Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 02:38

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 01:56

I think people tend to think by presenting their argument in the absolute extreme it will help reinforcing their points. But for me, it just make the argument weaker by making it losing creditably. Maybe that how it works for others, but this is how it works for me. You probably have noticed, my main source of "fun" in these posts and on the forum as a whole, whether it about Trump or other threads, is poking at things that were presented without a context. :)
I don't think it's to make a point. I think some people just want to be mad at President Trump. They want to see constant 100% negative coverage about everything he is involved in. They want him to fail no matter what it costs. They don't want to hear that he was right about anything or did anything good. They definitely don't want to hear the actual reasons people voted for him. You can't pierce those feelings with reason.
Who made that man a gunner?

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 03:06

Masterbagger wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 02:38
I don't think it's to make a point. I think some people just want to be mad at President Trump. They want to see constant 100% negative coverage about everything he is involved in. They want him to fail no matter what it costs. They don't want to hear that he was right about anything or did anything good.
Note that I'm not one to pick side, and in this argument I don't consider one is better then the others. The only reason I often appears to be coming from the Trump side simply due to the fact there are already plenty of voices on the other side. So I'm just doing my part as a counter weight to that, to provide context and reason so it isn't just a one sided bandwagon shows that's devoid of reasons. Like I often said, both side often exhibit the same faults. But while each side is extremely efficient at picking those faults from the other side, that efficiency is only matched but their own inability of recognizing their own faults.

I'm not a fan of Trump, and I'm not wishing for a Trump 2.0 in 2020.

But, here is one thing we can agree on:
They definitely don't want to hear the actual reasons people voted for him. You can't pierce those feelings with reason.
And that's the gist of the problem. Love him or hate him, Trump came to power for "reasons". Reasons that people don't want to admit or acknowledge. We don't even have to talk about whether Trump can actually solve any issues in the end, but the fact of the matter is he was elected because people believe he's about the only one who acknowledge to fix the problem, and so far, it appears he's trying. Again no one have a clue how things gonna turn out yet, but at the very least his base can see that he's trying, and that's already more than what can be said for most others who don't even want to acknowledge the problem. I don't want Trump in office, I want someone who are capable of fixing what Trump said he wants to fix, but in a more controllable and measured manner. But until said person arise, many will see Trump as their only option, and it's not hard to understand them. :sceptic:

It's rare for me to find something I can agree on CNN, but here is one:

Why Bruce Springsteen thinks Donald Trump is going to win in 2020

If you don't know who Bruce Springsteen is, that tittle can be misleading to you, for both sides of the fence. He's not one of Trump's cheer leader, in fact he probably hate Trump more than most of you here do, the guy performed at Obama's inauguration if that gives you an idea. But here he is, telling people Trump's 2020 prospect is almost assured. I guess the reason I like the article because here I find someone who think similarly to me. The article echo a lot of the same points I had repeatedly brought up in the last 2 years.

I know many of people here carry a certain impression about me for how often I came out on Trump defense, so here is an alternative example for you. You don't have to be a Trump's supporter to acknowledge other things about him, and the more you refuse to do so, the less chance you will have going up against him. :wink:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 04:44

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 03:06
Masterbagger wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 02:38
I don't think it's to make a point. I think some people just want to be mad at President Trump. They want to see constant 100% negative coverage about everything he is involved in. They want him to fail no matter what it costs. They don't want to hear that he was right about anything or did anything good.
Note that I'm not one to pick side, and in this argument I don't consider one is better then the others. The only reason I often appears to be coming from the Trump side simply due to the fact there are already plenty of voices on the other side. So I'm just doing my part as a counter weight to that, to provide context and reason so it isn't just a one sided bandwagon shows that's devoid of reasons. Like I often said, both side often exhibit the same faults. But while each side is extremely efficient at picking those faults from the other side, that efficiency is only matched but their own inability of recognizing their own faults.

I'm not a fan of Trump, and I'm not wishing for a Trump 2.0 in 2020.

But, here is one thing we can agree on:
They definitely don't want to hear the actual reasons people voted for him. You can't pierce those feelings with reason.
And that's the gist of the problem. Love him or hate him, Trump came to power for "reasons". Reasons that people don't want to admit or acknowledge. We don't even have to talk about whether Trump can actually solve any issues in the end, but the fact of the matter is he was elected because people believe he's about the only one who acknowledge to fix the problem, and so far, it appears he's trying. Like I said, no one have a clue how things gonna turn out yet, but at the very least his base can see that he's trying, and that's already more than what can be said for most others who don't even want to acknowledge the problem. I don't want Trump in office, I want someone who are capable of fixing what Trump said he wants to fix, but in a more controllable and measured manner. But until said person arise, many will see Trump as their only option, and it's not hard to understand them. :sceptic:

It's rare for me to find something I can agree on CNN, but here is one:

Why Bruce Springsteen thinks Donald Trump is going to win in 2020

If you don't know who Bruce Springsteen is, that tittle can be misleading to you, for both sides of the fence. He's not one of Trump's cheer leader, in fact he probably hate Trump more than most of you here do, the guy performed at Obama's inauguration if that gives you an idea. But here he is, telling people Trump's 2020 prospect is almost assured. I guess the reason I like the article because here I find someone who think similarly to me. The article echo a lot of the same points I had repeatedly brought up in the last 2 years.

I know many of people here carry a certain impression about me for how often I came out on Trump defense, so here is an alternative example for you. You don't have to be a Trump's supporter to acknowledge other things about him, and the more you refuse to do so, the less chance you will have going up against him. :wink:
Trump does not perfectly embody what I want out of a president either. I voted for him mainly because the balance of SCOTUS was at stake. He delivered in this area in a way that no one could have done better. He did right by me. I will likely vote for him again because to me the alternative is so much worse. I can't support the left here in America. I don't like what they have become. I don't like identity politics. I don't like intolerance of dissent. I don't like being told thinking different from their ideas is racist or sexist or any other thing. Those people are hostile to freedom of thought and freedom to disagree. I get that you're an independent. What I see is that you might not have chosen a side but to the left here you have and it is not theirs. The only reason all of the full force of that ugliness they are displaying toward me isn't falling on you is because I'm in the way.
Who made that man a gunner?

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Trump

Post by Bishop149 » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 15:14

So you seems to think "good business" is defined as being never suffering set back and failure. Well, I think most people will disagree with you, especially Trump. After all he said: Success comes from failure, not from memorizing the right answers.
I'd say that never suffering a failure that bankrupts you (especially personally, I mean damn!) is a pretty good metric, yep.
Also more generally, I'd expect good businessmen to have more successes that failures, under the most generous possible interpretation Mr Trump is sitting around the 50:50 mark. A coin flip.
Mightysword wrote:
Thu, 6. Dec 18, 16:31
Don't you see the irony in what you're trying to say? You're accusing me of being happy to judge someone over short term, yet it IS you that are guilty of that. You are focusing in just ONE specific time frame in the late 80' and early 90' that Trump was dancing around bankruptcy to indite judgement on him.
[snip]
He's sitting on a a business empire that ranging from 5-10bil depending on who you trust. That is your reality.
I've already tried to explain why it is that Trump still has money after he went functionally bankrupt, but you seem to be wilfully ignoring it.
I'll say it once more:
1) He was given VERY special dispensation by nearly everybody.
2) He had his hands held / tied on his way back to solvency, his power over his money was essentially zero, name only. His creditors managed them for him to minimise their own losses.
He even had limits placed upon his the spending of his PERSONAL wealth, which is frankly incredible.
Neither of these things are anything to to with Trump, the fact he is not broke today is entirely due to the grace and favour of others. So no I give him no credit for that later period either.

