In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 10 2017 04:33 On_Slaught wrote: Trump said he wouldn't be against testifying under oath about Comey. Do it pleaseeeee!
I talked about that happening with someone yesterday, and both of us agreed it would be both hilarious and a complete disaster for Trump. When I heard he said he would today I actually laughed. Putting a pathological liar under oath is political suicide for that person. The probability of Trump NOT perjuring himself during such a hearing would be minuscule. He can't even get basic fact straight, let alone entire narratives relating to meetings with officials.
His entire statement would consist of the phrase "I can't tell you that."
On June 10 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote: Danglers point is that talking down to them won’t be effective in finding out why they voted for Trump. Or convincing them they might have made a mistake. But as he often does, Danglers, hurts his point by taking couple jabs at Democrats and liberals while making it.
Isn't that the overreaching tone towards Republicans? Sexist, blind, advocates of sexual assault. Posters will cheer the destruction of the religious right. And that's just in five pages. You're making your own poison here. I'm sure you'll claim this treatment is justified, just as I would at my pointed remarks. I accept the general atmosphere of debate here.
On June 10 2017 01:57 Danglars wrote: I think the best thing to do is criticize him for things that deserve criticism and applaud him for things that deserve praise. Calling his supporters blind is admitting to blindness yourself.
I used the words "blindly supporting", describing the action and not the person. And the primary person in the thread to which I was referring was you, "taking whatever good you could find". You're the one supporting a president and celebrating because he wasn't incriminated worse than he was yesterday, which was still pretty badly. There comes a point where someone just doesn't deserve to be defended anymore. What has he done that's positive that I'm supposed to applaud? I can give credit where it's due, but I don't see any.
Quote me celebrating. Contentment at the truth getting out is more like it.
You should pay more attention to people that also criticize the president. We certainly don't need any more denizens that demand hopping aboard the Trump hysteria bandwagon to prove they aren't blind. It's deciding the conclusion of Trump supporters and then seeking only angles that support your conclusion. You'll find yourself caught without terms for people that believe the president in everything he calls fake news, because you are a broad brush criticizer.
Enough harping on how awful I am for expressing my distaste for the president, I asked you a very specific question. What has president Trump actually accomplished, that should merit anything other than criticism and dismay? What should I be applauding? You seem to be upset that he's only garnering criticism here, but show me that he deserves anything else.
On June 10 2017 01:57 Danglars wrote: I think the best thing to do is criticize him for things that deserve criticism and applaud him for things that deserve praise. Calling his supporters blind is admitting to blindness yourself.
I used the words "blindly supporting", describing the action and not the person. And the primary person in the thread to which I was referring was you, "taking whatever good you could find". You're the one supporting a president and celebrating because he wasn't incriminated worse than he was yesterday, which was still pretty badly. There comes a point where someone just doesn't deserve to be defended anymore. What has he done that's positive that I'm supposed to applaud? I can give credit where it's due, but I don't see any.
Quote me celebrating. Contentment at the truth getting out is more like it.
You should pay more attention to people that also criticize the president. We certainly don't need any more denizens that demand hopping aboard the Trump hysteria bandwagon to prove they aren't blind. It's deciding the conclusion of Trump supporters and then seeking only angles that support your conclusion. You'll find yourself caught without terms for people that believe the president in everything he calls fake news, because you are a broad brush criticizer.
Just a day ago you linked a TEN_GOP tweet that was clearly 'fake news' and then never corrected the post or commented when I showed it was completely fake. You like to act as a beacon of reasonable discussion and then pull shit like that fairly consistently. Everyone fights bias and we're all hypocrites from time to time you just seem to completely ignore your own fairly often while admonishing others.
On June 10 2017 04:33 On_Slaught wrote: Trump said he wouldn't be against testifying under oath about Comey. Do it pleaseeeee!
I talked about that happening with someone yesterday, and both of us agreed it would be both hilarious and a complete disaster for Trump. When I heard he said he would today I actually laughed. Putting a pathological liar under oath is political suicide for that person. The probability of Trump NOT perjuring himself during such a hearing would be minuscule. He can't even get basic fact straight, let alone entire narratives relating to meetings with officials.
His entire statement would consist of the phrase "I can't tell you that."
That would only happen if the "Trump" testifying was a robot puppet controlled by someone else in the administration (maybe Pence). He doesn't have the filter necessary to go with "I can't tell you that" just like he wouldn't say "I can't recall" when it's optimal.
Put Trump under oath. Pick a random word from the dictionary. Have Trump talk about that word. Instant Perjury.
Guy cannot distinguish fact from fiction if he wanted. And if he could, he cannot keep himself from not lying. He lies when he does know the truth, and speaks falsehoods when he tries to be truthful, because he doesn't know what the facts say.
