
This is just more Trump propaganda. See Unpacking the Claim That Walz 'Recruited Young Boys' into 'Gay Club' at School | Snopes.com
So… are you taking back what you said in the OP?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Chat GPT defended the media a bit by saying that there could be studio pressures to frame the speech a certain way or maybe that the journalists have it in their mind that Trump is already dangerous so are more inclined to interpret things he says in a certain way
Probably both but the latter is the more important part to understand. For what it’s worth, I think the bloodbath example is a complete loser and I wish Democratic politicians would stop using it, there is no shortage of very real and clear examples they could use instead. It was clear that Trump was talking about an economic blood bath so all this does is give fodder for people claiming democrats and the media are lying, then they get use it as an excuse to hand waive away everything that follows which is inconvenient to them.
But with all that said, it’s not like there isn’t something very wrong with this. You talk about putting the quote in context, I agree. The context is that Trump has said things like that many times before and these kinds of buzzwords are a signal to a lot of people out there. If Trump actually cared about not giving people the impression that he supports political violence he would have adjusted his behavior and choice of words a long time ago, but he won’t because he knows what he’s doing. That’s what more people in the media should be explaining. The sentiment is justified, the details being asserted are problematic.
You stated that I framed it as the media lying which is true.
As I just explained, it’s more complicated than that.
After this I got into a conversation and we discussed how the media harms its own case by sensationalism and spin.
True to a certain extent, but again, when you have an audience that is combing through every word you say looking for anything they can use to discredit you... and by 'you' we’re talking about an entire industry with different networks, different shows, multiple hosts sometimes on each show, and multiple guests per show… of course you’re going to find the examples you’re looking for.
This is where I wanted to drill more down into media motivations because although I do buy into some of the reasons for the spin, I also feel like a lot of the media is knowingly being dishonest so I pressed it and asked what would motivate rational actors if they know they are spinning an event a certain way.
And this is largely where we depart. By this point you've discarded all of the points I've reiterated above and moved on as if they are just false. There's no common ground from here by which a conversation can be had.
I am not attempting to conflate all of media, but trying to understand a specific slice of media and I think when most people say "media" they really do mean fox news, CNN and MSNBC and HLN.
The fact that you're narrowing it down to three or four networks doesn't really change the underlying point. There's still a large apparatus at play, and there are still numerous actors all with their own views, opinions, and motivations which you are all lumping together.
On its own there's nothing wrong with this, there's clearly value in analyzing a phenomenon like this at a 30k foot view. The problem is what many do, and I'm sure I've seen you do many times before, which is that you use this as an excuse to dismiss stories and arguments that are inconvenient to you on the basis that it comes from an untrustworthy source (by which you mean the entire apparatus). That's not how it works, any report stands on its own merit.
I'll "concede" that this is fine in some senses - if we're talking about a default position for example. When someone tells me something I've never heard and then links to a Fox News article or the NY Post I can already say with a good deal of confidence in most cases that it's nonsense, but again, that's just a default. I don't get to pretend the argument hasn't been offered and I'm not justified in continuing to argue my position without a real tangible reason to dismiss it unless I've looked at the report specifically and can say why it should be ignored.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
This thread is not so much about the case for trump as it was about analyzing whether the media is being sincere when they state that Trump is a danger.
Then why did you respond to the January 6th stuff while ignoring the direct refutations I offered against the points you made there?
Created:
-->
@Mall
The foundation of sexual reproductive organs is with sexual reproduction. So once you leave that, you left the foundation.
So you're against sex anytime it's not with the explicit intent to create a child? So a couple in their 50's who is done with children is in your view "leaving the foundation" if they decide to have sex?
"So you're ok with it being legal to own other people as property?"It depends whether the exceptions are made or not like I said. Don't just leave it broad as legalizing slavery which still is legal. But there are stipulations to it.
What stipulations?
Like I said if people still feel them and theirs are being oppressed, unjustly incarcerated and everything brought on them as being the vestiges of the past still affecting them, i.e. , reparations, they have a right to their experience.
No one is criticizing their experiences. We're talking about why it's ridiculous to pretend there is a meaningful parallel between what happened to the slaves and what's happening to anyone in America today.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Funny how you point to two words out of an 11,000 word speech and ignore the other 10,998. That pretty much sums up your whole case for Trump; focus on the vanishingly small parts that support your case, ignore the overwhelmingly large parts that go against it.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I have gotten the woke chat GPT to admit that Trump is not a dangerous threat. Prompt followsSo let's assume rational actors here. If I know that lies or exaggeration undermine their credibility to actually report a real danger from him than I can assume that since they are sensationalizing things...