Trump SHOULD be living in the gutter (at least relatively) if you or I had made the same financial decisions he did then we certainly would be.
But as you say, the sky is blue and the rules for Trump are not the same as for us.
It also worth stating that he is exceptional even by the standards of rich people, the reason he was given such a dispensation was due to the EXTREME nature of his failure. No one expected that a single man could lose a billion dollars, it had never happened before and the system was unprepared for it . . . . rather than spread the pain, they dealt with it as best they could by bailing him out. The upshot being that he was essentially rewarded for being so "good" at screwing up.
So yeah, great presidential material. :roll:
My tax money is being used to take care of some drunkards who never take charge of their life. My tax money is being used to buy weapons to bomb innocent in another country. My tax money are being used to pay salary to a bunch of politician who lying through their teeth everyday. So yes, you can be quite sure that bailing out business is the the least ineffective usage of tax money.
Oh dear . . . . that wasn't what I was inferring. You think the Trumps of this world only take money from you in the form of taxes!? Bless!
And that reason being they have been historically proven to be incorrect, repeatly, and have not even ONE good example to their grace. So if these people who are more qualified than you, who probably have a better data set to work with then you and still can't do their job .... give me one reason why me or anyone should trust your model/calculation aside from just agreeing with the narrative in principle? ;)
Cool, just go and work it out for yourself then, whats stopping you?
Just like life. If you are able to come up with an economic theory that can make the world economy stay healthy eternally, not only I believe you should be paid 10 digits salary, I believe you should be enshrined and elevated to godhood. That is why I said why your argument isn't really about right or wrong, it just lack substance mixing with a bit of non-story. Most of your accusation about Trump about this is akin to accusing the sky being blue, and you just happens to hate the color blue. :wink:
Ha I probably could have a good stab at it, the fundamental problem is not especially complicated. Solving it however is, mostly because the 1% people controlling 99% of the power and money will obviously never act to remove those things from themselves. The assessment you make in your final two sentences is 100% correct, the worlds financial systems are corrupt, murderous and staggeringly inequitable, amounting to nothing more than the systematic exploitation of the vast majority of humanity. These are things I can not in good conscience accept or support and most of my arguments are driven by my sheer surprise that others such as yourself can.
Last edited by Bishop149 on Fri, 7. Dec 18, 16:19, edited 2 times in total.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 15:16

Keith Olbermann says it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_eBeZXXZqY

Drumpf manipulates you - and you fall for it..
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Trump

Post by Bishop149 » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 15:18

Behold, a brave woman.
I mean shes legal now, but I'm sure the Trumpsters will find plenty of other ways to come for her.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/us/t ... rkers.html

It a non-story though, I mean OF COURSE it's people like Trump who are the primary beneficiaries of illegal labour.
Nor is it news that Trump is a massive hypocrite, or a liar.
As Mightysword already put it yet more evidence that the sky is blue.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 18:23

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 01:56
My dude..
Lolz. I wonder if, before you came to the US and dived into 'Murican culture, if you would have ever imagined typing "My dude" in a reply to someone on teh interwebz. :) Thank you, brother 'Murican. :D
I think people tend to think by presenting their argument in the absolute extreme it will help reinforcing their points. But for me, it just make the argument weaker by making it losing creditably. Maybe that how it works for others, but this is how it works for me. You probably have noticed, my main source of "fun" in these posts and on the forum as a whole, whether it about Trump or other threads, is poking at things that were presented without a context. :)
Some "extreme" posts are, like many of mine, tests. In order to test something, the best choice is often to push it to "extremes." Put it in the most extreme situation possible and see if it still maintains whatever it is you're testing it for or what its limits may be.

BUT, then there are the "baby eater" sorts of extremes, where people extrapolate in a favored direction from a small point of fact. Those aren't legitimate "tests." Instead, they're attempts to sway opinion, not test of an opinion or fact to see if anyone has a different interpretation of it and whether or not there is a legitimate counter-argument that should be examined.

People tend to prop up their heroes and condemn their villains, both to extremes. It's normal human behavior. But, this behavior gets magnified and encouraged when people develop their opinions in a fishbowl or echo-chamber. They're opinions that wouldn't withstand close scrutiny in other settings, but get carried there anyway and thrust into the spotlight as "fact." And, when they're quickly dismantled for the hype they are? It's not what was presented that was wrong in the opinion of the presenter. Instead, they assume everyone else is biased against their extreme statement because, after all, whenever it is put forth in the environment in which it was hatched it survives nicely...

If someone over in an MSNBC forum screams out "Trump eats babies" there will be few naysayers. But, if they do it in some Fox News forum, they'd be insta-banned. Which forum would they feel more comfortable in if they hold to that opinion? What forum/place/setting/group of people would make them feel welcome and support their opinion? Few people who participate in such discussions enjoy being shown that they're wrong.
Masterbagger wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 02:38
I don't think it's to make a point. I think some people just want to be mad at President Trump. They want to see constant 100% negative coverage about everything he is involved in. They want him to fail no matter what it costs. They don't want to hear that he was right about anything or did anything good. They definitely don't want to hear the actual reasons people voted for him. You can't pierce those feelings with reason.
You can, but you must allow the person a way to regain their self-esteem. Further, if you actually "care", you'll treat them like a beloved friend and be supportive even if they're a traditional "enemy." You don't win hearts and minds with hand-grenades and if you want to have a friendly discussion, you must be... friendly. :) It also helps if one truly cares about what other people think more than one cares about attempting to influence that thought.

Like I wrote above, people prop up their heroes and condemn their villains. The truth is often somewhere in the middle. Well, sometimes it isn't in the middle, but those are truly rare events. The number of true sociopaths or extreme altruists is much less than common opinion would seem to insist.

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 19:35

The cult of Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ6OHMpXNfk

Drumpf is definitely a cult.. :roll:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 21:37

Bishop149 wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 15:14
Also more generally, I'd expect good businessmen to have more successes that failures, under the most generous possible interpretation Mr Trump is sitting around the 50:50 mark. A coin flip.
And like I said, that's just not an honest assessment, an 8 years period to a 50 years career is a 50:50? But oh well, I'll take it. At least you moved on from Trump being a completely imbecell who can not doing anything to a 50:50. I guess my last few posts managed to accomplish something. :P
I've already tried to explain why it is that Trump still has money after he went functionally bankrupt, but you seem to be wilfully ignoring it.
I'll say it once more:
1) He was given VERY special dispensation by nearly everybody.
2) He had his hands held / tied on his way back to solvency, his power over his money was essentially zero, name only. His creditors managed them for him to minimise their own losses.
He even had limits placed upon his the spending of his PERSONAL wealth, which is frankly incredible.
Neither of these things are anything to to with Trump, the fact he is not broke today is entirely due to the grace and favour of others. So no I give him no credit for that later period either.
I'm not ignoring them, I'm diminishing them because of the narrative you were pushing are giving the wrong impression.
- The Trump's bailout package was negotiated with his debtors (a.k.a the banks), it was not a government bailout similar to the like we saw in the last depression that were given to GM motor and Morgan, which come out of the tax's payer dollar. Unless you have a personal skate, I don't see why you would be grumbling?
- Yes, Trump was given that because he was too big to fall, and I see simply this as shared liabilities between business partners. In the end, after a few years everyone involved ended up better than they would have if Trump was simply let go under. I don't know about you, that's the definition of good business decision. And if you think this is only exclusive to people like Trump, think again:

These day if you start defaulting on your payment in my area, the bank will foreclosure your house faster than you can blink because the market is so hot right now, and supply can't meet demand. But back in the last depression, there were so many foreclosing properties that the banks didn't know what to do with them. I personally know people in my area that were regularly behind 3, 6, and some case even 10 payments and were still allowed to keep their properties. It's certainly not the banks were feeling generous, but they just face with two choices:

+ Foreclosure the house, end up with with a greatly depreciated properties on a market that has no buyer, and thus can only be sold at a fraction of the original value (to me :D), while remain liable to tax and maintenance cost. Or ...
+ Forgive months or even a year of payment and/or restructuring the term in the hope that they will still be able to recoup most of the original profit in the long run.