His advisors will never allow him to be put under oath, ever.
Well, I actually believe that his kids and close adviser(s) would take care of him a couple of days/weeks in advance to convince him of exactly how to behave. Because they are not as easily blinded by rage and pride as he is. I believe.
On June 10 2017 05:27 Ernaine wrote: Put Trump under oath. Pick a random word from the dictionary. Have Trump talk about that word. Instant Perjury.
Guy cannot distinguish fact from fiction if he wanted. And if he could, he cannot keep himself from not lying. He lies when he does know the truth, and speaks falsehoods when he tries to be truthful, because he doesn't know what the facts say.
His advisors will never allow him to be put under oath, ever.
Videos of trump when he is under deposition have him acting very differently. I don't think he'd perjure himself, but he would likely admit to some damaging things.
On June 10 2017 05:32 Nevuk wrote: Videos of trump when he is under deposition have him acting very differently. I don't think he'd perjure himself, but he would likely admit to some damaging things.
How old are the videos of that? I'm just wondering because he used to actually be a fairly decent speaker and seemed like an at least somewhat intelligent. His interviews were at least coherent and he could string together complete sentences.
The Trump of today is not like that. He can't finish a thought nor complete a sentence. He seems to have lost a great deal of self-control as well.
You are a bit right. I remember watching the golf course video. And surely I have to admit, Trump has a different mode which he can potentially enter.
But when it comes to Comey, he either lies, or admits he lied, or refuses to answer. Not lying isn't easy when truth is not on your side and you are in a desperate fight with someone who does.
But we also have to wonder what the presidency did to Trump's sanity so far.
On June 10 2017 06:09 Ernaine wrote: You are a bit right. I remember watching the golf course video. And surely I have to admit, Trump has a different mode which he can potentially enter.
But when it comes to Comey, he either lies, or admits he lied, or refuses to answer. Not lying isn't easy when truth is not on your side and you are in a desperate fight with someone who does.
But we also have to wonder what the presidency did to Trump's sanity so far.
I consider his weight, general health, diet and stressful lifestyle. Then I consider his age and wonder how long this can continue.
Just in case people missed it. Had to go find it to figure out what conference people were talking about.
Specifically linked the timestamp of him going off on not testifying under oath(right after being asked, and answering 100%), and then wordsalading his way out.
On June 10 2017 01:57 Danglars wrote: I think the best thing to do is criticize him for things that deserve criticism and applaud him for things that deserve praise. Calling his supporters blind is admitting to blindness yourself.
I used the words "blindly supporting", describing the action and not the person. And the primary person in the thread to which I was referring was you, "taking whatever good you could find". You're the one supporting a president and celebrating because he wasn't incriminated worse than he was yesterday, which was still pretty badly. There comes a point where someone just doesn't deserve to be defended anymore. What has he done that's positive that I'm supposed to applaud? I can give credit where it's due, but I don't see any.
Quote me celebrating. Contentment at the truth getting out is more like it.
You should pay more attention to people that also criticize the president. We certainly don't need any more denizens that demand hopping aboard the Trump hysteria bandwagon to prove they aren't blind. It's deciding the conclusion of Trump supporters and then seeking only angles that support your conclusion. You'll find yourself caught without terms for people that believe the president in everything he calls fake news, because you are a broad brush criticizer.
Enough harping on how awful I am for expressing my distaste for the president, I asked you a very specific question. What has president Trump actually accomplished, that should merit anything other than criticism and dismay? What should I be applauding? You seem to be upset that he's only garnering criticism here, but show me that he deserves anything else.
I put no onus on you to applaud; you may be as critical as you like of Trump. That's your right. I'm calling your attention to how carelessly you call others blind when you yourself exhibit blindness.
On June 09 2017 23:26 NewSunshine wrote: Honestly the biggest surprise for me is that people are sticking by Trump as a Republican. He's not a Republican, nor is he a politician, which by now is sufficiently evident. He ran his campaign as a Republican because he had to, owing to the overwhelming rigidity of our 2-party system. But he's not a Republican. Thus, seeing our Republican-filled government, as well as Republican supporters, unconditionally supporting him, even as he sinks further and further, makes no sense to me. They could easily abandon him and maintain partisan solidarity, if that's all they cared about.
Even in this thread you see people blindly supporting Trump because they think the alternative is some horrible Democrat. They think it's better to have "their guy" in office, and are elated that there wasn't some kind of smoking gun evidence presented yesterday, but that was never going to happen, it was just one person's testimony. And the fact that you care more about having Trump retain office, than actually having a credible and respectable leader in charge of our nation, is the most deeply sad fact of all.
Party before nation after all, it appears.