It's hard to imagine anyone could read this and not see the glaring problem.
If you begin with the assumption that the people whose views you oppose are lying about the facts, then of course the conclusion will be that they are bad actors worried about something other than public well being. How are you convinced that there is anything here worthy of our attention? Whether they are lies or exaggerations is the thing you need to show, and every attempt I've seen you make at that fails.
What's also notable about your OP is the constant referral to "the media" as if it were a person, this is an obvious indication of a lack of critical thinking ability. The media is a conglomerate of mediums, networks, journalists and commentators. Everyone comes with their own views, their own opinions and their own stated facts which often come into conflict with each other. To assess it as if it was one entity without recognizing the sizemic variations within it is totally disconnected from reality and will lead to a wildly distorted picture of reality.
the only argument you have is he challenged election results
I signed my name to a fake check at the grocery store the other day. I wasn't committing fraud, I was challenging the bank's position that I didn't have any money in my account.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Look at his actionsI did. He assassinated a dictator.Madman theory vindicated. Your turn.
A Madman is not "someone who takes bold action". It means someone who would go so far as to act with recklessness. Do you consider the act of assassinating Soleimani to be reckless? Yes or No. Extra bonus if you could actually explain why.
Obama for the most part kept the world from engaging in conflicts. USA was pretty safe under Obama due to Madman theory.
You're misusing what the phrase. No reasonable observer ever accused Obama of being a madman.
You already admitted 2024 is a very dangerous time for the USA. I don't even have to win this argument since you already agree.
You don't even know what we're arguing about. All you're doing is pushing back on what madman theory is by watering it down, and resorting to the usual fallacies.
You're now arguing that there were no serious global conflicts then as a way to argue that Madman Theory is good. Even if your premise is accepted that doesn't change anything. Of course there is less of a chance of conflict when you have someone like that in charge, people will be more hesitant to act of they think the other party might respond with overt and unnecessary force. The problem is that there is also an increased risk of catastrophic consequences, which by definition makes us less safe.
This isn't about definitions, I made that clear in the op. You have yet to address the actual point; you either believe Trump is capable of reckless actions such that every other country on earth should fear us, or you don't. If you don't, then the deterrent Trumpers boast about is to you non existent. If you do, then you believe by the very definition of the words you are responding to that we will be in greater danger with him at the helm.
One or the other, pick one.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I didn't argue/lie about me being unable to live without access to your body. I said "if I were unable to...".And before that you saidThey are treated the same.That is a what IS claim not IF and is is based on real life, so I’m going to say the same thing that you said to me.No, there is no IF.You just don't get that, hopefully the ad nauseam redundancy sinks in.
There is no way you are being serious.
Here is the "They" you were referring to in post 145:
Then I assume you’re pro-life? Because the unborn aren’t treated with the same deference as everyone else who is born.They are treated the same. If I was unable to live without access to your body and you refused to grant me that access, I would die.
The first sentence pertained to real life. "They" was referring to the rights that newborns are actually bgranted under current law. The second sentence is a hypothetical (not real life) scenario that demonstrates why the logic of your claim fails even though it might have sounded persuasive at first.
For you to twist that into "I claimed I was unable to live without access to your body"... As in, I am really saying that is really true, is just plain stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Madman Theory has nothing to with making predictions. You don't even know what this conversation is about.I suppose such a low-effort response deserves a slightly patronizing AI re-education on "Madman theory"The Madman Theory, a strategy often associated with President Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War, actually hinges on unpredictability.
The whole point of madman theory is that the enemy doesn't know what to think, so they often find themselves believing or at the very least operating as if the madman will do something extreme, even when he won't. In other words, it's a strategy for getting away with bluffing.
I know you think you are really clever with that response, but all it shows is how lost you are in this conversation. Again, either Trump is a madman or he's pretending to be one. If he's pretending, then his entire strategy is predicated on the idea that others will not call him out on his bluffs, in which case your point here regarding Solomanie failing to predict him was utterly irrelevant. If he really is a madman then you are voting for someone who is by definition a threat to the safety and security of this country. It's one or the other.
No one claimed he said that. It's an inference based on evidence.Sure, let's see your "evidence"
Look at his actions and use those critical thinking skills you've been tucking away. If you're not going to put effort into the conversation them neither will I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump doesn't care about any of this, he only did it for the photo opSounds like at least one dictator wasn't able to predict Trump.
Madman Theory has nothing to with making predictions. You don't even know what this conversation is about.
Putin will only accept surrender...Doubtful he ever said that
No one claimed he said that. It's an inference based on evidence.
Also, your insistence that "nothing" can be done
Stating ones position is not "insistence"
Created: