The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

"What should I believe?" Options
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Saturday, February 8, 2020 5:22:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 811
Neurons: 1,243,413
Here's a gem from Craigslist that needed preserving. This is clearly sardonic.



Quote:
"I believe the President, and in the President.

I believe the Senate is right to acquit the president. I believe a fair trial is one with no witnesses, and that the trial was therefore fair. I believe the House was unfair because it found evidence against him. I believe that if the president does something that he believes will get himself reelected, that’s in the public interest and can’t be the kind of thing that results in impeachment.

I believe former national security adviser John Bolton has no relevant testimony because he didn’t leave the White House on good terms.

I believe the president’s call was perfect. I believe he is deeply concerned about corruption in Ukraine. I believe the president can find Ukraine on a map.

I believe Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election, and that the intelligence community’s suggestion otherwise is a Deep State lie. I believe the Democratic National Committee server is in Ukraine, where CrowdStrike hid it.

I believe President Barack Obama placed a “tapp” on the president’s phones in 2016, and that the Russia investigation was a plot to keep him from winning, even though the plotters didn’t think he could win.

I believe former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was conflicted because he quit one of the president’s golf clubs, and that he and his Angry Democrats conducted a Witch Hunt to destroy the president. But I believe Mueller’s report totally exonerated the president, because it found no collusion and no obstruction.

I believe it would be okay for the president to say he grabs women by their p-----s, because he is a star, and stars are allowed to do that. But I believe he didn’t say that, even though he apologized for it, because I believe the “Access Hollywood” tape was doctored, because he said it was.

I believe E. Jean Carroll lied when she accused the president of rape, because he said she’s not his type. I believe the dozens of other women who accused him of sexual misconduct are also lying, because he would never think of grabbing them by their p-----s or anything else.

I believe the president didn’t know Michael Cohen was paying off porn star Stormy Daniels, and that Cohen did it on his own, because the president had no reason to pay her off. I believe the president was reimbursing Cohen for his legal expertise.

I believe the president is a good Christian, because TV pastors say so, and that it’s okay he doesn’t ask for God’s forgiveness, because he doesn’t need to, since he’s the Chosen One. I believe the president knows the Bible, and that two Corinthians are better than one.

I believe the president wants to release his taxes but has not because he’s under audit, which is why he has fought all the way to the Supreme Court not to disclose them. I believe he will disclose them when the audit is over, and that they will show him to be as rich and honest as he says he is.

I believe the president is a very stable genius, and that he repeatedly tells us so because it’s true.

I believe the president can spell. I believe any spelling mistakes he makes are because he’s a very busy man who doesn’t watch much TV, or because he’s intentionally triggering the libs.

I believe Hurricane Dorian was headed straight for Alabama. I believe the president’s map wasn’t altered with a Sharpie, and that if it was, he didn’t do it, since he didn’t need to because he was right.

I believe the president didn’t call Apple’s CEO “Tim Apple,” and that he said “Tim Cook of Apple” really, really fast, but that if he did say “Tim Apple,” it was to save words, which he always tries to do.

I believe windmills are bad and cause cancer. I believe there was a mass shooting in Toledo and that there were airports during the Revolution, because the president said so.

I believe the president is defeating socialism, despite the subsidies he’s paying to save farmers from his protectionism and the $3.2 trillion he’s added to the national debt during his term.

I believe the president has made tremendous progress building the wall, that Mexico paid for it in the trade deal, that the wall will soon run from San Diego to the Gulf of Mexico, that it will stop those caravans cold, and that it won’t fall down.

I believe the president has a 95 percent approval rating among Republicans, and that there’s no need to cite polls for that.

I believe the president had the largest inaugural crowd ever, regardless of what any photos from liberal bureaucrats might show.

I believe there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.

I believe China pays all tariffs levied on imported Chinese goods.

I believe the president is truthful. I believe the Fake News media lied each of the 16,241 times they have said he has made a false or misleading claim.

I believe the president is selfless, and always puts the nation’s interests first. I believe he isn’t a narcissist, but he’d be entitled to be one if he were one. I believe the president would never exercise his presidential powers to advance his personal interests, but if he did, that would be okay, because whatever is in his personal interests is necessarily in the nation’s interests as well.

I believe Article II of the Constitution gives the president the right to do whatever he wants."
Romany
Posted: Saturday, February 8, 2020 7:29:48 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 16,594
Neurons: 52,651
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

The sad thing is this should be funny. It would be in other circumstances.

But it's just desperately sad.

As we all know, these are exactly what people who support Trump actually DO believe (or insist that they believe). These are the ridiculous, illogical ways of thinking we've all been abused for not sharing by posters here on TFD.

All three of whom have probably read this entire list without cracking a single smile and then concluded it neatly sums up their whole life ethos.

Jesus wept!
thar
Posted: Sunday, February 9, 2020 9:28:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 21,386
Neurons: 86,423
D Grouch - I don't know if you access the BBC but this is an outsider's view.
It is pretty much what I think a lot of people are thinking about the latest developments, although of course with more factual background than most have.

Of course every article comes with a viewpoint, but the BBC does obsess about being fair.
For anyone reading this predisposed to 'know' it is all lies and Democrat propaganda (although I don't imagine they will bother to read this thread), I will put his bio underneath to show he
1) knows what he is talking about
And
2) knows how to be a responsible journalist.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51417722

Quote:
Trump impeachment trial: Is US politics beyond the point of repair?
Nick Bryant
New York correspondent

The new decade in American politics has started with a hangover that keeps on getting worse - a quickening of the downward democratic spiral we have witnessed over the past 30 years.

So much of what has gone awry has been resident in the trial of Donald Trump.

The partisan vitriol. The degradation of debate. The use of what were previously rarely used weapons - in this instance impeachment - to escalate America's ceaseless political war.

This sorry saga has offered yet more proof that, far from being an aberration, the Trump era is a culmination.

The hyperpartisanship of Republicans and Democrats has been evident in the party-line votes to impeach and acquit. The coarseness and ugliness of political discourse we have heard every day, which prompted the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Robert to tell both sides to dial back the rhetoric.

Again we have witnessed the negative statecraft of Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who used parliamentary procedures to bar witnesses from even appearing in the trial - a case, historians may well conclude, of jurors actively obstructing justice. McConnell managed to block Barack Obama's final Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, for almost a year. In preventing the Democratic House managers from calling witnesses, such as the former National Security Advisor John Bolton who could have completely blown up the president's defence, he hardly broke sweat.

In their rush to impeach Donald Trump, the Democrats also decided not to fight a lengthy court battle for the right to hear testimony from Bolton and other White House aides. This opened them up to the criticism that the process was a naked political play rather than a grave constitutional undertaking.

Constantly it is remarked upon how Trump has departed from the norms of presidential behaviour, but one of the main effects of these past three years has been to destroy the shared sense of what those norms should be. As the impeachment trial underscored, Washington cannot even agree on what constitutes right and wrong. Following his acquittal, Donald Trump has claimed a Pyrrhic victory, but there is no doubt about the loser: the country he leads and has helped divide.

In some ways, the impeachment of Trump has felt like a presidential version of the OJ Simpson trial, with all the attendant media hoopla and spin albeit without the same viewing figures or suspense. Just as OJ appealed to the racial allegiance of African-American jury members, one of whom made a Black Power salute after the not guilty verdict was announced in court, Trump has relied on the partisan allegiance of obedient Republicans.

Just as OJ's legal team railed against the Los Angeles Police Department and its rogue officer, Mark Fuhrman, Trump has complained about the Democratic "dirty cops" led by the former California prosecutor Adam "Shifty" Schiff. As with "The Juice" so with "The Donald": the facts of the case have ultimately been secondary to the feelings aroused by it. It has turned on the question of whose side are you on?


The president's "Read the transcript" mantra even had echoes of the OJ defence team's "If it doesn't fit then you must acquit" description of that bloodied black glove: a successful attempt to turn the most damning evidence into the most exculpatory. Democrats have complained that the Republicans have turned the Senate into Fifth Avenue, the place where Trump once boasted he could shoot someone without losing any support. Historians may well agree.

Trump's victory rally in the East Room of the White House the morning after his acquittal, where Republican jurors stood to applaud, may well come to be seen as a definitive moment - when the party of Reagan truly became the party of Trump. Senators from the Grand Old Party, the GOP, have now clicked on the terms and conditions of the Trump presidency after examining for three years the fine print. They have fallen into line. Many have become his spear-carriers. Striking, too, was how the Attorney General, William Barr, got up from his seat at the event to clap and salute Trump's legal team, suggesting the wall that should exist between prosecutors at the Justice Department and political operatives at the White House has been flattened.


So the East Room revelry felt like the crowning moment in the fifth wave of Republican radicalisation. After Goldwaterism in the mid-Sixties, Reaganism in the Eighties, Gingrichism in the Nineties and the Tea Party in Noughties, this was the triumph of Trumpism. His first tweet after his acquittal drove home this point - an animation of election placards reading Trump 2020, Trump 2024, Trump 2028, etc, etc, an age of Trump stretching endlessly into the future.

Only one Republican senator refused to play the partisan game by voting for removal. Mitt Romney's tearful speech sounded also like a death cry of moderate Republicanism. The irony here, of course, is that the rise of Trump in 2016 was partly in reaction to Romney's presidential candidacy in 2012.

The conservative movement was adamant that it would not be led by an establishment favourite, like Romney, again. Another irony is that on the night Romney sealed the Republican nomination in 2012, after victory in the Texas primary, Romney stood alongside Trump at his casino in Las Vegas. This came at the height of the birther scandal, and showed that even moderates such as Romney were being forced to embrace the kind of nativism that Trump had come to represent.

Who would have thought that eight years on Senator Romney would be voting for the removal of President Trump? Who would have thought the Never Trumpers would become so slavishly loyal, cowed by the president's Twitter feed and cult-like personal support from his red-capped followers who throng his rallies.

The State of the Union address on Tuesday night showed how toxic the air in Washington has become, from the refusal of Donald Trump to shake Nancy Pelosi's hand ahead of his address to her ripping up of his speech afterwards. Never before have we seen such a breakdown of basic decorum, or, in modern times, the hatred it betrayed.

For me, though, the moment that encapsulated the era came when Trump awarded the presidential medal of freedom to the conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh. The right-wing talk show host is a high priest of polarisation. Few conservatives have done more to pave the way for Donald Trump. With that primetime ceremonial, the president revealed the chronic state of America's disunion.


Faced with a demographic death spiral in recent decades, the Republican Party has been masterful at accruing power when the ethnic make-up of America increasingly favours the Democrats. This it has done by maximising turnout among its mainly white base, by trying to suppress turnout amongst minority voters, and by using its success at the state level to gerrymander congressional districts.

The Senate's rural bias, where a small red state such as North Dakota wields the same power as a blue state behemoth such as California, has helped a minority party that has lost the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections remain in the majority. In the impeachment trial, the 48 Senators who voted to convict represent 18 million more people than the 52 who voted to acquit.

A conservative-leaning Supreme Court has offered vital assistance, with rulings such as Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for a torrent of dark campaign money from billionaire plutocrats, and Shelby County which invalidated much of the 1965 Votings Rights Act, the landmark legislation which did so much to boost black enfranchisement.

What the Trump presidency has shown is the lengths the Republican Party has been prepared to go with this win-at-all-costs ethos. Party leaders have expressed little outrage over Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election.

In voting for acquittal, they decided to give Donald Trump a pass in trading US military aid to Ukraine for political dirt on his Democratic rival Joe Biden.


In congratulating Mitch McConnell in the East Room pep rally, the president revealed why so many Republicans have been prepared to support Trump, whatever the moral outlay. He singled out the number of right-wing judges that McConnell has been able to confirm in the Senate, which will make the federal judiciary more conservative for decades to come. That, for conservatives, is a massive metric of success.

Election years can be times of national renewal. One thinks of the Reagan landslide in 1984, when he campaigned on the ringing theme of It's Morning Again in America and carried 49 states, or Barack Obama's victory in 2008, with its audacity of hope.

But the chaos of caucus night in Iowa has reminded us again of the country's democratic decay. Even the mechanics of democracy no longer seem to work any more, a problem highlighted in the disputed 2000 election that has not yet been fixed.

On Tuesday night, we witnessed American polarisation play out in real time. During the impeachment trial it often seemed that the very idea - and ideals - of America was on the stand.

A broken politics, a broken democracy, a broken country.

Is the United States beyond the point of repair?



Personally, I do give Americans more credit, and think they will be able to see through this. Believe that they can have prosperity without hate and dishonour - the two are not an inevitable package deal. But it will be a decades, if not a lifetime, before anyone looks on America again as the democratic model it likes to think it is.
Quote:
Downloads

Nick Bryant is the BBC's New York correspondent. Before that he was posted in Washington, Delhi and Sydney.One of the BBC's most senior correspondents he's reported from the White House, the Kremlin, Downing Street, Afghanistan,the Korean Peninsula, Rwanda, the Middle East and the UN.

He has a history degree from Cambridge and a PhD in American politics from Oxford.


FounDit
Posted: Sunday, February 9, 2020 11:19:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,767
Neurons: 62,513
I hesitated to read this, and didn't for a day, for I suspected it was filled with garbage. I was right. This is some of the silliest stuff I've read in a while, and yet will be swallowed whole by haters of the President as gospel.

The list of items from Craigslist is in places, comical, as is the article from the BBC, by Nick Bryant. He shouldn't call himself a journalist because his article is filled with half-truths and, in places, outright falsehoods.

But opinions, accusations, lies and propaganda are what passes for journalism nowadays. And quoting fools is likened to evidence and truth.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, February 10, 2020 2:15:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,126
Neurons: 617,434
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
thar wrote:
For anyone reading this predisposed to 'know' it is all lies and Democrat propaganda (although I don't imagine they will bother to read this thread), [...]


FounDit wrote:
I hesitated to read this, and didn't for a day, for I suspected it was filled with garbage. I was right.


Ah, to be proven right so quickly.
jj.smith
Posted: Monday, February 10, 2020 7:47:56 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/26/2016
Posts: 28
Neurons: 14,818
donny john either asks his supporters to believe these things or ignore them and pretend that the pile of dirt that's been swept under the rug, which has gotten so big you have to walk around it, isn't there.
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:15:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,767
Neurons: 62,513
Lotje1000 wrote:
thar wrote:
For anyone reading this predisposed to 'know' it is all lies and Democrat propaganda (although I don't imagine they will bother to read this thread), [...]


FounDit wrote:
I hesitated to read this, and didn't for a day, for I suspected it was filled with garbage. I was right.


Ah, to be proven right so quickly.


I know! It's so pleasant to see you all provide all the proof needed. Thanks.
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 2:03:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,126
Neurons: 617,434
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
thar wrote:
For anyone reading this predisposed to 'know' it is all lies and Democrat propaganda (although I don't imagine they will bother to read this thread), [...]


FounDit wrote:
I hesitated to read this, and didn't for a day, for I suspected it was filled with garbage. I was right.


Ah, to be proven right so quickly.


I know! It's so pleasant to see you all provide all the proof needed. Thanks.


No worries, we know you have a hard time finding facts on your own!
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 11:34:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,767
Neurons: 62,513
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
thar wrote:
For anyone reading this predisposed to 'know' it is all lies and Democrat propaganda (although I don't imagine they will bother to read this thread), [...]


FounDit wrote:
I hesitated to read this, and didn't for a day, for I suspected it was filled with garbage. I was right.


Ah, to be proven right so quickly.


I know! It's so pleasant to see you all provide all the proof needed. Thanks.


No worries, we know you have a hard time finding facts on your own!


One does have to put in some effort if one hasn't lived long enough to see the facts, as I have. But garbage is easy to find, and takes no effort to believe or accept. It's posted here on a near daily basis, such as this OP...Dancing
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, February 13, 2020 1:53:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,126
Neurons: 617,434
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Age is no guarantee of maturity.
- Lawana Blackwell.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, February 13, 2020 9:11:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,014
Neurons: 51,614
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Oscar D. Grouch wrote:
Here's a gem from Craigslist that needed preserving. This is clearly sardonic.



Quote:
"I believe the President, and in the President.

I believe the Senate is right to acquit the president. I believe a fair trial is one with no witnesses, and that the trial was therefore fair. I believe the House was unfair because it found evidence against him. I believe that if the president does something that he believes will get himself reelected, that’s in the public interest and can’t be the kind of thing that results in impeachment.

I believe former national security adviser John Bolton has no relevant testimony because he didn’t leave the White House on good terms.

I believe the president’s call was perfect. I believe he is deeply concerned about corruption in Ukraine. I believe the president can find Ukraine on a map.

I believe Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election, and that the intelligence community’s suggestion otherwise is a Deep State lie. I believe the Democratic National Committee server is in Ukraine, where CrowdStrike hid it.

I believe President Barack Obama placed a “tapp” on the president’s phones in 2016, and that the Russia investigation was a plot to keep him from winning, even though the plotters didn’t think he could win.

I believe former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was conflicted because he quit one of the president’s golf clubs, and that he and his Angry Democrats conducted a Witch Hunt to destroy the president. But I believe Mueller’s report totally exonerated the president, because it found no collusion and no obstruction.

I believe it would be okay for the president to say he grabs women by their p-----s, because he is a star, and stars are allowed to do that. But I believe he didn’t say that, even though he apologized for it, because I believe the “Access Hollywood” tape was doctored, because he said it was.

I believe E. Jean Carroll lied when she accused the president of rape, because he said she’s not his type. I believe the dozens of other women who accused him of sexual misconduct are also lying, because he would never think of grabbing them by their p-----s or anything else.

I believe the president didn’t know Michael Cohen was paying off porn star Stormy Daniels, and that Cohen did it on his own, because the president had no reason to pay her off. I believe the president was reimbursing Cohen for his legal expertise.

I believe the president is a good Christian, because TV pastors say so, and that it’s okay he doesn’t ask for God’s forgiveness, because he doesn’t need to, since he’s the Chosen One. I believe the president knows the Bible, and that two Corinthians are better than one.

I believe the president wants to release his taxes but has not because he’s under audit, which is why he has fought all the way to the Supreme Court not to disclose them. I believe he will disclose them when the audit is over, and that they will show him to be as rich and honest as he says he is.

I believe the president is a very stable genius, and that he repeatedly tells us so because it’s true.

I believe the president can spell. I believe any spelling mistakes he makes are because he’s a very busy man who doesn’t watch much TV, or because he’s intentionally triggering the libs.

I believe Hurricane Dorian was headed straight for Alabama. I believe the president’s map wasn’t altered with a Sharpie, and that if it was, he didn’t do it, since he didn’t need to because he was right.

I believe the president didn’t call Apple’s CEO “Tim Apple,” and that he said “Tim Cook of Apple” really, really fast, but that if he did say “Tim Apple,” it was to save words, which he always tries to do.

I believe windmills are bad and cause cancer. I believe there was a mass shooting in Toledo and that there were airports during the Revolution, because the president said so.

I believe the president is defeating socialism, despite the subsidies he’s paying to save farmers from his protectionism and the $3.2 trillion he’s added to the national debt during his term.

I believe the president has made tremendous progress building the wall, that Mexico paid for it in the trade deal, that the wall will soon run from San Diego to the Gulf of Mexico, that it will stop those caravans cold, and that it won’t fall down.

I believe the president has a 95 percent approval rating among Republicans, and that there’s no need to cite polls for that.

I believe the president had the largest inaugural crowd ever, regardless of what any photos from liberal bureaucrats might show.

I believe there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.

I believe China pays all tariffs levied on imported Chinese goods.

I believe the president is truthful. I believe the Fake News media lied each of the 16,241 times they have said he has made a false or misleading claim.

I believe the president is selfless, and always puts the nation’s interests first. I believe he isn’t a narcissist, but he’d be entitled to be one if he were one. I believe the president would never exercise his presidential powers to advance his personal interests, but if he did, that would be okay, because whatever is in his personal interests is necessarily in the nation’s interests as well.

I believe Article II of the Constitution gives the president the right to do whatever he wants."


FD, if this OP is garbage and you don’t believe all the above assertions, how DO you rationalize all the facts listed here as to Trump's and the GOP behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour? Point by point.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, February 13, 2020 11:30:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,767
Neurons: 62,513
Hope123 wrote:
FD, if this OP is garbage and you don’t believe all the above assertions, how DO you rationalize all the facts listed here as to Trump's and the GOP behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour? Point by point.


There is no need to rationalize facts. But what has been posted here is opinion. Notice the OP is nothing but “I believe”.

The article thar posted was prefaced with him admitting that, “Of course every article comes with a viewpoint”, then attempts to invalidate that truth by stating the writer is a journalist with a bio, as if this makes him immune to bias. It certainly does not since he clearly states his opinion in most of his points, or assigns a characterization to each point from his own opinions. And knowing how to be a responsible journalist and actually being a responsible journalist is two completely different things.

Again, facts don’t need to be rationalized; they are the truth. Opinions quite often are not.






Romany
Posted: Thursday, February 13, 2020 2:46:11 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 16,594
Neurons: 52,651
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Hope - the point about cognitive dissonance is that one CAN'T rationalise: the very meaning of "cognitive dissonance" describes the ILLOGICAL holding of two directly contradictory points of view. It's because of the lack of logicality that CD is described as a "condition" - the stress and "wrongness" of holding conflicting viewpoints is impossible to sustain - thousands of years of development through recognising the connectedness (or logic) of life has ill-equipped homo sapiens for reversing or abolishing this capability.

It's this pressure which steams up and escapes as anger, vilification, violence and revenge.

In posts such as the OP, which unarguably presents evidence of the cognitive dissonance required to support the current US President, those without the tools to recognise the irrationality of claiming personal morality and respect, while supporting the immorality of absence of respect demonstrated by their icons and leaders, have no choice but to reject reality.

Just as Foundit has no course other than to cry "Garbage" here.Having backed himself, publicly, into a corner where, in order to voice his point, he has to deny any faults, blemishes, mistakes, misunderstandings, lack of esteemable qualities, bad behaviour,bad judgement, etc. in either himself, his icon, or those who support and enable his icon.

An unachievable task obviously, as humans are fallible, and none of us walk the world with no imperfections. To solve this dichotomy a sector of Trump supporters have now had no recourse other than to declare the President of the USA to BE the only other person to be without fault on this earth (as their belief dictates): or at least to be his emissary.

Those who find this one step too far, adrift in an unreal world-view, have no recourse but to resort to the only other tools with which they are familiar: absolute denial, gratuitous insult, or manufactured scorn. To help in these tasks a template is churned out incessantly which considers that flat denial and the usage of certain words (inclusive of the obligatory "vile", "hate-filled", "venom", "spew"), thrown together in any order, constitutes an argument to defend one's position.

When these fail the big guns of manufactured scorn are finally brought in and shoot out acronyum bullets which are designed to completely cow victims into disregarding the fact that they are at the receiving end of behaviour most people were discouraged from using during Primary school.

Each time he's been ask to actually formulate a defence of some kind for the loutish, illegal, immoral, boorish, dishonourable things Trump and his enablers have themselves admitted they have done; his only recourse is: DENY, INSULT, or ROFL.

Responding directly is merely to bring out the same 3 responses, the same tired vocabulary, the same formulaic insults, and cut n' paste "thoughts".

If FD were capable of objective, independent, exchange he would have demonstrated it before now. He's never done so - ergo engaging him is never going to result in any different schemas - ...yet another chance to air views, ideas, untruths which have all been refuted but of which he will never allow himself to be divested.

Even the cruelest person has, eventually, to stop beating this well-known 'dead horse.' It's never going to come back to life.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, February 14, 2020 1:38:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,767
Neurons: 62,513
Romany,

Thank you. It's flattering to know that, rather than discussing the garbage posted in the OP, you put so much time and effort into thinking about me, awwww, shucks...Angel
FounDit
Posted: Friday, February 14, 2020 1:39:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,767
Neurons: 62,513
Lotje1000 wrote:
Age is no guarantee of maturity.
- Lawana Blackwell.


But no one can make it to maturity without it...Dancing
Hope123
Posted: Friday, February 14, 2020 11:47:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,014
Neurons: 51,614
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
FD, if this OP is garbage and you don’t believe all the above assertions, how DO you rationalize all the facts listed here as to Trump's and the GOP behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour? Point by point.


There is no need to rationalize facts. But what has been posted here is opinion. Notice the OP is nothing but “I believe”.....

Again, facts don’t need to be rationalized; they are the truth. Opinions quite often are not.


FD,

You just told me what I already knew - that this satirical piece is an opinion starting with I believe.

But every joke and every piece of satire has truth in it.

Here is just one example to show you what I meant about rationalizing the facts of actual happenings. If you don't believe and call it garbage how this satirist pretended to rationalize the facts, then how do YOU rationalize them? You are an intelligent man. I was trying to get you to see the dissonance, the inconsistency, in a very emotional topic.

The fact is that there really was evidence - Trump even admitted it himself, there really was a “trial” when no witnesses were allowed, and the “jury” really did swear an oath but said on TV before the trial that Trump was not guilty.

(About the witnesses Monica Lewinsky said, “I should have been so lucky”.)

Is that really ok with you - you yourself deep down - no Republican/Trump rationalization or talking points - that whether he was guilty or not, there really was a s**t show, not a real trial, after he admitted he was guilty of something which the founders tried to protect the Republic from? You have always purported to respect the Founders and the Constitution.


Romany
Posted: Saturday, February 15, 2020 5:51:44 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 16,594
Neurons: 52,651
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom


Well done, FDApplause Applause

Answering with a joke immediately gets rid of the tension and brings the conversation back from it's downward spiral into anger or frustration.

Having a laugh is always better for one's health and mental state than nastiness.Dancing And amusing someone brings with it the warm fuzzies!Dancing
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, February 15, 2020 10:08:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,767
Neurons: 62,513
Hope123 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
FD, if this OP is garbage and you don’t believe all the above assertions, how DO you rationalize all the facts listed here as to Trump's and the GOP behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour? Point by point.


There is no need to rationalize facts. But what has been posted here is opinion. Notice the OP is nothing but “I believe”.....

Again, facts don’t need to be rationalized; they are the truth. Opinions quite often are not.


FD,

You just told me what I already knew - that this satirical piece is an opinion starting with I believe.

But every joke and every piece of satire has truth in it.
Not necessarily. And you are being generous, in my opinion, by calling this satire. To me, it is stupidity. I suspect it was written by a Trump hater to troll his supporters.

Here is just one example to show you what I meant about rationalizing the facts of actual happenings. If you don't believe and call it garbage how this satirist pretended to rationalize the facts, then how do YOU rationalize them? You are an intelligent man. I was trying to get you to see the dissonance, the inconsistency, in a very emotional topic.
I don't really care what someone on Craigslist posts about the President, regardless of his motives. Why should I have to rationalize them to you?

The fact is that there really was evidence - Trump even admitted it himself, there really was a “trial” when no witnesses were allowed, and the “jury” really did swear an oath but said on TV before the trial that Trump was not guilty.

(About the witnesses Monica Lewinsky said, “I should have been so lucky”.)

Is that really ok with you - you yourself deep down - no Republican/Trump rationalization or talking points - that whether he was guilty or not, there really was a s**t show, not a real trial, after he admitted he was guilty of something which the founders tried to protect the Republic from? You have always purported to respect the Founders and the Constitution.
I have no idea what you are talking about here, and it appears you have no idea how the impeachment process works.

The House brings in the witnesses, not the Senate. That they failed in their attempt does not put the responsibility on the Senate. The Senate is to examine what the House sends over, and judge from that - period. The Senate acquitted because there was no evidence of a crime committed. The whole thing was a political show and everyone there knows that. It's all about appearances.


FounDit
Posted: Saturday, February 15, 2020 10:10:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,767
Neurons: 62,513
Romany wrote:


Well done, FDApplause Applause

Answering with a joke immediately gets rid of the tension and brings the conversation back from it's downward spiral into anger or frustration.

Having a laugh is always better for one's health and mental state than nastiness.Dancing And amusing someone brings with it the warm fuzzies!Dancing


Glad you liked it. It had the effect I had hoped for then...Applause
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, February 15, 2020 11:36:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,014
Neurons: 51,614
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote: Why should I have to rationalize them to you?


You don't. It is of your own free will.

If you don't wish to explain your thinking so the rest of us can understand, then that is up to you.

FounDit wrote I have no idea what you are talking about here...

Ah so. That explains your thinking to me perfectly.

:::::

Putting all these points together explains what I was talking about.

Trump impeachment: A very simple guide https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39945744

1.The founders could not have been clearer: There should be no undue foreign influence in the internal affairs of the United States, especially in elections. And certainly, no president should be inviting it, especially for his personal gain. Through the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other writings and debates, the founders attempted to erect a solid framework—and a clear expectation—that would prevent this sort of corruption and abuse of power.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/news/2019/09/26/475114/founders-impeached-trump-ukraine-related-misconduct/

2. Trump issued a partial report of the phone call admitting that he asked the Ukraine to investigate Biden - his political opponent. Also,

There he was on the South Lawn of the White House publicly calling on Ukraine to investigate a campaign rival, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. There he was calling on China to go after Mr. Biden, too. There he was declaring that he would willingly take foreign help to win an election. And there he was back in 2016 calling on Russia, “if you’re listening,” to hack into Hillary Clinton’s email.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/us/politics/trump-videos-impeachment-trial.html

3. Emboldened after his impeachment acquittal, President Donald Trump now openly admits to sending his attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to find damaging information about his political opponents, even though he strongly denied it during the impeachment inquiry.


FounDit wrote: The House brings in the witnesses, not the Senate. That they failed in their attempt...

You are correct - I don't understand that with Trump's own testimony why a trial was even necessary. He admitted it. And
I don't understand why the testimony to the House was not enough for the Senate.

There were witnesses in the House and others refused to submit to subpoenas. Since when is it legal in the US to refuse to answer to a subpoena?

Quote below is from first link - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39945744

The acting ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, told the inquiry that Mr Trump had made the release of the military aid conditional on Ukraine opening an investigation into the Bidens' dealings. He also said there was "an irregular, informal channel of US policymaking" in the country more generally. The White House denied this was the case.
The president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was subpoenaed for documents relating to Ukraine. He has been central in pushing the allegations against the Bidens. Mr Pompeo has also been served with a subpoena.
But the most dramatic testimony came from Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union. He told Congress that he was working at the "express direction" of the president when pressure was put on Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Mr Sondland added that an offer of a White House visit for Ukraine's president was conditional on the country publicly announcing a probe.


I understand that the Dems are now going after him for the Emoluments Clause through the courts for the same offence.

Perhaps a good idea since the partial Senate is heavily weighted towards Republicans so that no matter the infraction they would never convict. However, he was impeached forever.

::

Trump on Saturday tweeted a New York Times article with a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote about going after the "king," quickly prompting the phrase "you are not a king" to trend on social media. :)






FounDit
Posted: Sunday, February 16, 2020 11:37:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,767
Neurons: 62,513
Hope123 wrote:
FounDit wrote: Why should I have to rationalize them to you?


You don't. It is of your own free will.

If you don't wish to explain your thinking so the rest of us can understand, then that is up to you.
But you demonstrate no desire to know the truth as evidenced by your dependence on newspaper articles and TV show hosts such as The View who clearly are biased by any objective standard.

The articles you link to below are just such examples.

FounDit wrote I have no idea what you are talking about here...

Ah so. That explains your thinking to me perfectly.

:::::

Putting all these points together explains what I was talking about.

Trump impeachment: A very simple guide https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39945744

1.The founders could not have been clearer: There should be no undue foreign influence in the internal affairs of the United States, especially in elections. And certainly, no president should be inviting it, especially for his personal gain. Through the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other writings and debates, the founders attempted to erect a solid framework—and a clear expectation—that would prevent this sort of corruption and abuse of power.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/news/2019/09/26/475114/founders-impeached-trump-ukraine-related-misconduct/
It is true the founders were concerned about undue influence in the internal affairs of the US, but the only persons who would be able to do so would primarily have been the king of England at the time. We had just revolted and won independence. It was thought, if you read the Federalist Papers and arguments at the time, that our President might be subject to bribery, extortion, or favors from the King of England. After all, not everyone in the colonies was in favor of leaving England.

2. Trump issued a partial report of the phone call admitting that he asked the Ukraine to investigate Biden - his political opponent. Also,
This is a mischaracterization of what actually happened. Trump referred to a Ukraine prosecutor who was reported to be very good, but was stopped by Joe Biden, who then went on to brag about it publicly. Most of us have seen the video of Biden doing just that. Biden Bragging

Page 4 of Transcribed call
President Zelensky agreed to all of this and said he would have his new prosecutor look into the corruption of the company mentioned (Burisma).

There he was on the South Lawn of the White House publicly calling on Ukraine to investigate a campaign rival, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. There he was calling on China to go after Mr. Biden, too. There he was declaring that he would willingly take foreign help to win an election. And there he was back in 2016 calling on Russia, “if you’re listening,” to hack into Hillary Clinton’s email.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/us/politics/trump-videos-impeachment-trial.html
This is complete mischaracterization (crap lies) from the New York Times. President Trump was asking President Zelensky for help in rooting out corruption that was publicly known, a request he had every right to make because of the Treaty we have with Ukraine, promoted and signed by Bill Clinton.