- Here is your daily dose of context, yes the crisis Trump faced was part of his own doing (mainly the Plaza Hotel and the The Taj Mahah casino), but also in part of the situation. After the 1980 growth, things was slowing down again approaching the 90'. Do you know that on most account, Bush was a good president, yet he couldn't win a second term? It's because there was sight the US was sliding back into depression at that time.
- Trump got helped yes, but he also did a lot of things during this time to turn his own fortune around. This including raising cash by selling his other derivative business as well as landing other deals. I mentioned Trump managed to ink the Bank of Manhattan Trust building for peanuts, and the reason is (because context is king) the deal to sell it to Filipino President Ferdinand Marcos fell through the last minutes, and the owner got panic. That building (aka the Trump Building) are subsequently prized at 260mil in 2006 and 560mil as of today.
- By 1995, things had turned around, and it's suffice to say every parties involved were better off than they would have if they just let Trump go under in 1990. So why is it not a good business decision?
Trump SHOULD be living in the gutter (at least relatively) if you or I had made the same financial decisions he did then we certainly would be.
But as you say, the sky is blue and the rules for Trump are not the same as for us.
It also worth stating that he is exceptional even by the standards of rich people, the reason he was given such a dispensation was due to the EXTREME nature of his failure. No one expected that a single man could lose a billion dollars, it had never happened before and the system was unprepared for it . . . . rather than spread the pain, they dealt with it as best they could by bailing him out. The upshot being that he was essentially rewarded for being so "good" at screwing up.
See, and here is exactly what I meant by a sentimental filled statement. I read that and I only see grudge and misguided assumption, I don't see reason. It's like you're seeking justice simply based on psychology satisfaction rather than actual problem solving. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a sensible things, and lucky for us most people at the top of the economy don't do that. The reason I dismiss your points is because:

+ At best, you're making them as an ill-informed citizen, blissfully unware of the larger context.
+ At worst, you're willingly sideline important context and logic, cherry picking details and numbers to push the narrative that you want. In short, you're making a point like most politicians do.
+ At no point that I see you're making a point as a objective and reasonable economist, or even attempt to.

I'll give you another example similar to the one Warren claimed GE paid -zero- tax. This one is very recent, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made another splash this week with this claim: “$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained.’ $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. And that’s before our premiums" .

Now, if you already have a bias about Pentagon spending, which most of us do (including me), that message certainly play up your heartstrings because it has a grain of truth in it. If you are a hardcore socialist and voted for her, that tweet would certainly give you great satisfaction. But, anyone with a basic knowledge of economy, and willing to spend a little of their time in looking up some facts instead of just blindly following convenience narrative then ... well, let's just say if this person gets her wish of serving in the Budget committee in the house, then may God help us all. I have no love for the wastfulness of military spending, I have all the desire to see defense contractor rending in, but I don't let those cloud my own thinking process and judgment, neither I'll throw my lot on with the first statement that pleases my eardrum.

FYI, ever since that tweet came out, it has been flak by economist and scholar across all spectrum for how absurd it is. And when I see what you wrote, I can help but see the same technique and pattern are employed.
And that reason being they have been historically proven to be incorrect, repeatably, and have not even ONE good example to their grace. So if these people who are more qualified than you, who probably have a better data set to work with then you and still can't do their job .... give me one reason why me or anyone should trust your model/calculation aside from just agreeing with the narrative in principle? ;)
Cool, just go and work it out for yourself then, whats stopping you?
Did you treat what I said as a challenge or competition? Because if so you missed the points, completely. The points are:

- You can not do it, I can not do it, the people who are more qualified then us can not do it, and those who had been trying to do it has been consistently failing for 50-60 years.
- And since half of your argument is based on that kind of math, it's only reasonable to point out that it's flawed.
Last edited by Mightysword on Fri, 7. Dec 18, 21:59, edited 1 time in total.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 21:47

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 18:23
Like I wrote above, people prop up their heroes and condemn their villains. The truth is often somewhere in the middle. Well, sometimes it isn't in the middle, but those are truly rare events. The number of true sociopaths or extreme altruists is much less than common opinion would seem to insist.
So if most people can only speak on the extreme, what make of the people who try to speak in the middle, like me? As you can see in my current argument with @Bishop

- On one hand, you have people who supporting Trump (and Trump himself) saying he's the best business man in the world and he should be standing next to figure like Warren Buffet.
- On the other hand, you have people who hate him and adamant that Trump is nothing but a buffoon who wouldn't accomplish anything unless it falls on his laps.