Wrong because people in this thread criticize him freely. Wrong because people here were asserting criminality without cause. Wrong because elections are how you change leaders, not false obstruction of justice.
When I look at the no-longer-confidential deposition from his 2007 case-you can see it here-he definitely did go on some similar tangents to his recent transcripts at times. They were a lot rarer, though, and overall there was fewer stops and sentence reboots compared to what we saw at e.g. the debates and various interviews.
There was a completely insane discussion about how his 30 percent stake in a partnership is really 50% on page 62-65, though, which would probably not work great if sworn in in front of the Senate. He does retreat into "I don't know" territory when it comes to meeting dates a lot, though.
There's also the fundamental problem that his administration can't decide why he fired Comey. So he still doesn't have a story to tell, even under oath.
On June 10 2017 01:57 Danglars wrote: I think the best thing to do is criticize him for things that deserve criticism and applaud him for things that deserve praise. Calling his supporters blind is admitting to blindness yourself.
I used the words "blindly supporting", describing the action and not the person. And the primary person in the thread to which I was referring was you, "taking whatever good you could find". You're the one supporting a president and celebrating because he wasn't incriminated worse than he was yesterday, which was still pretty badly. There comes a point where someone just doesn't deserve to be defended anymore. What has he done that's positive that I'm supposed to applaud? I can give credit where it's due, but I don't see any.
Quote me celebrating. Contentment at the truth getting out is more like it.
You should pay more attention to people that also criticize the president. We certainly don't need any more denizens that demand hopping aboard the Trump hysteria bandwagon to prove they aren't blind. It's deciding the conclusion of Trump supporters and then seeking only angles that support your conclusion. You'll find yourself caught without terms for people that believe the president in everything he calls fake news, because you are a broad brush criticizer.
Just a day ago you linked a TEN_GOP tweet that was clearly 'fake news' and then never corrected the post or commented when I showed it was completely fake. You like to act as a beacon of reasonable discussion and then pull shit like that fairly consistently. Everyone fights bias and we're all hypocrites from time to time you just seem to completely ignore your own fairly often while admonishing others.
They took it down and put it back up or you can show it was edited? In any case, I'm sorry for the confusion and of course my charge of motivation was totally incorrect.
On June 10 2017 01:57 Danglars wrote: I think the best thing to do is criticize him for things that deserve criticism and applaud him for things that deserve praise. Calling his supporters blind is admitting to blindness yourself.
I used the words "blindly supporting", describing the action and not the person. And the primary person in the thread to which I was referring was you, "taking whatever good you could find". You're the one supporting a president and celebrating because he wasn't incriminated worse than he was yesterday, which was still pretty badly. There comes a point where someone just doesn't deserve to be defended anymore. What has he done that's positive that I'm supposed to applaud? I can give credit where it's due, but I don't see any.
Quote me celebrating. Contentment at the truth getting out is more like it.
You should pay more attention to people that also criticize the president. We certainly don't need any more denizens that demand hopping aboard the Trump hysteria bandwagon to prove they aren't blind. It's deciding the conclusion of Trump supporters and then seeking only angles that support your conclusion. You'll find yourself caught without terms for people that believe the president in everything he calls fake news, because you are a broad brush criticizer.
Enough harping on how awful I am for expressing my distaste for the president, I asked you a very specific question. What has president Trump actually accomplished, that should merit anything other than criticism and dismay? What should I be applauding? You seem to be upset that he's only garnering criticism here, but show me that he deserves anything else.
I put no onus on you to applaud; you may be as critical as you like of Trump. That's your right. I'm calling your attention to how carelessly you call others blind when you yourself exhibit blindness.
I don't care how you feel about how I feel about Trump. Answer the question I asked, if you feel I am unjustly harsh on president Trump, if you feel I am ignoring accomplishments he has made. What are they? I welcome all additional information. Or continue to not answer me.
On June 10 2017 01:57 Danglars wrote: I think the best thing to do is criticize him for things that deserve criticism and applaud him for things that deserve praise. Calling his supporters blind is admitting to blindness yourself.
I used the words "blindly supporting", describing the action and not the person. And the primary person in the thread to which I was referring was you, "taking whatever good you could find". You're the one supporting a president and celebrating because he wasn't incriminated worse than he was yesterday, which was still pretty badly. There comes a point where someone just doesn't deserve to be defended anymore. What has he done that's positive that I'm supposed to applaud? I can give credit where it's due, but I don't see any.
Quote me celebrating. Contentment at the truth getting out is more like it.
You should pay more attention to people that also criticize the president. We certainly don't need any more denizens that demand hopping aboard the Trump hysteria bandwagon to prove they aren't blind. It's deciding the conclusion of Trump supporters and then seeking only angles that support your conclusion. You'll find yourself caught without terms for people that believe the president in everything he calls fake news, because you are a broad brush criticizer.
