The Trump Presidency

[smartcooky]

First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion.

Yeah, there are good people on both sides 

Again (again), pointing out flawed conclusions, even thought they may reside among a lot of similar correct ones, does NOT justify those flawed conclusions.  That does not hold up in science, nor in any unbiased court of law.  This has been stated many times, and your adherence to a mindless mantra is rather juvenile.

Still, you have just proven this portion of an earlier post of mine.

"people have short-circuited their reasoning capabilities and insist on galloping in their own closed loop"

NOTE:  Edited for clarity regarding flawed conclusions.

My problem with you is that you seem to only  be interested in pointing out flawed conclusions on one side, those that show Trump in a bad light.

The only "galloping in their own closed loop" happening here is by you. I seems you are so biased towards Trump, you are unable to see how that bias looks when observed from the outside. You can only come out in support of him (and against his opponents) so many times before it becomes suspicious.

No.  I clearly stated my purpose in my first post. I have tried to adhere to it, and if anything have acquiesced to some aspects of other posters' comments.  You, and others, can't argue your way around the similarities that some of your claims have with CTs' flawed lines of reasoning.  Instead, you demand other, irrelevant to my original post, actions/words from me that prop up your more reasonable conclusions.  Why I have to keep explaining this SIMPLE concept is very much akin to trying to explain basic physics to a CT.  You really need to take a step back, look at my complaint in conjunction with similar complaints YOU have made regarding CT posts/tactics, and if you CAN'T identify the parallels, you are essentially just as close-minded as they are. 

“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
― Walt Kelly

Most of us here are experienced enough to eventually recognise the Hoax believers who attempt the subterfuge of starting off here posting that they believe the moan landings actually happened and that they have a open mind as to whether there was any fakery involved but gradually show their true colours; those colours indicating that they were a card-carrying moon hoax believer all along.

What you say as to your bias or opinions in your opening posts carries zero weight with me... what you follow up with is what counts. And your follow up has included some pretty strong defences of some of the indefensible things that Trump has done. I was prepared to give you at least some benefit of the doubt until the point where you defended the Orange Turd against allegations that he tried to pressure Ukraine/Zelenskiy to announce investigations into Joe & Hunter Biden, by withholding Congressionally approved military aid. You said, and I quote

"There was NEVER any direct evidence, only conjecture and opinion"

That tells me that you have drunk the Trump/GOP Kool-Ade. The evidence that he did what he was accused of was utterly overwhelming. Fact witness after fact witness in the House testified to what Trump did... even people who were actually listening in on the very phone call, such as Lt Col Alex Vindman

"I was concerned by the call, what I heard was inappropriate, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg," Vindman said.

"It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and a political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine US national security, and advance Russia's strategic objectives in the region."

This is NOT conjecture

This is NOT opinion

This is direct, first hand eye-witness testimony (exactly the kind of evidence you incorrectly claim did not exist) from a very reliable, very experienced and highly decorated military veteran, and yet you dismiss it!!

Not only that... Trump himself admitted what he did, and claimed there was nothing wrong with it. The fact that he released the aid only when he got caught shows the consciousness of a guilty mind.

At this point, I reached the only viable conclusion; that you are a Trump sycophant trying hard to pretend not to be.

[MBDK]

Most of us here are experienced enough to eventually recognise the Hoax believers who attempt the subterfuge of starting off here posting that they believe the moan landings actually happened and that they have a open mind as to whether there was any fakery involved but gradually show their true colours; those colours indicating that they were a card-carrying moon hoax believer all along.

And you SHOULD be experienced enough to think critically, yet YOU have failed time and again in your responses to me concerning this topic.

What you say as to your bias or opinions in your opening posts carries zero weight with me...

Rejecting MY firsthand testimony, but holding that of others as factual proof is quite hypocritical.

"what you follow up with is what counts"

Yet, you have never really been able to comprehend that the substance of my follow ups have been instep with my declared intention.

I was prepared to give you at least some benefit of the doubt until the point where you defended the Orange Turd against allegations that he tried to pressure Ukraine/Zelenskiy to announce investigations into Joe & Hunter Biden, by withholding Congressionally approved military aid. You said, and I quote

"There was NEVER any direct evidence, only conjecture and opinion"

That tells me that you have drunk the Trump/GOP Kool-Ade. The evidence that he did what he was accused of was utterly overwhelming. Fact witness after fact witness in the House testified to what Trump did... even people who were actually listening in on the very phone call, such as Lt Col Alex Vindman

"I was concerned by the call, what I heard was inappropriate, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg," Vindman said.

"It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and a political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine US national security, and advance Russia's strategic objectives in the region."

This is NOT conjecture

This is NOT opinion

This is direct, first hand eye-witness testimony (exactly the kind of evidence you incorrectly claim did not exist) from a very reliable, very experienced and highly decorated military veteran, and yet you dismiss it!!

Hah.  Talk about drinking the Kool-Aide...

Your experience here on this board should have included the real FACT that eyewitness testimony is proven to be some of the least reliable and problematic evidence used, regardless of the witness' "qualifications".  Do you want links to verify this scientific fact?

Not only that... Trump himself admitted what he did, and claimed there was nothing wrong with it.

I don't think so.  Do you have a source other than the Geraldo podcast a few weeks back where he answered that he sent Guiliani to the Ukraine?   If so, you need to try better.  If not, provide a source, please.

Hint:  He sent him there in late 2019.  Guiliani has been on trump's legal team since 2018.  He had not traveled to the Ukraine from that time until late 2019, as mentioned.   

The fact that he released the aid only when he got caught shows the consciousness of a guilty mind.

Conjecture.

At this point, I reached the only viable conclusion; that you are a Trump sycophant trying hard to pretend not to be.

Only viable to a prejudiced mind.  Your cognitive bias is the only viable reason for your conclusion.

And to put another nail in your attempt to claim Vindman's testimony is more than opinion (beyond the contradictions between his and others' testimonies)...in his own words:
From -
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/impeachment-alexcander-vindmans-ukraine-call-testimony-takeaways/2530124001/ (my bold)
Vindman testified, "The conversation unfolded with Sondland proceeding to kind of, you know, review what the deliverable would be in order to get the meeting, and he talked about the investigation into the Bidens, and, frankly, I can’t 100 percent recall because I didn’t take notes of it, but Burisma, that it seemed — I mean, there was no ambiguity, I guess, in my mind. He was calling for something, calling for an investigation that didn’t exist into the Bidens and Burisma"

[smartcooky]

Most of us here are experienced enough to eventually recognise the Hoax believers who attempt the subterfuge of starting off here posting that they believe the moan landings actually happened and that they have a open mind as to whether there was any fakery involved but gradually show their true colours; those colours indicating that they were a card-carrying moon hoax believer all along.

And you SHOULD be experienced enough to think critically, yet YOU have failed time and again in your responses to me concerning this topic.

What you say as to your bias or opinions in your opening posts carries zero weight with me...

Rejecting MY firsthand testimony, but holding that of others as factual proof is quite hypocritical.

"what you follow up with is what counts"

Yet, you have never really been able to comprehend that the substance of my follow ups have been instep with my declared intention.

I was prepared to give you at least some benefit of the doubt until the point where you defended the Orange Turd against allegations that he tried to pressure Ukraine/Zelenskiy to announce investigations into Joe & Hunter Biden, by withholding Congressionally approved military aid. You said, and I quote

"There was NEVER any direct evidence, only conjecture and opinion"

That tells me that you have drunk the Trump/GOP Kool-Ade. The evidence that he did what he was accused of was utterly overwhelming. Fact witness after fact witness in the House testified to what Trump did... even people who were actually listening in on the very phone call, such as Lt Col Alex Vindman

"I was concerned by the call, what I heard was inappropriate, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg," Vindman said.

"It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and a political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine US national security, and advance Russia's strategic objectives in the region."

This is NOT conjecture

This is NOT opinion

This is direct, first hand eye-witness testimony (exactly the kind of evidence you incorrectly claim did not exist) from a very reliable, very experienced and highly decorated military veteran, and yet you dismiss it!!

Hah.  Talk about drinking the Kool-Aide...

Your experience here on this board should have included the real FACT that eyewitness testimony is proven to be some of the least reliable and problematic evidence used, regardless of the witness' "qualifications".  Do you want links to verify this scientific fact?

Not only that... Trump himself admitted what he did, and claimed there was nothing wrong with it.

I don't think so.  Do you have a source other than the Geraldo podcast a few weeks back where he answered that he sent Guiliani to the Ukraine?   If so, you need to try better.  If not, provide a source, please.

Hint:  He sent him there in late 2019.  Guiliani has been on trump's legal team since 2018.  He had not traveled to the Ukraine from that time until late 2019, as mentioned.   

The fact that he released the aid only when he got caught shows the consciousness of a guilty mind.

Conjecture.

At this point, I reached the only viable conclusion; that you are a Trump sycophant trying hard to pretend not to be.

Only viable to a prejudiced mind.  Your cognitive bias is the only viable reason for your conclusion.

And to put another nail in your attempt to claim Vindman's testimony is more than opinion (beyond the contradictions between his and others' testimonies)...in his own words:
From -
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/impeachment-alexcander-vindmans-ukraine-call-testimony-takeaways/2530124001/ (my bold)
Vindman testified, "The conversation unfolded with Sondland proceeding to kind of, you know, review what the deliverable would be in order to get the meeting, and he talked about the investigation into the Bidens, and, frankly, I can’t 100 percent recall because I didn’t take notes of it, but Burisma, that it seemed — I mean, there was no ambiguity, I guess, in my mind. He was calling for something, calling for an investigation that didn’t exist into the Bidens and Burisma"

My only reply to any of the rubbish you just posted is that it is a pity you chose to selectively quote just one part of the link you posted and not the rest of it... and reading the WHOLE, its easy to see why... it is so much more interesting.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/impeachment-alexcander-vindmans-ukraine-call-testimony-takeaways/2530124001/

At this point, I am done with you. Its is clear to me, and I think pretty much most of the other participants in this thread, that you are a card-carrying Trump sycophant trying to pretend you are neutral. Your posting record in this thread emphatically supports that conclusion.

If this forum had an ignore feature, you would be on it because frankly, you bring nothing worth discussing to the table... that does not mean I can't ignore you anyway.

[MBDK]

My only reply to any of the rubbish you just posted is that it is a pity you chose to selectively quote just one part of the link you posted and not the rest of it... and reading the WHOLE, its easy to see why... it is so much more interesting.

An odd thing to say.  You offer no explanation as to the specifics of your claim, yet expect me to sort through a library of information and guess as to what exact part(s) you are referring (you know, how CTs say, "But watch the entire 3 hour video!").  This, BY ITSELF, is proof of my OP.

At this point, I am done with you. Its is clear to me, and I think pretty much most of the other participants in this thread, that you are a card-carrying Trump sycophant trying to pretend you are neutral. Your posting record in this thread emphatically supports that conclusion.

As the author of those posts, I emphatically disagree, but I can only lead a horse.

If this forum had an ignore feature, you would be on it because frankly, you bring nothing worth discussing to the table... that does not mean I can't ignore you anyway.

So true.  And it should present absolutely no challenge to you, as YOUR track record on this topic has shown how adept you are at ignoring the salient points I have made.

[LunarOrbit]

So true.  And it should present absolutely no challenge to you, as YOUR track record on this topic has shown how adept you are at ignoring the salient points I have made.

I'm still not sure what "salient points" you have made. And accusing people of ignoring your points is rich considering you won't even talk about all of the other accusations of racism against Trump besides that one apartment rental matter that you have declared "case closed" without actually proving anything.

I agree with smartcooky... you're not with our time. You're so blinded by loyalty to Trump that you can't see the overwhelming evidence that he is corrupt.

[MBDK]

I'm still not sure what "salient points" you have made.

Nothing new there.

"And accusing people of ignoring your points is rich considering you won't even talk about all of the other accusations of racism against Trump besides that one apartment rental matter that you have declared "case closed" without actually proving anything"

That quote, once again proves my OP.  Rather than discuss the specific validity of a claim, you have self-confirmed it BECAUSE of "all of the other" stuff - not due to that claim's actual merits.  As per your revisiting the apartment rental case, that episode just shows again how you use "all of the other" stuff to legitimize your conclusion while ignoring "there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties".  You know, the stuff required by science and law to make a solid judgement.

To revisit in what may be a productive manner, let's go back to my Jeff Dahmer, example, and make it even more specific.  If Dahmer's next door neighbor was deemed to be a missing person during the time that Dahmer lived there, and with no other evidence aside from Dahmer's other proven crimes, can you rightfully conclude Dahmer was involved with that neighbor's disappearance?  And to be clear, please explain your reasoning behind your answer.

I agree with smartcooky... you're not with our time. You're so blinded by loyalty to Trump that you can't see the overwhelming evidence that he is corrupt.

And seeing as how neither of you are me, and both have repeatedly failed to glean the actual message, you are both wrong.

[LunarOrbit]

I'm still not sure what "salient points" you have made.

Nothing new there.

Because you're acting just like a conspiracy theorist. You make "arguments" that you think are groundbreaking when in fact they are not. As far as I can tell, our only "crime" is having an opinion about Trump that you don't like, and because of that you repeatedly defend him (despite claiming that you have no interest in doing so).

Rather than discuss the specific validity of a claim, you have self-confirmed it BECAUSE of "all of the other" stuff - not due to that claim's actual merits.  As per your revisiting the apartment rental case, that episode just shows again how you use "all of the other" stuff to legitimize your conclusion while ignoring "there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties".  You know, the stuff required by science and law to make a solid judgement.

I have discussed the validity of your claim about the apartment rental issue. Trump, among others, was sued for discrimination. That is undeniable. It isn't proof by itself that he is racist... but it's evidence (in conjunction with other accusations over the decades) that he might be.

You keep putting "all of the other other stuff" into quotes as if all of the other evidence that Trump is racist and corrupt doesn't exist or is irrelevant. That's what I don't get about your argument. Why aren't we allowed to use ALL of the available evidence about Trump to form our OPINIONS about him? Why aren't we allowed to have OPINIONS about him at all?

Are we supposed to just pretend Trump didn't push a racist conspiracy theory about President Obama? Are we supposed to pretend he didn't refuse to disavow David Duke's endorsement when asked to do so on national TV? Are we supposed to pretend he didn't call for the executions of the Central Park 5 even after they were cleared? Are we supposed to pretend that he hasn't advocated for policies that restrict the immigration (legal or otherwise) of people who are not white or Christian?

Why are we only allowed to look at that one apartment rental situation that you have unilaterally declared closed?

To revisit in what may be a productive manner, let's go back to my Jeff Dahmer, example, and make it even more specific.  If Dahmer's next door neighbor was deemed to be a missing person during the time that Dahmer lived there, and with no other evidence aside from Dahmer's other proven crimes, can you rightfully conclude Dahmer was involved with that neighbor's disappearance?

I would deem it to be worthy of investigation. If the neighbour was never found, Dahmer denied any involvement, and there were no other leads I would leave it as an unsolved case, but Dahmer would still be a prime suspect.

Using your "logic", we would not be allowed to investigate Dahmer in relation to that neighbour's disappearance unless we actually witnessed him murdering them. Thinking there might be a connection to the neighbour's disappearance and the known murderer next door is just conjecture on our part. So unfair!

[Obviousman]

To my friends here:

I know this will not be to your liking but I have to say it - and apologise in advance...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-10/us-republicans-self-quarantine-coronavirus-contact-donald-trump/12041566

[MBDK]

To my friends here:

I know this will not be to your liking but I have to say it - and apologise in advance...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-10/us-republicans-self-quarantine-coronavirus-contact-donald-trump/12041566

I'll be back later to reply to LO (thank you for that, sir), but I was just doing a quick check.  In doing so, I must say.. you gotta love the media.  From your link:
"The hardest-hit place in the United States has been a nursing home in the suburb of Kirkland in the Washington state capital of Seattle"

The legislature in Olympia must be ticked that they have to move. *sarcasm*

[Obviousman]

Hi!

In Australia, as a Defence contractor, after travelling through Sydney & Brisbane airports last week and working in a headquarters filled with people, I have started to remote work. I can do this easily and I only really need face-to-face contact every now and again.

I have no symptoms but since I am Type 2 diabetic, I don't want to take any risks.

My company supports my remote work, and Defence is happy as they get the software support they need. If I am infected, I won't spread it to anyone else; if I am clear I don't run the risk of becoming infected (through work).

In fact, I have suggested this provides us a great opportunity to demonstrate we can support our software remotely, care for our employees, and want to make sure we don't contribute to the present situation. In fact, the entire section I normally work in is going to all work remotely on Friday to ensure that we can do this without detriment to capability.

So... why can't the US President do the same? Why, when he has been placed at risk, isn't he getting tested and limiting the spread?

[Zakalwe]

So... why can't the US President do the same? Why, when he has been placed at risk, isn't he getting tested and limiting the spread?