Like you said, the truth is probably somewhere in between (which is again what I'm essentially arguing for). However is it really the case people willingly trump up their heroes, being aware they're inflating the facts? (Or in your word, they are just testing) I don't think so, the zeal and obsession most people have about their extreme view points kinda send the message that they truly believe their inflated view as the one true fact. :roll:

Again, I open the invitation: anyone else want to come and stand in the middle, we have this thing called "reason" that you will find in short supply most place else. More important, you'll find yourself more happy here, because we tend not to go looking for a reason to be pissed off at anything and everything. :P
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 23:24

Trump is having his usual back and forth with his detractors, this time with his former Secretary of state Rex Tillerson:

Dumb as a rock...


Trump's back to projecting his own faults on others again. Seems he can't help being the pot that calls the kettle black. Tillerson runs rings around Trump in the brains department, of course getting away from the Trumpite Administration should prove that point. Back to Trump flipping out over where the Mueller probe is headed... He's a walking powder keg and the fuse is quickly burning down.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
esd
Posts: 17962
Joined: Tue, 2. Sep 03, 05:57
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by esd » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 23:38

I did find this pretty funny:
Trump on Twitter.
It is being reported that Leakin' James Comey was told by Department of Justice attorneys not to answer the most important questions. Total bias and corruption at the highest levels of previous Administration. Force him to answer the questions under oath!
(Emphasis mine)

Could you imagine Trump answering questions under oath? :rofl:
esd's Guides: X² Loops - X³ MORTs

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 00:27

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 21:47
So if most people can only speak on the extreme, what make of the people who try to speak in the middle, like me? As you can see in my current argument with @Bishop
IIRC, I said that those who speak in the extreme about an opinion are generally trying to convince someone else of something. At least in this context.
...Like you said, the truth is probably somewhere in between (which is again what I'm essentially arguing for). However is it really the case people willingly trump up their heroes, being aware they're inflating the facts? (Or in your word, they are just testing) I don't think so, the zeal and obsession most people have about their extreme view points kinda send the message that they truly believe their inflated view as the one true fact. :roll:
No, they're not "testing." In some cases, one can take something to the extreme in order to test it. But, in the case where they're speaking like this, that's not "testing", it's an intent to influence an opinion. They may or may not entirely believe it themselves, depending on their motivation. But, if they're like most of the people saying such things, they probably developed that opinion in an environment that wouldn't challenge it.
Again, I open the invitation: anyone else want to come and stand in the middle, we have this thing called "reason" that you will find in short supply most place else. More important, you'll find yourself more happy here, because we tend not to go looking for a reason to be pissed off at anything and everything. :P
Being "in the middle" is so uncomfortable. It's much easier to just turn up the volume to eleven. ;) I'm rarely "in the middle" about a lot of things. There are few "greys" in my world. For instance, bacon is good and boiled okra is bad... That's just "fact." :) On most, if not all, moral or ethical subject, I see good and bad, not "maybe" or "grey." With people? They're sometimes a bit more complex and it's their behaviors that must be judged.

Honestly, I think "extremes" are worth paying attention to in all things. I don't mean one must believe them or hold to them, but we must notice and remark upon them at least to ourselves. If we see "extremist" headlines about some political issue, it can give us a good idea about what that view may be based upon not so we can better understand the opinion, but so we can better understand the opinion-maker.

Note: I'm apparently "weird." I will make an "extreme opinion" about something in order to test it. Usually I will include a disclaimer stating that intent, but not always... Why test it? Why not? :) It's not just for fun, either - I really want to know what others might think about such a thing.
esd wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 23:38
...Could you imagine Trump answering questions under oath? :rofl:
Trump? OH, you mean "Individual-1" as he's currently listed in the latest indictments brought forward today?

I can see him uttering a lot of oaths while answering questions...

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:40

esd wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 23:38
I did find this pretty funny:
Trump on Twitter.
It is being reported that Leakin' James Comey was told by Department of Justice attorneys not to answer the most important questions. Total bias and corruption at the highest levels of previous Administration. Force him to answer the questions under oath!
(Emphasis mine)

Could you imagine Trump answering questions under oath? :rofl:
I remember Bill Clinton lying under oath, being impeached, and still finishing his term. Removal by impeachment is a pipe dream. The House impeaches. The Senates votes to remove. The Senate just gained more of a Republican majority and they know they won't survive the next election if they remove President Trump. The only way to stop 4 more years of Trump is to run a better candidate and platform.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
esd
Posts: 17962
Joined: Tue, 2. Sep 03, 05:57
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by esd » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:51

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:40
I remember Bill Clinton lying under oath, being impeached, and still finishing his term. Removal by impeachment is a pipe dream. The House impeaches. The Senates votes to remove. The Senate just gained more of a Republican majority and they know they won't survive the next election if they remove President Trump. The only way to stop 4 more years of Trump is to run a better candidate and platform.
I didn't mention, or imply, impeachment once in that post. I just think Trump under oath would be absolutely hilarious. He contradicts himself constantly, under oath would be no different.

