Opinion The Trump Presidency

[Peck]

Oh I assumed the competition was open to the, uh, other lot. Sorry.

Don't worry I changed the prize from nothing to a free beer after no one won.

 

[Forzaport]

No one even tried.

You missed out on a free beer raman

Edit: Forzaport if you dispute that one of these statments other than the bolded is bullshit I’ll be happy to provide the evidence for you. Only one at a time though, i need to get stuff done today haha

Outside of the US economy is booming and Clinton lost the election, everything else is misrepresented gibberish that no respectable person would agree with.

As we’ve already covered the US economy at length - I obviously have different metrics that I value compared to you, I’ll wait until the next single issue arises.

 

[Peck]

Outside of the US economy is booming and Clinton lost the election, everything else is misrepresented gibberish that no respectable person would agree with.

As we’ve already covered the US economy at length - I obviously have different metrics that I value compared to you, I’ll wait until the next single issue arises.

You can choose something I’ve misrepresented and rephrase it if you like. That is absolutely fine

 

[Pedro59]

I don’t understand what point you are trying to make here. Please summarise in one paragraph.

No you were trying to make the point ( parroting liberal fake facist accusations)
Not I..

You would be the only person in the world not realising I was responding to your 'points'?
( rightly or wrongly)

 

[Pedro59]

Outside of the US economy is booming and Clinton lost the election, everything else is misrepresented gibberish that no respectable person would agree with.

As we’ve already covered the US economy at length - I obviously have different metrics that I value compared to you, I’ll wait until the next single issue arises.

It was actually quite an incoherent, rambling, throw heaps of darts - one must stick type of rant I thought.
Sort of like the female scattergun chop and change way of arguing.

I'd rather drink acid than claim the free beer to go down to that level

 

[Peck]

No you were trying to make the point ( parroting liberal fake facist accusations)
Not I..

You would be the only person in the world not realising I was responding to your 'points'?
( rightly or wrongly)

Which of my statements would you not consider an example of a fascist policy?

 

[Forzaport]

You can choose something I’ve misrepresented and rephrase it if you like. That is absolutely fine

No need, restating a series of opinions as absurd absolutes with added sarcasm is a sign that you no longer wish to argue on merit or in good faith. It’s also a bullying tactic as you are mocking the other side, i.e. an Ad Hominem attack.

I would rather you provide evidence of my alleged ‘gish galloping’.

 

[Pedro59]

Which of my statements would you not consider an example of a fascist policy?

Its not the 'point' is it?
Its that you were trying to relate Trump to these generalised facist statements ... All wrong..

For eg the locking up of children a common parroted hysteria statement.

Did Trump invade Mexico and go lock up kids?
Again , if you break into a house and steal something with a 3 yo kid with you and get locked up by the police... what happens to the child?
What sort of parent would involve a kid in a crime?
If you dangerously jump a border and invade another country with a kid.. don't go snivelling if you get separated because the law didn't want to lock the kid up in the first place.
You and the kid could have instead walked through a border gate legally and been processed together

But your parroted liberal sensationslist story ignores the facts( yet again)

And how dare you call a much respected judge a facist just because he is a republican

Should I continue demonstrating how uninformed and tranparent your screams of being a Facist are?
Just following the bogan uninformed CNN trend

As some one else said in this post.. how about some facts?

 

[Peck]

Its not the 'point' is it?
Its that you were trying to relate Trump to these generalised facist statements ... All wrong..

For eg the locking up of children a common parroted hysteria statement.

Did Trump invade Mexico and go lock up kids?
Again , if you break into a house and steal something with a 3 yo kid with you and get locked up by the police... what happens to the child?
What sort of parent would involve a kid in a crime?
If you dangerously jump a border and invade another country with a kid.. don't go snivelling if you get separated because the law didn't want to lock the kid up in the first place.
You and the kid could have instead walked through a border gate legally and been processed together

But your parroted liberal sensationslist story ignores the facts( yet again)

And how dare you call a much respected judge a facist just because he is a republican

Should I continue demonstrating how uninformed and tranparent your screams of being a Facist are?
Just following the bogan uninformed CNN trend

As some one else said in this post.. how about some facts?

Okay I'll try to do this but I didn't quite follow so cut me some slack if I misinterpret you.

