The Trump Presidency

[LunarOrbit]

Nor is it the logical conclusion from the statement. All Lunar Orbit's example proposes is that a) if I had to surrender the keys to the liquor cabinet to someone, an alcoholic would not be top of my list

a) is out-of-context with the OP I used as an example, just as CT use out-of-context methods.

How is it out of context? When you elect the President of the United States, do you not take into consideration how much you trust them? I would not give an alcoholic the keys to a liquor cabinet, and I would not give Donald Trump the keys to the nuclear codes... because I can't trust either of them to act responsibly.

b) considering someone a suspect does not make them automatically guilty

It's not about being able to accuse them after the fact. It's about preventing something bad from happening before accusations of guilt are even necessary. Like I said, it's a matter of trust. Donald Trump has proved to me that he can't be trusted.

Things that were not brought up in the OP.  Okay.  Maybe, unlike CT tactics to veer off, stay on topic?

How about you leave the moderation to me.

All bad with ill-intentions towards the rule of law.  I get it, but that is still conjecture.  No matter how many people agree with you, even if i did,  claiming to know their actual intent is fundamentally untrue.

I'll say it again. It's about trust. Trust isn't automatic, it has to be earned. And if someone has given you countless reasons to NOT trust them, you don't give them a clean slate every morning.

I was willing to cut the people who voted for him in 2016 some slack because they were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is unbelievable to me that people still trust him after 3 years in office. It's like the old Peanuts cartoon where Lucy pulls the football away right before Charlie Brown kicks it... every time... and he never learns. At some point you have to stop trusting habitual liars.

[gillianren]

Also, it is not slander to say that people who side with Trump are siding with literal Nazis and the KKK.  Because people who call themselves Nazis are proud, passionate supporters of the current administration, and the KKK endorsed him in 2016.  So what slander are we talking, here?

Actually, it is.  If YOU support a candidate, cause, etc., you have no control over who else does, including reprehensible people.  When someone then claims you and such reprehensible people have forged a bond because of such an association, they have slandered you by making a false analogy.

No.  No, that's wrong.  If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis.  That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them.  And if you are . . . .

[MBDK]

Wow.  This has been a VERY enlightening window into the human psyche.  Not totally unexpected at face value, rather I am a little surprised by the EXTENT to which you will argue regardless of the hypocrisy inherent in your methods vs your disdain for CT methods, which mirror your own in some ways.

I understand there has not been a lot of time since her posts. but I also notice no one else is calling gillianren out on her logical fallacy.  Latest example:

No.  No, that's wrong.  If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis.  That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them.  And if you are . . . .

Does ANYONE else see the OBVIOUS false analogy AND contradictory message here?  From all your posts in the CT forum, you darn well should.

Regardless, as I mentioned before, I am not here to defend Trump, which most replies have ignored, rather to point out SOME similarities in your posts with CTs' tactics.  My point has been made to anyone with non-prejudiced critical thinking skills, and I am not here to argue incessantly with those who refuse, or are unable, to acknowledge my observation as described.

That said, I am willing to elaborate further on ONE point of contention, of your choice, should you so desire, or I can just drop out of this discussion altogether.  It really doesn't matter to me.  But, to be clear, I ask for only ONE (at a time, at least) point, to prevent shotgunning, and to bring some sort of closure to an item prior to moving on (if we do, indeed, move on).

[Jason Thompson]

I am a little surprised by the EXTENT to which you will argue regardless of the hypocrisy inherent in your methods vs your disdain for CT methods, which mirror your own in some ways.

I think I'll just sit back and enjoy the irony inherent in the amount of 'hits' in the apollohoax bingo card that follow this statement....

Does ANYONE else see the OBVIOUS false analogy AND contradictory message here?

Saying 'it's obvious' and using caps. That's two.

My point has been made to anyone with non-prejudiced critical thinking skills,

That's another.

and I am not here to argue incessantly with those who refuse, or are unable, to acknowledge my observation as described.

Refuse to engage. That's four...

That said, I am willing to elaborate further on ONE point of contention, of your choice, should you so desire,

Attempting to dictate how the discussion may continue. That's five...

And overall, failure to grasp how conclusion and argument can be diferent in different circumstances also noted. Continuing refusal to engage in points already raised (like the fact that Trump and von braun are not comparable for many reasons, not the least being that von Braun's Nazi past was a very specific and very short part of his life overall, while Trump's behaviour and attitude is an ongoing and consistent phenomenon) also noted. The score is pretty high. not sure if I've got a bingo yet...