If we were to give Ukraine money as assistance, we have every right to make sure it isn't funneled into corruption, if at all possible.

3. Emboldened after his impeachment acquittal, President Donald Trump now openly admits to sending his attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to find damaging information about his political opponents, even though he strongly denied it during the impeachment inquiry.

Another mischaracterization (bald-faced lie). Giuliani has a great deal of experience in prosecuting corruption and was welcomed by Zelensky.

If you want to look for corruption in finding, or especially creating, damaging information on a political opponent, look no farther than Hillary Clinton and the DNC in its purchase of the phony Steele dossier from Russian sources and the lies sworn to in order to obtain FISA warrants to spy on and prosecute members of the Trump campaign. All of that is public knowledge and documented fact. But, of course, you won't.
Quote:
"The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation". End quote.

FounDit wrote: The House brings in the witnesses, not the Senate. That they failed in their attempt...

You are correct - I don't understand that with Trump's own testimony why a trial was even necessary. He admitted it. And
I don't understand why the testimony to the House was not enough for the Senate.
Because no crime has been committed and no evidence of any crime was presented. It was all a political show with no substance.

There were witnesses in the House and others refused to submit to subpoenas. Since when is it legal in the US to refuse to answer to a subpoena?
When the House of Representatives seeks to exceed its power under the division of powers in our Constitution. We have three branches of government. The Executive is not under the control of the House of Representatives. There has been a traditional working relationship between them, but there have also been times when Executive Privilege has been exerted, and permitted by the Supreme Court.

Quote below is from first link - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39945744

The acting ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, told the inquiry that Mr Trump had made the release of the military aid conditional on Ukraine opening an investigation into the Bidens' dealings. He also said there was "an irregular, informal channel of US policymaking" in the country more generally. The White House denied this was the case.
Personal opinion by Bill Taylor, not fact. The fact is that it was the Obama administration through Joe Biden who withheld aid on the condition of firing the prosecutor who was looking into the Burisma company, where Hunter Biden was on the Board of Directors drawing a fat sum of money for no expertise at all.

The president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was subpoenaed for documents relating to Ukraine. He has been central in pushing the allegations against the Bidens. Mr Pompeo has also been served with a subpoena.
But the most dramatic testimony came from Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union. He told Congress that he was working at the "express direction" of the president when pressure was put on Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Mr Sondland added that an offer of a White House visit for Ukraine's president was conditional on the country publicly announcing a probe.

Allegations by Sondland are not factually supported by evidence. The withholding of aid to Ukraine was being considered because of the known corruption existing, but it was decided to be released when President Zelensky promised to look into such corruption; again, in accordance with the treaty we have with Ukraine for just such a purpose.

I understand that the Dems are now going after him for the Emoluments Clause through the courts for the same offence.
More Kabuki theater. It's all the Democrats have anymore, since they failed to secure the White House.

Perhaps a good idea since the partial Senate is heavily weighted towards Republicans so that no matter the infraction they would never convict. However, he was impeached forever.
Sure. And I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I will happily sell to you.

::

Trump on Saturday tweeted a New York Times article with a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote about going after the "king," quickly prompting the phrase "you are not a king" to trend on social media. :)
Well, that's the problem with quoting such a foolish organ as The New York Times People take what is written there as serious stuff when it's just garbage, like this OP.

None of this will convince you, of course, because you have already demonstrated that your mind is made up - Obama a saint, Trump the devil. Okay. Moving on.

Ashwin Joshi
Posted: Sunday, February 16, 2020 12:11:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2016
Posts: 1,526
Neurons: 83,688
Location: Jandiāla Guru, Punjab, India
Is discussing politics here gonna solve any problem? Politicking is a dishy, dirty and selfish game. We, the commoners, go on discussing 'the shoulds' in the coziness of our drawing rooms, thinking I would have done better than the President, in case I was. Who bothers? But simultaneously, raising no protest is also an offense. A platform to make our voices listened should be invented. Revolutions do take birth. Let us strive.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, February 16, 2020 1:58:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,014
Neurons: 51,614
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote- and I fixed it for you None of this will convince you, of course, because you have already demonstrated that your mind is made up - Trump a saint, Obama the devil. Okay. Moving on.

BTW - The View is just an opinion show - don't believe I've ever used them as a serious news source, just opinion. I no longer watch it - fed up with all the US drama. That is exactly what all this is - a reality show staged by a president with experience in that field. Nor would I ever use Rupert Murdoch or Steve Bannon and their news sources as accurate either.

If you don't believe the New York Times on this little bit of “news” - just check Trump's own Twitter account where they got the quote.

Of course most of what Trump puts on Twitter is lies too, so I can see how that might convince you as a supporter - but nobody else.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.