Note when I say that something is a FASCIST POLICY I mean that it is more fascist than democratic, and a policy you would find under a fascist government.

The policy of ICE to literally lock kids in cages for 22-23 hours of a day was brought in for no reason as a way to try and "deter" these refugees. As though the threat of ANYTHING that the US could do would be a greater threat than "We will shoot your kid IN THE FACE if they don't join our gang". Also plenty of these people went through the correct process.

Now why is this policy fascist? Because it was put through without knowledge of most politicians let alone society, and is rather heavy handed.

Secondly I never called that judge a fascist I said that putting someone with your political views in what should be a non-political position of Supreme Court Justice is a fascist move, because you are trying to subvert democracy.

What have I said here that's not a fact?

 

[Waspy79]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html

"Another useful model can be found in Ukraine, where a Russian oligarch backed the 2010 political campaign of the pro-Russian apparatchik Viktor Yanukovych. The effort to install Yanukovych prefigured many elements of Trump’s campaign. His campaign exploited ethnic divisions and portrayed his opponent, Yulia Tymoshenko, as corrupt and the election as rigged. Yanukovych called for closer ties with Russia while obscuring the depth of his own furtive Russian connections. Most significant, the consultant brought in to manage Yanukovych’s campaign was the same one who managed Trump’s six years later: Paul Manafort.

For all the ambiguous, suspicious facts surrounding Trump’s ties to Russia, Manafort’s role is the most straightforward. He is an utterly amoral consultant and spent at least a decade directly advancing Russian foreign-policy interests while engaging in systemic corruption."

 

[Peck]

No need, restating a series of opinions as absurd absolutes with added sarcasm is a sign that you no longer wish to argue on merit or in good faith. It’s also a bullying tactic as you are mocking the other side, i.e. an Ad Hominem attack.

I would rather you provide evidence of my alleged ‘gish galloping’.

I'm afraid that mocking people who think that LOCKING UP KIDS IN PRISONS for trying to escape their country's gang violence is the only way I can even parse that they exist. Also an ad hominem attack has to be preceded by an actual good faith argument which isn't at all what was happening in this thread. I'm sure you can understand why I would call someone like StrappingTape someone who argues in bad faith, if you disagree then I'll be happy to defer to your opinion and stop attacking him
for espousing already disproven ideas (which is not ad hominem in my opinion).

You will post 5 opinions or theories in response to one criticism of you, and from what I've seen very little have any evidence behind them. They sure as hell don't have that evidence readily available so if I take the time to respond to each with FACTS to disprove them then you have the advantage because you are not giving me any facts but just opinions which is a hell of a lot less time consuming.

 

[Pedro59]

Whaat so bo

Okay I'll try to do this but I didn't quite follow so cut me some slack if I misinterpret you.

Note when I say that something is a FASCIST POLICY I mean that it is more fascist than democratic, and a policy you would find under a fascist government.

The policy of ICE to literally lock kids in cages for 22-23 hours of a day was brought in for no reason as a way to try and "deter" these refugees. As though the threat of ANYTHING that the US could do would be a greater threat than "We will shoot your kid IN THE FACE if they don't join our gang". Also plenty of these people went through the correct process.

Now why is this policy fascist? Because it was put through without knowledge of most politicians let alone society, and is rather heavy handed.

Secondly I never called that judge a fascist I said that putting someone with your political views in what should be a non-political position of Supreme Court Justice is a fascist move, because you are trying to subvert democracy.

What have I said here that's not a fact?

Most of it


What so anything a little right of centre is facist?
So water 1 degree more than freezing is boiling?
You can be more pregnant than non pregnant?
Ha ha good try but you know what you said and I appreciate you trying to walk it back

And again don't start the narrative about kids halfway
Why are they there in the first place?
How did they get there?

What sort of parent would risk their kids being involved in such a dangerous crime

So lock up the parents and um let the 3yo wander the steets and fend for themselves?

Re judges please study US politics and appreciate every President always has and always will place a judge of similar political leanings
Its normal!!
It doesn't make him a facist FFS

Or is he 'more fasicist than democrat' now ..which on your aforementioned walkback measurement means if he is only 1 smidgen to the right of center...
OMG He must be a raging facist!