[LunarOrbit]

Wow.  This has been a VERY enlightening window into the human psyche.  Not totally unexpected at face value, rather I am a little surprised by the EXTENT to which you will argue regardless of the hypocrisy inherent in your methods vs your disdain for CT methods, which mirror your own in some ways.

Your issue with my original post seems to be that I never actually heard Trump ask for the Office of Congressional Ethics to be dismantled, so I'm just speculating. Therefore, I'm acting like a conspiracy theorist.

You're right, I wasn't in the private meetings held between Trump and the other Republicans prior to that shady vote. But I don't need to personally witness these discussions to know that the Republicans would not have made such a controversial move if they thought the President wouldn't support it. But sure... since that is all I had to go on, it only proves that everyone in the Republican party is corrupt except Trump.

But we knew he was corrupt before he ever ran for President. People and small businesses that did work for the Trump Organization were stiffed, and some went bankrupt. We knew he ran a phony university that scammed poor people who were desperate to turn their lives around. We knew he stole from a charity. None of those things were speculation leading up to the election. We knew who he was, and still is, and yet some people are okay with electing a crook.

I don't know about you, but I need to be able to trust the people I vote for. Trump has repeatedly proved that he can't be trusted.

I understand there has not been a lot of time since her posts. but I also notice no one else is calling gillianren out on her logical fallacy.
  Latest example:

No.  No, that's wrong.  If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis.  That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them.  And if you are . . . .

Does ANYONE else see the OBVIOUS false analogy AND contradictory message here?  From all your posts in the CT forum, you darn well should.

Going back to before the election, Trump was asked to disavow the endorsement of David Duke and groups like the KKK. It should be pretty easy to do for anyone who is not a racist, but Trump would not do it. Why? Was winning the election so important to him that he was not willing to lose the votes of racists? Or is he racist too? Is there are difference?

Will Trump condemn white supremacists?

To paraphrase Andrew Gillum... Trump might not be a racist, but the racists think he's a racist.

If you are willing to overlook all of Trump's corrupt behaviour just because you like one or two of the good things that he has done (or taken credit for) then I think it says something about you. You might not be a racist, but it certainly doesn't look good when you support a man who is.

There are other people who can do the job just as good or better than Trump without all of the negatives that come with him.

[LunarOrbit]

Lunar Orbiter, You stated:

Trump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.

An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.

As previously mentioned, I have not read through the bulk of the posts, but I ask you - do you still stand by that post?  And if not, have you retracted it anywhere?

Wait a second. I just went back and re-read my original post in this thread. Here is the FULL quote of what I said:

I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress.

For starters: remember when Trump (and the Republican party) ran on the promise to "drain the swamp"? Remember when I expressed concern about Trump's behaviour and was told that "he didn't really mean the things he was saying", and even if he did there are "checks and balances" in place to prevent it? Well, ha ha, funny story...

With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office - NY Times

"Republicans claim they want to 'drain the swamp,' but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions. Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."

- Nancy Pelosi

Trump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.

An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.

I think you're being dishonest, MBDK (a trait of conspiracy theorists). I never even blamed the vote to gut the OCE on Trump. I said it was done by the Republicans. And that is 100% true, regardless of whether or not Trump directed them to do it. And it doesn't matter if the decision was reversed, they still wanted to do it, and that should tell you all you need to know about their corrupt intentions.

I also started the thread by saying "I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress."

So tell me again... what exactly do I need to retract?

[MBDK]

Wait a second. I just went back and re-read my original post in this thread.

I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress.

For starters: remember when Trump (and the Republican party) ran on the promise to "drain the swamp"? Remember when I expressed concern about Trump's behaviour and was told that "he didn't really mean the things he was saying", and even if he did there are "checks and balances" in place to prevent it? Well, ha ha, funny story...

With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office - NY Times

"Republicans claim they want to 'drain the swamp,' but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions. Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."

- Nancy Pelosi

Trump's behaviour is not an act, and he has shown that those "checks and balances" are working for him, not for the American public.

An independent ethics body has been gutted by Republicans, without debate or warning. This is not something you would do if your goal was to "drain the swamp", it's something you would do if you wanted to do unethical things without consequences.

I think you're being dishonest, MBDK (a trait of conspiracy theorists). I never even blamed the vote to gut the OCE on Trump. I said it was done by the Republicans. And that is 100% true, regardless of whether or not Trump directed them to do it. And it doesn't matter if the decision was reversed, they still wanted to do it, and that should tell you all you need to know about their corrupt intentions.