Enough harping on how awful I am for expressing my distaste for the president, I asked you a very specific question. What has president Trump actually accomplished, that should merit anything other than criticism and dismay? What should I be applauding? You seem to be upset that he's only garnering criticism here, but show me that he deserves anything else.
I put no onus on you to applaud; you may be as critical as you like of Trump. That's your right. I'm calling your attention to how carelessly you call others blind when you yourself exhibit blindness.
Maybe don’t do that? As other posters have pointed out, you do not always display the same level of critique of our sources or self review. But you seem very comfortable holding others to a higher standard. We can all stand to take it down a notch.
On June 10 2017 01:57 Danglars wrote: I think the best thing to do is criticize him for things that deserve criticism and applaud him for things that deserve praise. Calling his supporters blind is admitting to blindness yourself.
I used the words "blindly supporting", describing the action and not the person. And the primary person in the thread to which I was referring was you, "taking whatever good you could find". You're the one supporting a president and celebrating because he wasn't incriminated worse than he was yesterday, which was still pretty badly. There comes a point where someone just doesn't deserve to be defended anymore. What has he done that's positive that I'm supposed to applaud? I can give credit where it's due, but I don't see any.
Quote me celebrating. Contentment at the truth getting out is more like it.
You should pay more attention to people that also criticize the president. We certainly don't need any more denizens that demand hopping aboard the Trump hysteria bandwagon to prove they aren't blind. It's deciding the conclusion of Trump supporters and then seeking only angles that support your conclusion. You'll find yourself caught without terms for people that believe the president in everything he calls fake news, because you are a broad brush criticizer.
Enough harping on how awful I am for expressing my distaste for the president, I asked you a very specific question. What has president Trump actually accomplished, that should merit anything other than criticism and dismay? What should I be applauding? You seem to be upset that he's only garnering criticism here, but show me that he deserves anything else.
I put no onus on you to applaud; you may be as critical as you like of Trump. That's your right. I'm calling your attention to how carelessly you call others blind when you yourself exhibit blindness.
I don't care how you feel about how I feel about Trump. Answer the question I asked, if you feel I am unjustly harsh on president Trump, if you feel I am ignoring accomplishments he has made. What are they? I welcome all additional information. Or continue to not answer me.
Gorsuch. Gorsuch is such an enormous win. Voting for Trump was 100% justified as a conservative for the sake of the court.
On June 10 2017 01:57 Danglars wrote: I think the best thing to do is criticize him for things that deserve criticism and applaud him for things that deserve praise. Calling his supporters blind is admitting to blindness yourself.
I used the words "blindly supporting", describing the action and not the person. And the primary person in the thread to which I was referring was you, "taking whatever good you could find". You're the one supporting a president and celebrating because he wasn't incriminated worse than he was yesterday, which was still pretty badly. There comes a point where someone just doesn't deserve to be defended anymore. What has he done that's positive that I'm supposed to applaud? I can give credit where it's due, but I don't see any.
Quote me celebrating. Contentment at the truth getting out is more like it.
You should pay more attention to people that also criticize the president. We certainly don't need any more denizens that demand hopping aboard the Trump hysteria bandwagon to prove they aren't blind. It's deciding the conclusion of Trump supporters and then seeking only angles that support your conclusion. You'll find yourself caught without terms for people that believe the president in everything he calls fake news, because you are a broad brush criticizer.
Enough harping on how awful I am for expressing my distaste for the president, I asked you a very specific question. What has president Trump actually accomplished, that should merit anything other than criticism and dismay? What should I be applauding? You seem to be upset that he's only garnering criticism here, but show me that he deserves anything else.
I put no onus on you to applaud; you may be as critical as you like of Trump. That's your right. I'm calling your attention to how carelessly you call others blind when you yourself exhibit blindness.
I don't care how you feel about how I feel about Trump. Answer the question I asked, if you feel I am unjustly harsh on president Trump, if you feel I am ignoring accomplishments he has made. What are they? I welcome all additional information. Or continue to not answer me.
I applaud his nomination of Gorsuch. I applaud his move to take us out of the Paris agreement. I spent hours over a day explaining my reasoning on the second point. I already answered your second question in quoted. I would like to hear why you're so blind to myself and others criticizing Trump. You haven't a leg to stand on for your original accusation of blind Trump supporters. You've only shown you misread statutes and ignore evidence to the contrary to conclude this. I'm taken aback.
People need to ask themselves why they supported Clinton and realize a lot of people are in the same boat with Trump. Choosing the lesser of two evils doesn't mean you even somewhat like the candidate you chose. Clinton would have given me the court I wanted.
EPT