Hmmm

 

[Pedro59]

Sorr

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html

"Another useful model can be found in Ukraine, where a Russian oligarch backed the 2010 political campaign of the pro-Russian apparatchik Viktor Yanukovych. The effort to install Yanukovych prefigured many elements of Trump’s campaign. His campaign exploited ethnic divisions and portrayed his opponent, Yulia Tymoshenko, as corrupt and the election as rigged. Yanukovych called for closer ties with Russia while obscuring the depth of his own furtive Russian connections. Most significant, the consultant brought in to manage Yanukovych’s campaign was the same one who managed Trump’s six years later: Paul Manafort.

For all the ambiguous, suspicious facts surrounding Trump’s ties to Russia, Manafort’s role is the most straightforward. He is an utterly amoral consultant and spent at least a decade directly advancing Russian foreign-policy interests while engaging in systemic corruption."

Sorry Waspy I just don't buy the Russian collusion fake distraction

If Manafort is charged with anything related to not before the Trump campain I will say fair enough..
But at this stage it really is looking like zero evidence of collusion and I think we are going to see come out the biggest political scandal since watergate of the Democrats spying and trying to hobble an opposition party during an election campaign.

Why is the DOJ and FBI stonewalling so much if there really was enough evidence to start this national debilitating inquiry ?
What do they haveti hide?
My belief is all the facts are going to come just before the midterms ..In time to shame and condemn the Dems to a political backwater for a decade
Nunes Gowdy and co are like dogs on a bone
Once Rosenstein is impeached its only a matter of time before the truth comes out
Its going to be big

 

[Forzaport]

I'm afraid that mocking people who think that LOCKING UP KIDS IN PRISONS for trying to escape their country's gang violence is the only way I can even parse that they exist.

This is mind reading. You can't read minds.

Also an ad hominem attack has to be preceded by an actual good faith argument which isn't at all what was happening in this thread. I'm sure you can understand why I would call someone like StrappingTape someone who argues in bad faith, if you disagree then I'll be happy to defer to your opinion and stop attacking himfor espousing already disproven ideas (which is not ad hominem in my opinion).

I'm not concerned by your arguement with StrappingTape - if either of you feel it is becoming abusive, report it. If you believe I'm not arguing in good faith, back it up with an example at least.

You will post 5 opinions or theories in response to one criticism of you, and from what I've seen very little have any evidence behind them. They sure as hell don't have that evidence readily available so if I take the time to respond to each with FACTS to disprove them then you have the advantage because you are not giving me any facts but just opinions which is a hell of a lot less time consuming.

So give me an actual example. And we'll tease it out to its painful conclusion, free of gish galloping.

 

[Peck]

This is mind reading. You can't read minds.

I mean i messed that sentence up pretty hard, but what I meant is that someone who defends that policy is someone I consider to be truly reprehensible. That’s not ad hominem, and requires no mind reading. If you would like to explain why it requires mind reading I’d love to hear it.

I'm not concerned by your arguement with StrappingTape - if either of you feel it is becoming abusive, report it. If you believe I'm not arguing in good faith, back it up with an example at least.

My point with StrappingTape is that he argues in bad faith, so deserves any ad hominem attacks that come his way.

So give me an actual example. And we'll tease it out to its painful conclusion, free of gish galloping.

Well I was letting you choose the example but I’ll give you an example of something you’ve said that is completely false, and which you provided right wing opinions for as evidence.

“The left only have ad hominems”.

When has a leftist ever unfairly used an ad hominem?

 

[raman]

It’s also a bullying tactic as you are mocking the other side, i.e. an Ad Hominem attack.

Unlike calling the other side "deranged", which is obviously not an ad hominem attack because it's hidden in an acronym.

JFCTWYCH.

 

[Forzaport]

I mean i messed that sentence up pretty hard, but what I meant is that someone who defends that policy is someone I consider to be truly reprehensible. That’s not ad hominem, and requires no mind reading. If you would like to explain why it requires mind reading I’d love to hear it.

Ok. Someone who defends the policy of putting children in cages is reprehensible. That's a reasonable statement but here's a challenge: to understand the other side, are you able to think of a situation where putting a child in a cage would be a good thing?