I also started the thread by saying "I'm starting a new thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions made by Trump and the Republican controlled Congress."

So tell me again... what exactly do I need to retract?

*sheepishly looks down at feet and toes the ground*
Nothing...

Somehow I missed your reply #10, where you admitted the independent ethics body had NOT been eviscerated and acknowledged that Trump had intervened.  So, upon my re-read of that post, I retract my questions (listed: do you still stand by that post?  And if not, have you retracted it anywhere?), as that was the crux of my original (mis)observation. 

*straightens up, thumbing suspenders to exaggerate a puffed out chest*
However, I do stand by my other criticisms to the responses I have received, and as an inconsequential side note - Congress is not controlled by the Republicans, as they only control the Senate.

[VQ]

as an inconsequential side note - Congress is not controlled by the Republicans, as they only control the Senate.

Oh, really... and who controlled congress on January 03, 2017 when the words you are quoting were written?

[gillianren]

Okay, here's a point I'd like.  If the Democrats are "just as bad," name one thing--one thing--that's as bad as assassinating an important member of a foreign government without Congressional approval or even notification, and then claiming that posting about it on Twitter is the same as following the legal standard.

[VQ]

Example:  Slight edit from your last post with the method I described above (edits in bold) -

"It is not illogical to believe that Braun's past corruption would follow him to the NASA where he would have a lot of power, and have almost complete immunity while in his position. It would be illogical to believe that someone who had been unethical his entire Nazi career would suddenly care about ethics now."

Since you mention it - yes, Braun's former Nazi membership would have absolutely disqualified him from public office in my opinion as a voter. That doesn't automatically make either Braun or Trump guilty of any specific crime/conspiracy theory, it just means that they are unfit to be president.

[MBDK]

Oh, really... and who controlled congress on January 03, 2017 when the words you are quoting were written?

No one.
https://www.mic.com/articles/161913/who-controls-the-house-of-representatives-here-s-what-house-will-look-like-in-2017

[MBDK]

Okay, here's a point I'd like.  If the Democrats are "just as bad," name one thing--one thing--that's as bad as assassinating an important member of a foreign government without Congressional approval or even notification, and then claiming that posting about it on Twitter is the same as following the legal standard.

I can do you one better.  It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything.  I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing.  Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion. 

[MBDK]

Since you mention it - yes, Braun's former Nazi membership would have absolutely disqualified him from public office in my opinion as a voter. That doesn't automatically make either Braun or Trump guilty of any specific crime/conspiracy theory, it just means that they are unfit to be president.

Not sure what you are trying to say by including Trump in this particular way.  Since he has never been a Nazi, how does this relate?

[LunarOrbit]

Oh, really... and who controlled congress on January 03, 2017 when the words you are quoting were written?

No one.
https://www.mic.com/articles/161913/who-controls-the-house-of-representatives-here-s-what-house-will-look-like-in-2017

What are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress

The One Hundred Fifteenth United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It met in Washington, D.C. from January 3, 2017, to January 3, 2019, during the final weeks of Barack Obama's presidency and the first two years of Donald Trump's presidency.

House Majority: Republican
Senate Majority: Republican

[LunarOrbit]

Okay, here's a point I'd like.  If the Democrats are "just as bad," name one thing--one thing--that's as bad as assassinating an important member of a foreign government without Congressional approval or even notification, and then claiming that posting about it on Twitter is the same as following the legal standard.

I can do you one better.  It is far worse to let this dedicated killer of Americans to continue because you want to control everything.  I consider eradicating terrorists, bent on continuing their murderous war crimes, as quickly and efficiently as possible to be a good thing.  Putting a political spin on it is childish and unproductive, in my opinion. 

People aren't objecting to the assassination of a General in Iran's military because it was ordered by a Republican President and the Democrats are just contradicting whatever he does for political reasons. They object to it because we haven't even wrapped up the last 19 years of costly (in money and blood) war, and now Trump is going to start another endless war. It was a shortsighted and reckless decision that is going to have terrible consequences.

Trump and his team of idiots have been pushing for a war since before the election. Iran was moving towards peace before he came along and made a mess of it.

I'll ask you the same thing I have been asking other Trump supporters: are you going to go fight in the Iran war? Will you send your children to enlist in the military? Or do you just want other people to sacrifice their lives on your behalf? It's easy to support a war when it poses no risk to you or your family.