Absolute comedy gold.

"But Mr Trump, you just said you didn't say that, so why are you now saying you did?"
"I'm not, I'm not, that's fake news. You know, and a lot of people know this, I say the bigliest things. It's true. True."
esd's Guides: X² Loops - X³ MORTs

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:57

Masterbagger notes:
The Senate just gained more of a Republican majority and they know they won't survive the next election if they remove President Trump. The only way to stop 4 more years of Trump is to run a better candidate and platform.
Face it, Trump's headed for a date with the 25th Ammendment, not impeachment as it means nothing. He's a flipout and the Republican party has no reason to face the music when Mueller proves he colluded with the Russians. What they have to worry about is the question of his entire administration, Pense included being invalidated by the Supreme Court and what happens when that decision is only opposed by Trump's appointees. His nomination of Barr as Attorney General is testing these waters. Trump knows what's coming and what the end result might me and is fighting for more than his Presidency. He's fight to keep himself, his family and cohorts from very long prison sentences.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 03:28

Hank001 wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:57
Masterbagger notes:
The Senate just gained more of a Republican majority and they know they won't survive the next election if they remove President Trump. The only way to stop 4 more years of Trump is to run a better candidate and platform.
Face it, Trump's headed for a date with the 25th Ammendment, not impeachment as it means nothing. He's a flipout and the Republican party has no reason to face the music when Mueller proves he colluded with the Russians. What they have to worry about is the question of his entire administration, Pense included being invalidated by the Supreme Court and what happens when that decision is only opposed by Trump's appointees. His nomination of Barr as Attorney General is testing these waters. Trump knows what's coming and what the end result might me and is fighting for more than his Presidency. He's fight to keep himself, his family and cohorts from very long prison sentences.
I'm sure the conservative majority on SCOTUS will go along with that just like you imagined.
esd wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:51

I didn't mention, or imply, impeachment once in that post. I just think Trump under oath would be absolutely hilarious. He contradicts himself constantly, under oath would be no different.

Absolute comedy gold.

"But Mr Trump, you just said you didn't say that, so why are you now saying you did?"
"I'm not, I'm not, that's fake news. You know, and a lot of people know this, I say the bigliest things. It's true. True."
I'm jumping ahead. The only reason to get Trump to make statements under oath is to get him on a perjury charge. I don't think it would go over well here if they tried it. It might break twitter.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 03:37

Masterbagger snugly noted;
I'm sure the conservative majority on SCOTUS will go along with that just like you imagined.
If the really care about keeping the constitution intact, yes, they'll have little choice.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:00

Hank001 wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 03:37
Masterbagger snugly noted;
I'm sure the conservative majority on SCOTUS will go along with that just like you imagined.
If the really care about keeping the constitution intact, yes, they'll have little choice.
You are aware that it isn't SCOTUS that removes a President from office? Not by impeachment or the 25th Amendment? It's Congress. By a 2/3rds majority. That you don't have and won't get. For your own sake please stop and face your own reality. You might find it ugly but you have to deal with it at some point.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:15

Masterbagger says:
That you don't have and won't get. For your own sake please stop and face your own reality.
Back up and find I accused Trump of being the pot that calls the kettle black. Face the facts yourself. What I was refering to comes AFTER congress envokes the 25th ammendment. The question then becomes what happens to Trump's entire administration if it was illegally put in place by an illegally elected President? It will be the constitutional question of the ages and will come down to one question and yes, all pun intended: Does political expediance TRUMP the Constitution? My vote is for SCOTUS to rule in favor of the constitution.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

Locked

Return to “Off Topic English”