As soon as you claim that someone "thinks" something, that's mind reading. The only exception to the rule if that someone has literally said "I'm thinking...." Once you know to look for it, you'll be amazed how often it comes up on news panels, opinion pieces, etc. A world full of mind readers. If you get out of that habit, your arguments will become much, much stronger.

My point with StrappingTape is that he argues in bad faith, so deserves any ad hominem attacks that come his way.

Fair enough, that's between you and StrappingTape.

Well I was letting you choose the example but I’ll give you an example of something you’ve said that is completely false, and which you provided right wing opinions for as evidence.

“The left only have ad hominems”.

When has a leftist ever unfairly used an ad hominem?

It's been my personal experience. You don't have to go far to see it - I've copped multiple personal attacks in this thread and earlier for posting on US politics. I'm not saying this is exclusive to the left, the right are usually just as guilty when they're out of power. It's universal though, if anyone you are arguing with stops making points on merit and instead makes it personal, you've won the argument. It's ok to have different opinions, it's not ok to abuse and bully others.

 

[Forzaport]

Unlike calling the other side "deranged", which is obviously not an ad hominem attack because it's hidden in an acronym.

JFCTWYCH.

Am I not allowed to defend myself from bullying?

 

[raman]

Am I not allowed to defend myself from bullying?

Is that what that was?

For my part I couldn't care less about slurs aimed in my direction (only the truth hurts, after all), but I think I've identified a pretty clear instance of hypocrisy: TDS has been used by you and others, and it's a slur in both intent and effect.

 

[Forzaport]

Is that what that was?

For my part I couldn't care less about slurs aimed in my direction (only the truth hurts, after all), but I think I've identified a pretty clear instance of hypocrisy: TDS has been used by you and others, and it's a slur in both intent and effect.

Do you have any desire to acknowledge or respond to your bullying behaviour?

 

[raman]

Do you have any desire to acknowledge or respond to your bullying behaviour?

About as much as you have a desire to confront the fact that you have failed to parse your dual roles as conversation participant and moderator in this thread. You could make the claim that you haven't failed, were the rules the same for all. But they're not, viz the instance of hypocrisy with regard to ad hominems, noted above.

 

[Grave Danger]

It's no surprise that this thread is toxic.

 

[Peck]

Ok. Someone who defends the policy of putting children in cages is reprehensible. That's a reasonable statement but here's a challenge: to understand the other side, are you able to think of a situation where putting a child in a cage would be a good thing?

As soon as you claim that someone "thinks" something, that's mind reading. The only exception to the rule if that someone has literally said "I'm thinking...." Once you know to look for it, you'll be amazed how often it comes up on news panels, opinion pieces, etc. A world full of mind readers. If you get out of that habit, your arguments will become much, much stronger.

This is pointless pedantry dude, I wasn't arguing with anyone. I was labelling a group of people as bad actors, if you needed further proof as to why they are bad actors that's great but suggesting that someone THINKS something is not mind reading unless you cannot back it up with evidence.

Fair enough, that's between you and StrappingTape.

No his card carrying racism, climate-change denial and absurd definition of fact are his issues, and I will gladly point them out to anyone who is unfortunate enough to argue with him. This is simply so that people are aware he is almost always arguing in bad faith. After that what they choose to do is up to them.

It's been my personal experience. You don't have to go far to see it - I've copped multiple personal attacks in this thread and earlier for posting on US politics. I'm not saying this is exclusive to the left, the right are usually just as guilty when they're out of power. It's universal though, if anyone you are arguing with stops making points on merit and instead makes it personal, you've won the argument. It's ok to have different opinions, it's not ok to abuse and bully others.

If you went through this thread you would find that well over 50% of the "personal attacks" are coming from right wingers. But 100% of the offended about personal attacks will come from right wingers, what that means I'll allow you to speculate on.

 

[Forzaport]

This is pointless pedantry dude, I wasn't arguing with anyone. I was labelling a group of people as bad actors, if you needed further proof as to why they are bad actors that's great but suggesting that someone THINKS something is not mind reading unless you cannot back it up with evidence.

Suggesting someone thinks something without knowing their inner thoughts is literally mind reading.

 

[Teal Plums]

In before thread title updated to be The Trump Presidency *Right Wingers Only*