- Time
- Post link
rational, point driven, debate discussion?
MTFBWY…A
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 39
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
deleted.
- Time
- Post link
False equivalency at its finest.
Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.
Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.
Hillary Clinton stole classified information, fled the country, and intentionally disseminated it to news organizations?
You consider their alleged crimes to be “just as illegal”. This is a false equivalency because 1) if Hillary were guilty, it would be of some form of negligence (willful or not), not treason, and 2) Hillary hasn’t been charged with a crime even after extensive FBI investigation, no matter how much you wish she had been.
False equivalency at its finest.
Only the lines you’ve connected in your mind could lead to such a conclusion.
Yeah, because I’m the only one crazy enough to believe that a politician could do something just as illegal as any normal person could do, LOL.
Did you try to misinterpret what he was saying? I don’t know where any of that came from.
Yes. This represents a pattern of behavior. I don’t know if it’s a debate tactic to shift the goalpost and therefore his argument or just an obtuse misreading of the facts.
How do you know it represents a behavior if you don’t even know whether it’s a debate tactic or an obtuse reading? We differ in opinion on their matter of guilt and this is what you come up with?
Your motivation is irrelevant. This is your debate style. We’ve all seen it before. You say something wonky, you get challenged, you claim to have meant something other than what you said, and you respond to any further challenges by claiming that the misunderstanding is on the challenger’s side. Whether it’s obtuse or gaslighting, both indicate willful misdirection.
And we don’t differ on their matter of guilt, we differ on the facts. Snowden intentionally disseminated classified material to unauthorized individuals for the purpose of leaking it to the public. Clinton used a private e-mail server that may or may not have exposed classified material to potential hacking. These simply aren’t the same crimes, wouldn’t receive the same charges, and wouldn’t carry the same sentences. And I’ll remind you again that the then-head of the FBI found Clinton to be negligent, but not criminally so.
We can have different opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.
My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts. He did not lie about breaking the law, she did. Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.
Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.
General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?
Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.
I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.
- Time
- Post link
Had a great meeting at CIA Headquarters yesterday, packed house, paid great respect to Wall, long standing ovations, amazing people. WIN!
Every word in this tweet is a bald-faced lie.
-The meeting clearly did not go well. It wasn’t even a meeting, it was a combination campaign event / bitch session.
-The house was packed because attendance was mandatory and Trump brought his staffers.
-He took a massive shit on the wall by spending the whole time bitching and lying.
-The clapping was from his staffers.
-The amazing people are the same people he’s been shitting on for months, including likening them to Nazis.
-SAD!
- Time
- Post link
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/wh-spokesman-gave-alternative-facts-inauguration-crowd-n710466
Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Donald Trump, said the White House press secretary gave “alternative facts” when he inaccurately described the inauguration crowd as “the largest ever” during his first appearance before the press this weekend.
Lies are now “alternative facts.”
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.
Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.
General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?
Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.
I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.
I saw your original response before you disappeared it.
You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.
You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.
😦
- Time
- Post link
D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.
But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.
Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.
Ok. What’s their education levels though?
Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?
Nearly half the D.C. population has a college degree. The violence and poverty levels are not on par with that number.
So, education aside, there are high levels of violence and poverty in Washington D.C.?
What do you consider high? I feel comfortable saying D.C. has high levels of education because they do (highest in the country). Is that the same for violence and poverty? Don’t know, but my point was obviously the rates will be higher there than in any old small town, USA.
Compare it to other similar cities.
What like
New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.
?
- Time
- Post link
Dom, was it warmer or colder in the Middle Ages?
- Time
- Post link
I have deleted a couple posts that were insulting and were probably a violation the new forum rules. I feel I should apologize for my conduct as of late. I’m sorry.
- Time
- Post link
D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.
But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.
In an earlier thread, you asked about this, and I answered by providing a long list of low crime, high standard of living cities that were primarily democratic. Of course you ignored it.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
- Time
- Post link
… so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done.
What has he done since taking office that you find impressive?
- Time
- Post link
D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.
But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.
In an earlier thread, you asked about this, and I answered by providing a long list of low crime, high standard of living cities that were primarily democratic. Of course you ignored it.
Which is why it’s pointless to answer his questions.
- Time
- Post link
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/wh-spokesman-gave-alternative-facts-inauguration-crowd-n710466
Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Donald Trump, said the White House press secretary gave “alternative facts” when he inaccurately described the inauguration crowd as “the largest ever” during his first appearance before the press this weekend.
Lies are now “alternative facts.”
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
I would’ve respected Trump so much more if he had just come out and said;
“It’s true, my inauguration was less attended than President Obama’s, and for a number of reasons. President Obama was a very popular figure, and his inauguration was a historic event. I have no illusions about my popularity, I’m aware that I’m controversial, and I believe that many of my supporters were afraid to attend because of the possibility of riots. Not even a mile away, rioters lit a limousine on fire…”
His ego will be his downfall.