<shrugs shoulders> Because he's bloviating moron??

This is worth a read and summarises the corner that he's painted himself into.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51803890

[gillianren]

To my friends here:

I know this will not be to your liking but I have to say it - and apologise in advance...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-10/us-republicans-self-quarantine-coronavirus-contact-donald-trump/12041566

I'll be back later to reply to LO (thank you for that, sir), but I was just doing a quick check.  In doing so, I must say.. you gotta love the media.  From your link:
"The hardest-hit place in the United States has been a nursing home in the suburb of Kirkland in the Washington state capital of Seattle"

The legislature in Olympia must be ticked that they have to move. *sarcasm*

Everyone forgets Olympia exists.  As an Olympian, I'm used to it.  There's actually a state law that all state departments (except tribal agencies, which are allowed to be on tribal land of the relevant tribe) have to have their headquarters within a certain number of miles of the capitol building to prevent all the departments from moving to Seattle, which most of them would prefer to do.

[LunarOrbit]

As an Olympian...

That has a nice ring to it.

[smartcooky]

So... why can't the US President do the same? Why, when he has been placed at risk, isn't he getting tested and limiting the spread?

<shrugs shoulders> Because he's bloviating moron??

This is worth a read and summarises the corner that he's painted himself into.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51803890

That article is bang on point.

Many other US Presidents (that is, those who didn't lie just about every time they opened their mouths) were often able to calm and reassure the American people (and the markets) in times of crisis by the careful and intelligent use of words, and by telling the truth. But Trump has told so many lies that no-one believes him any more. That is why the markets are not only failing to respond positively to what he says, his pronouncement appear to be driving them further down. Trump is incapable of instilling confidence.

Even his supporter base of deplorables, who knew he was lying, but didn't care because so long as his lies were "triggering the Libtards", are now beginning to realise the pickle that Trump has got America into with his inaction, his stupid decisions and his continual pronouncements about things he actually knows nothing about.

[MBDK]

You make "arguments" that you think are groundbreaking

Never claimed that.  Pointing out humans can be unaware of some of the things they do, when they should know better, being an idiom, is ground that has been thoroughly tilled.

As far as I can tell, our only "crime" is having an opinion about Trump that you don't like

No crime there, obviously, but when opinion is expressed as fact, I find fault.  If I have misinterpreted such sentiments, then that is on me, but the arguments presented to me, so far, have not indicated this to be the case.

I have discussed the validity of your claim about the apartment rental issue. Trump, among others, was sued for discrimination. That is undeniable. It isn't proof by itself that he is racist... but it's evidence (in conjunction with other accusations over the decades) that he might be.

As this is the guilt by association fallacy, you are claiming logical fallacies are evidence.  There may be other evidence that supports your position, but this bit has already been declared (per my previous reference) to not be evidence.  Yet you fight tooth and nail to champion this bit.  Would you allow a CT to use a logical fallacy as evidence?

You keep putting "all of the other other stuff" into quotes as if all of the other evidence that Trump is racist and corrupt doesn't exist or is irrelevant.

Because, when you have a CT backed into a corner on a specific point, they often use the "but there's all this other stuff" line in an attempt to change the subject, so they don't have to acknowledge their failure with the current point.  Regardless of anything else being true or not, the specific point should reasonably be able to stand on its own.

Go ahead, USE other evidence, but don't include faulty and/or flimsy material, too.  Such things can ONLY weaken your case.  Just as the most ridiculous CT claims (i.e., no stars = fake) immediately make them look ignorant of the most basic pertinent subject matter, so can weak arguments taint other attempts at dialogue.

I would deem it to be worthy of investigation. If the neighbour was never found, Dahmer denied any involvement, and there were no other leads I would leave it as an unsolved case, but Dahmer would still be a prime suspect.

Precisely.

Using your "logic", we would not be allowed to investigate Dahmer in relation to that neighbour's disappearance unless we actually witnessed him murdering them. Thinking there might be a connection to the neighbour's disappearance and the known murderer next door is just conjecture on our part. So unfair!

Here is where you get it wrong.  Using my "logic", with the situation as presented, you cannot use his neighbor's disappearance to conclude ANYTHING in relation to Dahmer.  It is a completely separate event.  You can look into it, just as they looked into the rental dispute, but when the investigators conclude there is no evidence to confirm it, you cannot justifiably continue to insist it is viable evidence against Dahmer.