- Time
- Post link
I know it’s going to be historic. The man is funny AND seems to be efficient. Obama had good speeches but without intelligent actions speeches are worthless, and so are Obama’s 8 years: worthless. He only brought more wars than Bush and let ISIS spread. So yeah, thanks Obama, really… won’t miss you…
Do you complain about your own country’s leaders this much?
Yep, and we took care of them:
- Nicolas Sarkozy lost the republican party caucus (I voted against him)
- his former foreign affairs minister Alain Juppé lost as well (I also voted against him)
- François Hollande is not going to run for office again
- his prime minister Manuel Valls is about to lose the socialist caucus
So it is “en route”: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primaire_citoyenne_de_2017
Almost “Manu tchao” on this one. Fourth on my list to be (almost) defeated even before the 2017 Presidential first round. We’ll have a bad president, but at least we won’t have the worst possible (and I don’t believe for a second that Marine Le Pen could win).
- Time
- Post link
I would’ve respected Trump so much more if he had just come out and said;
“It’s true, my inauguration was less attended than President Obama’s, and for a number of reasons. President Obama was a very popular figure, and his inauguration was a historic event. I have no illusions about my popularity, I’m aware that I’m controversial, and I believe that many of my supporters were afraid to attend because of the possibility of riots. Not even a mile away, rioters lit a limousine on fire…”
His ego will be his downfall.
Wow, that’s a hundred times more eloquent than Trump has ever been.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
- Time
- Post link
I would’ve respected Trump so much more if he had just come out and said;
“It’s true, my inauguration was less attended than President Obama’s, and for a number of reasons. President Obama was a very popular figure, and his inauguration was a historic event. I have no illusions about my popularity, I’m aware that I’m controversial, and I believe that many of my supporters were afraid to attend because of the possibility of riots. Not even a mile away, rioters lit a limousine on fire…”
His ego will be his downfall.
Wow, that’s a hundred times more eloquent than Trump has ever been or ever can be.
ITFY
- Time
- Post link
I would’ve respected Trump so much more if he had just come out and said;
“It’s true, my inauguration was less attended than President Obama’s, and for a number of reasons. President Obama was a very popular figure, and his inauguration was a historic event. I have no illusions about my popularity, I’m aware that I’m controversial, and I believe that many of my supporters were afraid to attend because of the possibility of riots. Not even a mile away, rioters lit a limousine on fire…”
His ego will be his downfall.
Wow, that’s a hundred times more eloquent than Trump has ever been or ever can be.
ITFY
Indeed you did.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Trump has had so many chances for graciousness yet hasn’t taken advantage of any of them. He’s just an asshole, plain and simple, nothing’s going to change that. Hard to respect him as the president if he doesn’t know or care about knowing the first about being presidential.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.
Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.
General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?
Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.
I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.
I saw your original response before you disappeared it.
You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.
You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.
I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.
We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.
The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.
Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.
MTFBWY…A
- Time
- Post link
Yay for unnecessary random swearing! Shitballs!
- Time
- Post link
Trump has had so many chances for graciousness yet hasn’t taken advantage of any of them. He’s just an asshole, plain and simple, nothing’s going to change that. Hard to respect him as the president if he doesn’t know or care about knowing the first about being presidential.
Trump is only gracious when the other party is gracious and strokes his ego first, which is the exact opposite of being gracious.
MTFBWY…A
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Meanwhile in the U.K.:
One leading climate expert accused the Government of “trying to sneak it out” without people noticing, saying he was “astonished” at the way its publication was handled.
In the report, the Government admitted there were a number of “urgent priorities” that needed to be addressed.
It said it largely agreed with experts’ warnings about the effects of climate change on the UK.
These included two “high-risk” issues: the damage expected to be caused by flooding and coastal erosion; and the effect of rising temperatures on people’s health.
The report concluded that the number of heat-related deaths in the UK “could more than double by the 2050s from a current baseline of around 2,000 per year”.
It said “urgent action” should be taken to address overheating in homes, public buildings and cities generally, and called for further research into the effect on workers’ productivity.
The Government also recognised that climate change “will present significant risks to the availability and supply of food in the UK”, the report said, partly because of extreme weather in some of the world’s main food-growing regions.
The report also said the public water supply could be affected by shortages and that the natural environment could be degraded.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
- Time
- Post link
My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.
Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.
General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?
Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.
I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.
I saw your original response before you disappeared it.
You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.
You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.
I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information
candidatepresident for low-information voters.We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.
The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.
Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.
Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?
As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.
So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.
This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.
Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?
😦